Without “affirmative action” for athletes, fewer football stars on the field
What do you call a Division I school that doesn’t lower its admission standards to admit star athletes?
Probably 0-12.
While many people condemn any consideration of race in college admissions, few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.
In an investigation three years ago of admission standards for athletes, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates — and men’s basketball players average seven points less than football players.
At the University of Georgia, the average football SAT was 949, which was 239 points behind the average for an undergraduate student at Georgia at the time. The Bulldogs’ average high school GPA was 2.77, or 45th out of 53 big-time college teams for which football GPAs were available.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week to revisit the issue of race-conscience admissions policies is sparking new discussions of admission standards and deviations.
The court last addressed race in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision. In a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, saying that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
In Fisher v. Texas, a far more conservative court will now take up the claim of a white student who said she lost a spot at the University of Texas Austin because of her race.
Under the “talented 10” policy, students in the top 10 percent of any Texas high school are assured admittance to any state institution of higher learning.
Abigail Fisher was not among the top 10 percent of her class, but contends that she would have merited admission in the general applicant pool had it not been for racial preferences.
“Teaching students that their skin color is what defines them should not be part of the curriculum at public universities,” said Joshua P. Thompson, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief urging the court to take the Fisher case.
“A policy of race-based preferences and discrimination in admissions is not just unfair, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said.
But are college admissions ever fair, given how many exceptions are made, including the lower bar for top athletes and the little-discussed benefits accrued to “legacy” students whose parents and grandparents attended the school or to children of a celebrity or potential donor?
Could it be that Abigail Fisher lost her spot in Austin to the daughter of a Texas legislator, the son of a country-western star or a placekicker with a 50-yard range?
In a study of legacy admissions at prestigious Duke University, researchers Nathan D. Martin and Kenneth I. Spenner found that these students trail their peers in academic credentials: “The average SAT score for legacies is about 40 points lower than students with professional degree parents, and about 12 points lower than students with other degree parents.”
An editorial earlier this month in the independent Duke student newspaper, the Chronicle, attacked legacy admissions, noting that children of alumni made up 20.4 percent of students in 2008, and 13 percent of the graduating class of 2015.
The editorial said, “Duke’s legacy admissions policy is not only unfair but unjustified. Because Duke cannot rationalize its legacy policy on the grounds of financial necessity or community enrichment, the admissions process should no longer grant any consideration whatsoever to legacy status.”
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
142 comments Add your comment
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
10:49 am
Hypocrisy, gotta love it!
soren
February 24th, 2012
10:54 am
“While many people condemn any consideration of race in college admissions, few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.”
People should.complain but they’re stupid. College athletics needs to be reformed as the people representing their schools have no business being at their schools.
“Could it be that Abigail Fisher lost her spot in Austin to the daughter of a Texas legislator, the son of a country-western star or a placekicker with a 50-yard range?”
There were many minorities with lower test scores test scores than her that got in even after the 10 Percent Rule. Your “white people” examples are just beyond absurd, ridiculous, and kind of patronizing.
““The average SAT score for legacies is about 40 points lower than students with professional degree parents, and about 12 points lower than students with other degree parents.””
The average SAT score gab between whites and blacks at duke is 140 points. I don’t like “legacies”, but bringing up “legacies” is a complete red herring.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/02/22/beyond-race-in-affirmative-action/merit-not-race-in-college-admissions
Prof
February 24th, 2012
11:09 am
But “legacies” of schools with former discriminatory admissions policies–so that their student bodies were mostly white– means that the past discrimination is just continuing into the present.
Cobb Math Teacher
February 24th, 2012
11:15 am
Athletes getting in has nothing to do with affirmative action–why would someone try to combine these two thoughts. It is absurd
#1 Complainer
February 24th, 2012
11:25 am
Maureen writes “few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.”
I am the few. I think we need to ban football and other high dollar televised sports from colleges to force football teams to have minor leagues just as baseball does.
We always here about the corruption and duplicity of football in colleges — corruption, greed, lies, cheating and all students get ripped off. The kid who doesn’t get a college scholarship because it was given to the football player and the football players themselves who are used like bathroom tissue. good for a moment, then thrown away when used up.
Women suffer too. Football is the breeding ground for chauvinism, machismo and violence against against women.
For anyone claiming football brings in money — so what? We don’t need that money, which doesn’t get funneled into academics — it gets funneled into the coaches salaries, glorified churches known as stadiums, bribes to players and so on.
A 0-12 football ? Good for them. At least someone has their priorities in the right place.
Good Mother
Prof
February 24th, 2012
11:33 am
@ Cobb Math Teacher. If college admissions should be based only on grades and test scores–and the factor of race not considered, as those opposed to affirmative action policies claim–then why should athletic ability be allowed as a factor?
Jimmy62
February 24th, 2012
11:40 am
I see nothing wrong with schools letting people in for actual abilities, like athletics or academics. That’s completely different than making decisions based on race, which has nothing to do with ability. Or are you saying that black people can only get in to college if we look at their athletic ability? What a racist and hateful notion!
Are you people really saying that the color of your skin and your athletic ability are the same, while academic ability is completely different? I just can’t wrap my head around the weird racial and group politics these sort of ideas sprung from. People are people. I’ll judge them based on their abilities and accomplishments, both athletic, academic, and social. I won’t judge them based on their skin color.
HS Public Teacher
February 24th, 2012
11:43 am
Where will it end?
Colleges/Universities public/private should have a great deal of flexibility on their own adminissions policy. If they want to only admit people with SATs less than 1100, then let them. If they want to only admit blonde people, then let them.
There are so many options for higher ed – both brick and mortor and on-line – there is a place for everyone.
Is the government really going to dictate, for example, that all college/universities should have 25% brown hair people, 42% black hair people, 36% people with blue eyes, 47% people that can dunk a basketball, and 35% people that can run a 40 yard dash less than 5 seconds?????
If a college wants to lower their standards to admit basketball players, then let them. Let the cards fall where they may – while that institution may win a championship in basketball, they will destroy their own reputation as a place of higher learning.
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
11:55 am
There were many minorities with lower test scores test scores than her that got in even after the 10 Percent Rule. Your “white people” examples are just beyond absurd, ridiculous, and kind of patronizing.
Yeah, some of those were athletes. I guarantee you that University of Texas made sure that the minority students had the GPAs and the SAT scores to get in because people like you are going to make a stink about it if they do not make the cut. After all of the lawsuits, universities made sure that their “i’s” were dotted and their “t’s” were crossed.
But the anger in your tone speaks volumes.
Nothing extra should be taken into account for athletics, legacies, or race. It should be based on your academic record.
As for athletes, how many actually take the opportunity to get an education while they are there? How many graduate with a degree? How many just get used by the athletic department and are cast aside if they can no longer perform? Is having them perform athletically but can’t read a sentence one of the reasons that they lower the bar because they know that they won’t make it and are disposable?
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
11:59 am
Jimmy sounds like a typical sports fan that will overlook an athlete’s poor academic record just so his school can have a championship.
You do bring up a good point. Are colleges and universities there for academics or sports? If they are about sports, then you are right. If they are about academics, then all students should have to meet the same criteria.
Lori
February 24th, 2012
12:01 pm
Why not just remove race and sex from the applications and let everyone get in based on merit alone.
thomas
February 24th, 2012
12:02 pm
So, when we make a personnel decision – whether college admission or hiring – we look at past achievements as a proxy for “potential.” As TV commercions would say, “past performance does not guarantee future performances.” Admission to a college isn’t (shouldn’t be) just a reward for past performances.
Jimmy62
February 24th, 2012
12:27 pm
Nat,
I’m all for separating college athletes from regular students, and paying them like the entertainment product they are.
My issue is you guys basically saying athletic ability and skin color are similar differentiators, and somehow different than academic ability. And I think that’s ridiculous. Academic ability and athletic ability are a combination of genetics and environment and hard work. Skin color is entirely genetic and should not be a deciding factor in ANYTHING. Affirmative action is a racist policy, and you can change the subject to big school football, but that doesn’t change the fact that affirmative action is based solely on skin color, and thus is a bad thing, unlike looking at say academics and athletics, which aren’t solely based on something people have no control over.
Beverly Fraud
February 24th, 2012
12:29 pm
Maureen, are you forgetting that Vanderbilt, which went so far as to dismantle its athletics department a few years back, regular meets up with the likes of Alabama and LSU on the SEC gridiron and when they do…
Never mind.
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
February 24th, 2012
12:33 pm
$$$$$$$$$$
American Values
Prof
February 24th, 2012
12:33 pm
@ Lori. See the earlier blog thread about the Supreme Court reconsidering its ruling on using race as a factor in college admissions. Maureen there has made these points: 1) nationally, so many more females have higher grades and SAT scores than do males, that if gender weren’t considered in admissions, most co-ed schools would swiftly become 70% female and 30% male–and neither gender would want to attend. So the schools’ decision to consider gender is economic. 2) California and Texas colleges have already removed race as a factor…and discovered that Asians and whites make up the great majority of their admissions. Applications drop because many don’t want to go to a majority-Asian and/or majority-white college.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2012
12:39 pm
Lower-performing student athletes aren’t the only ones admitted to these schools. Lower-performing black non-athletes are also admitted because of affirmative action. Since this has been going on for many years now, the question we must ask is – why are these black students still lower-performing? Social experiment after social experiment has been the rule in trying to bring these black students up to the white level for over 50 years now. Nothing has worked. I suspect that, for reasons of political correctness, the real reason for this will never be publicly stated by those in power and we will see, in the next 50 years, more and more of these experiments.
Shar
February 24th, 2012
12:46 pm
Prof, I disagree that a legacy differential of either 40 or 12 points out of an average of 1500+ at Duke makes for a continuation of past discrimination. It appears that legacy kids who were not close to the average admit scores didn’t make it in, leaving room for non-affiliated students with higher scores.
This is to assume, too, that college campuses are best off with the highest SAT scorers. I don’t believe this is true, and I agree with the Supremes and the admissions officers who have identified diversity in a host of areas as valuable in the educational arena. A virtuoso violinist with lower SATs will most likely enrich classroom discussion and potentially campus ‘culture’, and will probably take away something different from their four years (or more) on campus than might a 1600, 4.5 wunderkind who is heading for an academic career.
Students who are athletes are in a different category to me for two reasons: Their grades and scores are so far below average that they are not likely to be able to compete in the classroom, and they are not subject to the same expectation of graduation that other students are. If those student athletes are not subject to the same academic expectations – the true mission of the institution – as the rest of the student body, they have no legitimate claim to represent the school and should not be allowed on the school’s field.
If UGA recruits these low-prepared students and uses them to gain fame and fortune for the university, I believe that the school in turn must be held accountable for their academic success. The NCAA has the resources to create some kind of national test of basic, employable skills for college graduates in concert with a sampling of HR directors and college placement professionals – can they write? Read effectively? Use technology? Have basic skills in their area of study? – and mandate that all scholarship athletes take the test before they leave campus. For every student that fails, their sport loses a scholarship. This would be true for students who leave early as well.
Admitting below-average students who can do something non-academic that their more egghead peers cannot is not in itself necessarily a terrible thing. They can potentially make up for inadequate preparation with intensive tutoring and other academic support, and graduate in far better shape than they entered. However, allowing those students to thumb their noses at the real purpose of being in school while they are being used and discarded is both immoral and impossible to justify when highly-prepared students are being rejected to make room for the athletes, particularly in state-funded schools like UGA.
td
February 24th, 2012
12:48 pm
You are comparing apples to oranges here. A athlete brings a special skill set to the table that the average college student just does not have just like a musician. If you want to add the skill set as a grading point to the general criteria of being admitted then they would probably score higher on the admissions. Remember the SCOTUS has said you can have special criteria but you can not use race as a higher criteria.
Digger
February 24th, 2012
12:54 pm
I think I deserve affirmative action to play in the NBA.
Another Comment
February 24th, 2012
1:06 pm
Even at Marist they give alumni a huge preference. When my daughter applied a girl who had been her friend at Catholic school who was a C student at best and only scored a 40 on the SSAT, this is a very low score. Another child would have been turned down, but alas her father was an alumni, and on the Board. So she was accepted. From what I here she struggles. Other kids with my daughter’s score were accepted if they had alumni parents. They were also accepted if they had multi-millionare parents. I didn’t want to stoop to having my Aunt who is a Mother Superior of the Sister’s of Mercy up North and was the Head Master a Catholic Prep School write a letter and call. I also, dared to ask for finacial aid. Whoops, financial aid is reserved for blacks and hispanics, not white divorced mothers in Atlanta who aren’t alumni’s because they didn’t grow up heres.
Rockerbabe
February 24th, 2012
1:07 pm
If a person graduates from high school and wants to go to college, then by all means, admit them. Open admissions should be the policy of all schools as long as the minimum requirement have been met. Don’t worry about overcrowded classes; there are lots of unemployed grad student wannabes who will gladly teach entry classes for the going rate.
Usually 6 weeks into the school period [be it quarters or semesters], there is always a shakeout of about 15-20%, who find that college isn’t what they want, they aren’t at the school of choice or otherwise, haven’t go a clue.
Let them in, let them do the work, or try to do the work and then let the chips fall where they may. Those who can cut the workload, will succeed and others will either leave of their own free will or be forced out by low GPA. All this admissions crap is just crap. There are lots of reason why kids fail at college and often SAT, etc have little to do with that equation.
Another Comment
February 24th, 2012
1:08 pm
When I went to open houses at Pace, they flat out told you that they went much lower with admission standard of boys, because they had to keep it at 50-50 boys to girls. So the big key is have your first child be a boy not a girl entering any private school, then it is easier to get in.
Another Comment
February 24th, 2012
1:12 pm
My cousin Carol’s son was a victim of the 10% rule at UT, Austin. Due to the fact that she had him in a top Catholic Prep School. So he ended up going to one of the other UT schools. It was still one of their top three schools. The original plan was to transfer after a year when all of the top 10 from lesser schools flunk out. But he ended up liking it and found out Football wasn’t everything.
Now with her daughter she sent her to a Christian School, where she has a better chance of being in the top 10, so she will get a top 10 spot at UT, Austin.
David Granger
February 24th, 2012
1:18 pm
Nobody complains about the lowering of academic standards to admit athletes or anyone else with special, unique talents…or for that matter, any kind of “special preference” based on class or underprivileged background.
What we are opposed to is special preference based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin…those things that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 very specifically forbade as grounds for discrimination.
If you use admission criteria based on athletic ability, academic ability, class…then those admissions will be available to every race, gender, and ethnicity…without specifically discriminating against anyone based on the things that all of our laws specifically prohibit. (But that previous SCOTUS decisions allowed…because to hell with what the law very clearly says…we think the law ought to say something different. So we’re going to “wink-wink” allow you to ignore it at will.)
You’re absolutely right about legacy admissions, and I’d love to see them eliminated as well. But surely, Ms. Downey, you don’t feel that…just because we can’t eliminate EVERYTHING wrong in one blow…that we should refuse to fix what we CAN? It seems a rather ludicrous argument to pretend that…because one court case does not address EVERYTHING that might be wrong…then we should just ignore that one case.
Ralyks
February 24th, 2012
1:19 pm
First of all, it’s just plain ignorant to imply that whites are smarter than minorities (blacks, hispanics, etc..)… just because their SAT scores are higher. There are so many things that come into play when it comes to the SAT scores in general. The SAT Prep business is a multimillion dollar industry and you must have “some green” just to attend the classes. Also, most of the students who do well on the SAT test come from affluent areas; which is why south GA whites(low-income) are a minority when it comes to attending college. The south GA students usualy struggle in college as well, because they are just as unprepared as any other minority group.
If you don’t want to use race as part of the admission process, why not use low-income zipcodes and set aside a specific number of spaces for admissions for those students. Of course those students should not come from just one “region” of the state, to insure that we don’t just accept poor south GA white students, but poor inner-city students as well.
jess
February 24th, 2012
1:21 pm
If I’m not mistaken, there are no laws requiring schools to have a lower standard for athletes. Also these athletes are being admitted based on merit in certain skills, not just their race or sex. This is totally apples and oranges.
Lee
February 24th, 2012
1:26 pm
“What do you call a Division I school that doesn’t lower its admission standards to admit star athletes? 0-12.”
Nice misdirection Maureen. In football parlance, that’s what we call a play action fake.
There were actually two schools in division 1AA with winless seasons. Are you saying that both refused to lower admission standards. In addition, there were several teams in division 1A with one win seasons. What about those? Are you also saying that there were no teams with winning seasons who upheld high admissions standards for athletes?
Personally, I think any athlete who wishes to play for XYZ University should have to apply and get accepted just like every other student. Unfortunately, with regards to division 1A football and basketball, the Genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in – too many millions $$ at stake….
With regards to public college admissions, only those attributes that contribute to successful completion of the college program should be considered. GPA, SAT, ACT, etc, etc, are all measures to try to determine that ability.
Affirmative action, legacy, foundation donations, etc, etc, are not academic achievement measures and should not be used.
After all, when I’m laying on an operating table with a surgeon’s hands in my chest, I want him to be accepted to medical school because of high aptitude and ability – not because of some arbitrary affirmative action policy or because his Daddy bribed his way into college.
I’m particular in matters of the heart….
Beverly Fraud
February 24th, 2012
1:27 pm
Rumor has it I scored 340 on my SAT, but because I could balance an eraser on my nose while offering plausible (and implausible) denials on 6 different media platforms simultaneously, I was accepted into the Broad Superintendent’s Academy.
I’ll neither confirm or deny.
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
1:37 pm
I agree with Lee for the first time. I am shocked.
Archie@Arkham Asylum
February 24th, 2012
1:43 pm
The University of Georgia has improved if their average SAT score for football players is 949! I remember in the early 1980’s, a football player was admitted to UGA with a SAT score of 350! (This was before Jan Kemp shook things up!) At that time, I believe you got points on the SAT just for spelling your name right! I’m pretty sure deep down, UGA would like to see their “gridiron gladiators” come out with more to show for their four years of time and effort than a football letter and a rejection slip from a pro camp. Sadly, all too often, that’s what happens! ( Go Dawgs! Woof! Woof! Woof)
Beverly Fraud
February 24th, 2012
1:51 pm
I remember in the early 1980’s, a football player was admitted to UGA with a SAT score of 350!
Yes, but I bet a football player wouldn’t be admitted with a BENCH PRESS of less than 350.
MAYBE a kicker LOL
Follow Through
February 24th, 2012
1:54 pm
But one is “missing” the total concept of “Affirmative Action” … the schools whole student body ethnic makeup … the players/members on the “team” should be of the same “percent” as the student body. There is an “adverse impact” with the representation of a “disproportional” number of one ethnic group versus another ethnic group.
This would not be allowed in business.
WAR
February 24th, 2012
1:59 pm
black athletes will always be at predominantly white schools because they can run, block, and tackle; they can dribble, pass, and shoot, they can pitch, catch, and throw, they can run, jump, and leap. in other words these schools will find it very hard to compete without black athletes in football, basketball, baseball, and track, just to name a few. no way in the world schools allow these athletes to return back to HSBCs. it would be considered a national tragedy if TSU, FAMU, NCAT, or GRAMBLING beating alabama, duke, texas, or lsu. as bear bryant allegedly sad about black athletes, “get me one of those.” and they havent left blacks alone since then.
thomas
February 24th, 2012
2:01 pm
@ carlosgvv,
So, please enlighten us with the real reason…
WAR
February 24th, 2012
2:09 pm
carlosgv
u r funny.
Devil's Advocate
February 24th, 2012
2:19 pm
People complain about a lot of things just to have something to complain about.
1. How do athletes hurt regular students? What resources are athletes taking away from regular students?
2. Why do people talk about deserving whites being trumped by non-deserving blacks as if blacks make up an outrageously large population of any “big name” school and the vast majority of those blacks are non-deserving? This is like teams 69-300 complaining that they didn’t get into the NCAA basketball tournament because team 68 took their spot. It’s amazing that everyone’s child was team 69, barely missing the cut but was so well deserving!
Let’s focus on UGA since that is our flagship college. What agenda can you present that would explain why they’d favor blacks over whites? If discrimination were to be practiced, I’d argue that it would be financially more beneficial to go the other direction.
According to http://onlineathens.com/stories/022710/uga_568348735.shtml, in 2010 the enrollment was about 80% white.
I think there’s a lot of sour grapes going on here.
Brandy
February 24th, 2012
2:21 pm
I’m confused at the point of this post. As far as I know Affirmative Action legislation says nothing about athletics. Are you perhaps confusing Affirmative Action with Title 9 (which is not at issue in this case, as far as I know)?
Yes, many sports seem to have a high percentage of one ethnic, racial, or socio-economic group predominating. And, yes, many athletes get in on less than stellar academic records. But, how would Affirmative Action (or no Affirmative Action) actually affect this? I assume college athletic scouts are not looking to create teams with a proportional racial, ethnic, or socio-economic balance; rather, they are looking for the best athletes they can find and draw in, regardless of their racial, ethnic, or socio-economic background.
Please, someone enlighten me if I’m wrong to think that Affirmative Action legislation does not reference athletics.
WAR
February 24th, 2012
2:24 pm
carlosgv
the year is 2062. chelsea clinton is president and the American occupation of iraq and afghanistan has been on and off for 40 years. under the space czar newt gingrich, the moon colony is thriving and mexico has reclaimed texas along with arizona, new mexico, and california as “theirs”.
scientist are at a news conference about to reveal years of experiments and documentation that will explain how decades of poverty, illiteracy, and disenfranchisement plagued the black community and America. “ladies and gentlemen, we have finally reached a valid conclusion why blacks are low performing and the answer is…they are martians.”
Lee
February 24th, 2012
2:29 pm
@Brandy, affirmative action has nothing to do with athletics. Maureen is simply trolling for responses from folks who are against AA but see nothing wrong with athletic scholarships going to the less qualified (academically).
WAR
February 24th, 2012
2:30 pm
brandy
affact has nothing to do with athletics. youre right. the people on here are a prime example of whats wrong in this country. take whatever you want, twist it, splice it, and clone it until it benefits what you want others to read, hear, and say. the real problem arent blacks getting into schools under affact or whites not getting into schools because of affact. this is about competition and asians, middle eastern, african, and european students are collectively kicking our American butts. but we worry about little susie with a 3.5 not getting in because shay has a 3.0. and neither one of them are really prepared for the education tidal wave china is going to unleash in 10 years.
JF McNamara
February 24th, 2012
2:33 pm
I’m actually for doing away with the athletic scholarships for students who don’t qualify. College is not a semi-pro league. Its a place of higher education. Basketball and Football can start farm systems like Baseball.
Follow Through
February 24th, 2012
2:34 pm
What then is the “real” philosophical difference between Tile 9 and Affirmative Action.
None …
Also the title of the article
“Without affirmative action, fewer football stars on the field.”
There still would be “stars’” … just different names.
Ashley
February 24th, 2012
2:37 pm
@ Brandy these athletes are still students at said university….so they should be included in the discussion. Title IX was to make female sports just as equal as their male counterpart. You say college scouts aren’t looking for proportion, just the best athletes regardless of race etc. Well aren’t most colleges looking for best and the brightest? I guess it would be easier just to allow these below -average athlete to attend college with no academic standards, but then again that would only create more controversy. In the scheme of things I find that “affirmative action ” is just plain hypocritical.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2012
2:38 pm
Thomas – 2:01
You already know the answer to that one.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2012
2:38 pm
War – 2:24
u r not funny
Maureen Downey
February 24th, 2012
2:43 pm
@Lee, I am addressing the hypocrisy here.
People object to preferences to African-American students admitted with lower scores than white peers, but yet have nothing to say about the standing practice of admitting athletes or the children of a staff member or major donor with lower scores. Somehow, that does not seem as offensive to folks who insist that all candidates to the college be judged by the same standards.
The question: Is a school obligated to accept the highest scores and give no consideration to other factors about an applicant’s life?
I read this comment in the NYT and thought it was a great observation:
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
2:43 pm
@ Devils Advocate
Not sour grapes, just your run of the mill white skin privilege emotions. The complaints against “affirmative action” to borrow an analogy from Lee, are nothing more then a stunt.
TW
February 24th, 2012
2:45 pm
And for today’s effort at avoiding the rightwing urination on education, Maureen goes ofter the black athlete. Never mind the charter school amendment, the death of QBE, and the gerrymandering in local control that white man central has orchestrated to completely yank the air line from what remains of black Georgia.
Big day for you Stepford wives Maureen – great job!
DebbieDoRight
February 24th, 2012
2:50 pm
All you guys hollering about “race” are nothing more than hypocrits. Maureen’s points are valid — you’re just too obstinate, blind, and self congratulating to admit it.
If you’re saying “No based on race” – then you should also say “No based on Legacy” and “No based on athletic ablility”.
If any of you think that colleges, who THRIVE on alumni dollars, are going to STOP admitting that great running back, (who can get the team at least to the championship game = more money for the school); or that legacy student, (whose parents are big time donors = more money for the school); to let in some kid who can barely pay her tuition which = NO money for that brand new school auditorium/dorm room/Dean’s pension; then you really have no idea how the real world works.
Welcome to the real world.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
2:51 pm
@carlosgvv
I don’t know the answer, what is it?
Maureen Downey
February 24th, 2012
2:52 pm
@TW, Never mentioned black athletes. The AJC data reflect all athletes on these powerhouse teams.
DebbieDoRight
February 24th, 2012
2:58 pm
sorry about the double post — my first post was “in moderation” and I thought it might be because i put in the equals sign.
who knows why these things get held up.
Maureen Downey
February 24th, 2012
2:59 pm
@Debbie, I will take the second one down, if that’s OK.
Maureen
DebbieDoRight
February 24th, 2012
3:03 pm
Thanks!
Dacula
February 24th, 2012
3:03 pm
Flawed argument you hear everytime from liberals. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about legacy students or rich kids or running backs- there is however a prohibition against using race. Liberals have just tailored the Constitution to fit their needs.
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
3:05 pm
Good job, Maureen and Debbie. Both of you make very valid points.
sheepdawg
February 24th, 2012
3:10 pm
i hope this court decision accelerates the move to reform all big time college athletics. Ralph Nadar has the right idea, remove the athletics (and corruption) totally from academics. Athens could still have a bulldawg team but they would in no way be associated with, or bring shame and disgrace to, our state’s flagship university. And they could get paid, which is the other grossly unfair component of the big time programs and revenue dollars earned. Another law suit waiting to happen.
Frankie
February 24th, 2012
3:12 pm
@carlosgvv….lets do a study and determine how many affirmative action students actually graduate compared to the number of legacy and alumni donor students actually graduate..
CARLOS (charles) my spanish named blogger…do be fooled affirmative action extends to your latino, hispanic relatives…but you already knew that.
Accept who you are….
bootney farnsworth
February 24th, 2012
3:32 pm
odd, something which gets bandied about here regularly is the overemphasis on athletics in education.
sorta blows the premise out of the water that nobody cares.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
3:33 pm
@dacula
“there is however a prohibition against using race”
Then please explain what the civil rights struggle was about num nuts.
bootney farnsworth
February 24th, 2012
3:34 pm
but its not like we value education in this state
Devil's Advocate
February 24th, 2012
3:40 pm
I don’t even know what stance Dacula is taking based on that comment…was that just a canned shot at liberals?
dc
February 24th, 2012
3:41 pm
letting children of rich black families into college ahead of poor white kids who are more qualified academically is ridiculous, inane, and completely inexcusable. Race preferences are abused by the upper crust of Black society, and should be completely ended, in favor of economic considerations.
dc
February 24th, 2012
3:46 pm
Maureen, would appreciate you reconsidering the US constitutionality of race or sex based admissions…it at least seems clear that discriminating based on race, sex, religion etc is unconstitutional. As someone else pointed out, some of the other “considerations” are no where in the constitution, and I think that’s pretty much what the SC has to use to determine the case.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2012
3:49 pm
Dr. Proud Black Man – Frankie
Nobel prizes were first awarded in 1901. Since that time not ONE single Negro has ever won in Physics, Chemistry or Medicine. I guess we can blame poverty, lack of affirmative action and just plain white racism for this too? Or is it too much for you to admit these dogs just won’t hunt anymore?
Devil's Advocate
February 24th, 2012
3:54 pm
“letting children of rich white families into college ahead of poor black kids who are more qualified academically is ridiculous, inane, and completely inexcusable. Race preferences are abused by the upper crust of White society, and should be completely ended, in favor of economic considerations.”
Sounds like something that would have been said during the Civil Rights Movement and ultimately leading to AA. LOL.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
3:57 pm
@carlosgvv
Ok and your point is…..?
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
4:02 pm
@carlosgvv
How many Noble prizes have YOU or ANY of your extended family members won? Kinda hard being left of the bell curve huh? Another example of white skin privilege people; this jethro thinks that by way of skin color he can co-opt Nobel Prize winners. What a 24 karat maroon!
the prof
February 24th, 2012
4:20 pm
Pseudo DPBM….racism goes both ways moron.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
4:24 pm
@prov aka perv
Let jethro answer the question. You slack jawed yokels stick together don’t you.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
4:25 pm
Meant to say the prof but Becky temporarily distracted me…;)
Brandy
February 24th, 2012
4:27 pm
@Maureen, Legacy preference in admissions has nothing to do with the quality of education provided, nor does it reflect an idealized view of what becomes of particular school’s alumnae. Rather, it is about the almighty dollar.
Alumni (not all, but often many, especially the wealthier ones) donate money to their alma maters. If that alma mater rejects their children, that money stream could very well dry up.
Again, a completely different issue from Affirmative Action.
Bernie
February 24th, 2012
4:29 pm
Without Affirmative Action on the field UGA and the State of Georgia would be soooo much poorer.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2012
4:34 pm
Dr. Proud Black Man
I do not make up the facts of Nobel Prize winners. Trashing me is nothing more than shooting the messenger. Another thing. Are you proud of your Black heritage? If so, do you know how silly that makes you look?
Like I said before...
February 24th, 2012
4:35 pm
predomintately white schools that play at the D1 level will continue to pimp poorer black kids with low 40 yd dash times or a jump shot and dreams of NFL or NBA. in exchange for lowering admission standards schools can fill up 95,000 seat stadiums every Saturday and get alum to scratch checks. before the kickoff of the first game the football team has funded all sports on campus. now if schools could find an endless supply of white athletes with great 40 times and jump shots then they would. legacy kids are getting in because the school will look for mom or dad to scratch a check to help fund projects on campus.
@HS Teacher
February 24th, 2012
4:52 pm
You say “If a college wants to lower their standards to admit basketball players, then let them.”
Uh,,,not with my tax dollars. Most universities receive money from taxes, that’d be my taxes so, not it is not OK to discriminate. Your comment is interesting though because you were the one who says charter schools are not OK because they discriminate and they only pick the best students. So it is OK with you for colleges to discriminate (even public ones) but it’s not OK for charter schools to discriminate? Where is the consistency in your logic?
Like I said before...
February 24th, 2012
4:52 pm
carlosgvv…that fact of the lack of Nobel Peace Prizes does not diminish the contributions made by blacks in the sciences.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
4:56 pm
@carlosgvv
No one is “shooting the messenger.” HOWEVER you are trying to set up a straw man. YOU do understand what I mean by this do you? Or are you too inbred to understand? You stated earlier that no Negro had ever won the Nobel Prize in the sciences. What YOU are trying to infer is that WE are lacking in I.Q. to receive such a prize. Fair enough BUT my question to YOU, once again, is how many Nobel Prizes have YOU or your extended brood has won? Now wipe the tobacco spittle off of your chin and answer the question Snuffy.
Sarah
February 24th, 2012
5:02 pm
I understand why a school would rather have a talented student from an underpriviliged background rather than (yet another) kid from a good school with better test scores. I understand that a school is not just admitting students but is creating an educational environment.
I don’t understand using race or national origin as decisons for admissions. This is just lazy thinking of people as groups, not as individuals.
Lee
February 24th, 2012
5:03 pm
“While many people condemn any consideration of race in college admissions, few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.”
Ahhh, but Maureen, people have complained. Whenever the NCAA tries to implement minimum standards of GPA or SAT/ACT scores (Prop 48 & 16), the Pavlovian cries of “racism” erupt from racebaiters such as the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, historically black colleges, ad infinitum.
The end result is that big time football and basketball programs hold their noses and recruit the “5 Star” athletes with little regard to the academics. The AJC, like most politically correct news media, tucks its tail between the legs and runs at the first cry of racism.
The only real solution to this practice is to prohibit colleges from admitting the academically sub-standard student/athlete and force pro football and pro basketball to create minor leagues in each of their respective sports. That’s the main reason you do not hear about many student/athlete academic infractions with the baseball program. Major league baseball has a robust minor league program which gives the gifted athlete an alternative route to the majors.
However, when ESPN and the major networks makes billions off college sports, don’t look for change anytime soon. They like things just the way they are.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2012
5:06 pm
Dr. Proud Man
People who look like me have been winning Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine since 1901. People who look like you have NEVER won. Now, please answer the question. Are you proud of your black heritage?
Sarah
February 24th, 2012
5:09 pm
If I spoke of black people with the same harmful, ignorant, racist stereotypes as Proud does, I would be a racist.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
5:12 pm
@sarah
So it’s ok when carlosgvv infers that all black people are lacking in I.Q.? Btw that Dr. Proud to you.
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
5:19 pm
@carlosgvv
“People who look like me have been winning Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine since 1901.”
And a person who LOOKS LIKE ME is the most powerful man, and YOUR leader, in the world! Kind of sticks in your caw don’t it Jethro? Btw I’m very proud of my heritage. Why shouldn’t I be? Because a racist one note johnnie troll like yourself thinks I shouldn’t? Later loser…
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
5:32 pm
@carlosgvv
One last thing, just got through looking at some past Nobel Prize winners and none of them had pointed heads or stained and missing teeth. Kind of defeats your argument huh?
td
February 24th, 2012
5:39 pm
Maureen Downey
February 24th, 2012
2:43 pm
You said it correctly that most people object to a preference or set a side set up based solely on race. A football player, basketball player, baseball player, swimmer or other athlete requires just as much ability as being a Rhodes scholar. Matter of fact the skill set required to become an elite athlete markets the same type salaries as a CEO of a major corporation. Our university systems prime responsibility is to give our young people the skills necessary to become the next generation of leaders in all fields be it business, music, art, law, politics or academia. Are you to refuse to advance the skill sets and not prepare athletes?
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
5:40 pm
But Lee, you keep failing to mention what Maureen has pointed out more than once. It is not just the black athletes that are inferior, it is across the board. But don’t let facts stand in your way. Keep on assuming that the white players on the team are also academic scholars.
Good job, Dr. Proud. It is sad that people like carlosgov have that mindset. I guess that winning a Nobel Prize in Economics isn’t worth jack. I guess carlosgov should let his fellow economists know that economics is the field that idiots and people with inferior I.Q.s and intellect go into.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2012
5:42 pm
Dr. Proud Man
Think about this
1. Every human being on this planet has a heritage.
2. No one heritage is any better or worse than any other heritage.
3. Your being “very proud” of your heritage suggests you think a black heritage is better than any other. And you call me a racist?
4. On the other hand, if you agree no one heritage is any better or worse than any other, it makes you look foolish to be proud of yours. That’s like saying you are very proud to be a human.
I never said I or anyone in my family ever won the Nobel Prize. I also voted for Obama and will vote for him again. I never infered all black people are lacking in IQ. Are you really a doctor? If so, I hope you are not on who treats people. Your posts here show a serious lack of intelligence, education and maturity.
Negatory to the Lowest Common Denominator
February 24th, 2012
5:48 pm
Considering how few college football and basketball players make it in the nfl or nba, I see no reason to waste a classroom space on one if their SAT score is more that 15% below the school average. Most do not graduate or play professional sports, so where is the value added to society by their attending college? Let the nba and nfl run their own farm systems, at their own expense.
Reading, wRiting, aRithmatic
February 24th, 2012
5:52 pm
Can you say DEXTER MANLEY?
Talk about a sad story…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Manley
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 24th, 2012
5:53 pm
@carlosgvv
“Your being “very proud” of your heritage suggests you think a black heritage is better than any other.”
“suggests?”
Only to a racist loser like yourself.
“Your posts here show a serious lack of intelligence, education and maturity.”
For your examination, one of your earlier posts:
“People who look like me have been winning Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine since 1901. People who look like you have NEVER won.”
Wow! Lot of critical thinking went into that screed didn’t it? Look I’m done grading papers and planning, it’s time to head home. Later Snuffy…
Georgia , The "New Mississippi"
February 24th, 2012
5:56 pm
Without “affirmative action “Coach Mark Richt’s salary would not be $5,000,000 dollars a year…. The football revenues average $ 30,000, 0000 dollars a year. President Michael Adams makes $ 700, 000.
You guys should go sit in the corner and suck your thumbs.
td
February 24th, 2012
6:05 pm
Negatory to the Lowest Common Denominator
February 24th, 2012
5:48 pm
Seeing how few students every make it to corporate leadership positions with degrees in English, sociology, music, art and PE then when should we prepare them for such unproductive careers?
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
6:20 pm
Seeing how few students every make it to corporate leadership positions with degrees in English, sociology, music, art and PE then when should we prepare them for such unproductive careers?
Each of these degrees can be used in a variety of fields. English majors are needed for law school, entry-level positions (don’t you want somebody that can write really well working in your company), publishing, editing, etc. Sociology degrees:
Criminal Justice- In corrections, rehabilitation, law enforcement, the justice system, parole system.
Business and Industry- Advertising, Consumer and Market Research, Management of Non-profit organizations, Human Resources, Training and Human Development, Leadership Training.
Research and Planning- Governmental and regional planning departments, research firms, evaluation research, public opinion research.
Agencies-Social Services, Mental Health Services, Adoption, Child Care, Youth Services, Developmental Disability Services.
Government- Social Science Analysis, Census Bureau and other federal agencies, Administration, Policy Analysis, Personnel, Homeland Security.
Education- Public and Private Schools, Colleges and Universities, Administration, Alumni Relations, Placement Offices, Educational Research.
Advocacy- Environmental, Child Welfare, National Policies, Victims Rights, Labor Rights, Community Organization.
Communications- Technical Writing, Newspaper and Magazine Reporting, Public Relations.
P.E. careers:
Career Examples
• Chiropractor
• Physical Therapist
• Occupational Therapist
• Athletic Trainer
• Physical Education Teacher
• Fitness Specialist–Personal Trainer, Fitness Director
• Recreation Worker
• Dance Medicine and Science
• Geriatric Fitness Specialist
• Gerontology
• Careers in Gerontology
• Athletic Coach
• Dance Educator
• Exercise Science / Sports Medicine
• Sports Management
• Sports Medicine
• Health Educator
Art degrees
• Architect
• Archivist
• Art Appraiser
• Art Therapist
• Cartographer
• Computer Animator
• Critic
• Curator
• Designer
• Educator • Fashion Illustrator
• Florist
• Graphic Designer
• Interior Decorator
• Jeweler
• Painter
• Photojournalist
• Sculptor
• Sign Painter
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
6:21 pm
Don’t downplay those degrees. So try again.
Like I said before...
February 24th, 2012
6:21 pm
carlosgvv…there is alot ot be proud about black history. starting with the fact that man originated in Africa. there are many contributions made by blacks in this country. despite what you’ve been told and sold by government schools. take the time to enlighten your mind and look up some of the contributions.
td
February 24th, 2012
6:24 pm
Nat Turner
February 24th, 2012
6:20 pm
I was not down playing any degree but the previous poster made an absurd statement that since most college athletes do not make it to the pros then we should do away with college athletics, so I was making an equally absurd statement in the use of sarcasm.
Hillbilly D
February 24th, 2012
6:25 pm
Are colleges and universities there for academics or sports?
They’re a business and guess which one brings in the big $$$$?
Truth Today
February 24th, 2012
6:49 pm
Well, I find myself compelled to respond to this topic as I read the many posts that appear to be superficial and without depthful analysis. First, it seems that many do not clearly understand why such imperfect affirmative action policies are needed in the first place as it pertains to college admissions. Our school districts are unequal in many respects to quality teachers, instructional resources, school readiness, parental involvement, course rigor, school leadership, district leadership, and economic power. The lack of equal distribution of these impacts on educational levels will only reinforce educational access for those students who are the most fortunate or lucky to be born in ideal or less unfavorable circumstances. The United States and her citizens who have not advocated for equal educational environments and funding have created the need for affirmative action by de facto. Consequently, the nation finds itself trying to manipulate outcomes by social, gender, and racial gerrymandering. Secondly, until the nation has the cuts to create a national standard for college admissions and then work to ensure that ALL children are provided equal and fair opportunities to meet those national college admission standards, then the United States only will continue its tradition of debate of complicated without appropriating a solution that could potentially launch it towards a more perfect union. Lastly, the use of race, legacy, gender, may be warranted until the nation has a more just and equitable approach to achieving improved secondary achievement outcomes that will result in a decreased use of race, legacy, or gender for determining admissions to post-secondary institutions. This nation is great in debate and scapegoating as it pertains to racial, gender, or social issues, but it lacks the fortitude and possibly the will to make fundamental changes that would be in the best interest of all and not just the powerful or educated. May we move with all celerity toward a more perfect union wherein race, gender, economic status, and legacy are not factors in decisions that may determine the future of the nation and the world.
Lee
February 24th, 2012
7:33 pm
@Nat, re: “But Lee, you keep failing to mention what Maureen has pointed out more than once. It is not just the black athletes that are inferior, it is across the board. But don’t let facts stand in your way. Keep on assuming that the white players on the team are also academic scholars.
Go back and read my first post where I said any attributes that do not pertain to a student’s ability to complete a degree program should not be considered in public college admissions.
When Maureen said that “few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted”, I pointed out the NCAA has tried to implement student/athlete academic reforms, and the most vocal arguments against such reforms were from the so-called “black civil rights” groups.
I never once said that all white players performed well academically. That’s your misinterpretation.
If you’re a stud athlete who missed out on an opportunity to go to college because of your grades, tough luck, IMHO. This will be only one of many disappointments in your life.
Lee
February 24th, 2012
7:36 pm
@Truth Today, your February 24th, 2012 6:49 pm post should be Exhibit A of the politically correct pathology that has ruined this once great nation.
RAMZAD
February 24th, 2012
7:39 pm
America is a country of isms, and the sooner we get with that reality and let go of the outrageous righteous indignation the sooner we get something done around here. Racism, sexism, nepotism, cronyism, ageism, Balkanism, and the great line of other isms we use to discriminate, saturate, terminate and deviate are as American as apple pie. Here we come now looking askance at our
own natural national odor.
Truth Today
February 24th, 2012
8:09 pm
Lee, your response to Truth is confusing. You apparently did not analyze the comments. If so, you would have responded more thoughtfully and specifically. You are invited to enter into a more thoughtful, content specific, and provocative discourse. I welcome the conversation.
bu2
February 24th, 2012
9:06 pm
@Truth
Texas already does deal with those issues. They admit the top 10% (they’ve since reduced it to 8% because 73% of the class was admitted automatically) from ALL high schools in Texas. So weaker high schools, lower socio-economic schools and rural schools get people in. On top of that they want racial preferences so they can get that 20th-30th percentile minority from a top high school and skip over the 11th percentile student who isn’t minority.
bu2
February 24th, 2012
9:13 pm
@Maureen;
So you are saying its ok to discriminate on the basis of skin color but wrong to discriminate on the basis of ability? I guess that is the general liberal philosophy. Of course, you can only discriminate if it is the right group being discriminated against.
Its beyond me how you fail to grasp the difference. Schools give benefits for artistic and musical ability in addition to athletic. Whether they should give so much credit to athletic ability is a different issue.
BTW, the University of Texas athletic department sends about $10 million a year back to the academic areas and doesn’t give students any credit for being legacies. Neither does UGA (Now if someone is willing to write a big enough check, they can get into Harvard or anywhere else).
Maureen Downey
February 24th, 2012
9:19 pm
@bu2, I doubt too many artists or musicians admitted to competitive colleges score on average 220 points lower on than their classmates, as is the case with football players. (In fact, I would bet that music majors have pretty good test scores.)
That is a significant gap. I would be surprised if artists or musicians were cut very much slack with their scores.
Do schools make exceptions for exceptional talents in the arts? Sure, but I doubt they make 220-point exceptions.
Maureen
bu2
February 24th, 2012
9:25 pm
Rice (one of the best schools in the country) bragged about admitting a student with a 900 SAT (on the 1600 point scale). He happened to be a butterfly collector and communicated with people around the world. That was probably about a 400 point variation from the average SAT score at Rice. Rice likes having people with a lot of different talents.
Again, Marueen, the issue of how much of an exception you make for athletics is different from the issue of making an exception. And the issue of making an exception for a special ability is different tha making an exceptioni based on the color of one’s skin or one’s last name.
The One
February 24th, 2012
9:55 pm
The reality is that regardless of whether an minority gets in on merit or otherwise, you will still have a group of individuals who will believe that person is inferior. It i an unfortunate and sad reality. Those who argue for a merit based admissions policy in institutions of higher learning are being somewhat disingenuous. Most often, the merit based argument focuses on race, but seldom does it focus on legacy. It is undisputed that many individuals who are descendants of former graduates get preferential treatment in the admissions process. Therefore, if the merit based argument is to carry any weigh it must include legacy admissions. Additionally, the merit based argument must call for the abolishment of purely athletic admissions. Many scholarship athletes at premier universities are not admitted based on scholarly merit. Instead, the are admitted because of their athletic achievement. Legacy and athletic admissions are excluded from the merit based admissions argument due to MONEY. The institutions of higher learning are businesses and need money to operate. Yes, they get money from tuition. But many schools get a tremendous influx of cash from wealthy and distinguished alumni and sports. This extra revenue allows those institutions to hire better teachers, create better programs, and build better facilities, which all impact the scholastic status of those universities. Therefore , it begs the question, if certain universities, lot alumni donation because legacies were not guaranteed admission and lot major revenue because their sporting teams were noncompetitive, would individuals still decry the admissions policies at those universities? PROBABLY NOT. My point is that the argument should be logically consistent. If the use of race in the admissions process i wrong, then the use of every criteria other than scholarly merit is also wrong. I AM A PROPONENT FOR ELIMINATING ALL PREFERENCES IN THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. Please keep in mind athletes are put into FLUFF majors.
hryder
February 24th, 2012
11:21 pm
Almost all Division III institutions of higher education require ALL entering students to meet the identical entrance requirements. Due to exteme emphasis on political correctness, the known genetic advantages that a specific racial group holds in certain sports activities, is rarely acknowledged.Many people just reject the reviewable research as just an excuse. But in other sports activities where these genetic advantages are a disadvantage, social factors or discrimination are cited for lack of performance at a high level. To be political correct, the academic pursuits of excellence will not be mentioned.
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Georgians for Educational Excellence
February 25th, 2012
5:29 am
Athletic scholarships? Student-athletes? In the words of that Immortal 1950s-60s TV philosopher Maynard G. Krebbs, “Surely, you jest.”
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Georgians for Educational Excellence
February 25th, 2012
5:33 am
Maureen, please don’t waste your time and energy reasoning at an athletics FANatic.
GB
February 25th, 2012
6:45 am
You ask this question:
“But are college admissions ever fair, given how many exceptions are made, including the lower bar for top athletes and the little-discussed benefits accrued to “legacy” students whose parents and grandparents attended the school or to children of a celebrity or potential donor?”
The answer is: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race. The law does not prohibit discrimination based on athletic ability or legacy status.
You and I may think that a certain policy is fair or unfair, good public policy or bad, but the relevant thing is not your personal view or mine. What counts is the law enacted by Congress and signed by the president.
bob
February 25th, 2012
7:33 am
if black georgia politicians want standards lowered so more minority students can get HOPE, georgia colleges should be required to give more scholarships to less qualified white athletes.
Don Abernethy
February 25th, 2012
8:47 am
Because Blacks as a general rule are better athletes than Whites I think schools should be required to have a Black league and a White league so Whites have a chance to play. However, all players should be required to have the SAT scores required for everyone else at that school. You could also establish a sports school where no grades are required and no classes are held. Let the NBA and NFL pay for it.
Professor Fate
February 25th, 2012
10:25 am
So, we can state that blacks are more athletic than whites, and no one bats an eye. However, we can’t suggest that perhaps, just maybe, whites are more intelligent, in general, than blacks without starting a large scale kerfuffle. Curious, I tells ya.
Interesting Observation
February 25th, 2012
10:42 am
I bet you if gifted black atheletes opted to attend HCBUs as a way of protesting UGA, Clemson, TN, Auburn, Bama and the rest will gladly tout affirmative action.
Anonmom
February 25th, 2012
11:38 am
I think affirmative action actually backfires on the qualified minority it seeks to help. When you run into enough unqualified minorities at schools or in positions, who are there solely based on their ‘appearance’ rather than their underlying ‘qualifications’ it impacts all of the qualified candidates who appear the same… there’s a “carry over” effect. It harms those who get “lumped” together as part of human nature. I don’t think that eliminating race and gender from the discussion is wise, as there is something to be said for campuses which are “varied” and “multi-faceted” but at the same time I think that the it needs to be more of a “tie-breaker” rather than used to give preference to “under” qualified folks. I think that we’ve reached a point where “under” qualified has been put into place too often and we’ve gotten to “reverse” discrimination and that is wrong. Merit should count for something. For all the comments about “unequal” — please reference all of the discussions on the role of parents and need for “self-starting” and need for resources to be directed into the classroom instead of administration — the resources are there– they are being misused.
bu2
February 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
@The One
Your facts are wrong. It is not undisputed that legacy is considered. In fact there is a lot of controversy at places because legacy is no longer considered. There is a strong movement away from considering legacies in higher education.
@Dr. Spinks
If you really are a doctor you should understand how Maureen is mixing totally different issues. Discrimination based on the color of one’s skin is different than discriminating based on one’s abilities. And how much you allow lower academic scores in favor of athletic skill is a different issue as well. Different schools give different allowances.
bu2
February 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
There’s a serious argument to be made that the disproportionate number of African American football and basketball players contributes to the lower average scores of African Americans.
Mitch
February 25th, 2012
6:49 pm
The Georgia University System spends over a quarter billion dollars each year on athletics. It may be only entertainment but is certainly expected by the public. A college athlete has about the same chance of landing a career in professional whatever as a math whiz does in landing a math oriented career.
@Don
February 25th, 2012
9:05 pm
Don says “Because Blacks as a general rule are better athletes than Whites I think schools should be required to have a Black league and a White league so Whites have a chance to play.”
This is not true. Why are blacks proficient at athletics and Asians aren’t? It’s just a matter of where you spend your time. If you value athletics, you encourage your children to play by going outside and playing with them in the sport you value. Asians, generally, value academis, violin and piano. Asians excel at these arts because they spend an enormous amount of time practicing the piano and the violin and practicing math and science.
Blacks, generally, value athletic abilities. They spend a great deal of time playing basketball and football.
Why are white girls good at gymnastics? Gymnastics is a very athletic sport. White girls generally don’t play basketball as black girls do. White girls do gymnastics and black girls play basketball.
Whites swim. Blacks play football.
Whites excel at swimming. Blacks excel at football.
No one race has the corner on athletic ability. No one race has the corner on academics. It’s all cultural. Whay you value and what you practice is what you excel in.
Good Mother
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:47 am
Affirmative action is unconstitutional. I would assert that colleges should have an athletic performance degree. The genuine problem is that the athletes under the current system SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. One reason why most colleges now compete with Notre Dame & Army – they let in kids who can’t really succeed in College, exploit them for revenue, then jettison them. College athletes should AT LEAST receive the revenue generated from sales of shirts with their name or number on them. But, at least in the realm of college athletics, the NCAA is a plantation.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:48 am
Mitch – I doubt that flippant assertion would prove out.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:51 am
another serious problem – if an athlete is offered a scholarship, he should be allowed to take only 1 or 2 classes while his sport eligibility exists – once that eligiblity is over, then the college would be mandated to continue the scholarship until that individual graduates (or flunks out).
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:53 am
The One – you are the disengenuous post here. You are also advocating for do nothingism; ie, the status quo.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:57 am
Maureen – the answer is obvious – college Presidents are evaluated in some fashion on the ability to raise $$ and school stature – which frequently is connected to sports excellence. How many pianists have 100,000 watch one of their performances? Let alone pay to watch it. The key is money, which is also why the legacy folks get in. Does legacy apply in public schools?
@Paddy O and Pianists
February 26th, 2012
7:10 am
You asked a good question “How many pianists have 100,000 watch one of their performances? Let alone pay to watch it.”
There are several who have millions of people watching them and they earn more money than every athlete. Two people are obviously well over that 100,000 mark and make millions: BIlly Joel and Elton John…
Good Mother
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 26th, 2012
11:13 am
@GM
Paddy Os analogy went right over your head.
RS
February 26th, 2012
2:24 pm
All, College Admission should be totally color/ethnic blind. Please take note of California’s Prop 209 (1996) which eliminated almost totally the criteria of looking a race/ethnicity. Both minorities black & Latino dropped from 8-9% to 1-2%. With Asian population soaring from 20-25% to higher than 33%-45% of the entering freshmen class depending on which university one is looking at.
bilbo799
February 26th, 2012
6:00 pm
Maureen,
The premise of this article is just plain silly — you’re usually better. NO ONE is saying that all applicants should be treated completely equally. The distinction between disparate treatment based on race and disparate treatment based on something else (legacy status, athletic status) is clear. There is a long history of discrimination in this country based on race — our laws and values recognize this (that’s why government distinctions based on race are subject to higher scrutiny under the US Constitution than other distinctions). We have no corresponding history / legal frameworks for the distinctions you’re talking about.
bilbo799
February 26th, 2012
6:15 pm
There’s really no hypocrisy for accepting favorable treatment for athletes / legacy and rejecting favorable treatment for blacks (for the reasons stated above) — they’re just completely different things. There’s REAL hypocrisy in demanding affirmative action where blacks have been under-represented (higher education, corporate world) but not where blacks have been over-represented (major athletics, some parts of entertainment industry). WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF WE DEMANDED THAT EACH NBA REFLECT THE US POPULATION BY RACE???????????
Prof
February 26th, 2012
6:16 pm
@RS. 1-2% Hispanic and black students in California state universities and 33-45% Asian, and thus 66-53% white—indeed.
I just want to note that the original 2003 Supreme Court decision was based on the benefits that come to the SCHOOL from a diverse student body, not those who may have experienced past discrimination. The Court emphasized the educational value of diversity: it makes students aware of other perspectives than their own so they can “think outside the box”; and it prepares students for today’s reality of a society that is global in outlook, and a multiracial work environment.
Admissions officials have very good reasons for seeking a good representation of all races in their student body; and it has little to do with redressing past injustices. It makes for a better education for the students.
There’s a lot more to Education than book-learnin’.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
9:01 pm
Prof – the problem is that by determining diversity is defined by the race of the applicant, the Supreme Court is practicing benign racism. There is little diversity as defined by race, otherwise Japan would be an inept country. Diversity is taking folks from different geographical areas and different walks of life and allowing them to mingle. Defining diversity by skin color is ivory tower/liberal racism – which most newspapers & professors at university/college are blind to.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
9:01 pm
make that little benefit to diversity.
Prof
February 26th, 2012
9:44 pm
@ Paddy O. Race/ethnicity is one of many diversities considered by college admissions, besides grades and test scores. You’re right–diversity includes rural and urban folks, and folks from different socioeconomic classes, as well as those from different states, different countries, different religions.
But it isn’t the “skin color” that creates the diversity; it’s the culture of those sharing that skin color; it’s their common experience of not being in the majority. And it is quite educational for students in the majority to find out what it’s like for the others….good for them when they’re out there in a multicultural workplace after they get their degree, too. For this country, it is a-changin.
Lee
February 26th, 2012
10:32 pm
“But it isn’t the “skin color” that creates the diversity…”
Tell you what, when you get to be a manager, hire a poor white guy, a white guy from a rural area, a white guy from the city, a white guy from Finland, a rich white guy, etc, etc, and let me know how long it takes for the Human Resources “Diversity Officer” to start complaining to your boss.
2/27: Debating charter school amendment | Atlanta Forward
February 27th, 2012
10:09 am
[...] Nor have they been paying attention to the passionate discussion sparked by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to consider again whether race should be a factor in college admissions, which I tackle. To comment on this essay, visit my Get Schooled blog at this link. [...]
Prof
February 27th, 2012
11:41 am
@ Lee. You’re switching the ground of the argument, also known as equivocation. The original subject was the use of race/ethnicity in college admissions and how diversity benefits students educationally; and you’ve now changed it to the use of race/ethnicity in a business situation and how diversity benefits underrepresented workers according to Affirmative Action law. Also, you’ve quoted me selectively, ignoring the rest of my sentence.
I strongly recommend that you read the “Harbrace College Handbook,” Chapter 31 on “Logical Thinking,” a text required in most college Freshman Composition classes; for again and again in your posts you reveal basic logical fallacies.
Lee
February 27th, 2012
10:06 pm
Sorry Prof, the same principles apply. I’ve heard the “it’s not skin color” argument for diversity so many times until I’m sick of it. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about a business hiring decision, or college acceptance, or government contracting, at the end of the day, there’s some guy sitting at a computer crunching numbers on a spreadsheet and guess what? He’s measuring diversity in terms of race/ethnicity.
BTW, don’t try to obfuscate the discussion with snide recommendations to “read the Harbrace College Handbook”. That crap might work on your freshman coeds, but it doesn’t fly here…
Prof
February 28th, 2012
12:32 pm
@ Lee. OK for businessmen/women and spreadsheets, but not for college admissions people…for whom diversity is race/ethnicity AND ALSO many other types of diversity, including “legacies,” to return to the topic. Race/ethnicity is only one of many factors, and the reason, I still would argue, is not just “skin color.” I’m sick of hearing that canard too. It’s experiencing the hatred, contempt, and false racial “facts” that go along with having the “skin color”…which many bloggers here illustrate very nicely when they argue that for genetic reasons blacks have lower IQs than do whites.
Affirmative action: “A bitter, but necessary pill.” Diverse campuses are more interesting campuses. | Get Schooled
February 29th, 2012
11:50 am
[...] We had a rollicking debate over whether race should be a factor in college admissions, tied to the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue this year. [...]