The place of intercollegiate athletics at an elite university like UC Berkeley can be contentious even during a championship run. On this campus, it's generally been presumed that though some teams may not generate revenue, those that do (e.g. men's basketball) bring in enough to fund the others. That presumption has been blown out of the water with the recent revelation that students' fees and campus money have been partially funding sports for years.

After the disclosure that a campus loan has helped cover the athletics department's deficit in recent years, critical faculty members have proposed recommending that the campus move athletics to a self-supporting budget immediately. Such a move could spell the beginning of the end for a good number of the current 27 varsity teams fielded by UC Berkeley students.

We agree with the critics on some points. Campus administrators should have been upfront about this funding for the athletics department once it started providing money, and especially student fees, to help cover the deficit. With such a contentious budgeting situation this year, transparency must be a prerequisite in making allocations of increasingly scarce resources.

However, the faculty's singling out of sports merely takes advantage of an obvious scapegoat. It's clear that some department employees, most notably football coach Jeff Tedford, have higher salaries than most on the campus payroll. But the Tedford example is an exception, not the rule. Moreover, the sports that are not profitable generally do not employ coaches with unreasonable salaries; those that do are the revenue-generating sports that are self-supporting and also serve to fund other teams.

Funding of sports with student fees is no different than other campus resources. All students fund student groups, for example, with our campus-based fees despite the fact that a small percentage of students actually join any one group. If it's justified that UC Berkeley Model United Nations receives students' fee money, why wouldn't the same logic hold for the nationally ranked women's crew team?

Though sports are not academic, it's unfair to assume they hold no value to this campus. Traditionally, the spectator-heavy sports (e.g. football) have been valued because they provide a rallying point and important source of school spirit for our varied student body and wide alumni network. Though anyone who has attended Big Game can attest to this statement, the value of sports goes beyond their entertainment value and the allegiance they often yield.

A large campus like UC Berkeley can be isolating, but it also provides virtually endless opportunities for students to shape their own undergraduate experience in a unique way. Hundreds of clubs and student groups may not hold value for every single student, but the value they provide for those that do participate is justification enough.

In the future, any loans ought to be fully disclosed by the campus and repaid by the department. And like all other departments, athletics must trim its budget and find better ways to fundraise and operate efficiently. But eliminating these programs altogether would seriously damage the undergraduate experience of UC Berkeley students and detract from the campus's appeal to the wider population.