(Becky Zhao | Student Life)

Detractors from Division I sports programs might argue that Division I programs come at the expense of academic excellence. The argument goes that sports programs require admitting unqualified students and are bound to drag down a school’s academic reputation. I would refer any such detractors to the examples of Stanford and Duke, two prestigious private research institutions that share many characteristics with Wash. U. in addition to supporting perennially successful sports programs. In addition to those who say sports come at the expense of academics, others will point to the ugly aspects of Division I athletics, including the recruiting scandals and other unethical behavior that plague certain Division I sports programs. But one advantage Wash. U. would have as a newcomer to Division I athletics is the ability to take precautions against scandals from day one, preventing the systemic ethical breakdowns that have plagued other NCAA Division I schools.

Now to the question of “How?” While starting a Division I program is a lofty proposition, there is an established first step that Wash. U. could take toward such a goal. That step would be to start men’s and women’s Division I basketball programs. Why basketball? The answer is simple: with only about 10 scholarships and some salary money set aside for good coaches, a school can literally buy itself a quality Division I basketball program. This would allow Wash. U. to begin accruing quite a few of the benefits of a Division I program described earlier, at minimal cost. By taking this step, Wash. U. would, in a sense, get its feet wet and provide incentive to invest in a top-division athletics program.

While I recognize that this proposal may seem difficult, it is far from unattainable. Division I athletics at Wash. U. will not happen before I graduate and may never happen at all, but I hope to at least plant a seed in students’ minds. The more this vision is discussed, debated and tossed about, the more likely it is to come to fruition. So when you are enjoying Division I athletics in the future, keep asking the question: Why not us?

The men, who placed 13th at the 2008 NCAA Divisional III Swimming and Diving Championships last year, recorded nine first place finishes in 11 races. Junior Alex Beyer took the 500- and 1,000-yard freestyle and teamed up with freshman Billy Griffitts, junior Dan Arteaga and freshman Neil O’Kelly in the 200-yard medley relay. Arteaga also won the 100-yard butterfly.

Like Beyer, sophomore David Chao won three events, taking the 100- and 200-yard freestyle and the 200-yard freestyle with O’Kelly and seniors Kevin Leckey and Charles Stewart. Leckey won the 50-yard freestyle, and senior Michael Flanagan took the 200-yard IM to round of the top finishes for the men.

“We swam well, all things considered. We didn’t have the pool for Wednesday and Thursday, so we were out of the water…to come in and win nine of the 12 events against a D-I program is pretty impressive, so we were pretty pleased with that,” Stewart, a co-captain, said.

The women won four events Saturday, all in freestyle events. Senior Kelly Kono won the 500-yard freestyle and the 200-yard freestyle relay with freshmen Karina Stridh, Samantha Schulte and Amy Vanlishout. Vanlishout and Stridh also won the 1,000- and 50-yard freestyle events, respectively.

The 200-yard women’s freestyle relay came down to the wire as Wash. U. beat SLU by .02 seconds. Stridh edged out SLU’s Jordan Hagar by .04 seconds in the 50-yard freestyle.

“I was really excited to see their enthusiasm,” Kono, a co-captain, said of the freshmen on her relay team. “It was good to get the first one under our belts. It was a good way to see how far we got and how far we have to go to get to our end of the season goals.”

As Saturday was the first meet of the season, Stewart explained that some swimmers, especially the freshmen, might have been frustrated with their slower-than-normal times. He explained that most swimmers will not record their best times until around December, after several months of training. The team also lifted weights the day before competition, a major difference from high school competition.

“The meets during the middle of the season are not about times. They’re about emotion and how hard you compete when you are tired and sore,” Stewart said.

The team will next compete at the Show Me Showdown on Oct. 18 at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

“It’s a chance for us to go against really good competition… It’s good to be up against people who are bigger than us, who are stronger than us, and who are tougher than us,” Stewart said.

“You get to see some of the top athletes and see how we stack up. It’s a good way to see how well you are doing and how much you need to improve the rest of the year,” Kono said.

Last week, however, Wash. U.’s general abstinence from this type of environment was broken in a rather magnanimous fashion. The vice presidential debate submerged the campus in a buzz and energy that must have left ESPN’s favorite institutions teeming with envy. At times, it felt like the school was almost overflowing with cameras, television personalities and general debate-related euphoria. On the rare occasions I wasn’t engaged in the spectacle at hand, I couldn’t help but consider how different things might be if the mood generated by the debate were the norm rather than the extreme, entirely circumstantial exception. What if the nation at large, not just the populace of Wash. U., were constantly excited about politics to the extent that our campus was last Thursday? What if the country were to treat politics like it currently treats athletics?

I can only assume that this hypothetical would depart from the current reality in certain very tangible and very positive ways.

The city in which I was brought up is home to a university with Division I athletics. This particular university’s football team spent the early part of the decade in a position of national prominence. They were talented, entertaining and, for a five- or six-year stint, very successful. Toward the end of this string of successes, the football team’s coach resigned in order to accept a coaching position in the NFL. Since the coach’s departure, the university’s team has back-slided its way to mediocrity and a near-.500 record. Virtually everyone in the city is engaged enough in the university’s athletics to have a personal take on the football team’s recent struggles. Individuals who would likely be unable to tell you the names of the vice presidential nominees can espouse a relatively thorough argument as to the misgivings and solutions for the new coach’s incompetence. I can only imagine how different things might be in socio-political terms if this energy and focus were transposed from football onto politics or other social causes.

As people become more engaged in and educated about any particular thing, their ability to analyze and understand that subject grows exponentially. If people simply spent more time around politics and social dialogue, it seems only natural that their ability to interpret and influence these things would grow as well.

If instead of watching college football on Saturday afternoon, the citizenry of my hometown read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, they would be as capable of speaking out against political figures as they are football coaches. I honestly believe that a good portion of the social and political issues which have recently befallen the country are due in large part to an unquestioning follow-the-leader type syndrome. On a number of levels, our nation’s politicians have led the country while the people blindly follow and end up in an unfortunate position. The simple remedy for this ill is a more educated and engaged constituency.

It’s in the best interest of our country, specifically the individuals of which it’s comprised, to engage in politics as fully as possible. I acknowledge entirely that this cannot, and never will, manifest itself in an omnipresent vice presidential debate-type atmosphere. Nor would I ever argue that the country should in fact drop athletics in lieu of some newfound political zeal. I would, however, encourage people to spend halftime of their favorite team’s next game watching CNN instead of commercials.