As an RPI alum and former member of the pep band, the Division III President’s Council proposal to eliminate scholarships for those schools that “play-up” in one sport is appalling. RPI hockey played a big role in my career at RPI, and quite frankly it is a lot of fun to watch. It was thrilling to see Dr. Jackson’s public statements in support of the program, especially after hearing rumors that she was against athletics in general. Both her press release and article in the Times Union were strong statements of support, and showed a willingness to do what it takes to keep RPI hockey at the highest possible level.

It was also pleasing to see The Poly cover this situation, both in the sports section and as the topic of a staff editorial. However, it was obvious that the editorial staff of The Poly was not working with all the facts when writing this editorial.

The editorial states that the president and “athletic department need to set an example and do more to keep this rule from passing.” In fact, they are doing much more. First, as has been reported in the Times Union and U.S. College Hockey Online, Athletic Director Ken Ralph and the athletic directors of the other affected schools are working with the ECAC administration to educate the other Division III schools as to the nature of college hockey and the impact the proposal would have on both the sport and affected schools. Indeed, The Poly suggested that RPI work with Clarkson and St. Lawrence, as well as with other affected schools, to address this issue. RPI had started working with the ECAC right after this proposal was publicly announced.

The UCAA—another conference that RPI is a member of for many of their D3 sports—is also working together to combat this proposal. As to the suggestion to take “advantage of local and national media,” refer again to the article in the August 24 issue of the Times Union where Dr. Jackson speaks to the entire Capital Region about the traditions of RPI Hockey. Note that this article was printed the Sunday before the first issue of the Poly for the semester. USA Today, Inside College Hockey, and ESPN.com have also covered this proposal and its effect on college hockey.

The staff editorial also states that Dr. Jackson released her statement “late in the debate over the issue.” In fact, RPI released its statement early on (and before Clarkson). The public debate over the issue has just begun, and this proposal is hardly a done deal. The next phase for the proposal will be completed in October. There is plenty of time to amend or eliminate this piece of the reform package before the next meeting. The final vote on the proposal is not until a meeting in January. The D3 Presidents Council has stated that the affected schools will be given the opportunity to provide input. Have no doubt that Dr. Jackson, Ken Ralph, and the rest of the athletic department are working hard to prepare themselves for this opportunity.

It is unfortunate and disturbing that the editorial board of The Polytechnic would act in such an unprofessional manner. While I find it hard to believe that I am writing in support of RPI’s administration, it is important to give credit where credit is due. To say that the Institute is not doing enough in this situation is simply an insult to the many people involved in trying to protect RPI hockey. When trying to convince others of your viewpoint, it is essential that you get your facts straight. I would hope that in the future the editorial board would take the time and responsibility to research all the facts before stating their opinions.

Christopher K. Farrar