CarolineC’s whereIstand Blog

“Taser This: F**k Bush.”

That was the entire article written by David McSwane that was published in the Colorado State University student newspaper. Yep. That’s all. Title, body, and content. The editorial ran in the September 21 edition of the Rocky Mountain Collegian, and has since been the subject of huge controversy both at the university and of course as a national example of the limits of the First Amendment.

McSwane now stands to lose his job as editor-in-chief of the paper. On Wednesday night (September 26), over 300 students filled the classroom where McSwane was being questioned by the Board of Student Communications (a panel made up of six students and three faculty), not to be outdone by the 200 more outside the building—some held signs with “Fire McSwane,” some wearing “F**k Bush” t-shirts with their mouths covered in duct tape.

McSwane himself does not seem to get what the big deal is. He cited college culture as an excuse, stating that “I think a lot of people forget that we are a college paper…we hear the “f” word all the time” (cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/cnnu.editor/index.html ).

But part of the deal seems to be the purely practical consequences of his article. Already, the Collegian has had over 18 advertisers pull out funds, causes CSU’s student media program to lose upwards of $50,000. The University as a whole is worried about losing alumni support.

So the campus is divided. And of course the defense is the First Amendment. Which I think makes sense. Technically, McSwane had the right to publish his editorial—even if he did not clear it with the other editors or the faculty advisor before the newspaper had hit the stands. But should he have?

To me it just seems like poor taste and an abuse of the First Amendment and of his power as representative of the student body. Sure, it was a nice, concise message…but I think we can all agree that substance was a casualty of shock value. That seems like a good reason for firing him: He just did not do a very good job at his job.

But still, I am not sure if firing him is the right move. McSwane said he wrote the message to ignite debate on the campus, so clearly he was successful in his venture, perhaps just not in his methods.

Another problem seems to be that McSwane is using its presence as a college newspaper as grounds for defending his use of the f-bomb. Just because students may swear more, does not mean it has a place in public debate or publication. Imagine if he were to show up to class and start throwing profanities around—not only would it show disrespect for the professor, but almost more importantly, the argument would get lost in the clutter of curse words. There is a time and a place and I do not think that youth is an excuse for a lack of boundaries.

The Board of Student Communications is meeting today (Thursday) to decide McSwane’s fate. Taser This: F**k Bush seems a harmful abuse of the First Amendment, but one lawfully protected nonetheless.

I am torn and I think it will be interesting to see what they decide and what the repercussions are either way.

whereIstand Tags

• TomTancredo
• HowardDean
• Should there be limitations on freedom of expression?

www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/18/new-view-cohost-sherri_n_64864.html

The world is round. Sort of one of those…fact things. You know, like 1+1=2, B comes after A in our alphabet, grass is usually green, etc. Sort of indisputable.

Or so I thought until I saw a video of The View from last Thursday.

On September 18, during their usual banter and debate, Whoopi Goldberg put newby Sherri Shepard on the spot by asking her if the world was flat. The following dialogue ensued:

SHERRI SHEPHERD: Is the world flat? (laughter)
GOLDBERG: Yes.
SHEPHERD: …I don’t know.
GOLDBERG: What do you think?
SHEPHERD: I… I never thought about it, Whoopi. Is the world flat? I never thought about it.
BARBARA WALTERS: You’ve never thought about whether the world was round or flat?
SHEPHERD: I tell you what I’ve thought about. How I’m going to feed my child-
WALTERS: Well you can do both.
SHEPERD: …how I’m going to take care of my family. The world, is the world flat has never entered into, like that has not been an important thing to me.
ELIZABETH HASSELBECK: You’ll teach your son, Jeffery, right? SHEPHERD: If my son, Jeffery, asks me ‘is the world flat,’ I guess I would go…
JOY BEHAR: You know, didn’t some person already work this question out? I mean, why are we doing this again? (laughter, applause)

I’m with Joy on this one. When first watching the youtube video, I thought, well now that’s a silly thing to ask. And pretty patronizing on Whoopi’s part to demand such a rhetorical question of someone on live television. But wait. She said “I don’t know????

Seriously?

The debate began because Shepard had stated some points of view that revealed her literal belief in the Bible and Whoopi was trying to make the point that if she believed that the world was round (as I think Whoopi assumed she would) than she accepted pieces of modern science that had not been available at the time of the Bible and therefore encourage a more symbolic reading.

That seems to have backfired.

It would be nice to think that Shepard’s ambiguity was in fact a consequence of having a very (unbelievably, incredibly?) busy life, focusing on day to day necessities rather than science and somewhat abstractions outside the practical realm. That might have helped understand it a little—if she was a single mother scraping by on food stamps instead of earning many-a-grand-per-episode on the View.

But then someone nearby who had overheard the video said, “oh man, I can’t believe that. I can’t believe those ‘Flat Earth Society people actually exist.’” And though I don’t think the View moderator holds a membership, after research, I discovered that there is in fact a legitimate group that believes that the world is flat and that the rest of us “non-flat earthers” are simply followers of a giant conspiracy started by Christopher Columbus, who they refer to as Grigori Efimovich. These people truly believe that the world is flat, that it is a non moving rock, and that it is the center of the universe. The scientific advances of the last 300 years have simply moved us deeper into a modern “dark age” that can only be fixed through “whatever means are deemed necessary” as the society continues to rely “heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, to slowly but steadily been spread the news.” www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Here is their introduction on the website:

For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle, with lots of pointy things hanging down from the underside. On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea. The space beyond the edge of the world was a dark realm inhabited by all sorts of unholy beasts. Fire and brimstone billowed up from the very depths of hell itself and curled ’round the cliffs whose infinite length jutted straight down to the darkest depths . . . .

It truly seems like a joke. I especially like how “parts of Africa” get to hang over the edge of this world, it is no wonder Africa is in the state it is today, what with being so close to the “unholy beasts” and “fire and brimstone” of hell.

Apparently, Christopher Columbus was just a huge con artist:

Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he [C.C]was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not.

Right. There must have been some amazing things in those burlap sacks to convince Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and every other scientist for the rest of time into believing that the world was round, and no, I did not “sound bite” their mission statement, it really just ends with “as we know, he did not,” without giving any evidence to support the claim that Christopher Columbus made up his trip to the West Indies—nothing strong enough to counter the fact that the United States actually exists and is inhabited by descendants of Europeans.

But that is a small point, maybe they just tapped their heels together from the “middle of the circle” that is Earth and scattered to the fringes at their whim…

The society gives reasons for their belief, all of which basically revolve around the fact that they don’t “believe” in the power of gravity—and if you discount THAT concept, really, it would be tough to conceptualize a round earth. They mention that if the earth was not flat, it would simply look like the moon because the ocean and air move too much to connect to a gravitational field (if it existed) and would simply “fall off” the sides of the world.

And the only place that objects would NOT fall off the curved surface would be at the very top near the north pole—not the south pole though, because those poor folks would just fall right into the space below.

The Society seems to misunderstand gravity as a force that pulls you down, whichever way down seems to be to the human eye, instead of a force that pulls you towards the larger body of mass. Even I know that and I haven’t taken a science class in 8 years.

This website would seem silly if I had not seen the clip from the View. Although they do not mention God or religion overtly, the reference to the “depths of hell” in their mission statement does seem to connect it to some sort of fundamentalism. I am not sure though.

Their current membership is over 4,000 and that is just overt believers—not the “I don’t knows” that may exist like Sherri Shepard. The site mentions that they have members who have been teaching science in elementary and middle schools in an effort to get this message across at the most crucial age; they travel to prison’s to teach, and are working on a way to infiltrate the minds of “round-earthers” directly through an neurotransmitter implant.

Sort of funny, sort of terrifying.

whereIstand Tags

• What is the shape of the Earth?

I don’t believe that athletes using prosthetics should be allowed to compete with natural limbed athletes. The state of all of sport seems to be at a crucial point in history that cannot afford any more ambiguities in terms of physical enhancement or unethical development and as heartless as it may sound, allowing mechanical devices of any kind onto the playing field, track, or court just pushes athletics farther into the gray area of authentic performance.

This argument came to a head this summer when Oscar Pitorius of South Africa declared that he wanted to be the first amputee to compete in the Olympic Games. He has already won the 400, 200, and 100 in the 2004 ParaOlympic Games and set world records in each respective event, but Pitorius wanted to prove that there was “nothing I can’t do that able bodied athletes can do” (New York Times, An Amputee Sprinter, May 15, 2007). But the question is, is there MORE he can do without the hindrance of human legs?

I think, maybe. And just that little maybe is enough to not allow it. After a lot of research, the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federation) found that Pitorius’s fake legs provided less air resistance than normal ones and that “the way he distributed energy was virtually the opposite of able bodied runners” (ESPN.com, Amputee Legs Could Provide Less Air Resistance, July 16, 2007). He was able to consistently run the second half of his race faster than the first—basically a rare if not impossible feat for a typical 400 meter runner.

He was allowed in one elite meet in Rome this summer which came to an anticlimactic finish when he was disqualified for stepping outside of the line, ironically probably because it had just rained and the metal feet of his prosthetics could not grip the track as well. So here is the double edged sword. On the one hand, the prosthetics seem to aid Pitorius. On the other, he is at an extreme disadvantage. Either way, it doesn’t seem right.

Although Pitorius’s story is a little out of the spot light right now, it is sure to pop up again as the 2008 Games draw near. But the issue with performance enhancement is at the forefront of all sports all the time. Just this week, as RyanW blogged earlier, cyclist Floyd Landis was found guilty of testosterone doping after winning the Tour de France; Barry Bonds contract is not being renewed after huge controversy over his drug use; runners all over the world are using artificial tents to simulate altitude for oxygen production; etc. The list goes on.

I know that all those issues above are choices made BY the athletes and that prosthetic limbs are not things people choose to have. It seems heartless to compare a man who has worked long hours to achieve greatness even after being born without legs to a sleeze who injects steroids into his arm, but if the outcome of both situations is artificial enhancement, then the treatment should be the same.

If people with fake limbs were allowed to compete in events that depended on that body part, science would in time be able to catch up enough to make those parts more efficient and less awkward than they are today. Pitorius’s advantage is still unclear, but if given permission to compete in the 2008 Games, it would only be a matter of the right (or wrong) people extending their energy towards this new area before the advanced, uncompromising artificial components crept their way into the already hazy competitive field.

Modern technology is at one time the greatest and the most detrimental development for sport. I don’t think athletes using prosthetics should be able to compete with “able bodied” athletes simply because it would not be a level playing field for all involved. At times it would be a disadvantage, at others and in the future, perhaps just another form of performance enhancement.

whereIstand Tags

• Should athletes using prosthetics be permitted to compete with natural-limbed athletes?

The events of September 11, 2001 had immediate political, national, and economical consequences. Some have been well documented, some speculated upon, some beaten-into-the-ground by the current Washington administration, but yesterday I heard one argument for the first time: that since the attacks, the status of women in society has slipped backwards.

The regression of sexual equality was cited by Susan Faludi in her new book, The Terror Dream. She says the fear created by the event made Americans—and especially women—feel vulnerable, which in turn “created a longing for the good old days of ‘manly men’” (Glamour Magazine, October 2007). Such a turnaround from the feminist movements of the midcentury can be seen in a least four recent social phenomenon, some of which are interesting, but some of which are not properly researched to provide evidence for the controversial claim.

Here are her examples (in italics) and my thoughts on them:

1. Female heroes were ignored. Faludi states that the presence of women was completely erased from any coverage of Ground Zero, with the many female police officers and firefighters ignored in loo of the larger-than-life-status of the male rescuers.

So I think this is a really good point. Since 9/11 we have heard umpteen stories of the wives of the firefighters (talked more about below), but very little about the husbands of the women who must have died saving lives at the same time.

However, not all women “heroes” have been overlooked. What about Jessica Lynch, a military private who garnered the cover of Time Magazine, the New York Times, and interviews on Dateline NBC for her amazing survival story in Iraq? That is one heroine that was certainly not ignored by all areas of the press after September 11, and though the male firefighter did become sort of a symbol of that day, perhaps that is just a reflection of the actual demographic of such units in big cities—more men are firefighters than women, therefore media coverage would natural capture more of one gender than the other.

2. Grieving widows became the feminine ideal and the perfect symbols of our grief—especially the ones who devoted their lives to the memory of their dead husbands. Faludi also mention the backlash against the group known as the Jersey Girls, who forced the creation of the 9/11 Commission (therefore asking for monetary retributions) and were then attacked as heartless opportunists.

The attack on the Jersey Girls is a good example of the double standard in this country, but I am not sure it is the product of 9/11. Men seeking money are ambitious; women doing the same are shameless. It has always been that way. But I think the point that these women were ridiculed for breaking the mold of the “grieving widow” is a good one—we wanted these women to be sad, almost “soft” in their grief, an image that does remind one of earlier generations.

Looking back, there does seem to be a lack of…a STRONG female presence during and after 9/11. Images of tears took precedence over images of strength which then spread to the general psyche of the nation: women=grieving, men=angry.

3. The media invented the notion of “patriotic pregnancy” which made us focus more attention on all pregnancies (especially celebrities) as a kind of natural “we must survive and have offspring” reaction to our sense of vulnerability.

Hmmm. Yeah, I don’t really think that after 9/11 women regressed their “baby maker” status of the 19th century. Faludi cites the covers of magazines like US Weekly, People, etc in her argument, saying that the plethora of coverage on “the baby bump” or “is she or isn’t she” in the tabloids shows how obsessed American’s became with having children after 9/11.

Really, I just think that those kinds of publications will always be obsessed with all physical attributes of female stars. This is nothing new. And I never heard a woman declare her pregnancy the result of patriotism. But maybe I am in the wrong part of the country…

4. Since 9/11 the number of women guests on political talk shows has shrunk by nearly 40%.

I think this is her most legit argument. Interestingly enough, it was after 9/11 that political shows began to focus on foreign policy—and the stigma against women when it comes to dealing with terrorism and the military cannot be denied. That is still one of the major arguments against Hillary Clinton and a female president in general: that they couldn’t—based solely on their sex—cope with the pressures of our current international situation.

America seems to think that women are too emotional, too sentimental to be in charge of the United States in a “time of war” even though there has never been evidence to support that claim—AND even though it is the images in the media that have propagated the idea of the vulnerable woman, as discussed above.

This to me is the biggest setback in terms of equality. Since 9/11, we have became much more focused on military action and protecting our country, and for some reason, “protection” seems synonymous with “man.” Because of this, women have never been able to take on the role of guardian and it because a kind of chicken-or-the-egg issue: We don’t know if women would be able to protect America, but out of fear, we aren’t willing to try.

In general, Susan Faludi’s book seems interesting, controversial, but perhaps a stretch. Maybe what 9/11 did was simply highlight the state of the genders in this country as they exist—with focus on women’s physical appearance, a desire for women to maintain some level of vulnerability, and a distrust that a female leader can really guide our country.

whereIstand Tags

• Are different genders treated equally in the workplace?
• Are there significant differences between the cognitive abilities of men and women?
• Is gender a social construct?

I don’t really even get this question to be honest. Is man infallible? Infallible meaning flawless or perfect? I don’t even see how you can look at the definition to the word and think it possible to apply to humanity. Nothing in our current world—or in the history of our kind—suggests that humans are infallible.

The word itself is sort of one of those “red-light” warning terms, so black or white it its connotations that it is hard to use in reference to anything, let alone humans. If our bodies were made perfectly, why do we get sick; why do some require contacts to see the world at a tolerable—but still not 20/20—standard? If our minds were made without flaws, why do some struggle with balance, fighting mental and psychotic disorders their whole lives; why can some divide 13982 by 3.3 and others fail to subtract 1 from 4?

And the soul? I would suggest that far from infallible, the human soul is defined perhaps by its struggle and coming-to-terms with imperfection.
If we were created as flawless creatures, there would be no conflict, no internal or external need for conflict. Each war we have fought seems to be evidence against this claim of man’s infallibility—for I think we can all agree that if the statement stands, it certainly would not be “American’s are infallible” or “Christians are infallible.” If “man” is perfect, then by definition, all of man must be. It simply wouldn’t work with exceptions.

I feel like this idea may have its roots in the Bible, where in Genesis, “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27)—and although I am not a religious person myself, I can see how one way of looking at this quote is simple logic: if humans were created by a perfect God to be LIKE this God, then we must be perfect as well. (This gets into another issue, however, dealing with God and his infallibility, which I may try and conquer another day…)

But even if you take these words as complete truth, it still does not stand that by translation, we must hold the “perfection” of God, for an “image” is not in fact an exact replication, but a reflection or likeness of divinity. Human’s are not just little God’s running around—we are mortal after all and at best can be said to be as close to the God of our beliefs as possible on this earth. So this quote alone does not stand as the only evidence of man’s infallibility.

Finally, I would like to say that the thought of people believe in their own perfection is terrifying. Take an extreme version: Warren Jeffs, the self proclaimed profit of a Fundamentalist branch of the Church of Latter Day Saints. He declared his word as infallible through God in the same breath that he told a 14 year old girl to submit “mind, body, and spirit” to her older male cousin. Six years of rape later, his word seems…less than perfect.

But even in less extreme cases, I think that assuming perfection takes away from critical thinking and reasoning—the traits, I believe, that really make us human. Most of life is trying to figure out the flaws and fine tune the good stuff, and if you take away the tension, that seems to make life worthwhile.  

whereIstand Tags

• Is man infallible?

This weekend, I was one of the 7.1 million American’s that watched the MTV VMA’s. And yes, I watched mostly because I heard the Britney Spears was opening—but I felt guilty the whole time, sort of a pop culture version of the “watching-a-car-crash-and-can’t-look-away” phenomenon. Spear’s introduction was only the beginning of a very chaotic, over stimulated, at times totally satisfying, and at others completely disorienting show.

Speaking of disoriented…that is perhaps the best word I can come up with for Britney Spears bizarre bit. Not only did she stumble multiple times, but her famous ability to lip-sing without you even caring because the performance was so dominating had been completely lost. And yet, even through this startlingly hazy performance the only thing the media seemed to care about was her less than sculpted figure paired with the barely-there bikini outfit.

Even after acknowledging the star’s complete dejection over her own act, news sources from E! to aol.com to Countdown with Keith Oberman on MSNBC failed to take the high road with their critiques. The New York Post said Spears, “Jiggled like Jell-O,” Oberman strangely giggled when mention of her “belly” arose and only the sleazy tabloid blogger, Perez Hilton, seemed to actually focus on the right issue when he typed, “We are disgusted and insulted by your performance at the VMA’s.” Oh right. She is an entertainer. Maybe we should care about that more than her cellulite.

The rest of the night certainly was entertaining, but no less riddled with conflict and brawling—perhaps too many MTV ego’s in one place at one time. More than two actually fists fights are said to have taken place (also still talked about in news programs as late as yesterday) and Kanye West has since denounced MTV as racist, all the while, paparazzi were catching yet another glipse of a panty-less Spears as she fled the building. Did people actually win awards at this thing?

Aside from the behind-the-scenes nonsense, the show itself seemed a giant ball of pop culture—as though MTV took all entertainers, all modern technologies, and every sensory stimulation possible and jammed it into a two hour program.

At times it was completely enthralling: take Chris Brown’s dancing paired with Rhianna’s lovely ballad; clips from the constant live music MTV had set up around the Palm’s hotel; wit and humor from the ever-raunchy Sarah Silverman. Much of the show really was entertaining and MTV seemed to bring the music itself to the foreground, a nice change for a channel that features more celeb-reality than musical inspiration these days.

However—and maybe I am getting too old at the ripe old age of 23—for much of the show, I felt simply overwhelmed. Throughout the whole show you could text, email, call, or IM your own picks for the awards, a metaphorical jumble of technologies that MTV felt obligated to acknowledge. And while the live music was great, it was hard to concentrate on one performer while the show flashed from room to room, crowd to crowd, all the while panning the chaos in the main stage of the hotel. At more than one point, my friend watching next to me had to close her eyes because, “there [was] just too much! Ahhhhh!” And she is only 25. Not exactly a part of the anti-MTV era.

In general, the VMA’s were nothing if not a bizarre cultural experience. Sometimes it is a culture that terrifies me with its potential implications, but I think that is the thing of MTV—you just can’t take it too seriously or you will find yourself discussing Britney Spears cesarean scars on CNN.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

The use of “God” in governmental oaths and political pledges seems to have two interesting and completely distinct sides. The first is that using God as a reference in such public forums as the Pledge of Allegiance, the swearing in of the President and of Congressmen, oaths in court, and many others, has become incredibly ingrained as part of these rituals—so much so, that for me at least, the “God” part almost slips by without notice of its significance and obvious Christian implication. The second point is how completely inappropriate it is to enforce Christian alliance in the public and political setting. No matter the subtlety of its inclusion, swearing to God should be an active decision and one amended or bypassed according to the person and their beliefs.

When I was growing up, we had to say the Pledge of Allegiance before class began every day. It never even occurred to me what the words actually meant—it just became routine. Just as hearing “do you swear to tell the true, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God” became white noise in criminal TV dramas and courtroom movies. I never thought “wait, what if that person doesn’t believe in God?! That’s not right!” but I also never felt that the oaths or words gained clout or legitimacy through their reference to God.

When I learned about the separation of Church and State, it didn’t take long to see the importance of such a rule, but it didn’t for a moment make me think back to the Pledge of Allegiance or listening to the Presidential induction ceremonies and its allusions to God. Once again, it seemed a harmless ritual, one as void of discrimination as it was of true religion.

But then I began to hear “God” thrown about in more political speeches. And hear stories about the GOP’s financial backing by Christian heavy-hitters. And it became clear the founding fathers had made the distinction between Church and State for a very good reason.

Last year, a bill was finally proposed that said people could use the religious texts of their choice (or lack there of) when swearing in to court. This seems to make sense. If people will feel more obligated to tell the truth if they swear to their god of choice, then by all means, let them swear. But the fact that for years, Muslims, Jews, atheists, (not to mention what I call “Christmas Christians”) etc have all been promising in court in the name of a Christian God to be honest, decent citizens seems to delegitimize the legal process and religion in general. People should only use religion in that situation if they make the conscious decision that their swearing by their faith will in the end, allow us to have more faith in their story.

Similarly, last year, a huge deal was made when Senator Keith Ellison asked to be sworn into Congress using the Koran instead of the Bible. Although it was a choice of all Congressmen how they were inducted, most chose to go with the Christian declaration, and many on Capital Hill and in the media took Ellison’s choice as a sign of immigration issues and threat of aligning with terrorism—when in fact the Senator’s decision should be irrelevant to the “goings-on” of Congress .

If swearing to the Koran makes him do a better job, why would anyone be against him doing so? If you are going to take an oath on a document, it should be with one that is consistent to your faith. Otherwise, what is the point?

Where we get into trouble is when politicians start to believe in the natural inclusion of the Bible into politics and policy. During the “trouble” with Senator Ellison, Senator Duncan Hunter declared that the Bible “is a common bond between the people of the United States…that holds out for the President or the Speaker of the House…right down into our townships.”

This is simply an untrue statement and pretty terrifying that it is held by someone in office. Our country is bound by the freedom of religious diversity, not a single Christian document, and the oaths, pledges, and promises our politicians and we ourselves make in the public setting need to hold true to this principle.

whereIstand Tags

• Should the term “God” be used in oaths?

People go to college to get an education. Obviously. But I think that the goal undergraduate experience has evolved into a complete education—beyond books, theories, and thesis—into a time of self, social, and intellectual development. And that is also why I think that athletes should receive preferential treatment in the admissions process.

Those may seem like two unconnected statements, so let me explain. I think that true excellence in anything should hold weight in the admissions office because just as colleges strive for racial and socio economic diversity, so should they attempt to fill their classrooms with people who have experience and success in many areas of life—even if it seems directly unconnected to the academic experience.

So yes, I think colleges should care if you are really good at soccer, just as they should care if you won the state chess tournament, directed a high school play, or can play Vivaldi on your violin. By assembling a student body where people have learned how to specialize and be great at something, colleges create not only a greater curve for social, individual, and cultural development, but also diverse points of view and ways of thinking within the classroom.

Undergraduate education grows more and more competitive with each year, with many of the top schools sinking to less that 10% acceptance rate. So imagine the admission process at a top tier school: students who apply average 1430 on their SAT scores, are almost always top 5 in their class, and no doubt have solid if not perfect GPAs. How are schools supposed to decide who is going to make the bigger impact on campus, when all empirical, academic data is so consistent? They have to turn to what sets students apart from the rest—and often that is athletics.
I think that athletes have a bad reputation for no contributing to the academic environment or for getting in with lower standards than say, the chess-match champion.

And yes, I have seen my fair share of “jocks” that seem unable to find the door into the classroom, let alone contribute to the conversation inside. But for every dumb, absent footballer, there is a dumb, absent non-athlete. It is just easier for them to hide.

Schools should have academic standards and undergraduate education should not be the training camp for the NBA or NFL, but if you have a student with only a 1500 SAT on their resume and one who scored 1280 but broke the state record in the 800m track race, I think the athlete deserves a second look. Diversity comes in many forms and college is a place to learn how to interact, study, and study with those with experience in many different fields.

whereIstand Tags

• Should student-athletes receive preferential treatment in the admissions process?