March 1, 2012
Recently the definition of “athlete” at Hamilton was changed so as to exclude some people who play sports. At the first ever meeting of all Hamilton athletes, it was said that the word “athlete” applies to those who play varsity sports only, not club. The point of the meeting was to introduce the ADOPT program and engender a new sense of community amongst the athletic teams, inspiring them to go out and support each other.
According to many students, however, this message was poorly conveyed, despite the unprecendented effort. Varsity athlete Hideko Nara ’15 said afterwards, “The ambition and well meaning was there. You could tell it was very important and that they wanted it to happen; it’s just that they couldn’t communicate that across to the athletes.”
The goal is certainly an admirable one, but apparently the athletic department either does not view the club sports—and their members—to be worthy of similar camaraderie, or they do not see them as a viable population to draw teams from.
To not invite club sports (of which there are 12—including rugby, water polo, equestrian and ultimate frisbee) may indicate a complete apathy on the part of our Athletics Department. It’s understandable in a competitive context to put varsity sports first, but in an effort to create a community, no group should be first. It’s insulting to club athletes, the hard work they put in and the games they play—with few fans—every year. Who decided that football should get more attention than rugby? Since it’s not a NESCAC sport, it should be disregarded?
Of the varsity athletes I’ve spoken to, all seem to be confused by the decision as well. One such athlete said,“If you’re trying to introduce a sense of community in Hamilton Athletics, you can’t exclude an entire part of that community by not inviting them.”
While their posters in Commons may be smaller, club sports provide their own niches for students who want to join a sport but not on such a competitive or demanding level. Many club sports simply aren’t offered at the varsity level. The teams provide the same amount of kinship and fun, on and off the field, as varsity teams do. For example, the rugby team is certainly a force on the social scene with their parties.
Not only did it become evident by word of mouth that club sports were uninvited to this “pep rally” of sorts, but also by the sudden abundance of varsity atheltes donning blue shirts that read: “Bleed Blue!” If the implied stigma wasn’t enough, these t-shirts seemed to inform club athletes that they weren’t wanted or worthy.
One last point: not only does this move insult club athletes and their sports by suggesting they’re somehow less worthy of fans, it also makes no rational sense in order to achieve the Athletics Department’s goals. 1/3 of students play a varsity sport, and at least 150 play a club sport. One student pointed out to me the inherent spacial problems with inviting club sports—Wellin Hall could not have held every varsity and club athlete—but that is a shoddy excuse at best. If the Athletics Department was seeking to create a more involved fan base and a better athletic community, it makes clear sense that inviting more people would be better than inviting fewer. The only way you get more fans at a basketball game, or any other varsity sport event is to ask as many people to be involved as possible.
I can accept that not inviting club athletes may have been an unintentional social gaffe by the Athletics Department, but, on a rational level, it’s inexcusably dumb. So while football players can cheer on the baseball team this spring and “Bleed Blue,” I remind everyone else to join me in supporting the club sports and “Go Buff!”