Petition for the Retention of the UMBC Tennis Programs and the Expansion of Student-Athlete Rights We, the student-athletes, friends, family members, classmates, and supporters of UMBC Athletics and the Men’s and Women’s Tennis teams, find the current University Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport to be inadequate and permissive of violations of the natural rights to information, transparency, and participation that should be guaranteed to every student-athlete in the Athletic Department’s procedures regarding the potential dissolution of a varsity sport. We find that it is as a result of these inadequacies that the University’s administration was permitted to make the injudicious decision to eliminate the University’s Men’s and Women’s Tennis teams without the involvement of those student-athletes and coaches most significantly affected by such a decision in the decision making process. We therefore urge the University to reinstate the aforementioned tennis programs and rewrite the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport in a manner that expands the rights of student-athletes in order to prevent similar incidences from arising in the future. Section I - For the Reinstatement of the UMBC Men’s and Women’s Tennis Teams We find that the decision to terminate the Men’s and Women’s tennis teams is inconsistent with the section of the University Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport regarding the criteria on which decisions to add or terminate sports are founded. The arguments that the University’s Administration and the UMBC Athletic Department claimed as the basis for the rightful termination of both tennis programs are contradicted by certain undeniable truths that the administration did not acknowledge in its disclosure of information regarding its decision to cut the tennis programs. We find the decision to eliminate the men’s and women’s tennis programs to be an end that the administration and athletics department could have avoided years prior to their ultimate decision. We do not believe that the tennis programs adequately meet any of the criteria considered when terminating a varsity sport. Therefore, we urge the University’s Administration and the Athletic Department to reconsider their previous decision and reinstate both the men’s and women’s tennis programs. I.I Consistency with UMBC’s Image and Mission Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “In making a decision to expand or contract UMBC’s intercollegiate sports program the following criteria shall be considered: 1. Consistency with UMBC's image and mission.” The men’s and women’s tennis teams consistently earn among the highest cumulative grade point averages of any student-athletes within the UMBC Athletic Department. In 2013 Women’s Tennis had the highest GPA of any UMBC team, earning an average GPA of 3.43. The members of both teams also have earned high academic honors within the tennis community. In the 2015 season seven women and four men achieved the distinction of Intercollegiate Tennis Association Scholar-Athletes. The history of academic success from members of both teams demonstrates their commitment to the University’s value of academic achievement. Furthermore, the studentathletes of both teams combined originate from over ten countries spread over three continents,

exhibiting the value of diversity that UMBC has prioritized for many years. We conclude that the members of both teams exemplify values that are consistent with UMBC’s image and mission and therefore the University cannot claim this clause as a basis for any decision regarding the termination of either tennis program. I.II – Availability of Facilities Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “In making a decision to expand or contract UMBC’s intercollegiate sports program the following criteria shall be considered: 2. The availability of facilities that meet NCAA and conference standards.” The University provides a number of tennis courts that comply with NCAA regulations and standards. Additionally, all of the facilities that that are utilized by the members of both tennis teams are available to the general student body, not solely the varsity teams. The cost to maintain the existing tennis courts is low and game day expenses of the tennis teams are the least expensive of any of the University’s varsity teams. According to the federal government, UMBC spends an estimated $79,048 annually on operating costs for Men’s and Women’s Tennis combined, less than every team except women’s volleyball by several thousand dollars. Therefore, we conclude that the availability of facilities that comply with NCAA standards, the accessibility of the tennis program’s resources to the general student body, and the low cost of facility maintenance do not provide a suitable basis for the University to discontinue either of the tennis programs. I.III – Competitive Success and Performance Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “In making a decision to expand or contract UMBC’s intercollegiate sports program the following criteria shall be considered: 3. The record of recent competitive success or anticipated competitive performance once a team is established.” The men’s tennis team earned a winning record of 12-6 in the 2014-2015 season. Additionally, the women’s team earned a record of 8-13 in the 2013-2014 season. In that season more than four of the team’s lost matches were within a won game margin of victory, which demonstrates the competitive nature of the team despite the end results. In these recent seasons both the men’s and women’s programs have exhibited a high standard of athletic excellence consistent with the UMBC policy’s expectations and criteria. Therefore, we find that the level of competitive success achieved by both teams provides neither sufficient evidence to conclude that the future of either program’s success is in jeopardy, nor sufficient evidence to justify the discontinuation of either tennis program. I.IV – Student, Alumni, and Community Support Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states,

“In making a decision to expand or contract UMBC’s intercollegiate sports program the following criteria shall be considered: 4. The record of support and interest from students, alumni, and the community or the anticipation of sufficient support and interest once a team is established.” Within two days of the Administration’s announcement of the termination of the men’s and women’s tennis programs, hundreds of people gathered at the University to attend an event in support of the University’s tennis teams and their coaches. We find that the event itself properly demonstrated the tremendous amount of support that the Men’s and Women’s Tennis programs have from students, friends, and alumni. Therefore, we conclude that both tennis teams have a diverse fan base and sufficient support to preclude any termination on the basis of the aforementioned clause. I.V – Diversity and Gender Representation Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “In making a decision to expand or contract UMBC’s intercollegiate sports program the following criteria shall be considered: 5. The impact on diversity and gender representation consistent with NCAA regulations reflecting the goal that athlete demographics reflect UMBC’s student body profile.” The women’s tennis team consists of nine student-athletes from nine different countries. Similarly, the men’s team consists of eight student-athletes of four different nationalities. The members of the Men’s and Women’s Tennis teams exhibit an undeniably diverse composition of each of their respective teams. Therefore, we find that the discontinuation of the men’s or women’s tennis teams on any basis of failed diversity representation in accordance with NCAA standards of athlete demographics to be insufficient in the current dispute. Furthermore, we find the University’s decision to eliminate the men’s and women’s tennis programs to be inconsistent with the clause on diversity and gender representation in the decision criteria section of the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport. In his email to the UMBC community, Athletic Director Timothy Hall stated, “This step is also consistent with our efforts to maintain compliance with Title IX gender equity requirements for scholarships and operate our athletic programs effectively and efficiently.” However, we find certain inconsistencies with this statement and the statistics regarding gender representation in the UMBC Athletic Department. According to the NCAA, Division I women’s tennis is a headcount sport, a sport in which all athletic scholarships awarded are full scholarships that are given to a limited number of student-athletes. Contrarily, men’s Division I tennis is an equivalency sport according to the NCAA, a sport in which scholarship money can be distributed as the University deems necessary, and in which scholarships can be partial. In Division I NCAA Athletics, Women’s tennis programs can provide 9 full scholarships, while Men’s tennis programs can provide the equivalent of 4.5 scholarships, full or partial in any given year. Although the number of male tennis players receiving scholarship money could be as many as every member on the team, the total number of scholarships lost by eliminating the men’s

program is equivalent to 4.5 full scholarships, while the women lose 9 full scholarships in the absence of their program. This differential is evidence that the decision to cut the programs has a disproportionate financial impact on the women’s tennis players. While we acknowledge that those specific statistics on the surface suggest that the elimination of the tennis programs would be a violation of Title IX and the principle of gender equity, based on failure to provide equal scholarship opportunities to women, we find that the UMBC men’s athletics programs are in fact disproportionately represented. As of 2014, UMBC had more male athletes than female athletes. However, the UMBC Athletic Department awarded women with a disproportionate amount of athletic scholarships to the amount awarded to men. The differences in scholarship money awarded gave women’s athletics a majority of 54 percent of all athletic scholarship money awarded, a difference of approximately $400,000, roughly 20 full scholarships. Even with the proposed termination of the women’s tennis program to help counteract the furthering effects of the termination of a men’s program on gender inequity in scholarships, we find that the University would likely still not achieve total gender equity in scholarship money awarded. Our projections show that men would still be underrepresented by margins of 3 to 4 percent if either or both programs were cut. The decision to terminate both programs will increase the gap between the amount of male and female athletes, but it will also increase the gap between the amount of scholarships provided to athletes of each gender. Terminating either tennis program, or both, will ultimately result in very little change in effectively decreasing gender gaps in both participation and scholarship money awarded, disproving the University’s claims that the decision was made by the University in order to meet gender equity standards. While we as student-athletes and supporters of the student-athletes affected by these decisions prefer to keep the emphasis on the undeniable fact that all the student-athletes on the tennis team are unjustly having opportunities taken away from them, and also prefer to view the studentathletes as humans who deserve respect and the guarantee of certain rights, we acknowledge that the University’s strict concern of money over the well-being of student-athletes, and its sole emphasis on the financial justification for cutting programs must at times be countered with similar financial and legal justifications. With that in mind, and with the information regarding NCAA Scholarships as stated above in mind, it must be stated that the loss of scholarships in the current situation disproportionately affects the school’s male athletes, while it most directly limits the opportunities of female athletes. Therefore, we find that the University’s claim that the decision to cut both programs on the basis of the necessity to “maintain compliance with Title IX gender equity requirements for scholarships” to not only be insufficient based off of the above evidence, but also to be misleading to the student body, as the gender gaps are not sufficiently eliminated. The Title IX sections on gender and sex in the NCAA and University athletics were designed to eliminate inequality in collegiate sports by expanding opportunities for all athletes, regardless of an athlete’s sex or gender, not by equally discriminating against and limiting the opportunities of athletes of both sexes as this decision by the UMBC administration does. For these reasons we conclude that the criteria of diversity and gender representation considered when eliminating a sport has not been sufficiently met by either the men’s or women’s tennis teams. I.VI – Access to a Suitable Conference

Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “In making a decision to expand or contract UMBC’s intercollegiate sports program the following criteria shall be considered: 6. Access to a suitable conference, conference and national championship tournaments as appropriate or, if proposing to eliminate a sport, maintaining membership in a conference.” In his email to the UMBC student body Athletic Director Timothy Hall stated that the decision to discontinue the tennis programs was a reflection of national and conference-wide trends of the declining nature of collegiate tennis. Hall continued and acknowledged that the America East Conference, the conference which UMBC is a member school of, eliminated conferencesponsored tennis over one year ago. Hall further highlighted the fact that the tennis teams are currently participating in the Missouri Valley Conference and that their contract ends at the end of the 2015-2016 academic year. While Hall’s statements regarding the nature of collegiate tennis both nationally and within the scope of UMBC athletics are true, we find these claims to be an oversimplification of the issues, and a diversion from both the responsibilities of the athletic department’s leadership and also the events that preceded the decision to terminate the tennis programs at UMBC. UMBC has been a member school of the America East Conference (AEC) since 2003. We the student-athletes and the supporters of UMBC student-athletes acknowledge that UMBC is a medium to small sized Division I school, in regards to athletics. Although the success of UMBC’s athletic programs throughout the previous decades have exemplified the relevance and highly competitive standard that small and medium sized Division I athletic programs and conferences have continually set, we acknowledge that the nature of small to medium sized Division I athletic conferences are less stable and more susceptible to change than larger Division I athletic conferences such as the ACC, Big 10, and SEC. In the twelve years that UMBC student-athletes have competed in the AEC the conference itself has experienced a substantial amount of change and an irrefutable amount of turmoil, most notably in the previous five years. In 2013 Boston University, the largest school in the conference at the time, left the AEC. The event caused the leadership of member schools, including those at UMBC, to question the sustainability of the AEC. The conference nearly disbanded when Stony Brook University nearly left the conference in the two years after Boston University. While the AEC has regained some stability, the recent threats of conference dissolution, as well as the nature of small to medium sized Division I athletic conferences, suggest that the AEC is an inherently unsustainable conference. Currently, more than ten percent of conference schools do not participate in men’s soccer, more than twenty percent of conference schools do not participate in baseball, men’s lacrosse, softball, women’s lacrosse, and volleyball, and more than forty percent do not participate in women’s swimming or women’s tennis, and in recent years the conference disbanded all men’s swimming and men’s tennis conference sponsorships. Furthermore, even when one does not include field hockey, a sport that UMBC does not maintain, seven of the nine schools in the conference fail to participate in at least one sport, and multiple schools do not to participate in more than one. We emphasize these statistics not as a comparison of worth of the student-athletes or their teams, and

not as a justification for the elimination of other sports programs, but rather as evidence that conference participation in the AEC is unilaterally low. It is our belief that the overall trend in low participation rates should not serve as a justification for the elimination of men’s and women’s tennis programs at UMBC, but rather as a confirmation of the failing nature of the AEC, and the urgency to establish a concrete plan to switch conferences in the event that the AEC dissolves that the UMBC leadership has overlooked and underestimated for several years. We believe that the administration, specifically the leadership within the Athletic Department, bear the responsibility of ensuring that all student-athletes, regardless of sport, should be given the opportunity to compete in a stable conference without fear of being terminated solely because of the sport in which they participate. We believe that it is in the times of disheartening public trends that the university’s leadership must take the firmest stance against changing circumstances and defend the interests of all teams and all student-athletes individually, not only those which are most stable. We believe that one essential aspect of the UMBC Administration’s fundamental responsibility to ensure that all student-athletes are provided with an opportunity to participate is the Athletic Department’s responsibility to adapt to developing negative trends before they become inevitable obstacles. We conclude that the low accessibility to a suitable conference for the men’s and women’s tennis teams to compete in is more distinctly the result of the Department’s failure to uphold its responsibility to adapt to changing and potentially harmful circumstances than it is to any factor that the tennis team’s coaches or athletes could have foreseen or adapted to of their own accord, thus the tennis team cannot justly be terminated as a recourse for the negligent behavior of the administration. Therefore, the administration and its officials alone should bear the burden of these failures and the accessibility of a suitable conference can not be utilized as an adequate basis for the discontinuation of either tennis program. Moreover, we urge the University to continue searching for a more suitable and stable conference in which members of all athletic teams can participate in, including men’s and women’s tennis. I.VII – Financial Analysis Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “In making a decision to expand or contract UMBC’s intercollegiate sports program the following criteria shall be considered: 7. A financial analysis projecting the impact of the proposed action, especially its impact on the Student Athletics Fee, the budgets of the Athletics Department and the university, and staffing requirements.” We find that this section of the policy, particularly when paired with the public statement of Athletic Director Timothy Hall generates numerous inconsistencies in the specific case of the termination of the UMBC Tennis programs, and therefore cannot be used as the basis for the termination of these programs. In his email to the UMBC community, Athletic Director Timothy Hall stated, “The difficult choice to eliminate these teams will provide important stabilizing resources to the UMBC Athletics Department budget, allowing the department to reduce debt, make needed investments in other intercollegiate and recreation programs, and minimize future Student Athletic Fee

increases.” We find that Hall’s claim that the decision to cut tennis would provide resources that could stabilize the department, reduce debt, and minimize athletic fees for the general student population to not only be an inappropriate monetization of the value and worth of the university’s tennis players, but also an unrealistic financial expectation. The tennis teams are among the least expensive teams to maintain because the facilities they utilize require low maintenance and very rarely require renovation. Furthermore, many of the same facilities that the tennis players use, including the tennis courts, the weight rooms, and the RAC are all available to the general student population and maintenance costs related to such facilities would in fact not save any money for the Athletic Department or the student-body in regard to athletic fee expenses, as the department would still be required to maintain these facilities for the student body whether or not the tennis teams were terminated. Beyond the costs of facility management, one of the most notable expenses that the tennis teams generate are travel expenses. We do not find sufficient evidence that the elimination of these costs could provide substantial resources as the Athletic Department suggests. In their 2014-2015 season the men’s tennis team travelled predominately throughout the Capital region in order to attend matches. Virginia, Maryland, and Washington D.C. were the geographic locations of a considerable majority of the matches in which the men participated. Additionally, the women’s tennis team’s travel throughout the 2014-2015 season was generally central to the Mid-Atlantic region. The women’s team travelled mostly to Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and Washington D.C. for the matches in which they participated. Due to the close proximity of each of these locations, which comprised the majority of match locations that the teams travelled to, it is unlikely that travel expenses are a significant burden on the Athletic Department’s budget. Despite Athletic Director Tim Hall’s claims that participation in the Missouri Valley Conference “involves costly and time-consuming travel for student-athletes,” the evidence contradicts Hall’s claims, as the men’s program has already participated in that conference for an entire season and the required travel distances appear to be fixed mostly in the capital region and are no more time-consuming or costly than the travel that any other sport requires like the Athletic Director’s email suggests. Additionally, scholarships are among of the costliest expenditures generated by the tennis teams, however, we find these expenses to be an inadequate basis for the termination of either team. Hall’s implication that the termination of the tennis teams will provide stabilizing resources for the Athletic Department does not account for the University’s legal obligation to provide the scholarship members of each team with scholarship money for the remainder of their time at the University, even without the maintenance of the program itself. Potentially, UMBC will continue to pay thousands of dollars to these student-athletes even in the absence of programs, leading to the accumulation of hundreds of thousands of dollars expended on students who would no longer be providing services to the University. Once again, the emphasis should remain on the general well-being of the student athletes, and we urge the University to view the members of each team as humans and not simply their numerical or monetary worth. However, if the University only perceives the role of athletics as a method of amassing wealth, we would like to call attention to the fact that as a result of the legal obligation to provide scholarships to the student-athletes after the termination of their programs, the University will likely lose money in the immediate half decade in absence of the tennis programs, not gain “stabilizing resources” as it has been suggested.

We further find the suggestion that the termination of either tennis team will reduce debt and minimize fees to be dubious. In addition to the aforementioned reasons why the decision to eliminate the tennis programs is not as fiscally sound as the University has led people to believe, the decision to cut the programs is an inadequate solution to greater financial problems that the administration is experiencing. In 2014, the University proposed the construction of an $85 million athletics facility that will serve as a center for student-athletes and the arena for future basketball games. The facility has been the center of controversy in the months after the proposal was first unveiled. Students of UMBC have experienced a resultant rise in athletic fees and have started to oppose the project deeming it both unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible. Regardless of our individual beliefs about the fiscal responsibility of the construction of said arena, we are uniformly of the belief that such a project should not be carried out at the expense of a vital program. The University and the Athletic Department should only propose ambitious construction projects if the construction is feasible and fiscally possible without the termination of existing programs that students and alumni have supported for decades. The Athletic Department, similarly to its shortsighted decision to remain in a declining athletic conference, made the shortsighted decision to embrace projects which were overly ambitious and improbable. We believe that no program should be terminated on the grounds of the potential financial benefit of its termination if the potentiality of that benefit is determined by fiscally irresponsible leaders whose fiscal analysis has led to budgetary problems in the past. We uniformly believe that the University should only make decisions of this magnitude if it is able to do so responsibly. In light of both the recent proposals made by the Athletic Department and the Administration and the potential financial impact, we find that terminating the men’s and women’s tennis programs could not possibly provide the resources that the Athletic Director suggests, and therefore neither tennis team can rightfully be terminated on this basis. I.XIII – Sufficient Criterion Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “With regard to these criteria, while some criteria may have more or less weight than other criteria in influencing a decision to add or drop a sport, no one criterion alone should determine a particular decision.” The preceding paragraphs provide substantial evidence that the men’s and women’s tennis teams do not adequately meet any of the essential criteria considered by the Administration, the Athletic Department, and the APC as the justification for the proper termination of a varsity sport at UMBC. If no one criterion alone permits the discontinuation of a varsity sport, then logically the discontinuation of two programs which meet none of the required criteria is impermissible and unjust. Therefore, the discontinuation of the UMBC men’s and women’s tennis programs is an injustice that can only be remedied by the reinstatement of both programs. We request that the administration take responsibility for its failed leadership in an alternative method to the punishment of student-athletes who were neither involved in the administrative decisions that resulted in the Athletic Department’s need for budget cuts, nor given the opportunity to defend their program after the University began considering the program’s termination.

Section II- For the Expansion of Student-Athlete Rights We find that the process in which the UMBC Administration and the University’s Athletics Department executed the termination of the Men’s and Women’s Tennis Programs was permissible solely on the basis that the administration followed the process prescribed under the “Eliminating a Sport” and “Rights of Student-Athletes and Coaches” sections of the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport. We are of the belief that the policy itself is written in a manner which limits the rights of student-athletes and their coaches. Furthermore, we believe that the manner in which the policy is written supplies the University’s Administration and Athletics Department with a system in which transparency and community involvement in the decision making process are not required, which promotes the Administration to make decisions without the consultation of those most considerably impacted by these decisions. We conclude that the policy itself provides a foundation for the violation of the inherent rights of participation, consultation, and dignity that every student-athlete should have in the process of terminating a varsity sport. Therefore, we urge the UMBC Administration and the Athletics Department to amend the Policy On Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport to proscribe the following changes for the purpose of expanding the rights of student-athletes. II.I – Student Athlete Consultation Wherein the university’s Policy On Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “It is recommended that the Student Government Association especially be consulted.” The recommendation of consultation of the Student Government Association does not oblige the administration to involve students of the university in the decision process. We request that the university revise this policy to require the university to consult the Student Government Association in any decision regarding the addition or termination of a varsity sports program prior to the final decision of the administration in order to increase administrative visibility and include the student population in the decision making process. Wherein the addition or termination of a varsity sport most substantially affects the university’s student-athletes, student-athletes should have a greater representation in the decision-making procedure. While the consultation of the Student Government Association is an essential step in creating a more transparent climate in the administration’s decision making process, which increases the opportunity for students to have a voice in decisions made on their own behalf, the involvement of the SGA alone does not create a fair process for terminating and adding varsity sports. The SGA represents the student body as a whole, but the organization does not represent the interests of student-athletes specifically. However, the University’s Athletic Department maintains a Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which is comprised of student-athlete leaders who represent the interests of their respective teams and the student-athlete population as a whole. We believe that the decision to add or eliminate a sport most significantly affects studentathletes, thus, the student-athlete community should be specifically involved and adequately represented in the decision making process for these types of decisions. We believe that although the SGA should definitively be involved in the decision making process, they do not adequately represent the interests of the student-athlete community. Therefore, we petition for the required

consultation of the athletic department’s Student Athlete Advisory Committee in any such decision to add or terminate a varsity sport to increase administrative visibility and to include the student-athlete population, which is most directly affected by such decisions, in the decision making process. II.II – Time Frame Wherein the University’s Policy On Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “The APC report should be completed and submitted in a timely manner, usually no later than three weeks after receiving the proposal. If there is a need to make an expedited decision, the APC should do all that it can to meet a time frame recommended by the Athletics Department and President.” We find that the language of this clause permits a rapid process that results in rash decision making. Through this policy the Administration conveys that it values the time of the members of the administration more than it values rational decision making and the lives of studentathletes. The time frame, which actively aims for policy proposals to be completed in three weeks or less, encourages the administration to make policies about student-athletes in too brief a time frame to possibly comprehend the impact. Three weeks or less is not a time frame in which the administration could realistically plan and hold forums to the public, survey studentathletes about the decision, and disseminate information about the policy to the public, all of which are essential steps in making a decision that is transparent and considerate of the potential impact on student-athletes and the entire community. Although we understand that administrative decisions must be made in a timely fashion, we do not believe that the current policy provides an adequate time frame, thus it devalues student-athletes, promotes a lack of transparency, and encourages rash decision making. Therefore, we petition for the elimination of the current clauses on the time-frame in the policy proposal process. We also request that the university replace these clauses with a section that will establish that the time frame for the proposal as only completed when public forums and student-athlete consultation have occurred. II.III – Public Forums Wherein the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport states, “Before making the decision, if practical, it is recommended that the Athletics Director and/or the Vice President of Student Affairs hold public forums, especially with students, to discuss the proposed action.” We find the phrasing of this clause, specifically the phrases, “if practical” and “it is recommended” to be non-prescriptive and highly ambiguous. The phrasing of this clause passively permits the University to not hold public forums. Under this policy, forums are optional, rather than required. Without required holding of public forums the University’s Administration has the unlimited authority to take action with no legal or political obligation to act on the behalf of the students and student-athletes of the University, or at the very least to involve them in the decision making process. The Administration has near limitless authority in

every aspect of its self governance, we believe that if the Administration maintains such unchecked authority, holding required public forums is the least the Administration can do to allow the voices of students and student-athletes to be heard. Therefore, we petition for the requirement of holding public forums in any decision to add or terminate a varsity sport. II.IV – Informing Team Members Wherein the policy states, “Whenever possible, the affected coaches and players shall be informed of a decision to eliminate a sport before the decision is made public.” We find that the specific language and phrasing “Whenever possible” to be overly ambiguous and permissive to an untimely and unprofessional approach to terminating any sports program. The coaches and student-athletes who participate in UMBC’s varsity sports programs have built their lives around the sports they love and their dedication to Retriever athletics. The language of the current policy permits the university to terminate any sports program at any time without any required communication with the student-athletes and coaches of the teams being terminated. Cutting a program results in the firing of the coaches of that program. This could lead to any number of negative circumstances and could ultimately jeopardize the financial, physical, and emotional stability and well-being of the coaches being fired and their families. Additionally, the administration’s ability to eliminate a program at any time without first informing the players of that team could lead to similar financial and emotional distress that could significantly harm any student-athlete. We must emphasize once again that while the University might find it acceptable to dehumanize the student-athletes and coaches and devalue them to nothing more than their monetary worth, we do not. The fact that the UMBC Administration has implemented policies that deny the right of information and the right of security to student-athletes and coaches to be heinous. While we believe that the teams and athletes of the programs have the undeniable right to participate in conversations regarding the termination of their respective programs, we find it imperative that at the very least the University must inform the student-athletes and coaches of a team being terminated that their program will be terminated, so as to allow maximum time to reestablish security before and after the termination. Therefore, we demand that the University amend the clause of informing athletes and coaches to establish a requirement to inform the teams to be cut, not only of the final decision, but also the possibility of being terminated, weeks prior to the announcement to the public. II.V - Dignity Wherein the policy states, “In addition to the criteria listed above, the interests and dignity of the student- athletes, coaches, and alumni involved should be respected in any decision to eliminate or suspend a sport.” We find that the failure to properly include the student-athlete population and their coaches in the decision making process of a team’s termination is inherently a violation of the very clause

that was created to respect the interests and dignity of such student-athletes. Denying studentathletes the right to be involved in conversations regarding their termination, the lack of administrative transparency, the inadequate representation of student-athlete interests in the decision-making process, and the inability of student-athletes to defend their programs from termination that this entire policy permits contradicts the Administration’s suggestion that they in any way seek to respect the interests and dignities of student-athletes. It is impossible for the administration to truly respect these interests and these dignities while simultaneously supporting policies that subdue these interests and deny these student-athletes the most basic of rights. The addition of this clause by the administration appears to be a very thin veil in which the university hopes to cover its reprehensible actions and policies. We find that the very suggestion that the University respects student-athletes to be insulting and we therefore conclude that the administration should either hold true to this ideal completely, or else remove the clause from the policy and be upfront and forthright with the UMBC student-athletes and the community. II.VI - Apologies Finally, we request that the University’s Athletics Director, Timothy Hall, and the related members of the University’s Administration apologize to the members of the Men’s and Women’s Tennis teams and their coaches for the unprofessional manner in which the termination process was executed. Hall had kept the decision to terminate the program from the members of the tennis team and their coaches until only a few hours prior to the decision being made public. We believe that this silence denied the right to information from the student-athletes and their coaches, and amplified the harm of the announcement to discontinue the program. In his meeting with the tennis teams, in which he informed the student-athletes of the termination of their program, Hall failed to demonstrate a sincere apology to the people who had dedicated their lives to the program, and those who will be most negatively impacted by the decision. Furthermore, in his email to the UMBC community, Hall spelled the name of Coach Rob Hubbard incorrectly, calling him Ron, exposing his utter lack of sincerity and professionalism at a time of despair for his department’s own student-athletes and coaches. We believe that Hall’s management of the entire process was inadequate and we therefore request that he publicly apologize to the members of both teams and their coaches. Section III- Conclusion The UMBC Administration and Athletic Department terminated the Men’s and Women’s Tennis teams unjustly because the teams failed to sufficiently meet every standard that would permit the elimination of a team according to University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport. The Men’s and Women’s Tennis Teams did not sufficiently meet the criteria set forth by the University’s policy and thus should be reinstated. Nevertheless, even if the University had concluded that the termination of the tennis teams was the correct decision based on the aforementioned criteria, the UMBC Administration’s adoption of a policy that did not require forums, dissemination of information to student-athletes, coaches, and the general public prior to termination, or consolation of the teams and student-athletes most affected demonstrated the Administration’s lack of respect and professionalism. At no point was any student-athlete or coach given the opportunity to defend their program from termination, nor were they notified at any point in time prior to the final decision that their program was in jeopardy of being

terminated. We conclude that the entire process breeds unprofessionalism, obscurity, and a lack of respect that goes far beyond the elimination of a sports program. Therefore, in addition to the reinstatement of both Tennis Teams we call for the previously stated amendments to the University’s Policy on Adding or Terminating a Varsity Sport, to prevent a similar incident from arising in the future. In his email to the UMBC community, Athletic Director Tim Hall stated that the decision to cut tennis was consistent with a national trend. However, we find that the University’s actions reflect an even larger trend in national athletics. The trend of athletic departments and university administration’s all across the country reducing athletics to nothing more than a business opportunity. As a result of this trend, universities like our own have perceived student-athletes and their coaches to be nothing more than numbers on a page. This very dangerous trend has bred corruption in the NCAA and has served as the basis for the termination of important programs in every region of the country. It has allowed administrators and businessmen to profit off of athletes whose humanity they fail to acknowledge. This trend has allowed collegiate athletics to deviate so drastically from the original spirit of athletics that the very culture of athletics has become destructive, standing in stark contrast to the values of respect, sportsmanship, and an inclusive culture that the NCAA and its member schools tout as their core values. While this University and Athletic Department might pander to this trend, we will no longer sit in silence. In order to break this trend, we choose to defend our brothers, our sisters, and ourselves, when the administration benefits from our defenselessness. We choose to be the voices of our brothers, our sisters, and ourselves, while the administration benefits from our silence. We choose to fight for the undeniable rights of our brothers, our sisters, and ourselves, when the very department which benefits from our successes and which is designed to fight for our interests has abandoned our cause. Therefore, we request that the University reinstate the men’s and women’s tennis teams and amend the current policies to provide protections for the unacknowledged, yet undeniable rights of student-athletes.