Volume CXXXII, Number 5 October 18, 2002 f

Damaging the "purity" of sports
ALEX DUNCAN
COLUMNIST

What the NESCAC presidents did a few weeks ago regarding off-season practices is almost comical in its hasty simplicity. In banning all such practices due to an injury at Colby, the presidents (or at least those present) neglected to think about their response in any logical way. Their reaction was a first response of the worst kind, where the one seriously proposed solution was accepted as the only remedy, without any meaningful debate or input from outside the inner circle. I could list a dozen reasons why the presidents made the wrong decision (and I do believe it's as simple as being incorrect), but instead let me focus on a single issue, one that I think is a bit more subtle than the others, and not considered at all in the decision making process.

If there's one point that has come to define athletics at schools like Bowdoin, it's the so-called "purity" of sport. The slightly tiresome yet accurate phrase that is used to describe athletes at schools like ours is that they play "for the love of the game." In other, blunter words, for all but the infinitesimally small percentage of NESCAC athletes, there is no future for us in serious athletic competition. We might play pick-up basketball, adult league softball, or the like, but we're not going to make careers playing in the NFL, MLB, or the WNBA. We're playing now because we enjoy our sports, are relatively good at them, and like to compete. I, for the most part, agree with such an assessment. The pleasure that we take in our sports is the most significant motivation in our athletic pursuits here and elsewhere in the NESCAC.

The message that the presidents made plain is completely counter to that. What they did was de-emphasize the notion of sport for sport's sake, which is the very basis of athletics at NESCAC schools. Rather than encourage the benefits of sport that our school lists in its very own Mission of the College, the decision effectively limits the development of those very characteristics, namely "self-control, leadership, poise, good health, and good humor" (Section 3 of the Mission of the College). In addition to those benefits, I would list maturity, confidence, friendship, camaraderie, basic happiness, and a plethora of others with not a single significant negative value attached.

But instead of keeping with the basis of NESCAC athletics (and in our case the declared mission of our college), the presidents have eliminated the opportunity for intercollegiate athletes to enjoy their sports outside their practices and games. Never mind for the moment the blow it strikes to the basic idea of improving athletically throughout the year. Perhaps more importantly, it is apparently no longer acceptable for friends and teammates to engage in friendly competition with no final score-no win or loss. What we've effectively been told is that we're collegiate level athletes and hence have no right to play simply for fun when our sport is out of season. The only time that we're allowed to reap the benefits of our sport is between the league-mandated start and end dates. Aside from that, I guess Thursday night bowling should fulfill our thirst for competition and challenge. Yes, there is some thirst quenching going on at local bowling alleys, but it's of a completely different nature, far from anything listed in the Mission of the College.

I didn't decide to pursue athletics to be told when and where I can play my favorite sport for my own enjoyment, and I guarantee there are many others who feel the same way. Administrators make decisions in what they judge to be the best interest of the college, and there's always going to be some griping, but this situation is completely different. What happened at Colby was a terrible accident, but to be perfectly honest, it was nothing more. However, the fear of lawsuits, insurance costs, and the like has driven the NESCAC to a foolish conclusion, one that negatively impacts students, the largest facet of any college. What is more frustrating is that the decision carries no significant or meaningful benefits anywhere else, not even to the college purse, which was clearly a major motivating factor. As part of our college education we're taught to evaluate situations and problems, be they mathematical formulas or English theses, from a variety of angles before choosing an appropriate and final course of action. If only the NESCAC presidents would do the same.