In the interests of full disclosure, I would like to state that I am a Rec Sports employee. I have taught Group-X fitness classes at both the SERF and the Nat for 2 years.
However, my reasons for supporting the NatUP project go beyond my employment with Rec Sports. Improving and expanding the campus recreational facilities is both a logistical necessity and an atmospheric enrichment. The Natatorium was completed in 1967, at which time the campus enrollment totaled under 30,000 students. According to the Spring 2009-2010 Registrar's Enrollment Report, current enrollment approaches 40,000 students. While the addition of the SERF in the early 1980s was meant to help meet the demands of growing enrollment, an increasingly health-conscious student body has required our facilities to accommodate 537,000 uses between 2008-2009.
How do we know the current facilities do not meet student demand? We use them. As a group fitness instructor, I see students turned away from full classes nearly every week. As a Rec Sports participant outside my classes, I have often paced around the weight room or altered my workout plan due to long waits for machines. While the flow of students through the facilities naturally ebbs and flows at various hours of the day and at various times of year, students are too often unable to get the most out of their Rec Sports usage due to simple overcrowding of the facilities, making improvements to our current structures a logistical necessity.
Further, I believe the investment in the NatUP project will go beyond meeting practical fitness demands. In addition to fitness and workout facilities, Rec Sports offers mind/body classes designed specifically to allow college students to relax, meditate, and reduce their stress levels. Intramural sports teams and annual events such as Wisconsin Wellness Week provide opportunities for students to interact with one another and get to know new people. In these ways, Rec Sports contributes to a positive campus climate at more levels than just that of individual fitness.
Finally, I understand the opposition to an increase in student segregated fees. However, I urge students to think about just what this particular project may offer them. If a student works an additional, say, 7 hours per semester to cover the increase in seg fees, then he or she will recoup that time each semester by saving just 7 minutes of waiting time at the SERF or Nat 4 times per week. $54 per semester adds up to over $100 a year, and as someone who has multiple jobs and loans to pay tuition, I too am wary of capricious increases to our segregated fees. But I strongly encourage the student body to examine the pros and cons of the NatUP project rather than casually dismissing it as just another increase in the bills we pay. I believe the many pros outweigh the cons, and I will be voting yes on the NatUP project April 12-14.
Erica Andrist is a first year student in the School of Medicine and Public Health. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
