I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion in the College’s student newspaper. I strongly opposed elimination of the physical education degree requirement and would like to briefly explain why and offer an approach to restoring a previously essential component of the Dickinson education. 

One of the principal arguments posed by student representatives for eliminating this degree requirement, reflected in the APSC resolution, was that physical education was not being effectively delivered through the existing PE classes. I am not challenging this assertion because neither the student representatives nor the Athletic Department offered evidence to the contrary. 

The Athletic Department’s position, as reflected in Ms. Struck’s recent Dickinsonian article, “Modern Coaches Recruit with Admissions”, is that their top priority has always been and remains the recruitment of student-athletes, but that this important function has changed significantly – with increased time and effort needed to reach the same goals. The Athletic Department has and continues to play a critical role in the admissions process at Dickinson. Each year, through their recruiting efforts, close to 25% of the incoming class is attained as a high yield, high retention and highly talented cohort of the student body. The conclusion that the Division III “modern coach” is primarily an admission’s officer, without the time or training to deliver physical education, much like Division I, is not what I am questioning. Instead, I challenge the conclusion that because of this, the physical education requirement had to be eliminated. 

During this debate, I have heard no one claim that effective physical education is not valuable. I will not attempt to detail here the extensive and conclusive research demonstrating physical, cognitive, and psychological health benefits from effectual exercise. The global obesity epidemic and its well-established health risks are undeniable, and have been largely attributed to changes in the global food system that promotes energy-rich, but nutrient-poor foods, along with reduced physical activity. I believe the College has an obligation to provide all students with the knowledge and skills necessary to make personal decisions about how they will achieve wellness.

As Dickinsonians, I hope our first reaction to all problems is to find solutions. When something of value appears to be broken, we should attempt to repair it. I reject the notion that we cannot find the will and resources to provide meaningful wellness education to everyone at the College. I believe it is critical to deliver wellness education as a degree requirement to ensure that all students have the opportunity to establish and maintain a level of fitness and well-being of their informed choice, and to affirm the College’s commitment to this aspect of your education. 

I am asking you to join me in finding new ways to establish a more broadly defined wellness education degree requirement. This education could be provided by all stakeholders at the College, including students, in ways that require minimal new resources and increased flexibility. Let’s not be satisfied to celebrate the elimination of a failed system of delivery of a valuable part of the Dickinson degree – let’s fix it.