To the Editor:
In his recent column ("Why spare athletics?", March 20), Tyler Rosenbaum '11 calls into question the Corporation's decision to incorporate a $64 fee for recreational facilities, arguing that the Department of Athletics should not be exempted from University-wide budget cuts, especially as athletics are a financial drain that most students "don't care about."
What Rosenbaum fails to consider is that the athletic department did in fact have to make significant budget cuts. With the smallest budget of the Ivy League, the department has incurred significant cuts in both personnel and operational costs. Just ask any member of an aquatics team about the new pool, which is more than two years behind schedule.
Other institutions, such as the University of Pennsylvania, charge significantly more than $100 per year for athletic facility use. Prudent business strategy calls for the Corporation to emulate the successful policies of its competitors, especially with regard to fundraising in tight times.
As approximately 15 percent of the Brown undergraduate student body plays a varsity sport and another seven percent play club sports that also utilize the facilities and athletic department budget, it seems that despite low attendance at games, athletics do indeed matter to the community. It would be difficult to find any department, group, or other association on campus that represents such a large number of undergraduate students.
I encourage Rosenbaum to consider this example in his future work. The athletic department is a committed part of the Brown community. As such, when the University feels a crunch, the entire community is affected.
Corey Schwartz '11
March 24
