Aliana Thompson | Contributing Illustrator

“Let’s go, Bears!” echoes across the courts. “Here we go, WashU!” says one teammate to another; “Yeah, Bears!” comes the response. If you happened to walk by Tao Tennis Center on Sunday, Sept. 21, you likely heard these chants as the women’s tennis team cheered each other on in their ITA Regional tournament. As a first-year on this team, I was shocked when I heard the accusation that WashU lacks spirit and an athletic identity. From my experience on the team, WashU Women’s Tennis has an identity — during our matches this fall, WashU was the loudest, most supportive team out there each time.

It’s true, though, that when I looked around during our matches this fall, the bleachers were almost always empty. Although we as a team identify strongly with WashU athletics, the student community missed available opportunities to experience our school’s identity. So I generally understand why proponents of Division I sports say that we should start on a journey to bring fans and followers to our athletic programs.

The idea that WashU specifically needs D-I sports to build a stronger WashU identity is misguided — D-I sports won’t change anything unless there is a serious culture change at this school when it comes to supporting our teams. The absence of school spirit, especially surrounding our women’s sports, more than our Division III status, explains why some say WashU lacks identity.

It would make sense to me that the first step in building sports identity at a school would be developing teams that win — something that WashU already does a lot of in Division III. Last year, WashU placed fourth out of 323 schools in the Learfield Directors’ Cup for D-III programs, an annual competition that measures all participating schools’ sports results. This means that WashU, across all our sports programs, does very well in national competition.

By transitioning to D-I, there would be a general increase in the level of our athletics due to greater recruiting power from scholarships. However, our competition from fellow D-I schools would be stronger too, so we surely would not be winning any more than we are now. I don’t think advocates for D-I sports are simply envisioning a higher level of, say, volleyball with the proposed D-I sports programs. In a valid way, they imagine a school culture that actually values sports. We already have winning teams in D-III — let’s build from there. 

Still, athletic success alone does not automatically translate into actual school spirit, and nowhere is that clearer than the student support for our women’s programs. WashU’s women’s sports are particularly strong. Not only did both women’s tennis and soccer win national championships last year, but women’s volleyball, golf, and cross country are nationally ranked in the top 10 as of Oct. 13. Yet schoolwide spirit surrounding these teams is missing. This points to another factor in what leads people to believe that we don’t have the potential for WashU pride: the conflation of men’s sports success with school identity. Just think about it — the majority of our comparable institutions that have a “better identity” due to their D-I sports are most famous for their men’s athletics: Duke men’s basketball, Vanderbilt men’s football, and Cornell men’s hockey and lacrosse.

Indeed, WashU’s supposed identity issue may be rooted in our society’s tendency to disrespect women’s sports and glorify football above all. If our football team were winning national championships, I’m sure we could all imagine how WashU’s sports culture would feel radically different. To proponents of D-I sports, consider this: do you want D-I sports, or do you just want the football culture that involves heavy day drinking for “fun,” sexist frat banners across campus that pass as spirit, and the student population flocking to watch young men get CTE? That is to say, we should not assume that the identity associated with college football is automatically positive. 

As someone who grew up in Ann Arbor, home to the University of Michigan, I’m no stranger to college football for community identity. Still, I truly believe that people are going to look back on our culture’s glorification of American football like we reflect on the Gladiators. Points aside, we can build WashU pride with our current D-III sports without having to replicate the male dominance of American football culture. 

In fact, it is harmful to suggest that WashU lacks identity because of our “weak” D-III sports programs when it appears that the complaint is really about the lack of a male-centric sports culture. There is clearly already identity to be found in these teams (including women’s teams!), and changing to D-I sports will not solve our identity problem.

Instead, let’s support our teams that are already competing for national championships. The games, matches, and tournaments are happening, and there’s something to be said for the role of the student body in creating school spirit. We as a student population have to recognize that identity does not just happen because we want it to. It takes effort, inconvenience, and a willingness not to spend one’s entire weekend studying (radical, I know) to create identity through athletics. The WashU Bears should be more than their label. The identity is earned when we show up.

This article is part of a point/counterpoint about D-I sports. To read the counterpoint, click here.