The Observer, March 10, 2006
Volume XXXVIII, Issue 20
Free Speech Zone: Students should have equal access to Veale Center
To the Editor:
My fellow classmates, both graduate and undergraduate, believe that we are denied adequate access to the recreational facilities at the Veale Center. The average, non-varsity athlete at Case should be guaranteed the opportunity to use the student recreational facility at reasonable times. Unfortunately, here at Case, the recreational facilities are monopolized by whichever varsity or club team chooses to claim them as their own with no consideration for the rest of the student body. I consider this to be a deliberate administrative decision to ignore the interests, needs, and priorities of a majority of the student body that pays premium tuition for wide range of services. We are being deliberately deprived of access to recreational facilities by a subsidized minority, student athletes and club teams, who should have no more precedence than the average student.
I, like any athlete attending Case, pay tuition, yet when I want to use the field house at Veale I am frequently denied the opportunity by the presence of one or more varsity teams. For example, recently I and several friends went to the Veale center to play basketball. When we arrived at 4:30 p.m., the softball, baseball, and track teams were occupying the entire facility until 8:30 p.m. We then went to Adelbert. Unbeknownst to us, but not surprisingly, the women's ultimate Frisbee team had reserved the gym (sometimes it's fencing or badminton). Let me be clear, this is not an isolated occurrence. It has become the norm. And every time, adding insult to injury, a parking fee is required. This, in my view, is inexcusable. The recreational athlete is essentially excluded by those people who rely on the tuition every Case student for their athletic existence. It is no answer to say that varsity athletes have a greater right to use of the facilities.
As a former Division I collegiate athlete, I am not indifferent to the institutional value of athletics regardless of the sport or level of competition; however, it is impossible to justify that benefit when it comes at the expense of excluding recreational athletes from the Veale Center. In fact, I believe that the failure to make Veale Center more available is a net detriment to the institution.
A proper remedy would ensure that the field house is never fully occupied by a varsity team at the exclusion of the student body during times of greatest need. If this remedy is inconceivable, then students should be offered a refund for the portion of tuition earmarked for recreation so they may be able to seek alternatives to the inadequate access currently afforded. I further suggest that varsity teams tailor their schedules in order to accommodate the student body (early morning workouts, for example).
I decided to attend Case for its academic reputation; however, in doing so I did not forfeit my expectation that the university would fulfill its other responsibilities. Recreational facilities promote athletic activity, which provides students with an incentive to be healthy, interact with peers, and distract from the stresses of academics. As Case aspires to be one of the top universities, it would be an oversight to underestimate the value of the non-academic experience to current and prospective students. This letter is not meant be mere polemic, rather, it is to provide a medium for voicing truly legitimate student concerns.
Marc Gori
Law Student
