Because of its city location, Hopkins has very limited field space and outdoor athletic facilities. The vast majority of the time, these facilities are being used by varsity athletes, a very select group of students at the school. As far as I know, these sports teams are not self-sustaining (i.e. money from the University’s general fund goes into them, rather than the teams funding themselves through revenue and donations). Since the money from the University is generated from tuition and donations intended for the entirety of the student body, is it ethical for these very limited facilities to be earmarked for athletes?
Ah,college sports. An incredibly contentious issue in the media these days, although perhaps at a different scale than what this question discusses. However, the theme behind this question is the same as that of academic dishonesty for D-I athletes. Should colleges make exceptions or treat differently a group of students due to their performance in a region unrelated to the main missions of the university (research, academic education, etc.)?
At Hopkins the question is a much different one since there is no doubt that the athletes here are students just as much as everyone else. However, it is true that far more of the University’s resources in terms of space and facilities go to athletes than to other students. Even ignoring lacrosse, which has its own building, varsity athletes have priority access to both turf fields and half of the recreation center, and tennis and baseball now have exclusive access to their own facilities.
This uneven distribution of space and time is an unethical practice for the University to engage in, and Hopkins should change its policies to make athletic facilities and activities more accessible for all students. There are three separate reasons for this.
The first is money.
Unless all Hopkins sports are fully self-sustaining, which I doubt, then other students’ money is going to fund athletes’ recreation. Since athletes do not pay higher tuition, they should receive the exact same proportion of money as every other student. Since money is poured into facilities that remain exclusive to this group of students, they are receiving more funding than your average student is. This is an unethical use of everyone else’s tuition, as it is being used to fund an activity that does not benefit them in any meaningful way.
The second is space.
To be honest, Hopkins does not suffer from a lack of money. This university is very well funded from tuition, donations and government money. However, it does suffer from a serious lack of space. In terms of athletic facilities, space is the limiting factor. So even if the new baseball field was fully funded in its construction by donations, it is still sitting on land worth ten million dollars or more. That land belongs to the student body of Hopkins as a whole, and making it available only to 50 or so students (as it is right now) is a theft from every other student on this campus.
The third reason, and the one that justifies the two others, is that sports at Hopkins as a whole fail to generate any value for the student body.
From my conversations and occasional attendance of games, it is clear that very few students attend varsity athletic events, with the possible exception of lacrosse games. Were people attending athletic events, and thus making those events a contribution to campus life, the money and space poured into these sports would be justified. Since people do not attend these athletic events, they fail to contribute to any students’ lives besides those who participate in them.
With this in mind, Hopkins should move to a fairer system that does not value varsity athletics above other student organizations or even above unorganized sports. Indeed, 100 people playing pickup soccer contributes more to this school than a varsity soccer practice in terms of the happiness and the fitness level of the average student.
A fair system would be one in which priority is given to those organizations and events that allowed for value generation through inclusiveness, fitness and sheer number of participants. The current system not only cheats the general student body of what they have paid for, but does a disservice to campus life as a whole.
