Friday, January 19, 2007

At Least One Student at the University of Michigan Understands

Via Discriminations (see blogroll at left) comes this link:

Diversity at the University should extend to all parts of campus

To the Daily:
With all the debate over the passage of Proposal 2, I don't understand how we can demand such diversity only in the student body. If we need diversity in the classroom, then shouldn't we expect it on the football field or basketball court? Our football and basketball teams are composed primarily of black players. Whites are the minority on the basketball court, and there are no Asians at all. Is this because black people are some of the most talented football and basketball players? Yes.

Recruiters look for the best talent, and that is also what admissions officers should do. If we started filling our sports teams with students who are racially diverse but not quite as talented, Michigan would lose its reputation as one of the most competitive and best athletic programs in the nation.

Diversity is not measured by race or gender, but by thoughts, experiences and talents. I have learned about diversity from my friends who went to private schools, had different religious backgrounds or grew up in different states, which shows why diversity should have nothing to do with skin color.

Sabrina Valenti
LSA junior

Sabrina gets it.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I would go further than that. If school athletic programs are the financial sinkholes that I think they are, then why are we continuing to use this money for athletics over academics. Is it some weak homage to the ancient Greeks and their attitude of balance? Or is it, like so many minority educators like to claim, the only thing keeping minority students in school. Heck, for far less we could install game systems in the class room and reward them with time for performance in class. That would be an odd, but just as effective use of money. Most school districts give lip service to the idea of transparency in their budgets, but any good accountant knows that you can shift and hide questionable expenditures in a variety of ways. If you look at most local school budgets, athletics spending will appear to be around 6%. But usually that is without the addition of salaries for coaches that coach full time, travel, meals, uniforms and stipends for part time coaches. All those things add up to the sum of the amount, but are usually cached in different accounts depending on the will and whims of the person making the decisions. Look at schools in the Big Show who have performed poorly over the past ten years-like say, Baylor. The only reason they were offered a Big Twelve slot is to assure the then Texas Governor, Anne Richards, would sign the bill allowing the dissolution of the Southwest Conference. In trying to keep up, Baylor has had to make some serious changes and is in worse shape financially than they have been in awhile. And for what? So they can say they have a Div. I football program that plays in the cellar and hadn't won a conference game until last year? Are athletic really worth all this angst? I like college football, but I don't like what it has become-a farm program for the NFL. And the same could be said for the NBA. We offer kids huge scholarships, which come out of the budget. Quite often they are not really college material but they have good stats. The coaches find tutors and others to help the student academically, but the end of the talented student is usually that they leave early for any number of reasons. If they aren't successful we see things like former stars working as truckers. Is this really what education has become? And now that the colleges are in line, the same attitude is drifting down to high schools. And that in turn is pushing the athletic departments to ask for and often get, whatever they need to be the Top Dog. Sorry this is so long-I am really mad at a number of things and the SMU/Bush Library controversy has unleashed a great deal of verbage.