David Weinberg writes:
>P.S. I'm my the only one who notices a distrubing trend of athletes and
>athletics in the court not on the ice/field/court where they belong?
 
Well, at least as far as this case goes, I think it was fully expected
by everyone that this would happen (filing a second suit), once the
first was rejected.
 
I've been kind of on the fence on this one...I'm not sure that a school
should be forced to sponsor an activity just because a few people ask
it to, especially when they didn't have to go to that school and when
that school happens to be private (as Colgate is).  I think it is a
mistake in tying it to a gender issue...after all, as much as I want
to see women's hockey grow, it simply does not make financial sense
for most schools.  Many schools that have it are subsidizing it with
profits from other programs.  Now, those schools are able to afford to
do this, but maybe others like tiny Colgate likely cannot.
 
I think it's safe to say that if something similar happened at
Merrimack, it would probably mean the destruction of the men's hockey
program since, I believe, it is the chief expense in the athletic
budget.  A large amount of money would probably have to be diverted
from it to fund a women's program.  I fear this will have to happen at
Colgate if the decision is that they must field a varsity women's
team.  I doubt they will just add the expense of such a program onto
the budget.
 
Like I said, it is a difficult question...I want to see women's hockey
grow and the notion of equal opportunities is a good one, but in some
circumstances it just does not make sense, and this may be one.  Not
to mention that it does not appear as if there are a huge amount of
women wishing to play varsity hockey at Colgate.  What comes to mind
is the way Northeastern hacked away at the budget for the women's
hockey team a year or two ago...they conducted a survey of women on
campus and asked them something like "if you could play a sport, what
would it be?"  And hockey ranked second last out of 20+ sports.  On
the one hand I was upset at how they forced out a head coach who had
done much to advance the sport in New England, but on the other hand
it's hard to justify spending all that money at the expense of other
programs when pretty much all the people at your school interested in
the sport are the ones currently playing it (i.e. about 20).  Still,
it was a decision Northeastern made, and I guess I would prefer to see
that decision left up to the individual schools rather than a judge.
 
A side effect may be the stagnation of men's hockey, despite what
appears to be an upswing in popularity...I could see schools not
wishing to add a men's hockey program and risk going through the legal
issues that Colgate has dealt with.
 
I also wonder, how far does it have to go?  I seem to recall that
Colgate had/has a women's club team, but that wasn't enough for the
plaintiffs who wanted a varsity team.  Will all schools with men's
varsities and women's club teams be forced to push those programs to
varsity level?  Some of the schools I can think of who might be
affected by this in the East are BU, BC, Maine, and RPI.  Will any
schools be forced to drop their men's programs because they cannot
afford to have both?
---
Mike Machnik           [log in to unmask]          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMN* 11/13/93
R.I.P. Reggie Lewis NU/Celtics #35