The following is a letter from Jim Hurt, head coach at st. johns. again the AD is David Wegrzyn, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 718-990-6153; university president Fr Donald Harrington 718-990-6307.the petition website is http://savesjutrack.tripod.com Dear St. John’s Cross Country, Track & Field Student-athletes, Parents, Alumni, & Friends of track & field, On Thursday, December 12th, St. John’s University announced that the Board of Directors had approved a strategic plan for the athletic department that eliminates men’s cross country, men’s indoor track & field, and men’s outdoor track & field at the conclusion of the outdoor season in 2003. Women’s cross country, women’s indoor track & field and women’s outdoor track & field will continue to be sponsored by the University. In addition to the elimination of Men’s cross country, track & field, the men’s football and men’s & women’s swimming program are also being discontinued. The strategic plans call for the sponsorship of men’s Lacrosse to begin in the 2003-2004 academic year. St. John’s currently has eleven men’s and eleven women’s programs and will now have ten women’s programs and seven men’s programs. I am dismayed, disheartened, disappointed, and intensely dissatisfied with the strategic plan that eliminates our men’s programs in cross country, indoor and outdoor track. I acknowledge and appreciate the support of the University for a program that has trophies that date to 1884. The program has produced seven Olympians that have represented St. John’s at Olympic Games in Rome (Peter Close –1500m) in 1960, Tokyo (Tom Farrell – 800m) in 1964, Mexico City (Tom Farrell – 800m) in 1968, Moscow (Kim Thomas – 4 x 400m) in 1980, Atlanta (Roman Linscheid – hammer & Kawan Lovelace –triple jump) in 1996, & Sydney ( Ian Roberts – 800m & Pat Jarrett – 100m) in 2000. Tom Farrell’s Bronze medal in the 800m at the Mexico games after his placing 5th in Tokyo is the crowning moment of a long & storied program history. As recently as 1996 the men’s cross country program placed 17th at the NCAA championships after placing 2nd in the IC4A championships. Since 1993 ten men’s track & field athletes have earned ALL-AMERICAN status. In addition, teams and individuals have won ACADEMIC ALL-AMERICAN honors, Big East post-graduate scholarships, and a NCAA post-graduate scholarship. This past year, two 1998 graduates were among the top five in their event in the USA as Chris Graff placed 5th in the USA outdoor 10,000m championships and John Honerkamp ran 2:22 for 1000m the third fastest performance by an American runner. While recognizing the right and responsibility of the administration to administer the University programs to best benefit the institution as a whole, I cannot accept the decision to eliminate the men’s cross country, indoor, and outdoor programs while adding a new men’s program as the best solution to the problems that currently face the athletic department. The sport of cross country, indoor and outdoor track & field has always been inclusive in providing opportunities for all due to the number and variety of events offered in the sport. One’s height, weight, economic status, nor skin tone, pose a barrier to anyone interested in going faster, further, or higher. The sport has always been universal (Catholic) in nature, beginning with the first Olympic Games in 776BC and today is contested by all races and all peoples around the globe. Track & field is the second most participated sport in high school with high participant levels in the Metropolitan area and on Long Island. Last year the SJU track & field program performed in front of over 120,000 spectators and on national television in such events as the Millrose Games and Penn relays. By implementing the strategic plan as announced on Thursday, the administration will eliminate opportunities for a diverse population and replace them with opportunities for a very exclusive and regional population . For a University, whose main campus and athletic department is located in Queens, the most culturally diverse community in America, such a decision is at best being obtuse to the University’s Vincentian tradition to help those who need it most and its commitment to cultural diversity in its mission statement. At worst, the University’s action, if calculated and deliberate, could be considered morally and ethically wrong, and reprehensible in every way. I certainly understand the stresses and challenges that face the athletic department in being financially responsible, managing facility limitations, and meeting Title XI, NCAA, and other requirements and the need for a comprehensive plan to address these problems. But from the explanations of the strategic plan by the administrators at our coaching staff meeting and later team meeting, the choices of the plan are inconsistent and inexplicable. The elimination of all the deposed programs does address the financial demands, the facility issues, and the NCAA & Title IX requirements and appears to do so quite effectively. The need to sponsor seven men’s programs in order to meet the NCAA requirement for Division I basketball requires the addition of a seventh men’s program. The addition of men’s Lacrosse rather than the preservation of an existing sport is a choice that is difficult to understand. The Lacrosse program will number around 35 which is the same number as on our men’s cross country, track & field roster. Because cross country (12 team members), indoor track & field (35), and outdoor track & field (35) each count separately, the programs countable numbers balloon to 82 when added together even though in actuality the same 35 student-athletes make up the three teams. The number count is the reason why eliminating our three programs along with football & men’s swimming help the gender equity ratios in athletics to mirror the general student-population currently on our campus, a component of Title IX compliance. Since the numbers (35), finances (scholarship and operating budgets), & facilities (use of the same stadium on campus) for cross country, track & field and Lacrosse will be similar, retaining either the indoor or the outdoor program rather than re-establishing Lacrosse would meet the challenges faced by the strategic plan. The elimination of either the indoor program or outdoor program with the retention of the other will keep the total number down to 35, the same number as the addition of Lacrosse. In fact, the financial requirements may be significantly less due as the women’s cross country, track & field program is continuing and currently shares coaching staff with the men’s program. Similar savings occur regarding operating budget due to combined travel, shared office space, media publications, support personnel such as trainers, etc.. In addition, because the same individuals run cross country and also compete in track & field, men’s cross country could be retained by keeping the number for cross country at twelve and for either the indoor or outdoor program (whichever is retained) to 23 for total of 35. With prudent recruiting and coaching and the dormitories, it is possible to continue the national stature of the program with those numbers. Thus it is quite possible to continue with a men’s cross country team and either an indoor or outdoor program and still meet the challenges addressed by the strategic plan. I am urging all those who have interest and concern to make it known that the decision made regarding the men’s cross country, track & field program at St. John’s is flawed, needs to re-examined, and two of the three programs re-instated. Such reinstatement continues to provide opportunities for those who need it most, preserves a long history that dates back to the earliest years of the University, and demonstrates that the University is true to its mission. Retaining two of the three programs also reduces the need to disrupt the lives of thirty-five young men who have made a commitment to attend St. John’s University. Cross country, track & field is universal in nature, multi-cultural in its opportunities, fiscally responsible in its administration, and internationally successful in its tradition. The men’s program has always represented the very best that St. John’s can and should be. As a nationally recognized and respected program, men’s cross country , track & field has earned and demands its continued place in the St. John’s University and cross country, track & field communities. I thank you for your time, consideration, and cooperation in this most important matter. Please make your concerns heard at the highest possible levels where they can have the most positive impact to rectify the current situation. Sincerely,
James V. Hurt, Coordinator of Men’s & Women’s Cross Country, Track & Field
