SU Communities

The discussion about SU’s move to DI and joining the WCC is a good one, but it doesn’t fully address the core issue:  intercollegiate athletics is only useful if it can play a role in furthering SU’s mission: ‘…dedicated to educating the whole person, to professional formation, and to empowering leaders for a just and humane world’; and its vision to ‘be the premier independent university of the Northwest in academic quality, Jesuit Catholic inspiration, and service to society.’

 

So we should be asking: How does athletics, regardless of level or affiliation, further our mission and vision? 

 

To set up the discussion as simply a binary YES/NO on DI, we’re missing out on the only opportunity we’ll have, for many generation, to ask, “What should athletics at SU look like?”  Maybe the answer is DI, but we should be starting from a desired outcomes stage (e.g., how the conversation about student learning has been framed) rather than a tweaking of what’s currently in place.

 

Comments such as, “DI did wonders for the Gonzaga program and people not from the area think Gonzaga is a great school and that's only because of their basketball team” are misleading and based on nothing but one writers opinion.  Gonzaga has been DI since the current NCAA divisional structure came about in I973, so painting a picture where GU ‘moved’ to DI is inaccurate and not at all comparable to SU’s situation.  In addition, I’m guessing virtually everyone associated w/ GU would disagree w/ an assessment that since the (men’s) basketball program is successful GU can now be considered a “great school.”

 

And don’t even get me started on ‘Go Chieftains’ – that’s a nickname from an era long past, it’s not the nickname of SU’s teams, and it’s racist (insensitive at best) to continue using it.  The University had a chance a long time ago to represent the area’s American Indian-based founding and heritage in an appropriate manner and it never once chose to do so.  Please, ESG, and everyone else, do not continue embarrassing SU by bringing up that sad era.

 

Affiliation is a very important consideration, and it may very well trump an analysis of the data – data that show a move to DI is costly at the beginning, and continues to escalate at rates higher than any other sector of higher education.  But please, AATF, be true to your charge to examine all the issues and recommend what’s best for SU.

First of all I would like to point out that the name Chieftan as it relates to Seattle University was in relation to an Irish tribe and had nothing to do with the Native American tribes in Seattle. Do some research if you don't believe me.
Second, I agree whole-heartedly that the move to division I should support the mission and it is for this reason that I am the strongest supporter of the move. Economics may not ultimately prove to be the strongest reason, but visibility of the university can be. If you look at USF and Santa Clara, both Jesuit schools in the WCC, you will find that both have a strong dedication to social justice issues like SU does. Having a recognizable name (many people in the Northwest easily confuse SU with SPU or flat out don't know of it) is a foundation for the type of philanthropy which SU has undertaken.
The transition to D-I would be different because there are few private schools which have undertaken the same move in recent years, but since the SU programs have become competitive in their sixth year of Division II, it is not completely unreasonable to believe that sports would not draw more attention to the university within a few years of the move. It may be a combination of sports, it might be soccer or it might be basketball, but over the last three years across the board the SU teams have become highly competitive in a strong D-II conference.

Not to get into too much of a back-and-forth on this, but there are three issues to address from elescritor’s posting:

 

- The assertion that the ‘Chieftains’ nickname was related to “an Irish tribe and had nothing to do with the Native American tribes in Seattle” is interesting, please provide the information upon which those statements are based.  Obviously I would argue that it was related to American Indians – and this argument is based on my understanding of the situation at the time, at least three published news accounts of the name-change discussions, and conversations with individuals directly involved with the change.

 

Let’s go this route - regardless of the original motivation, one of the main questions I’d have for elescritor is, how did/do you feel about the portrayal of ‘Chieftains’ with a profile of a generic ‘Chief’ wearing what appears to be a Plains Indian-style headdress?

 

Certainly I will amend my way of thinking if my information on all this is incorrect – and I would urge all of us to “do some research” on the subject – it’s a sad and embarrassing past for SU, but one that should be understood in the context of those times, and in modern times.

 

- There are actually a number of examples of private schools moving to DI in recent years – again, I’d suggest all of us (esp the AATF) heed elescritor’s advice and “do some research.”

 

- Moving only the sport of basketball (men’s and/or women’s) to DI is not an option from a NCAA rules standpoint.

 

 

I applaud SU’s efforts to examine this issue in depth, I admire and enjoy the open dialogue the AATF encourages (e.g., thank you for the exchange, elescritor), and I implore the AATF to look more broadly at the athletics issue.