IN 1983, the University athletic department debuted the ‘Hoo. Picture a bright orange version of the Phillie Phanatic mascot, or as The Cavalier Daily described it at the time, “a video game reject who tried out for Ms. Pac-Man and didn’t make the cut.” It was, in the words of its athletic department creator, intended as an “entertainment device.” A letter to the editor of The Cavalier Daily offered a harsher assessment, calling it “a bastard child born out of the incestuous relationship between the athletic department and the cash register.” Unfortunately, this relationship is still going strong to this day. The athletic department must listen to students more and concern itself less with the black and red of the balance sheet and more with the orange and blue of the University.
Athletics at the University, like most aspects of student life, is rife with tradition. Or, at least, it had been in the past. Football games 10 years ago were quite similar to those of 20 years. Ten years ago, students dressed up for the game and at halftime either got a “pass-out” to go tailgate and come back later or stayed in the stadium and watched the Pep Band. Now, students are told to participate in the “Sea of Orange,” “pass-outs” are no longer offered, and the Pep Band is banned from all varsity athletic events.
In each of those instances, the athletic department made an unpopular decision without consulting students, unilaterally instituting questionable policies. Fast forward to 2008. The athletic department instituted a sign ban without even notifying any student groups or leaders in advance. Ultimately, students prevailed by threatening a protest that highlighted not only the sign ban, but the “Sea of Orange” as well. Following the sign ban repeal, students gained a little respect, but the athletic department must do more than pay lip service to student concerns.
To hear Athletics Director Craig Littlepage tell it, the student voice already resounds loudly inside his department. In an e-mail interview, Littlepage said the athletic department has “established communication lines,” built “a relationship,” and sought “feedback” from various “student groups.” These groups include Student Council’s Athletic Affairs Committee, Hoo Crew, and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, according to Littlepage.
To hear Pete Peterson, chair of Student Council’s Athletic Affairs Committee, tell it, the student voice is more like a whisper to the athletic department. “It would be nice if the athletic department could prioritize student concerns more,” Peterson said in an interview. He pointed out that much of the dissatisfaction with the athletic department stems from the fact that it is run in a way that is in “conflict with our own principles of self-governance.” While he admits that the aftermath of the sign ban allowed student leaders to get their “foot in the door with Littlepage and get some of our ideas across,” he added that no tangible progress has been made.
There are several possible solutions to the deafness of the athletic department, some radical and some more reasonable. In the radical category is Vanderbilt University. In 2003, its president issued a stunning announcement abolishing the entire athletic department. No, Vanderbilt did not disband their sports teams. Instead, they placed athletics under the banner of student life. The goal was to integrate athletics into the rest of the university, so athletes would be more like other students and the rest of the university would feel more ownership of athletics. The results speak for themselves. Vanderbilt’s athletics have improved, even while competing in the cutthroat Southeastern Conference. Even more important, the university, its students, and its athlete all report greater satisfaction with the new system.
Obviously, the Vanderbilt solution is unlikely to occur here. As former James Madison University president Ronald Carrier noted in The Hook, University President John Casteen has “always understood the role of athletics for alumni giving.” With that in mind, he is unlikely to institute any major changes unless absolutely necessary.
That leaves it up to the athletic department, as it currently exists. Before new policies are instituted, Littlepage should sit down with Hoo Crew, Student Council’s Athletics Affairs Committee, and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Students should be consulted so the athletic department understands student concerns and priorities. The current system of hearing student ideas, ignoring them, and then instituting new policies without consultation is not acceptable.
Of course, there is another option. Remember the hideous ‘Hoo? Students got rid of that mascot after just two games. How? As a Sports Illustrated article stated at the time, the mascot “1) was showered with ice cubes from detractors in the stands and 2) suffered the forced removal of its tongue by pie-eyed fraternity boys.” Certainly, another way to get the athletic department’s attention.
Isaac Wood’s column usually appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at i.wood@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 9 hours agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
