As fried dough and popcorn lined the Charles River for this weekend’s Head of the Charles Regatta, many members of the Radcliffe crew team were sporting shirts to protest a new Ivy League rule mandating seven weeks of “dead time” for each sport during the academic year. The new policy, created last summer by the Ivy League presidents, requires that each sport set aside seven weeks when group practices, practice with coaches and supervised athletic conditioning are all prohibited. The policy intends to reduce the intensity of varsity sports and provide athletes with more freedom to participate in other activities. In practice, however, this misguided rule will prevent athletes from choosing how they wish to practice and hinder them from competing at their best.

As the crew protest demonstrates, the new policy expressly contradicts the wishes of the people it is supposed to benefit: student athletes. Many athletes are intensely committed to their sport and would prefer to practice year-round rather than take an artificial break. Several have already indicated that they intend to break the rule and practice with their team—putting them in an unfair position where improving their athletic ability is deemed an illegitimate use of time. Even those who legally train alone will not receive advice from coaches. And since other non-Ivy schools have no such policy, Harvard’s teams will be put at a disadvantage.

One premise of the policy is that varsity time requirements pressure athletes to provide such a high commitment that it is harmful to their academic career. Yet no one forces athletes to compete; those who continue to play sports at the varsity level have freely and enthusiastically chosen to practice here at a high intensity. Harvard’s financial aid speaks to this—student athletes are only given aid for financial need, not athletic ability, and Harvard athletes never lose their aid even if they quit the team. And for those who decide they do not want a varsity-level commitment, Harvard’s athletic program provides various options, like club sports, intramurals and junior varsity teams. In addition, Ivy League and NCAA rules already limit the amount of time teams can practice.

It is perhaps most upsetting that the Ivy presidents have singled out the intensity of varsity athletics as a problem. Harvard does not limit the amount of time a student may spend on non-athletic activities; it would be ludicrous if the Ivy League decided to reduce time students spend producing a play, tutoring local children or working on the newspaper.

There are far better ways to improve athletes’ academic experiences than creating two months of “dead time.” One main complaint from athletes is the lack of choice for classes and concentrations, since athletic practices often prevent them from attending certain classes. For example, varsity athletes who have afternoon practices are often pigeonholed into concentrations whose classes often meet in the morning. This could be remedied with better coordination between the athletic and academic departments so that athletes could have an easier time attending classes of all concentrations.

Unfortunately, the current rule does not address these more important problems. It merely ensures that student athletes are subjected to a different standard than other students, to the detriment of their teams and their athletic experiences.