Sunday’s article about the Dartmouth men’s basketball team’s effort to unionize may have left some erroneous impressions. I offer here my own perspective as a retired Dartmouth professor and former academic advisor to the men’s team. I have not consulted with any Dartmouth official about this matter.

The article opens with a statement that players “were summoned by their coaches” to meet with members of the Friends of Dartmouth Basketball, a booster club of alumni and others (my wife and I are members) in meatspace and on Zoom. The opening paragraph is immediately followed by the information that the player leading the union effort seems less than thrilled: His “night’s work on this particular Thursday was only getting started.”

The implication is that the coaches were making at least some of the student-athletes do something they would rather not do, all for the entertainment of the boosters. This could be construed as required participation in fundraising, something the college’s lawyers deny. I do not recall any overt fundraising appeals at the several Friends events I have attended, though I do get e-mailed appeals to increase my modest contribution.

What I am more certain of is that the undergraduate players get something out of such events: connections with alums and community members who want to help them after they have graduated. Inducing players to attend with pizza is the least of their rewards. One of the attractions for Ivy League recruits, aside from the fact that their education will earn them considerably higher salaries, is that the helpful alumni stay connected to the program. In my experience, Dartmouth has played this hand well.

The reporter, Jim Kenyon, later in the article writes that he reached out to head basketball coach David McLaughlin to get his side of the story. He “politely declined” an interview. One might infer from this that Mr. Kenyon wanted to get the coach’s side of the story, but the coach simply would not cooperate. But Mr. Kenyon has made a mini-career of criticizing Dartmouth employment practices and policies. He knows that Coach McLaughlin is aware of the perils of speaking out. To say anything outside of the now-formalized National Labor Relations Board procedures would almost surely complicate the college’s legal position and perhaps result in substantial fines from the Board for interfering with unionization. Kenyon’s attempt to appear fair and balanced by asking McLaughlin to talk with him seems disingenuous.

I volunteered to be the team’s academic advisor several years ago and observed first hand the practices and management of the two most recent men’s coaches. My loyalty was to the players, and I wanted to make sure they were getting the best educational experience they could. I never saw a coach do anything that would pass as more demanding than a classroom professor’s requirements. Getting to practice on time (or to bed while on the road) was no different than getting to class and handing in papers on time. And I never had any evidence that players were asked to skip classes or delay exams without their professors’ permission.

I have no inside knowledge about the players’ concerns that would lead them to attempt to unionize. I can only report my family’s interactions with past teams, which included having them to our home for dinner. (Not exceptional: We fed student advisees for years before my involvement with the team.) The players back then seemed well satisfied with the program. Their only complaint was that they did not win often enough. I am sure that the current team shares the same goals.

Bill Fischel is a professor emeritus of economics at Dartmouth College. He lives in Hanover.