Two dissenting members of the board immediately resigned in disgust, and Swarthmore's student body, traditionally much less supportive of its athletic program than Amherst, united behind the disbanded programs in opposition to the move.
Publicly, Swarthmore's administration attempted to sell the action as a move to strengthen the Pennsylvania school's stagnant athletic program by investing the same amount of resources into fewer varsity teams. The move, they argue, would increase support for the 21 remaining varsity programs.
The larger issue, however, as Swarthmore President Alfred H. Bloom and Provost Jennie Keith addressed in an email sent to the entire student body on Saturday night, was the desire of the Board of Managers to limit the proportion of incoming classes that could be admitted based on athletic merit to between 10 and 15 percent. Because of the new quota, keeping football, a sport in which 10 percent of the school's male students participate, was ultimately deemed impossible.
The first problem with the decision is its timing. Not only was it unexpected, but it also comes less than a month after Swarthmore's most successful football season in years. The Garnet Tide, the same team that performed so poorly in 1999 that it had to schedule a game against fellow door-mat Oberlin College merely to avoid going winless, posted a respectable 4-5 mark in 2000 under Head Coach Pete Alvanos, who was lured away from the University of Chicago in 1997 to help Swarthmore rebuild its struggling football program. Three years into fulfilling this charge, Alvanos learned he was out of a job. Two hours later, he had to tell his team that they were out of a sport. To continue playing football, underclassmen would have to transfer.
It is not, however, merely the abolition of the football program that has stirred such raucous protest. Rather, it is how it was abolished: without phasing-out, warning or significant input from the student body. It was eliminated without considering the immediate impact that such a drastic change would have on Swarthmore's student body.
The repercussions of the changes at Swarthmore could soon be felt at Amherst. Amherst's ad hoc Committee on the Place of Athletics, chaired by Trustee Colin Diver '65, consulted with team captains, student government leaders, various different College staff and the faculty this semester with the intent of gathering information.
The ARC's charge was to reevaluate the role of Swarthmore's athletic program, while taking into consideration structural changes in collegiate athletics. The charge to Diver's committee was not as direct. Despite similarities between the issues, particularly those documented in last year's Faculty Committee on Admission and Financial Aid (FCAFA), it seems unlikely that such drastic steps would also be recommended at Amherst.
Unless Swarthmore pulls it off.
Once the initial outrage and rancor over the Board's move dissipates, Swarthmore will be the same college it has always been-minus three varsity sports teams. Next year, Swarthmore can matriculate about 25 fewer new athletes, while keeping the same overall class size. Along with 25 more openings for non-athletic admits, the school's median SAT score will probably rise, and, since schools such as Swarthmore-with a weak athletic program-tend to have a better yield from non-athletes than from athletes, they can also accept a slightly smaller percentage of applicants overall.
In the end, it could mean an increase in Swarthmore's national popularity and a return to the top of the U.S. News and World Report rankings, which seem to be unimportant to us only when when we're not number one ourselves. The impetus for Amherst would naturally be to follow suit with a similar form of policy shift. After all, we are not exactly loath, as an institution, to change policy to keep up with our top two academic rivals.
About a month ago, I wrote that this same debate which has embroiled the Amherst campus intermittently over the last three years is slowly spreading to Williams. Our arch-rival may soon be forced to face the difficult conundrum of having too large of an athletic program at too small of a school-31 teams drawing from 2400 students. Amherst faces a similar dilemma, with 27 teams-amazingly, the fewest of any of the 11 NESCAC schools-at a school of 1650 students.
Swarthmore, as of Friday, had 24 teams at a school of 1500 students; today, it has 21. With their rash and controversial decision, its Board of Managers could be taking the first step toward solving the paradox of balancing competitive intercollegiate athletics with elite academic standards.
The problem is that they went about it the wrong way, paying little attention to the interest and desires of the Swarthmore student body and to the deleterious effect that such radical changes will have in the short term.
If Amherst ever considers cutting back its athletic program, we must not repeat the mistakes of our Pennsylvania brethren. Amherst must try to find a better, less arbitrary way of selecting teams for elimination. It must attempt to phase them out over time, and, above all else, it must protect the interests of those who will be most adversely affected.
I am not suggesting that Amherst look into cutting any of its varsity teams, though the proposition is tempting. We will have to see what recommendations the Committee on the Place of Athletics at Amherst returns. I can hope that, unlike our Pennsylvania comrades, we will not implement dramatic change without first considering its impact on the Amherst community.
Steve Vladeck '01 is a regular columnist for The Student.