In an e-mail message sent out to the Hofstra University community earlier today, our president, Stuart Rabinowitz, announced the end of Hofstra’s intercollegiate football program. We were a Football Championship Subdivision school, not a Bowl Subdivision school, and football was not a money maker for us. Still, this can’t have been an easy decision. A lot of people (players, coaching staff, and fans at all levels) invest all sorts of emotions in college and university football teams — most of the time, more so than in other sports — and many of them are very upset right now. We’ve now joined Northeastern, also a Football Championship Subdivision school that (just last month) chose to end its football program.
The president’s decision, which had the full support of the board, came after a two-year review of the sports programs at Hofstra. Shutting down football affects no other sports programs, and the money saved is not being cut from the overall budget. Instead, the $4.5-million annual football budget will be redirected toward need-based scholarships and academic initiatives. In a time when the economy compels individuals and institutions alike to reexamine how and where money is spent, the president’s decision strikes me as good and just.
Perhaps, you’re thinking, Laurie holds this opinion simply because she’s a woman and is not particularly interested in college football games to begin with. You’re right on that one. But the truth is that I watch a lot of football — only I watch pro games. During football season, I watch at least one pro game just about every week. What I’ve always objected to with college football is the charade of it all — particularly, the charade of Bowl Subdivision schools offering up their “scholar-athlete” football players as entertainment for couch-potato-ing, illegally betting, rah-rah-ing Americans who don’t for a second care whether or not football adversely affects the mission of a particular school, or whether it’s good for the players and their futures, or whether it fits with the goals of higher education in general.
Moreover, I find the NCAA “football exception” to Title IX to be a perversion of the intent of the law. Football ravenously eats up huge amounts of money, and whether or not it’s a money maker (even in Bowl Subdivision schools, I’m told, it’s not clear that it always is), it offers nothing — I repeat, nothing — to undergraduate women. President Rabinowitz’s decision makes Hofstra more fully in accord with the spirit and meaning of equity in men’s and women’s sports.
The economy is compelling individuals and institutions alike to reexamine how and where money is spent, and to make sure it’s spent wisely. Our President was instrumental in bringing last year’s final presidential debate to Hofstra, which was an expensive venture that made sense because it reinforced our higher mission of helping our students become educated citizenry. It also advertised, to our students and to the country, that Hofstra is dedicated to this purpose. This most recent decision to end the football program reinforces that mission yet again. President Rabinowitz has just demonstrated grace under pressure, and for this I thank him.
12 Responses to The Last Down at Hofstra
suomynona - December 3, 2009 at 4:33 pm
It’s a breath of fresh air to read about this decision (this coming from a former NCAA DI student-athlete). With students struggling to pay tuition and faculty being treated like cashiers all across the country, I’m glad someone has their priorities straight. Collegiate athletics has been one of the most enriching experiences of my life, if not THE most, hands down; but if a university doesn’t have the luxury of supporting 25 sports programs in addition to doing its primary job as a university, the sad reality is that sometimes sports programs have to go (if only temporarily; I’ve seen programs cut and come back to life in better financial times).
pillsbur - December 3, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Hear, hear.
jffoster - December 3, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“it [football] offers nothing — I repeat, nothing — to undergraduate women.” The cheerleaders, trainers, and girls in the marching band and those who like the atmosphere of a crisp Fall football weekend might disagree with Professor Fendrich’s above statement.
goxewu - December 3, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Wow, what a list! Cheerleaders–what percent of the female student body are they? “Girls” (notice, NOT “women–which is the word in Prof. Foster’s own quoting of the article) in the marching band–ditto. And how many female trainers? Oops, almost forgot: “those who like the atmosphere of a crisp Fall football weekend.” Right, bread and circuses no matter what the cost. And the cost to Hofstra–a one-notch-down program with a small stadium and no tens of thousands of alumni returning to tailgate and buy high-priced tickets–had been substantial.
jffoster - December 3, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Goxewu, I’ll use the word ‘girls’ if I damn well please. And it doesnt matter how many there are. The postress said footbal offers nothing to undergraduate “women”. That is not entirely the case. And now Im going to watch the Oregon Civil War. I don’t care whether Hofstra has football or not. I don’t even care whether Hofstra exists or not. But many there are who do like college football. Some are girls. What you call “women”.
slowlearner - December 3, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Football causes brain damage. It is a brutal, destructive sport that has no place at institutions of higher education.
suomynona - December 4, 2009 at 10:20 am
I love football, and find that certain aspects of it require quite a bit of useful thinking, strategizing, and split-second decision making, all of which are probably very healthy for the brain (point taken: unless or until it gets concussed). But I’m not sure if football is ever the enemy of higher ed. The real enemy is the administrator or trustee who is so sycophantic and spineless that they allow collegiate sports to take priority over the primary purpose of an institution of higher education, that being providing higher education to the best of its ability. If Harvard, for example, wants to have a football team, that’s fantastic. They have plenty of money and resources to go around, such that having a football team won’t prohibit them from making tuition free for admitted students whose families make less than 100K a year, or hiring the best 19th c. labor historian or biochemist in her field with full benefits and a livable salary. Not all institutions are so well off right now, though.I do question the extent of (let’s be honest) professionalized athletics at schools like Florida or Michigan or Wisconsin or Penn State, even though they do have the funds to keep departments well staffed and to provide financial help to poor students while running big-time football programs. This is problematic mainly because the football programs still seem to end up the priority over education even when there’s enough wealth to go around to keep the education end of the enterprise respectable, or more than respectable. But again it’s not football that does this; it’s people in positions of administrative power who make the choice to privilege football over other more important things. Blaming football only lets the real culprits off the hook.
goxewu - December 4, 2009 at 10:58 am
You gotta love the way Prof. Foster leads with his chin.Sure, he can use the word “girls” if he damned well pleases. It saves us the trouble of asking him to hang a sign saying, “Sexist Troglodyte” around his neck.I’m sure that on any campus with a football team, there’s a woman somewhere to whom football offers something–or who thinks football offers her something. I’m just as sure that on any college campus with, say, sorority hazing, there’s a woman somewhere on it who thinks that practice offers her something. (Yes, Prof. Fendrich was being just a tad rhetorical.)”I don’t even care whether Hofstra exists or not.” This is said by a PROFESSOR?Sis boom bah!suomynona is, as usual, quite thoughtful and non-simplistic. I would submit, however, that the nature of football–quite violent, requiring lots of manpower and expensive equipment, etc.–does have something to do with the problems it causes, namely excessive costs, academic corruption, and untoward player and fan behavior. The “privileging” of football by administrators derives in part from the fact that football demands so much money, the “scholarship” admission of so many players (so many of whom are academically marginal), the kowtowing to so many alumni who want their weekly tailgate binge and spectacle, the gobbling up of so much campus land buiding of so many facilities, the hiring of so much academically unsympathetic or irrelevant staff, etc., etc. Let’s just say that if the chess club went bigtime, it wouldn’t cause the same problems football causes.And we aren’t even including the coming lawsuits from now-deilitated former players over longterm damage caused by the coaching staff’s ignoring the damage done by concussions. Some college athletic departments might incur the kind of legal damages suffered by some Catholic archdioceses over decades-old sexual abuse.
goxewu - December 4, 2009 at 11:01 am
debilitated, long-term (Sorry, I was watching SportsCenter’s highlights from the Jets game while I was typing this.)
jffoster - December 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm
You gatta love the way goxewu rises predictably to the bait — must be a trout. Yes, I’ll use whatever words I please, and you all can throw whatever labels you wish. Must be a corollary to Godwin’s Law operating somewhere here. I do have one question about his focusing on one clause of mine. “”I don’t even care whether Hofstra exists or not.” This is said by a PROFESSOR?” [from gowexu's 8 pick up on my 5.]Did you intend to imply that professors are expected or required to automatically believe that all universities and colleges should always remain in existance and none should ever close? With respect to Hofstra, I am simply disinterested. It was Professor’s “a tad rhatorical” blanket assertion about coeds and football that I suggested might not be universally agreed with.
jffoster - December 4, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Oops, my apologies. Last sentence in 10 should read: “It was Professor Fendrich’s “a tad rhetorical” blanket assertion about coeds and football that I suggested might not be universally agreed with.
goxewu - December 4, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Ah, right: What looked liked Prof. Foster cramming his foot into his mouth right up to mid-calf was actually him carefully laying out bait. OK, if it makes him feel better…And no, I didn’t mean to imply that “professors are expected or required to automatically believe that all universities should always remain in existence and none should ever close.” a) Prof. Foster mentioned Hofstra in specific, and b) “I don’t even care whether Hofstra exists or not” is a wee bit stronger than mere “disinterest.” (Prof. Foster, an expert in language knows this. Otherwise, for one thing, he wouldn’t have inserted the word “even” in there, to indicate that he knows he’s being a little over-the-top.)