What does the University of Richmond lacrosse controversy reveal about higher education priorities
Students protest at the Trustee Luncheon at the University of Richmond on Dec. 7 2012. David Weissman/The Collegian
In September 2012, the University of Richmond announced that it would cut men’s soccer and track and field teams to establish men’s club lacrosse as a NCAA team. The decision, made largely behind closed doors, led to an outpour of criticism from students, alumni and donors.
The Players:
Jim Miller: After news broke of the cuts, Richmond Athletic Director Jim Miller announced that the decision was made above the athletic’s department, at the “Board of Trustees’ level.” He cited NCAA Title IX guidelines that would require keeping the number of men’s and women’s teams equal. If the university added men’s lacrosse without cutting existing teams, adding another women’s sport would skew the percentage of student athletes at the university.
The University of Richmond Collegian reported:
“[The committee] did a year-long study of what sports we should have, looking at budgets, admissions issues and everything else you could imagine,” he said. “They went through all the data, and the ultimate decision was that they wanted to add men’s lacrosse.”
This was the first mention of the Board of Trustees’ study.
Board of Trustees: Miller announced the cuts to the affected teams, but emphasized the Board of Trustees’ role. An anonymous donation of $3 million was made by a trustee later identified as Paul Queally, parent of two Richmond students whose previous contributions built Queally Hall, a new addition to the business school.
“Two prominent members of the Board of Trustees have been linked with the sports affected. Paul Queally has financially helped the school’s club lacrosse team, and the club’s coach, Glenn Carter, has often spoken at practices about how much Queally’s donations have helped the team, a junior on the lacrosse team said, requesting anonymity.”
The Collegian reported
Reaction: In response, soccer and track members, along with student supporters, created the “We are Richmond Track and Field” and “Carry the Flag” committees. Track and field alumni helped to form a social media campaign to open discussion on the cuts. The groups posters and social media campaign boasted that the Richmond track and field team had the highest GPA of any track team in the country.
University of Richmond President Edward. L. Ayers: At the Save our Sports forum, President Ayers made his first comment about the cuts: they were final. Ayers appeared unwavering in his decision and rebuffed student comments from the audience.
“You heard me say it,” Ayers said. “It is the decision. I appreciate the passion that the students brought to the discussion and I think it was a good thing for us to have done.”
The Save our Sports forum changed the discussion on campus from a campaign urging the administration to reconsider to an outright criticism of the board’s lack of transparency. Though it was made clear that the decision was final, echoes of discontent continued throughout the remainder of the academic year.
“Daddy University:” In one of the most scathing opinions submitted to The Collegian, former student Keith Donohue criticized “The Daddy,” (Paul Queally) and how his donation had swayed the decision.
“The Daddy’s son plays high school lacrosse and is slated to attend Richmond next year. Surprise! A reliable source suggests that the primary reason why the university president expedited the decision to add lacrosse was that The Daddy pledged to also fund a new campus visitor center.”
Bobby Ukrop: Following a student protest at the Board of Trustees’ luncheon, the board reaffirmed its decision on Dec. 7 2012. As a result, one of the university’s largest and most prestigious donors, Bobby Ukrop, heir to the Ukrop’s supermarket chain and former Richmond soccer player, resigned from the board.
Aftermath: In the following months, the unpopular decision is still fresh in the minds of students at the University of Richmond. The claim that teams were cut to prevent a rise in the athlete to student ratio proved to be false. Students, beyond the athletes affected directly by the cuts, have questioned the university’s priorities in creating a team that would likely add prestige, but would target the stereotypical demographic of wealthy, white students from the northeast. The university’s response to the controversey and the criticism it evoked from both current students and the larger community of parents and alumni will undoubtedly resurface in discussion of major decisions in the coming years.