Sometime a week ago, every Dartmouth student received a blitz from the Student Assembly screaming "SUCCESS!" in its subject line. It took some careful reading before one realized the email was about the college's decision to reinstate the swimming and diving teams. A follow-up blitz containing the official press release announced the news with much greater clarity, albeit without the fanfare and self-congratulatory tone of the first one. Indeed, the whole swim team debacle is over. It would seem that the College can finally continue on its normal daily life without the annoyance of students blocking the steps of Parkhurst or having a march on the President's lawn, not least in this frigid weather.
Unfortunately, the question of budget cuts has not been resolved. These cuts are real and will eventually need to appear somewhere. The proposed elimination of the swim team and the eventual resolution of this issue raises several dangerous precedents. For the interests of the College, these should not be the guiding principles of any budget cuts.
Budget cuts are painful. Whenever pain is involved, it is always best to spread it out as thinly as possible. The cuts to the athletics department could have been done two ways: a general cost cutting of all sports teams or picking one poor loser and concentrating the cuts in one area. As we all know, the College chose the latter option and the swimming and diving teams became the poor losers.
The problem with this course of action is that the losers can claim to be unfairly victimized. In this case, the swim teams did so. Fortunately for team members, there was also a wide base of support from parents, alumni and the student body. Through their efforts, the College was forced to revoke its decision and restore the swimming and diving programs.
Thus, there is skill involved in choosing poor losers. Varsity teams with long histories and powerful alumni are obvious no-nos, as are any college community with long histories and powerful alumni. Short of the Bingo Club or Arctic Students Society, it is hard to find any college grouping that lends itself well to cold-blooded trampling and abrupt loss of status.
Of course, one could argue that the second option can sometimes lead to positive results. After all, the College did manage to off-load the burden of funding the swim team to alumni. Critical to the reinstatement of the swim teams was a funding promise of $2 million by alumni to support swimmers for the next ten years. During this period, the college can ride on the achievements of the swim team without having to pay for a single Speedo. This could become the cheapest trophy in the cabinet, provided, of course, the College is allowed to keep it.
Nonetheless, funding such solutions can be problematic. In fact, any form of restricted funding is. Other than the swim team, the college receives restricted funds for everything, from buying books to planting pretty trees on sidewalks. In short, anything that receives restricted funding is basically protected from budget cuts. Nearly 56 percent of the college's endowment is designated for a specific purpose. In other words, the college literally has no control over how half of its endowment can be spent. Imagine receiving an allowance from your parents with the clear instruction that 50 percent must be spent on high fiber health food -- that's the situation the college is in.
All forms of restricted funding are predicated on the assumption that the donor, not the College, has a better idea of how money should be spent. Of course, by catering to the specific interests of donors, restricted funding can convince more people to loosen their purse strings. However, a great deal of autonomy in spending decisions is sacrificed in the process. Also, increasing the level of restricted funding will only increase the inequality of budget cuts between protected areas and unprotected ones. In a really bad year, it might even mean that endowed trees on campus are immaculately maintained while the library has no money to buy books.
Ultimately, the College must either perfect its art of choosing poor losers or turn to other ways of administering budget cuts. Here, we must remember the other option available to the athletics department: spreading the cuts across all teams. Spreading budget cuts equalizes the pain suffered by individuals and does not unfairly punish one group more than others. Of course spreading budget cuts is difficult -- it is easier to chop off one big item than spend time detailing the budget down to the last paper clip -- but the effort may prove worthwhile. Strong bonds are always formed during times of crisis.
The college took the wrong step in fall and lost the trust of students at a time when it was most needed. By calling upon all members of the college to make common sacrifices, the administration may yet be able to build a true solidarity that has been rarely seen on campus.
