Someone probably smarter than I am once said that in order to grow and progress, we must be willing to change.
It has been 60 years since the first "Ivy Group Agreement" for football was signed, which marked the beginning of the Ivy League as we know it today.
It has been more than 50 years since the agreement was extended to all intercollegiate sports in the Ivy League, with official leaague play beginning in 1956.
Since then, several changes have taken place in Ancient Eight athletics.
Not until 1976 were female athletes subject to the same rules as male athletes. Only in 1980 did freshmen become eligible to compete in all varsity sports. The academic index, which provides a formula to measure whether recruits are eligible academically, was instituted in the past decade.
And yet, while many things have changed, most things have largely stayed the same.
The fundamental principles of the Ivy League -- no athletic scholarships, recruiting athletes who are "representative" of the student body, offering only need-based aid and an absence of postseason football games -- have seldom been debated by Ivy presidents, let alone changed.
I am not going to argue that athletic scholarships would improve Ivy League athletics, nor will I contend that the current state of Ivy League athletics necessarily needs to be changed.
But based on discussions with several Penn coaches and Penn's athletic director, Steve Bilsky, there seems to be a growing consensus that the Council of Ivy League Presidents should -- at the very least -- re-examine the Ancient Eight's core principles in order to determine if they are still appropriate and effective today.
"I'm not sure if athletic scholarships would be better or worse," Bilsky said. "I just resist people who say, 'we can't talk about that, it's a principle from 50 years ago and therefore it's off limits.'"
"We should be able to discuss anything," he added. "We might conclude in the end that merit aid should be sustained even stronger today than it was 50 years ago.
"But to just not have the debate simply because it is uncharted territory and a founding principle, you can't progress with an attitude like that."
Instituting athletic scholarships -- or merit-based aid as a whole -- would increase the pool of available recruits and therefore attract both better athletes and better students. It would also allow for a rise in the academic index without reducing the Ivy League's ability to compete outside of its conference, Bilsky said.
Men's basketball coach Fran Dunphy supports any debate that will improve the Ivy League, athletically or otherwise.
"It's healthy to discuss issues that make for beneficial changes to our institutions," he said. "The Ivy League does [balancing athletics and academics] as good as anyone does, and we should be very proud of our product.
"But we should also look for ways to improve it."
There is a huge disparity among Ivy League schools in terms of how much importance is placed on athletics. Penn, for example, certainly values athletics more than Dartmouth does.
If the fundamental Ivy League principles are debated, there will likely be sharp differences between Penn's stance and Dartmouth's. But that does not mean that these issues should not be discussed.
Bilsky likened the struggle between Ivy League presidents and athletic directors to an "unstated tug-of-war."
"When Ivy League teams win NCAA championships, there is one group of presidents who are wondering, 'Is it because we sacrificed our principles and philosophies?'" Bilsky said. "The other group would say, 'We're successful because we bring in such great kids, like in so many other aspects of the university.'
"I'm obviously in the second camp."
There are a number of compelling reasons to institute athletic scholarships. From a sports perspective, it would increase the pool of potential recruits, which in turn would attract better athletes -- and better students. From a more general standpoint, merit-based aid would attract better musicians and better artists, and it would enhance the campus atmosphere.
"The strongest argument is not from an athletics standpoint," Bilsky said. "It's the people who say, 'Would our universities be better if we gave merit aid to everyone, not just athletes? Would that make our campus more interesting, more diverse?'
"I think that's a reasonable debate."
There are also a number of good reasons not to institute athletic scholarships. As the recent NCAA survey revealed, many universities fall far short of the NCAA's academic progress rate. The Ivy League should certainly be proud of the high marks it received.
"In many ways, the Ivy League represents all that is good about intercollegiate athletics," said Scott Rosner, a Legal Studies lecturer and the principal of Hudson Sports Consulting. "It comes as close as one can hope to the idea of intercollegiate athletics."
That does not mean, however, that Ivy League presidents should be content with the status quo.
"The athletic administration should certainly take a look at the current system," Rosner added. "It's never a bad idea to do a self-review."
Indeed, it is all too easy to say that athletic scholarships should be instituted merely because they would improve the quality of Ivy League athletic programs. But it is also too easy to avoid debating important issues simply because they are 60 years old.
"If it is such a good principle, then discuss it, debate it, shout out the pros and cons," Bilsky said. "Maybe it still makes sense, maybe it makes even more sense now than it did 50 years ago, or maybe it doesn't, and maybe it's time to change it."
"You can't get to that point if you don't have reasonable people willing to discuss it," he added. "Until now it's kind of been a dead-on-arrival type thing."
Penn men's lacrosse coach Brian Voelker would certainly benefit from having athletic scholarships. But he points out that the quality of an Ivy League education also helps to lure high-quality student athletes.
"I think athletic scholarships are probably never going to happen," he said. "But it would affect recruiting a lot."
"There's no doubt we lose kids because of money," he added. "But we also get kids because of the academic reputation at Penn."
In English professor John Stuart Katz's documentary film class, he once wrote on the board, "Question everything," and then said, "That's all you need to learn from college."
The Council of Ivy League Presidents would set a great example for its students by discussing and re-examining core Ivy League philosophies and principles.
As Bilsky said, "I'm not in favor of, or against, athletic scholarships. I do favor discussion."
I urge the Council of Ivy League Presidents to discuss and debate these issues. There will likely not be any major changes that result, but it would nonetheless help to justify the current system.
Avoiding the debate merely out of fear of change contradicts the lessons the Ivy League is trying to instill in its students and runs counter to any progress it hopes to achieve.
Josh Pollick is a junior political science major from Los Angeles. His e-mail address is jpollick@sas.upenn.edu.
