Debate team tackles D-I move, athletic facilities, spending

The Seattle University debate team took on the question of Division I Thursday night during a British Parliamentary show debate in Wycoff Auditorium.

Seattle U's debaters typically compete in British Parliamentary style, the world's most common form of debate. In this debate structure, two sides of an argument with four separate teams distinguish their positions from one another. Debaters and audience members knocked on a table to signal agreement with an argument.

Teams of debaters argued multiple aspects of the D-I move, including university funding, the impact of athletics and the effects the move will have on the student body as a whole. Team president Sophia Sanders argued against the move to D-I to open the debate.

"We think this has affected every student, whether you are an athlete or not, whether you're in support of it or against it," Sanders said.

She cautioned the sides chosen by debaters do not necessarily reflect their own opinions, but they are just addressing existing arguments. The arguments presented were numerous and diverse. They fired up the audience and left several
debaters red-faced.

The team against the move to D-I cited the many opportunity costs of the transition.

Sanders and junior business major Chase Parker discussed the cuts to the language department, whose German and Arabic programs are in jeopardy of losing funding; the 10 to 25 percent budget cuts made public earlier this year and costs of bringing basketball to the perceived forefront of the athletic division were also leveraged in
the debate.

"There is money coming in [from alumni] that should be going to academics, not athletics," Sanders argued. In a previous interview with The Spectator, Ron Smith, vice president of finance and business affairs, noted that donors often donate to specific parts of the university. The debaters noted this could explain at least part of the growing support for Seattle U athletics.

The team in favor of the move to D-I reminded the audience that "correlation does not necessarily equal causation." There are many other factors contributing to the tighter budget and tuition increases than the move to D-I, the debaters argued. Athletic spending constitutes 5 to 6 percent of the university's total budget, compared to the 3 percent of the total budget spent on athletics at Gonzaga University.

"There is at least the basic amount of money needed for academic programs," said Joshua Hooker, sophomore economics major. "Studies have found that Division I athletics are a catalyst to encourage [donations to the university]."

"Notoriety increases the revenue base," he added.

Sophomore political science major Morgan Klaas argued against D-I on the basis that the university is "humiliating our athletes."

"The move has hurt each and every one of you," she said to the athletes in attendance. "They did not prepare you with the facilities you need to be the best athletes you can be."

Klaas argued that the track, baseball and swim teams do not have adequate facilities of their own. The track team practices at Garfield High School, the baseball team plays home games in Bellevue and the Olympic swimming pool in the Connolly Center is out of commission.

Her opponent, Taylor Minter, sophomore business major, stressed that it's essential to spread these improvements out during the transition to D-I. The improvements would not be possible without the increased giving.

Minter acknowledged the immediate impact of the transition on current students and athletes but said the university must be completely D-I before it can fundraise for capital expansion projects. Projects would include a regulation track, more housing and more classroom space to accommodate the admissions influx.

It was noted in the debate that D-I is a transition meant to take several years with improvements coming in over time.

"Phasing is required," Minter said. "Giving and donations will increase over the next couple of years."

"There never will be a perfect time [for the move to D-I]," Minter said. "But here we are."
Attendees were able to converse directly with the debaters during a question and answer session following the debate.

"The point of debates is to get people talking," Sanders said. "I'm glad we had a large
athlete turnout."

The Seattle U debate team has been successful in past national and world competitions, earning a name among prestigious programs at Stanford, Harvard and Oxford.

This year, they are hoping to take their team to the World Universities Debating Championships in Botswana, Africa and are hoping for university support.

Though she says their funding for the 2010-2011 academic year is up in the air, Sanders is particularly hopeful for next year, given the youth and enthusiasm of the current 10-person team.

"We are blessed to have a very young team of committed debaters," Sanders said.
Senior Chris Lauer will be departing this spring after a successful year with Seattle U debate.

"It fills the hole in my life," said Lauer, political science major. "It's good for me."

Chelsea may be reached at cnehler@su-spectator.com