Beating a dead pony

While much has been made of the passions aroused on this campusover the issue of affirmative action, much less has been said ofthe other matter that seemed to provoke a considerable amount ofrancor lately. While the Ed Board did mention this last Friday, Ithink the whole affair needs to be examined in more depth. Afterthat, I hope the issue goes away, but I may be engaging in wishfulthinking here.

Two Fridays ago, the Editorial Board’s editorial expressedits belief that SMU’s Shetland pony mascot was inadequate forits mission of standing/galloping around on the field, and that alarger horse (such as an actual mustang) might be more suitable.Personally, I glanced at the column and gave it little thought,which was probably a good idea. Just look at what happens when Itry to give it some thought:

Personally, I know very little about equines, and this may havesomething to do with why I find it so hard to care about thematter, much less take a side. On the one hand, conventional wisdomwould indicate that a small horse would be easier to control, thusproviding something of a biological failsafe mechanism against theunfortunate possibility of the horse deciding that it really wantedto go for the gusto, whatever that might entail. Even if it triedto do something beyond its job description, I imagine its handlerscould eventually manage to put a stop to it. A larger horse couldwreak all kinds of havoc, and while I would probably enjoy that, Idoubt the administration would. On the other hand, our sports teamsare nicknamed “The Mustangs,” and thus having aShetland pony on the field is fairly ridiculous. How would it lookif the University of Washington (“The Huskies”) hadsomeone with a beagle on a leash, wandering around before the gamestarts? Perhaps the University of Washington does not use liveanimals at all (I have no idea), but you get the point.

Wasn’t that awful? What difference does it all make? Itmakes a lot of difference to some people, evidently. When I lookedat the online edition of The Daily Campus, the editorial hadreceived an extraordinary number of comments, 18 in total.Subsequent commentators continued to deal with the issue, and someof them were genuinely angry. They seemed to be upset for tworeasons. First, they liked the present mascot. Second, they wereoffended that the Editorial Board consistently laments the lack ofschool spirit on this campus, only to suggest a change in traditionthat would probably further decrease the level of spirit. I thinkwhat we have here is a case of people begging the question.

I would never consider the prowess of a university’sathletics when deciding whether or not to attend. Many observers ofhigher education in America have been pointing out for some timethat big-time sports are quite detrimental to many large stateuniversities and to a number of private universities as well. Theseschools generally don’t have much of a problem garneringschool spirit, but it frequently comes at a considerable cost tothe primary mission of universities, which is, lest we forget, tofoster higher education.

I’m not sure whether or not SMU falls into this category.It certainly is not an institution best described as a footballteam with a school attached, and yet I sometimes get the feelingthat there are a lot of people striving to make SMU just like that.We certainly aren’t the University of California at SantaCruz “Banana Slugs,” who chose their nickname todemonstrate that they were not intent on taking sports tooseriously. I think some universities manage to strike a veryhealthy balance. Harvard, for instance, has the largestintercollegiate athletics program in the country. They offer 41varsity sports, and I don’t think anyone would call themunhealthily fixated on athletics.

If we assume that SMU’s perceived lack of school spirit isa problem, and I’m not sure that it is, why isn’tanybody asking the tough questions about why this situationpersists? What prevents SMU from taking an approach to athleticsthat is both sensible and spirited? The answers to those questions,and other, more serious ones, require taking a harsh look atexactly what kind of place SMU really is. I doubt anyone in powerhas any intention of taking that look.