---

BY ROSARIO PAZ

In print | Published February 21, 2008

After administrators asked the women’s rugby team to decline a $5,000 grant from the National Guard, the college decided to provide funding to the team for the purchase of new equipment. Ideological reasons such as the Quaker heritage of the college and the questionable implications of advertising war-affiliated institutions like the National Guard were cited as the basis for the administration’s decision.

According to team co-captain Maria Mello ’08, the team had received an e-mail from USA Rugby sometime last semester informing them that the National Guard was interested in sponsoring teams in the Eastern Pennsylvania Rugby Union (EPRU).

“There was this application and we just ended up applying on a whim,” Mello said. “The application was to get a bunch of equipment — jerseys, shorts, socks, balls, ball bags, kicking tees, posts and other relevant equipment.”

Co-captain Karen Minyety ‘08 said that the team saw the grant primarily as a way to minimize the equipment costs for each team member. "We didn’t think we would have any conflict because we were getting free stuff because that would help alleviate the costs for the individual players," Minyety said. “[Players] wouldn’t have to buy things the school didn’t pay for and the budget would be a little bit more flexible.”

According to Minyety, the money allocated to Women’s Rugby through the Student Budget Committee is not sufficient in covering all of their expenses since the majority of that funding goes towards paying for transportation.

Therefore, players need to cover the additional expenses out of pocket, which include $80 cleats, $50 scrum caps and short socks that range in cost from $25 to $30.

“The way our budget was structured before… we could only give [each individual player] up to $20 dollars which is negligible if you look at everything else they have to buy,” Minyety said.

“Apparently, [the women’s rugby team] had been in conversation with the National Guard before because they had needs for uniform and equipment that will make their play more safe and so on,” Vice-President Maurice Eldridge ’61 said. “What the National Guard expected in return … was that the uniforms and equipment would advertise the National Guard.”

Once USA Rugby informed the team that they had been selected to receive the grant, the team learned that the grant would require their jerseys and equipment to be labeled with the words “Go Guard!” as obligated by a year-long contract with the National Guard.

“There was some controversy on our team about whether we should get it or not … for about three weeks,” Mello said. “[Team members] would be opposed to wear a jersey saying ‘Go Guard!’ on it.”

Team members also learned of a possible violation of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) guidelines when students from varsity sports teams wished to continue playing after being sponsored by the National Guard.

“Varsity sport players at Swat wouldn’t be able to play rugby and then go back to playing their sport because they were sponsored by the National Guard,” Mello said. “We had decided for the most part … that we didn’t want to do that because we didn’t want to bar other [varsity players from playing rugby in their off-season.”

Regardless of these disadvantages of the grant, the President’s Office asked the team to decline the National Guard funding in keeping with the college’s Quaker heritage and values.

The team learned of this decision soon after they discussed the grant with the Athletics Department.

According to Mello, the team understood that this type of decision was within the authority of the President’s Office, but were still discouraged.

“They’re trying to preserve the culture of the college, so I understand why they denied us this, but at the same time it was unfair because it was a lot of stuff that would have been cool.”

Mindful of the team’s need for more funds to finance activities and equipment, the President’s Office offered another option to accepting the National Guard grant.

“We suggested that the President’s Office fund their equipment … instead of getting external funding for their needs,” Eldridge said.

Ultimately, Rugby team members were pleased by the administration’s decision to fund the team the same amount as they would have received from the grant.

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »