History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Mike Knobler,"AJC investigation: Many athletes lag far behind on SAT scores," AJC, 28 December; and Doug Lederman,"The Admissions Gap for Big-Time Athletes," IHE, 29 December, report of the gap in SAT scores between football and basketball players and other students at public universities in the United States. The gap is sometimes stunning, as for example the 433 points separating University of Texas basketball players from the average score of all the University's admits.
John Bemelmans Marciano,"A Deadly Wave, a Lucky Star," NYT, 26 December, tells a personal story of the tsunami of 28 December 1908 at Pellaro, Italy, the largest natural disaster in European history.
Before the book's publication, Gabriel Sherman,"The Greatest Love Story Ever Sold," TNR, 25 December, exposes Herman Rosenblat's Holocaust"memoir," Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love That Survived, as a fraud. Oprey Winfrey promoted, film in the works, children's version – the whole nine yards. Book publication canceled; film will go ahead.
This will be my last reply as well. (Do I hear faint applause in the background?)
I want you to know that you and I probably agree on more than you might realize regarding your point that major athletic programs can create problems at educational institutions.
I do recognize that, but I do not believe that point was either broached in, or was germane to, the subject articles.
To me, those articles were merely yet another cheap shot taken at admitting athletes while totally ignoring that admission standards are likewise lowered for recruits for other institutional goals, such as diversity. In your words, the articles were "meaningless."
And, I would submit that you, and others, completely ignore this other low admission standard because you embrace its goals while ignoring the value of athletic program goals.
I support both institutional athletic and diversity program goals.
What agitates me is that one set of low admission standards comes under frequent scrutiny and the other never does, but both can ultimately do damage to institutional purposes and resources.
And, apart from your snarky "cram" comment I also respect the fact that you have dealt with more student athletes more than I have. Unlike you, I have dealt with some of them in business where I have sat down with a few, looked them in the eyeballs and told them, "You are not entitled to a free ride here, get off your dead ass and go sell." I'm sure that college professors would love to have the right to fire non-performers, without question, as I have done.
That said, the not-too-subtle point of the subject articles, to me, only served to perpetuate anti-athlete stereotypes. To me, those are dangerous, and the Duke lacrosse rape hoax clearly illuminated the treachery of such prejudices.
In short, I would have written the same reply if David Duke ran this Blog and he promoted a link to an article that discussed the correspondingly undisputed fact that "Many non-Asian minorities lag far behind on SAT scores."
That's what agitates me, Ralph. Thank you for allowing me to make my point.
Ralph E. Luker -
1/3/2009
Les, You completely ignore the problem of major athletic programs and athletic admits that completely distort the purpose of the institution. I suspect that I've spent more time with KC Johnson's argument than you have and defending it from his critics than you have. Duke lacrosse had very little to do with the problem of athletic admits, but at least you've made clear what agitates you and, as I suspected, why you cited Duke earlier in the discussion. I've probably also given more time to teaching student athletes than you have, so you can cram your accusations of bigotry. This discussion isn't going anywhere, so I won't be replying to you again.
Les Baitzer -
1/3/2009
Well, let's see, Ralph; the lowest ranked program in that study is valued at 43 million and made a profit of 14.3 million. I'll leave it to you to apply linear regression and determine where a "breaking point" occurs. I can assure you it will be a long plotting and calculating exercise.
You've given two examples of programs that had problems while I've offered twenty successful programs as examples. I'd suggest that you should familiarize yourself with the many values of a successful athletic program. Unquestionably, a large, high income producing athletic program is not appropriate or prudent for every institution. But the circumstances at Rutgers and SDSU are again, not ad rem to the argument I advanced.
But you do get to the point with this incredible comment: "Beyond that, admits for athletic purposes only ought to be recognized as such."
But why stop there? Using your Hester Prynne logic, let's add that admits for diversity purposes only ought to be recognized as such also! Then we could expand that to include debaters, artists, thespians and musicians --- virtually anyone who is admitted on any basis except high test scores. You know, the "Athletic only" admits could wear school color "A's" and the "Diversity only" admits could wear school color D's. Then the Jewish kids could wear yellow stars … wait a minute, that's been tried. Your comment oozes with prejudice, my friend.
But, thank you for recognizing my closing comment at "sarcasm," which indeed it was. I wish I could say the same for the articles that you linked. Those articles were proffered as informative and/or of educational value. All they are is a regurgitation of the same sad anti-athlete prejudices favored by many in journalism and the academy. Apparently some college professors and journalists love their own stereotypes more than I.
It is precisely those anti-athlete stereotypes and prejudice that contributed, in no small fashion, to the disaster known as the "Duke lacrosse rape hoax" in 2006. At Duke, 88 professors signed a statement that presumed the guilt of three student-athletes who were charged with and indicted for a crime that never happened. Journalists locally and nation-wide fanned the flames of the athletes' presumed guilt up to their indictment, past their declaration of complete innocence, and even beyond --- to today. Not a single professor among the infamous Duke "Group of 88" professors has apologized for their craven, perfidious behavior to this day, nearly three years later.
This anti-athlete element and the entire episode is brilliantly covered in "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness And The Shameful Injustices Of The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" by Stuart Taylor and your colleague, KC Johnson. I'm sure you’ve read it, but if you think that the articles you linked have any merit, I would respectively suggest that you read it again.
Ralph E. Luker -
1/1/2009
You have evidence that the 20 "most valuable" programs are income-producers. That is of how many programs? And where in that array of programs is the breaking point at which football, in particular, is a drain on institutional resources? You need to familiarize yourself with the damage done to institutions like Rutgers and SDSU, where the attempt to break into the income-producing ranks has deeply drained institutional resources. Beyond that, admits for athletic purposes only ought to be recognized as such. It would relieve institutions from the burden of "athletic studies" courses that are there only to create the impression that athletes are, you know, actually studying something. As for your closing sarcasm -- you do love your own stereotypes, don't you?
Les Baitzer -
12/31/2008
Ralph ... you wrote:
"Where are your "mountains of empirical data"? Here they are merely loud assertions."
Forgive my hyperbolic assertion. I didn't realize comments "here" required dissertation-level footnotes.
Please consider this "molehill of empirical data":
The 20 most valuable college[1] Football programs in America in 2006 - 2007 had a combined value[2] of $1.3 billion, with a combined profit[3] of $541 million.
The 20 most valuable college Basketball programs[4] in America in 2006 - 2007 had a combined value[2] of $340 million, with a combined profit[3] of $201 million.
Notes:
[1] Nineteen of the top 20 are public institutions.
[2] "Value" in this study is based on Contributions to the (a) School for academic purposes; (b) Athletic department; (c) Athletic Conference; and (d) Local community.
[3] Profit, if any, is returned to the athletic department.
[4] Eighteen of the top 20 are public institutions.
(Source: Forbes.com January 2007, See: http://www.forbes.com/sportsbusiness/2007/11/20/notre-dame-fooball-biz-sports-cx_ps_1120collegeball.html and http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/27/college-basketball-valuations-biz-sports_cz_js_0102basketball.html)
And, you wrote:
"When the institutions under discussion are major public institutions, why do you go to Duke for search hits about "diversity" and "athletics"? Meaningless."
Fair enough. I chose Duke because it is rated 8th among "National Universities" in "Best Colleges 2009" (Source: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-search); its athletic program boasts the 5th ranked Basketball team Forbes.com op cit, and I had data on Duke close at hand.
However, a quick search at the University of Texas (a public institution ranked 47th among Tier 1 schools) website for "diversity programs" produced 40,800 results, while at the same site a search for "athletic programs" produced 1,230 results.
In conclusion, I'll use your own unfortunate, dismissive and lamentable word. The reports that you linked, by not including the entrance exam scores of non-athlete "diversity" recruits, are "meaningless."
Nonetheless, I'd value you opinion on this potential dissertation topic: "He [She] kicked sand in my face: Why is it that many members of the academy and the media who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time continue to harbor prejudices, anger, and hatred toward athletes, even into their adulthood?
Ralph E. Luker -
12/31/2008
Where are your "mountains of empirical data"? Here they are merely loud assertions. When the institutions under discussion are major public institutions, why do you go to Duke for search hits about "diversity" and "athletics"? Meaningless.
Les Baitzer -
12/30/2008
Ralph, forgive me if you feel the urge to thump me over the head with a giant history tome, but your replies seem to me as not ad rem to the points I raised in my initial reply.
Allow me to expand my premise and then I'll follow the scent of the red herrings you've raised.
The data for the subject news report was no doubt gleaned from reports that are required by various college athletic conferences. Public universities are required to publish, among other things, entrance exam scores and graduation rates for student-athletes. In most conferences and at most universities there is a minimum entrance score requirement for athletes.
Presumably, this minimum score is lower than the average entrance score for all students.
I have suggested that non-athlete "diversity" recruits, many of whom come from "similar socioeconomic backgrounds" as athletic recruits, most likely have lower than average entrance exam scores.
You and I seem to agree that the "bar has been lowered" to support both athletic and diversity requirements at most schools. Most admission professionals would confirm that fact, and I do not think that is any secret.
I believe that diversity success and athletic success are both beneficial to a school and mountains of empirical data would prove that athletic success is far more financially beneficial to most schools.
However, to my knowledge there is no "Diversity Conference" that requires public reporting of entrance exam scores and graduation rates for diversity recruits.
If such data was readily available, imagine an AJC news report titled, "Investigation: Many non-Asian minority recruits lag far behind on SAT scores" or an IHE report titled "The Admissions Gap For Big-Time Diversity Programs."
That would never happen, of course.
Yet it seems fashionable among so-called "progressives" in the media and education to reinforce the "dumb-jock" stereotype time and time again. Here I thought "progressive thought" and liberal views eschewed such obvious aphorisms. Eliminating such pedestrian views would be change I could believe in!
Now, to your points.
I'm not familiar with the problems you cite at Rutgers or San Diego State, but I'd suggest that for every budget problem caused by athletic expenditures I could show you fifty successful athletic programs at schools in America. Indeed, many of those programs are self-sustaining and actually contribute to eliminating the large budget deficits that occur in, among other areas, Title VII programs --- diversity programs in athletics.
And you ask, "Also, where do student minority groups get the academic "support services" that are routinely directed at student athletes?"
Wow.
A quick search at the Duke University website for "diversity programs" produced 6,040 results, while at the same site a search for "athletic programs" produced 1,610 results. To even suggest that schools have more support programs for athletes than for minority groups seems rather incredible to me. Schools are mandated by law (government) to create and maintain support programs for minorities, but no laws require schools to support athletics at all. Indeed, many schools do not even have athletic programs, which is their choice.
I think both of your points above, regardless of their relevance to the subject article, would make an interesting discussion, however.
Ralph E. Luker -
12/30/2008
Also, where do student minority groups get the academic "support services" that are routinely directed at student athletes? Where student athletes are concerned those support services too often are not really in service of educating the student, but helping him or her bypass an education.
Ralph E. Luker -
12/30/2008
I think the problem is that, unlike diversity admits, discrimination in favor of student/athlete admissions is of a piece with other gross distortions of college and university administration that actually threaten the central mission of the institution. I have in mind the kind of distortions that have recently gotten attention at places like Rutgers and San Diego State, where sports budgets are distorting the institution's budget so dramatically that routine maintenance of the institution's academic facilities is seriously lagging.
Les Baitzer -
12/30/2008
You make a very good point, Ralph, and I'm not bothered by admissions discrimination in favor of athletes any more than the same admissions discrimination in favor of diversity, for example.
I think it's fair to say that many students from "similar socioeconomic backgrounds" as athletes are likewise carefully directed to "studies" majors that result in a "near worthless degree when they graduate" as well.
But, my main point in commenting on the subject article is that we won't see an article in a newspaper that compares entrance exam scores of non-athlete students from "similar socioeconomic backgrounds" as athletes being compared to overall student body entrance scores.
I suspect the differences would be similar to the athletes studied, but again ... we won't ever see such a study reported in a newspaper, and that bothers me.
It seems somewhat disingenuous, if not agenda-driven, to single out only athletes for such a study.
Ralph E. Luker -
12/30/2008
You can't be bothered by the admissions discrimination in favor of athletes. Consider the possibility that black athletes who graduate at higher rates than non-athlete black students have been carefully directed to "athletic studies" by their coaching staff and that they have a near worthless degree when they graduate. That doesn't do the student athletes, the non-athlete students, or the academic integrity of their institutions any favor.
Les Baitzer -
12/30/2008
This is a typical news report that always seems to appear right around college football bowl-time, and the data makes as compelling a news report as "Vatican Staff in Rome Found to be Mostly Catholic."
Doesn't everyone with at least a high school diploma know that athletes tend to have lower scores on entrance tests than non-athletes?
But, if you read the Knobler report carefully, the real truth emerges, albeit ensconced deeply into the report and not discussed at all.
"[Georgia Tech men’s basketball coach Paul] Hewitt says the only fair comparison is between athletes and other students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Seen that way, he argues, athletics programs perform very well. Black athletes, for example, graduate at higher rates than black students as a whole. [my bold]
As Coach Hewitt knows, student-athletes are an easy target for such "studies."
However, we do not read about studies that compare entrance exam scores of "students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds" as athletes, or non-Asian minority students' entrance scores being compared to "other students at public universities in the United States."
I wonder why we do not see such studies?
I believe if we did, we would see that the "gap is sometimes stunning" also.
As Caroline Kennedy might opine, "You know, it's socially acceptable to criticize athletes' admission scores, you know."
