I am writing in response to Peter Baldwin’s opinion article “Bowling upgrade needed.” I consider myself a bowling enthusiast, so when I read the title of Baldwin’s article it gave me hope that the lackluster lanes would get a much needed revamping. Sadly, that did not appear to be the case. After reading the article I was left with the impression that, while Baldwin wanted to appear to be weighing both sides, he actually believed in removing the lanes and sought to persuade the reader into holding that opinion as well.

He has every right to express his views; I do not take fault with that. But I would like to say that I disagree with the idea of removing the lanes. Lately it has been a trend to say, at least in publicly expressed opinions in The Polytechnic, Statler & Waldorf, and other forums, that the needs of the minority are hurting the majority. This has been said to come in the form of the equestrian club, now the bowling lanes, and others. It has been suggested that students should have a say in where their activity fee goes, and the less popular clubs should be severely limited in funding. I can agree that students should have some input, but we should not be assaulting every club that does not have sweeping approval.

I sincerely doubt there are many clubs that have the majority of students’ support. This should not be a prerequisite for larger amounts of funding. Granted that there are a few clubs that cost a lot and do not have many members, but often the few people in these clubs are die-hard in their convictions to the club. I know a few people involved with equestrian activities and they often have this as one of the major focuses of their lives. To take this away from them would be devastating. As far as myself, I would be very upset if the bowling lanes were removed. I think bowling is an excellent social activity.

I believe that clubs should be funded based on their membership to a degree. If a club has 10 members and can realistically get by on $50 per person, then it shouldn’t get $2000. However, if a club needs $200 per person and has 5 members, then I don’t think they should be given $250. The costs of an activity needs to be considered. The Union should not just base its opinion of a hobby’s worth on its membership numbers while brushing off less popular, more expensive ones.

I am of the opinion that we would should protect the few, not strip them of their support. There are lots of people at RPI, and to suit the needs of everyone it is a requirement that a lot of clubs and activities are available on campus. The Union should keep the voice of the minority in the front of its mind.

Brian Whipple