If an alumni gives a large endowment to the school to keep an athletic program alive, as was the case with wrestling, there may well be a legal case against the school for cutting that athletic program. Obviously, it would depend on the language of the legal document, if any exists, memorializing the endowment. If there was no legal document, then the intent of the parties would need to be determined by looking at other evidence.
Another legal avenue sports advocates could explore is to look at "implied use" of general donations made to the school by alumni and other outside organizations. For example, if Jane Doe played field hockey at Stanford 30 years ago and decides that she wants to share her great fortunes by donating to the school so other young women can have the opportunity to enjoy a sport she had so much fun playing, she may feel betrayed by Stanford for cutting field hockey. Even though she may not have attached specific conditions to her donation, she may argue that she would not have made the donation if she knew Stanford was going to cut her former sport. There might be hundreds or thousands of Jane Does out there that made donations to Stanford on the assumption that the sport(s) they loved to follow would continue. Brought together in a class action lawsuit, these donors could put tremendous pressure on Stanford to bring back sports that can self-fund. Sure, Stanford might win such a lawsuit on technical legal grounds. But, a non-profit never wants to go to war with its benefactors.
It would be interesting to hear the opinion of the administrators of the Buck/Cardinal club. I would guess that many of its donors are not happy about these cuts.
What makes Stanford stand out as the pinnacle of colleges and Universities worldwide is its combined excellence in academics and athletics. Moving away from prominence in athletics will diminish Stanford and relegate it to the true "Harvard of the West Coast."
Another legal avenue sports advocates could explore is to look at "implied use" of general donations made to the school by alumni and other outside organizations. For example, if Jane Doe played field hockey at Stanford 30 years ago and decides that she wants to share her great fortunes by donating to the school so other young women can have the opportunity to enjoy a sport she had so much fun playing, she may feel betrayed by Stanford for cutting field hockey. Even though she may not have attached specific conditions to her donation, she may argue that she would not have made the donation if she knew Stanford was going to cut her former sport. There might be hundreds or thousands of Jane Does out there that made donations to Stanford on the assumption that the sport(s) they loved to follow would continue. Brought together in a class action lawsuit, these donors could put tremendous pressure on Stanford to bring back sports that can self-fund. Sure, Stanford might win such a lawsuit on technical legal grounds. But, a non-profit never wants to go to war with its benefactors.
It would be interesting to hear the opinion of the administrators of the Buck/Cardinal club. I would guess that many of its donors are not happy about these cuts.
What makes Stanford stand out as the pinnacle of colleges and Universities worldwide is its combined excellence in academics and athletics. Moving away from prominence in athletics will diminish Stanford and relegate it to the true "Harvard of the West Coast."
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.