To the editors:

The bashing of student-athletes in your pages (Op-Ed, “Ending Athletic Preference,” April 29) has far exceeded its 15 minutes of fame. The latest piece by Nicholas F. Josefowitz ’05, is particularly insulting to student-athletes. Harvard is the way it is because the university recognizes that one’s college education is broadened through social and intellectual interaction with a group of peers different than oneself. As much as it kills some introverted geniuses, that group necessarily includes athletes. It is through these student-athletes that Harvard is most often represented to the public and at other universities.

Many opinions expressed in The Crimson take the stance that Harvard and its student body make a painful compensation for athletes. Let me propose a different way for those critics, like Josefowitz, to consider the issue. Harvard athletes are Division I athletes. They are recruited by hundreds of schools, including the likes of Stanford, Berkeley, Rice, and Duke. At some point, a Harvard athlete decides that he or she values a world-class education, and athletics as a way to receive one. The athlete could easily accept that five-year full scholarship from Stanford, but she or he makes an enormous monetary sacrifice to attend Harvard instead. Harvard offers absolutely nothing to its athletes that it does not offer to other students. Athletes accept this added economic challenge and embrace Harvard athletics for four years. There is no fanfare, little sympathy and small recognition as a Harvard student-athlete. I did not choose Harvard to end up on ESPN or to enjoy national media attention. Despite their critics and difficult schedules, Harvard student-athletes often go on to become Harvard’s most successful graduates in all professional realms, including board rooms, operating rooms, court rooms and, yes, even playing fields.

M. Katie Gates ’02

April 29, 2002

The writer is co-captain of the Harvard women’s varsity basketball team.