Asking Too Much of Our Student-Athletes?

                There is no question that athletics play a large role in ‘college life.’ The argument of many is that they play far too large a role. These arguments usually lead to a discussion about the academic capabilities and expectations that are placed on the athletes. Many are disheartened by the amount of athletes that are allowed to maintain eligibility at low standards and the many that do not graduate. The focus of this issue lies mostly on the big two, basketball and football; but other sports face this issue with their athletes as well. The question that many are asking is that as we expect more on the field or court can we still expect these young people to be both student and athlete?

                Thomas Palaima argues that our current expectation of the student-athlete is failing them. In his article “The NCAA and the Athletes it Fails” he discusses that these athletes are asked to perform almost at a professional level while still maintaining the status of a student. If asked to choose or try to balance the two, one part of this forced identity is bound to suffer. The majority of collegiate athletes are not going to make a career out of sport. The college setting should provide them the ability to find other opportunities. Palaima’s point is that the expectations set on them as athletes do not allow them to do this.

 He discusses four points that would help these athletes. First, athletes should only be placed at institutions in which they are academically prepared to succeed. Second, they need to be provided the time to succeed academically and explore interests on their own. Third, they need to be able to complete their degrees before their aid runs out. Lastly, many of them need the idea of going “pro” burst. These things are currently not happening.  As Palaima discusses these goals he describes that a big issue is that many of the athletes are allowed to go along with just the bare minimum for eligibility. This does not promote true learning or the goal of graduation.

Bruce Smith wrote an article about a suggestion he has to help alleviate this problem. He suggests that athletes be given a voucher to complete their education at any time, including and specifically after their eligibility has ended. This would give these athletes to focus on their sport and education separately and with full attention. The premise of this seems logical and well-meaning, but there are many holes and arguments against it. Wouldn’t that just draw more to attention and focus to collegiate athletics? Does that just turn collegiate athletics into amateur leagues? Shouldn’t that money be going to support funding academic programs for all students that so badly lack it? Though no one is a hundred percent sure of what the answer is, it points out that everyone can agree, something needs to change. Society and institutions are no longer supporting the true purpose of a student- athlete. Whether on purpose or unintentionally collegiate athletics is asking a lot of athletes and stripping them of the opportunity to truly take advantage of collegiate scholarship.  It calls into question if collegiate athletics truly supports the mission in which all higher education institutions have set and determine to follow.

References:

Clotfelter, C. (October 24, 2010). Is Sports in Your Mission Statement? The Chronicle of Higher        Education.

Palaima, T. (April 17, 2011). The NCAA and the Athletes it Fails. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Smith, B. (January 9, 2011). Lifetime Chits Would Allow Athletes to Be Students, Too. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The Fight for Free-Speech on Campus

                Free speech is a topic often fought over on college and university campuses. The fight ranges from students protesting on campus and ability to cover topics in student newspaper to professors’ rights to academic freedom.  Groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) are fighting campuses that seem to have taken first amendment rights away from members of its community. This battle generally boils down to a question of when it is necessary to disrupt free speech or expression because of safety concerns. The line is often very thin and a little blurry.

                One professor felt that they were denied a promotion and a faculty award for supporting a student activist group (Schmidt, 2011). “The case is one of several in which the federal courts have grappled—and sometimes differed—on the question of how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that public agencies can discipline their employees for any statements made in connection with their jobs” (Schmidt, 2011). Most cases with professors and free speech bring up concerns about academic freedom. This case, however, seems to be second handedly discouraging student activists from speaking out. The question is was it truly related to her job? The courts argued that since she was the advisor for the Socialist Club that her speech and involvement in protest against university policies were related to her job.

                The FIRE organization continuously supports cases to protect first amendment rights in education. “These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them” (FIRE). Some of the recent cases they support range from a student at DePaul University publishing the name of the students that vandalized his pro-life project to the University of Memphis cutting its student newspaper budget. The case at DePaul is one that many student affairs professionals can see the blurry line of free speech and safety come into play. The student’s rights had most definitely been threatened by students that disrupted his project. The question is if he had the right to publicly call out the students that wronged him. Was he placing them in danger?

                “Could a speaker conceivably utter words so hurtful and so malicious that college officials could justifiably prohibit those words or punish the speaker for uttering them? Unless and until the Supreme Court changes the law, the answer pretty clearly will be no” (White, 2010). This quote seems to sum up the argument that FIRE is making on behalf of the DePaul student. While it might seem wrong, that student had the right to publicly announce the other students. He is protected by the first amendment. As student affairs professionals this can be a tough pill to swallow as we try to protect and help our students develop.

Resources:

               

www.thefire.org

Schmidt, P. (2011). U.S. Appeals Court to Weigh the Speech Rights of Public-College Faculty Members. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

White, L. (2010). Free-Speech Ruling’s Impact on Colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education.