Fee increase is necessary to meet the best standards
Probably the best way to justify raising the athletics fee is to consider the consequences of not doing so.
First, Queen’s interuniversity teams will suffer. As suggested in the Athletics Review, their current performance is not acceptable. One reason for this is the financial restriction on hiring. Most coaches are part-time and thus cannot, despite supreme efforts, dedicate themselves to their teams as much as other OUA coaches can. These coaches have to design their athletes’ conditioning programs, connect with alumni booster clubs and do all their own recruiting. Merely by hiring some full-time athletics staff, Queen’s would do an enormous service to its athletics teams. It is, therefore, important that we consider the fee raise not as inflationary spending but as a means of effecting necessary structural change.
One must also look at the fee increase from the perspective of all Queen’s students — not only varsity athletes. Without this fee, we’re guaranteed to have fewer opportunities to participate in sports. Under the current financial model, too many teams and clubs are losing money. Many, such as rugby and track and field, take a very development-minded approach to competition, an approach that ensures that every dedicated athlete is given the opportunity to improve their abilities and make a varsity team. Men’s rugby gives more athletes playing time by running four teams, the bottom three existing primarily to give inexperienced players the chance to crack the first team. Similarly, track and field has in the past taken every one of its athletes to two meets before forming its “travel team.” This approach to sports at Queen’s is at risk, however, due to the current shortage of funds. Transportation and lodging for “extra” athletes is no longer affordable. Many developmental clubs could be cut altogether, as the Review would have done with sports ranking lower than 16. Students who are able and willing to make the considerable sacrifices it takes to be on a varsity team deserve the opportunity; the rest of us should be proud that our athletics fees can help them.
Non-varsity athletes are also ing themselves. Our athletics fee pays for our unlimited use of the weight rooms, pool, and squash courts. We can also participate in intramural sports for free. How is that not worth $165/year? I paid $165 just to use the YMCA for the summer.
Queen’s prides itself on the quality of the educational experience it offers. We recognize that our academic programs are some of the strongest in Canada, and we pay accordingly. Don’t we want the entire university experience to meet that standard? If so, we should be willing to pay for it. As students, we have a lot to gain from the respect that Queen’s would earn, not only from success in interuniversity sport, but from being successful in developing student athletes. Perhaps if everyone were forced to pay this fee, they would feel more motivation to use the gym occasionally. How could that be a bad thing?
–Michael Portner Gartke
‘Let’s not break what we’re trying to fix’
According to the recent Athletics Review, the “excellence” model proposed would create a financial burden for the University at the athletics’ department’s current funding level. As many readers may already be aware, the review proposes cutting funding to several interuniversity teams in the interests of pursuing athletic “excellence.” If only 10 teams were funded as recommended by the excellence model in the review – also bearing in mind we currently have 34 interuniversity teams – the Athletics department would face a deficit of $40,000, a figure which would increase depending on how many more teams are allowed to operate. The report’s authors acknowledge this financial burden. To remedy it they suggest increasing student athletics fees, while holding the amount of University funding at current levels. In my opinion, the proposal to increase the student contribution while University funding remains at the status quo creates a hypocritical double standard. Even when one considers the possibilities offered by a smaller number of “excellent” teams, the idea of asking students to pick up the tab for their financial well-being is questionable. I find it strange that the onus of financial should be placed solely on students. The report shows in appendix 2 that Queen’s students have the 10th most expensive athletics fee of all the universities in Ontario and although recommendation 10 calls for a report on fees for instructional programs at other universities, there’s no discussion about the level of for interuniversity sports at these institutions, nor their individual situations regarding athletic performance, recruitment or overall institutional goals. It would be prudent to examine how they have arrived at their current status before making any changes of our own.
The authors also speak of the University’s strategic plan, approved by the Senate in 2006. The conclusion they reach from this document is that the idea of achieving the “highest standards of excellence … includes success in competition.” This broad and sweeping statement creates the impression that the excellence of an institution will be defined by the performance of its athletes. It should follow that the University should provide the same amount of financial to its athletics programs as it does to academic research. Of course, the report makes no such recommendation, merely stating that the current level of University funding is “appropriate.” While any increase in student fees would have to be ed by a student referendum, why should one bother voting in favour of a cause the University clearly feels does not warrant any further financial attention on its part? A further cause for consideration over the funding issue is the timing of the report. We’re in the middle of building the Queen’s Centre. The centre will be a spacious new home for our athletics programming and yet already we have discussion of rendering some of that space redundant. There’s no doubt the Queen’s Centre’s completion will change the face of athletics at Queen’s, so perhaps the best recommendation of all would be to hold off on any further changes to athletics until we’ve dealt with this transition first. Let’s not break what we’re trying to fix.
–Mike Higginson
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].