Letters to the editor

Scholarship reallocations victimize winning teams

It strikes me as odd how in the article "Athletics reallocates scholarships," in the Feb. 7 issue, cutting athletic scholarships was justified by calling them "participatory sports."

It went on to explain the scholarships were cut from these teams because the athletes on these teams did not seek extreme competition, but were content with simply participating on the team. Did JMU Athletics get these facts from the mouths of the athletes? Or did they surmise this by interpreting their endless toil and nationally recognized accomplishments as a sign of apathy toward competition?

The fact is, at the time the reallocations began, the teams that were deprived of the funds that fueled their excellence were the teams achieving the most. Men’s cross country was conference champion in ’98 and ’99. Men’s swimming and diving won conference titles in ’99, ’00, and ’01. Women’s swimming and diving won in ’01. And wrestling was CAA champ in ’99 and ’00. Not one of these sports — then among the school’s elite teams — has won a conference championship since the cuts began in ’01.

If JMU Athletics is going to dump all the scholarships into popular sports to seek name recognition, they should have the integrity to admit it. Downplaying the competitive nature of less popular sports to explain the decision is condescending and insulting to the athletes. Show some respect to the athletes who now represent you for free.

Teddy Stevenson
sophomore, English

Anti-abortion column appreciated

I want to thank Jon Anderson for his very well-written article on abortion in the Jan. 31 issue. I thought he captured the value of unborn lives and the equally important care that needs to be given to the mothers. It was extremely pleasant to find that there seem to be more anti-abortionists in the ‘Burg than I expected. Thanks again for getting the word out.

Mary Alice Kent
sophomore, psychology