Athletic department review needs students

Last week’s announcement that the University will be conducting a comprehensive review of its athletic department is a breath of fresh air.

Hopefully, it will lead to a restructuring that returns faith in our NCAA Division I programs. But if the University wants to get this right, it must do two things: ensure the review is indeed comprehensive and take into account the voice of students.

If the University wants to call this a comprehensive review, then no form of introspection should be off the table.

After losing 63 percent of conference games since 2007, there is growing confusion as to why head coach Karl Hobbs is still with the University. These are tough issues. But in order for this review to be meaningful, the review needs to consider all questions – even the ones that are difficult to answer.

If firing Hobbs is the best option for the program, then that is something the University needs to do.

Hobbs doesn’t control everything, so from the most senior staff members on down, every position needs to be examined.

Furthermore, if the University really wants to get this review right, student opinion must be taken into consideration. This point is crucial not because we are experts in organizational management of athletic departments, but because over the course of the last few years, we have been the most let down.

Those videos from 2005 – of students camping outside the Smith Center in order to get a seat, of making NCAA tournaments, of our fight song blaring and crowds roaring – that’s what we want.

While there are a handful of us who still go to every game, the rest of the student body has been left without an integral part of campus life.

The University will fail both its students and the integrity of this review if it doesn’t take into consideration its obligation to its students of a successful athletic program.

Athletic teams have the ability to engulf universities with school pride, to raise the school’s national recognition, to increase admission application rates and to completely change the culture of student life on campus.

Now is a perfect time for us to not only demand action from our University, but to partner with them in how we go forward.

This review and the hiring of a new athletic director could mark a new day for GW athletics. Please GW, don’t let us down.

Keith Osentoski, a sophomore majoring in political communication, is a candidate for an undergraduate SA Senator seat in the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences.

Exercise science is more than just a class

I have to admit I was a little irked to see exercise and sports activities being used interchangeably with exercise science in “Exercising for a grade” (Feb. 17, 2010, pg. 4), by Tom Braslavsky. An uninformed person reading the column might assume that exercise science majors spend their time taking yoga and kickboxing rather than real academic classes. On behalf of my fellow exercise science majors, I wanted to take some time to clarify the difference.

In exercise science, we take classes such as anatomy and physiology, kinesiology, public health, injury assessment and exercise physiology, in addition to the hard sciences like biology, chemistry and physics, and math classes like statistics. We are future doctors, physical therapists, athletic trainers, nutritionists, sports psychologists, strength and conditioning specialists, and more. In contrast, exercise and sports activities offer exercise classes that can be taken by anyone in the University. There is no exercise and sports activities major or degree. I feel the need to stress this distinction, as there is already a great deal of confusion regarding what exercise science majors do. People often assume we are skating by in an easy major, just taking pilates or karate, when in fact the opposite is true.

Lauryn Adams is a senior majoring in exercise science.