<p>It is interesting to see how passionately people feel about this issue. At the time the decision to cut the sports was made (last July) Mulcahy (Athletic Director) warned McCormick that there probably would be a temporary backlash, lasting a few weeks, in response to the cuts. Boy, was he wrong!</p>
<p>My husband and I are debating this issue in our house. I have written letters to Dr. McCormick urging him not to go through with these cuts. It is my understanding that in the last few years money from other (minor?) sports has been diverted to Rutgers football. It is also my understanding that the athletic director has been looking to cut these sports for a while, and the budget crisis was the perfect excuse to act. Now that RU football is on the ascendency, it seems only fair to re-invest some of those funds into the endangered sports, IMHO. I think it only fair, it does attract top students, and does add to the richness of the university.</p>
<p>I don’t think it has to be either fencing or football, however. I have never watched anybody fence, and before this past year have never watched an entire football game either. Since Sept., and because my son is enrolled at Rutgers, I actually have begun following college football. It is fantastic! Our whole family enjoyed this season immensely, and it lent a spark and an interest for my son, who didn’t particularly want to attend his state university. So I would not agree with those who think that an emphasis on collegiate football makes for an anti-intellectual environment. My son is very interested in sports, and is a very good student.</p>
<p>My husband, who holds a Ph.D in philosophy, doesn’t care about fencing, tennis, or crew. He thinks in light of the budget cuts sacrifices have to be made somewhere. He loved the football games, and would like to see money diverted to curriculum, to adding sections of classes. My son was shut out of a philosophy course he wanted to take.</p>