Costanzian logic
No. Non. Nein. Nee. Nyet.
A no in any other language would have been equally as resounding. Nearly 66 per cent of Carleton students objected to coughing up an extra $11.31 in athletics fees, meaning it’s the bottom of the ninth with two outs for football and a slew of other sports headed for demotion.
But the 1,624 to 845 margin of victory for the no side shouldn’t be confused with the students’ rejection of football – or any other varsity sport – altogether.
Interpret the results along the lines of George Costanza’s position on parking or sex: “Why should we pay for it when maybe, if we apply ourselves, we could get it for free?”
Well in this instance students wouldn’t be getting football or varsity swimming, rugby, rowing, volleyball or field hockey for free. We already pay $138.69 in athletics fees. We don’t want or need to pay more.
A vague referendum question that didn’t specify where the money would have be spent is also responsible for the no vote. Those students who took time to read the question will have noticed that your extra $11.31 could have been spent on anything athletics wanted: swimming pools, nautilus machines, ticket booths, medicine balls. Anything.
But the latter part of Costanzian logic still functions here.
It’s time for someone to apply themself. It’s time athletics found money outside the student body. It’s time athletics allowed individual programs to find their own sources of funding – regardless of the amount.
WANTED: a football fan with a special affinity for Carleton, a flare for philanthropy and a great sense of timing.
Very few students want to see football die and six other sports get wiped off the varsity map.
Van Loon said the no vote means athletics isn’t a priority for students. He’s right: food, shelter, clothing, tuition and books all rank higher.