Club Sports Could Provide CU With Positive Publicity

Katie Simon’s April 4 letter to the editor, “Club Sports Demand Fair Treatment,” brought to light several policies beleaguering Columbia’s 45 club programs. Clubs are banned from using the word “team” to describe what they do. They are also forbidden from using Columbia athletics logos on any apparel, equipment, or correspondence. That, and apparently their coaches don’t get paid on time. The athletics department should amend these flawed policies to create a better environment for club athletes and the university as a whole. If they don’t do it out of appreciation for the ideal of the student athlete, then at least they could embrace the opportunity for some positive publicity.

The motivation for the “no logos” policy seems relatively clear. Columbia doesn’t want its athletic trademarks to be diluted by club sports, as these groups face little administrative oversight. Since club teams are completely student-run, they have the potential to fall into total disrepute and lose any kind of respect within their conference. This would somehow damage the reputation of Columbia’s varsity sports programs.
Looking through old Columbia sports photos, it’s clear that the University has had a tough time deciding on a common sports logo. There’s been everything from a side profile of a lion, a paw, a lion’s face against a New York skyline, a king’s crown, and the current stylized lion’s face. This logo made its debut when M. Dianne Murphy took over as athletics director in 2004.

It’s understandable that the administration would want to protect this image to make sure that it can stand as a constant indicator of Columbia’s athletics brand value. A quick walk around the bookstore showed that Columbia still has a varied set of logos, with the lion used specifically for varsity athletics merchandise. However, the athletics department isn’t just concerned with protecting the image of varsity sports—they want to make sure that club sports have as few overt ties to the university as possible.
The athletics department complained when the sailing club ordered a set of custom Patagonia fleece jackets with the crown logo embedded in a light blue burgee (the pennant that yacht clubs use to identify themselves). Apparently it would be a bad thing to have Columbia’s trademark paraded around America’s most prestigious yacht clubs. Following this same logic, the University fears the repercussions of the ski racing club hitting up Vail while wearing lion-emblazoned Spyder jackets or the rugby club touring Britain with a light blue “C” on their kit bags.

They say in advertising that “any publicity is good publicity,” and this sentiment applies to building a university’s brand recognition. Consider Harvard, Yale, and Princeton: these universities have the easiest time building up their varsity programs, and their logos are a colored H, Y, and P. Anyone who sees them knows what they represent. I could go rob a 7-11 while wearing a crimson “H” tee shirt and there would be no negative repercussions (for Harvard), but woe betide the Columbia equestrian club if they were to have an off-day while riding horses painted light blue and outfitted with lion masks.

There’s a simple solution to the logo problem. Columbia should authorize some of its graphics for official use on club merchandise while letting one iteration of the lion graphic stand as the varsity sports logo. In her letter to the editor, Katie Simon joked that she would have been happy if the sailing club (of which she is a senior member) could call themselves the “Sea Lions.” As it stands, Columbia would be against the idea. Some clubs have created their own logos. The ballroom dance club cleverly altered the crown logo to show a dancing couple. That’s fine too, but if Columbia students are going to compete­—whether in capoeira or football—they should be entitled to represent their university, not to hide behind a veil of detachment.

This brings up the other troublesome regulation that forbids club programs from calling themselves “teams.” Like the logo rule, this policy is founded on the motivation of preserving the sanctity of varsity athletes. This policy unabashedly belittles the Columbia students who devote a significant portion of their time to their club sport. One need only look at the recent Spectator features on club sports to see their many recent achievements. There are differences between varsity sports and club sports, but the ability to compete as a team is not one of them.

Say Columbia wins the men’s Ivy League rugby tournament this spring (a legitimate possibility). Is there something about this achievement that is more “club” than “team”? It’s a slap in the face to people who spend four years trying to build respect for their clubs—and by association, Columbia. Club athletes may not be varsity athletes, but they are Columbia University students, and for this reason, they should be entitled to enough respect from their university to be allowed to responsibly brandish Columbia’s symbols.

And Brian Jines, director of intramural and club sports, you should make sure to pay the club sports coaches on time. I live with a bunch of club athletes, and their complaining has slowly driven me crazy.