The Emerald recently printed an opinion piece by Dan Cotton (“Competitive cheer is a good fit for the University despite complaints,” ODE, July 25), who was identified as a University alumnus but should have been further identified as a
cheerleader and a cheerleading coach. This information, had it been provided, would have helped to better highlight the bias inherent in Cotton’s letter. Cotton asserts that competitive cheerleading should be an NCAA-level competitive team. He also states that the team will draw numerous fans. Surely, Cotton recognizes that even though he enjoys cheerleading, the vast majority of the population treats it solely as an activity that supports other teams, such as basketball and football. On its own, cheerleading is at best a marginal “sport” to the public at large.
The most frustrating aspect of Cotton’s opinion piece, however, was his insistence that cheerleading has “the potential to bring in a large amount of revenue for the athletic department.” Were this a private business, I would agree this should be a major concern. Unfortunately, this is a public university where academics, not athletics or revenue, should take priority. In dealing with athletics, the University’s focus must be on student need, not revenue. The fact is, the University failed and is failing to address the athletic needs of enrolled females. The University could have added a number of widely regarded women’s sports. Instead, they chose one that is usually viewed as sexist and anachronistic and which only one other university treats as a sport. This probably wouldn’t matter in a revenue-seeking private business. For a public university, however, addressing the needs of female athletes is not just a good idea, it is required by law. Our female athletes deserve better than the University’s half-hearted attempt to address a shoddy Title IX history.
Peter Fehrs
University law student