The proposal coming from Washington last week reflects months of recent speculation. The resulting legislation could resolve the dilemma that our nation has faced for years. I am, of course, referring to college basketball reform.
Combining education and basketball, two of the Obama administration's favorite topics, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan presented a plan to revitalize academic priorities in the currently business-like atmosphere of college basketball. Duncan would like to see collegiate teams banned from postseason play - most notably the NCAA tournament - if their program fails to graduate at least 40 percent of its players. With the recent academic fading of our own basketball star Sylven Landesberg, in comparison to Virginia athlete-scholars like Jerome Meyinsse, we are already familiar with the arguments that underlie this new suggestion. To implement a variant of Duncan's idea is favored, with the opposition being the unlikely upset. Yet serious issues, from the role of government in our education to the role of entertainment in our society, make this otherwise easy pick a potential sleeper.
The NCAA already has a semi-effective program called the "Academic Progress Rate" to penalize institutions that neglect academics. However, this new, extensive policy would affect many more schools. To critique the initiative for better graduation rates among college athletes is simply ignorant. But to believe that Duncan's proposal will be effective is just as ill-informed.
Throughout college sports, many programs have manipulated the academic system; this would undoubtedly occur here as well. Graduation rate is a very loose requirement. Athletes may take classes (the infamous senior year of ballroom dancing) that could hardly be called academic. Or, players may choose to attend an institution with less rigorous standards, further skewing the disproportionate balance of talent among college basketball programs. By assigning the percentage to teams (rather than the individual), the possibility exists for teams to enlist players who only serve to increase the graduation rate.
Putting the emphasis solely on the students' output shows that we care less about what athletes learn, only that they learn. With the ideal pursuit of knowledge waning, many of us attend a university to prepare us for our careers. The same is true for the basketball player. With the age requirements of the NBA and national spotlight of college basketball, many players come to universities to better their game. To mandate their unmotivated entry into the classroom would cause an inevitable formality: professors wasting their time teaching to students who don't want to learn. Furthermore, questions are raised about the role of the government. If Washington can mandate academics for athletes, then what is stopping them from implementing national standards of physical fitness for all college undergraduates? All government debates aside, I wonder if 40 percent of our college students could pass a fitness exam featuring the physical tests placed on athletes.
Athletes, like other public figures, have a peculiar relationship with the public. We place constraints on their individual pursuits, causing them to endure our requirements, secretly hoping that they overcome all limitations. We want them to be like us and then enshrine them when they are not. Many will deplore a college dropout; far less will scorn an Edgar Allen Poe or Steve Jobs.
We care little about athletes' individual lives, yet demand they constantly contribute to ours. In return for their constant entertainment, we promise unyielding scrutiny. As seen most recently with Tiger Woods, we chastise our athletes for being immoral, dishonest, or exhibiting other negative traits of human nature. But it is us who have committed idolatry.
If we really think collegiate scholarship to be as important as college sports, then we must refine our own ways. Reducing the salaries of professional athletes and restoring the prominence of intelligence will compel our youths to seek a college education. Make our stadiums smaller and our classrooms bigger; put international debates on network television. Criticizing college athletes for neglecting their studies, then praising them if they happen to become superstars, is pure hypocrisy on our part.
In conclusion, I find Duncan's argument to be a bad idea; whether an athlete chooses to memorize some historical facts is irrelevant. As University of Tennessee basketball coach Bruce Pearl argued, our attitude toward education and the culture of our sports need to be fundamentally addressed from a young age: "Fix it at the high school level, fix it at the middle school level, fix it at the elementary school level." Education, like health care, is a flawed system: Increasing its availability hardly improves its intrinsic downfalls. Personally, I think athletes should all take sports medicine or nutrition classes. This would be beneficial to them while also giving us valuable activists for physical fitness.
Whatever obstacles are placed in the realm of college basketball will hardly make a difference. Athletes can surely overcome our defense, avoiding any pressure and traps we put on them. In college basketball, making rigid plans is never a good idea. Even the surest of strategies will lead to a busted bracket.
Aaron Eisen is The Cavalier Daily's senior associate editor. He can be reached at a.eisen@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 4 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 9 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
