<p>Rutger’s Professor William C. Dowling said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently the university did not like his comments:</p>
<p>
So, is Dowling a racist, a visionary, or something else?
<a href=“http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/SPORTS02/70926010/1012/SPORTS10[/url]”>http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/SPORTS02/70926010/1012/SPORTS10</a></p>
<p>You need to see Dowling’s comment in the context of his opposition to big time athletics, not race, however stupidly worded it is. </p>
<p><a href=“News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com”>News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com;
<p>I think many people assume when they see a big ripped black athlete they are not seeing a serious student or someone capable of being one. Sometimes looks are deceiving and sometimes they would be right. </p>
<p>Here’s the starting UW fullback–pretty tough looking guy.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.uwbadgers.com/photos/437_3.jpg[/url]”>http://www.uwbadgers.com/photos/437_3.jpg</a></p>
<p>Lifting record weights</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6uuVVTLmHA[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6uuVVTLmHA</a></p>
<p>Planning for the future</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/badgersFB/207513[/url]”>http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/badgersFB/207513</a></p>
<p>If taken in context; and the emphasis was on giving scholarships to athletes; and IF some of those athletes are academically deficient; and IF a large portion of those academically deficient athletes happen to be very good in their sport and happen to be a minority; then there is nothing racist at all about the statement.</p>
<p>If a college or University is indeed interested in providing more opportunities to minorities, then I would also guess that there’s a lot more minorities in the library and classrooms busting their butt just like any other student wanting to succeed, then there are those on the football field, basketball court, etc…</p>
<p>This is not to say that athletes can’t also be good students academically. My son is a very good and recognized athlete. He’s also maintained a 4.0gpa since elemtary school, through high school, IB program, and accepted to many outstanding universities. But Dowling is 100% correct. Providing a scholarship, and wasting valuable resources on an individual who probably didn’t deserve a High School Diploma, is taking away money from those more deserving. All because someone can play a sport. There is nothing rascist about stating the obvious or truth. </p>
<p>The only thing that isn’t known based on the reports, is the actual stats concerning that particular school. Is in fact the majority of the students playing sports, academically deficient, and receiving scholarships, mostly minorities? If so, then what he said was factual. If not, then he should have mentioned wasting money on athletes in general instead of saying minorities. It all depends on which students are getting scholarships but probably don’t belong in college. Which ones are there ONLY because of their athletic abilities?</p>
<p>badly worded, but not racist</p>
<p>My guess is he had little knowledge of the attributes of individual players and was engaging in the same sort of lookism as the late Mr Imus who based his judgement of their intellect on hair and tattoos.</p>
<p>Haven’t read the contributions of the interested parties’ but my tendency is to presume that TSdad’s interpretation is accurate. Before Rutgers’ recent success, there were animated discussions about whether or not the place should abandon big-time athletics and compete only against small colleges (Division III). Sports Illustrated even published a much debated story about Rutgers’ athletic department woes a few years ago.</p>
<p>I suspect that the offense taken by the A.D. and the University President regarding the matter of race have a lot to do with P.R. because the University has announced plans for a substantial expansion of its relatively small stadium (in the face of severe reductions in academic departments). At least one prominent legislator, a conservative gadfly who ran for Governor, opposes any use of public financing to pay for it.</p>
<p>Barrons, I was impressed by UWisconsin’s senior All-American Basketball player this past season. Great athlete, sharp student, solid character.</p>
<p>Yes, they have had some good leaders in several sports–and some bad eggs too. Top NFL draft choice and Cleveland Browns starting offensive tackle Joe Thomas was a very good student in a tough business major and a nice person. OTOH we had a very talented running back who got into a fight with his girfriend over a cabfare and is now not allowed to travel to away games.</p>
<p>Being a native of the fine Garden State, I am happy to see RU get some success in sports. So many kids had to go away to get that full well rounded big-time college experience.</p>
<p>Every study I have seen indicates that African-Americans who play football at Division I schools have both better academic performance, and graduate at a higher rate than those of their same race/ethnicity/income class peers. And one of the main reasons they graduate at higher rates is that they are much, much less likely to have drop out for financial reasons.</p>
<p>"If you were giving the scholarship to an intellectually brilliant kid who happens to play a sport, that’s fine,‘’ Dowling told the New York Times. "But they give it to a functional illiterate who can’t read a cereal box, and then make him spend 50 hours a week on physical skills. That’s not opportunity. If you want to give financial help to minorities, go find the ones who are at the library after school.‘’</p>
<p>I’m guessing the professor had a specific player in mind when he made that statement, one that exists as a member of the Rutgers football program. It wouldn’t be the first time that a academically deficient (in this case, woefully so), but athletically gifted minority student was recruited to lift a college team out of the rankings toilet. Some of their non-minority players aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer, either. In cases such as these, schools are only looking to boost their bottom line. It’s a known fact that sports team success translates into alumni largess.</p>
<p>As far as “opportunity” goes, it isn’t academic opportunity, certainly not. It’s the opportunity to shine in a national spotlight, and perhaps, move on to a lucretive (though undoubtedly, shortlived career) in the NFL, or NBA. They probably rightly guess that this kid’s chances for success outside of his sport, without the opportunity to play at the college level are nil. Afterall, he’s functionally illiterate at 18. What’s he going to do after high school back in the hood? So no, I don’t gues they experience much in the way of moral ambivelence, having convinced themselves that they’re helping the college while they “help” a poor disadvantaged kid “possibly break free of the cycle of poverty.” Win/win, right?</p>
<p>Except that a university is SUPPOSED to be about educating promising minds, helping a student move from strength to strength, NOT building a powerhouse football or basketball team. An illiterate athlete on a college team is nothing more than a paid gladiator. If he experiences a career ending injury at any point along the way, he’s out of there. He certainly isn’t prepared to enter the ranks of the student body and earn a degree. It’s back to the hood for him. Thems the breaks. Plus, there are plenty more where he came from. And some of them can actually read.</p>
<p>To be fair, I’m sure Rutgers is looking for, and awarding scholarships to the kid who spends his after school hours in the library, too. Some of those kids are even athletically gifted. But I too, have a problem with the scenario the professor paints. It IS an insult to the purported mission of an institution of higher learning to enroll someone who hasn’t acheived even the minimum standards for academic acheivement. I don’t think the professor’s statement was racist. If Rutgers really is admitting illiterate athletes, it’s a sad and embarassing truth. If a school can’t field a team of academically strong athletes (or at least, academically adequate athletes—meaning ones capable of earning a degree from the school, should they be injured), it should perhaps cut that athletic program.</p>
<p>Mini, I’d like to believe your perception is accurate but the NCAA’s own reports on the subject indicates otherwise. Ever since Congress mandated (The Bill Bradley-Ed Townes Law) that colleges publish such records, the graduation rate [6-year, I believe] for Black male Division I athletes at most schools is, quite simply, bad.</p>
<p>Nope. Take the NCAA report, by college, and compare, when data is available, by race and income, graduation rates with those of the same race/economic class who are not athletes. That’s precisely what I have done. The graduation rates are bad, but NOT as bad as that of the non-athletes.</p>
<p>(The side question though is about the benefit of “any college” versus none. Many of these athletes wouldn’t have gone to college at all without athletics, and every study I have ever read shows significant substantial gains resulting from “some college”. And, with the median age of an undergrad in the U.S. being 24.5 years of age - half of them older - many of them will finish a degree, just at a later date.)</p>
<p>Mini, you may be right because I should have discussed the numbers for Black males versus the undergraduate student body at large. But you acknowleged that the numbers are bad, nevertheless. And that’s the point.</p>
<p>The bench press and 40 times are color blind. Where the prof may have missed the mark is the implication that this situation only applies to minorities. He forgot the poor white folks (like my family) that needed d1 sports to afford college. For alot of families it’s a great opportunity and what the professor fails to understand is that the opportunity exists via sports scholarships for some of these kids to make it. He doesn’t like the percentage that make it, compared to those that don’t. What’s the percentage that make it IF they aren’t admitted? </p>
<p>Every college tour we took with our kids they talk about retention rates or returning students. If the national average for all students moving from freshman to sophomore year is 50%, certainly there aren’t only minority atheletes not making it in college. There is absolutely no guarantee that a smart hs senior or a stupid one is going to be successful in college. Yes, probabilities exist and are skewed a certain way but even the can’t miss brillant ones, fall by the wayside.</p>
<p>If anything, if you have a child that did get a D1 or 2 scholarship you know that while it provides opportunity, it also comes at a tremendous cost. It’s far from a “free” ride. The prof is right about the 50 hours of committment a week in and out of season.</p>
<p>Often times when an athelete signs a scholarship offer, they also give up some control of their educational experience. How does their educational choice measure up against practice times? Will they miss games or practices for “labs”? </p>
<p>But even with that loss of educational freedom of choice for an athelete, for many, would the opportunity to be there still be present without the sport? It’s a trade off. Most of the folks on this website aren’t in a situation where it’s an atheletic scholarship or a job and community college for their child. I see the prof as an elitist snob, who probably donates money to charity on one hand, but resents “those” people in the same insitution as he is. And I’m not talking about color.</p>
<p>I think one of the issues the professor was trying to address is the fact (yes, fact) that some athletes are accepted into universities and given scholarships despite the fact they are far below (sometimes, far, far below) the admisions standards for other students. ADs and coaches push the universities to do this and some (many?) universities are happy to do so because they want a winning team ($$$$$). </p>
<p>I agree with the professor that this is unfair. To other students who might not be athletically gifted but have the proper academic credentials and get not scholarships. BUT moreso to these athletes themselves. They are being set up to fail. On its face they will have to struggle to compete academically. And the time they are required to practice, train, etc. cuts into time they might be studying. It is not easy to be a major college athlete. So many fail classes. And are put on probation (academic and athletic). And flunk out. (Or, don’t graduate . . . 4 years and probably have a handful of useful credits . . .)</p>
<p>And we’re not even getting to some of the more disturbing issues . . . taking unprepared kids (often out of cities) and plunking them down in a college (often in the middle of a cornfield) where they are not only unable to compete academically, but also socially. They are in an “alien” environment. They are not allowed to have jobs (their -unpaid- job is to play their sport). Often, they come from families who cannot give them spending money. And yet we’re shocked (shocked!) when some resort to stealing to get some spending money. (All the other kids in the dorm have $ for pizza and a movie, why shouldn’t they?)</p>
<p>Universities make big bucks off these kids and they don’t share in the wealth. (The argument is they’re getting an education as payment. But are they???) </p>
<p>This applies to athletes of all races although, let’s be honest, more minorities fall into this category than non-minorities. (Which is another piece of this scandalous puzzle.) I don’t think the profesor is racist. It’s just he, like many of us in higher ed, have seen too much of this.</p>
<p>But tomorrow, I will be cheering for my school’s football team to win. So I’m not innocent in this either.</p>
<p>Off-topic random thoughts:</p>
<p>Why are players in starting lineups introduced on national TV football broadcasts as so-and so from U of A, U of B etc?</p>
<p>It’s a bargain with the Devil at times. A relative was a top basketball prospect in the mid-1990s. He accepted a scholarship to a southern university, only to find out that it is by no means a totally free ride. For example, even at schools with sterling reputations, a sports scholarship is renewable annually and can be revoked quite arbitrarily, essentially at the head coach’s whim. What was frightening to me was that the Athletic Department had great influence over his course [electives] load and the “quality” of those courses. Sure, he and his teammates were over 18 but the infuence of the A.D. over academics was not subtle. While he didn’t completely enjoy being a D-1 athlete [bad rapport with the coach] he did graduate in 5-years and today is a very loyal and ethusiastic alumnus. Most of his best memories on campus, however, have little to do with basketball. The lesson is, scholarship athletes and their parents must have their eyes open. Their relationship to the college is totally a one-way street. A couple of years ago Commentator Billy Packer (former All-American) and Shameless basketball salesman Dick [I’ll endorse ANYTHING] Vitale got into a heated and fascinating discussion about this on the fine TV sports news program ‘Outside the Lines.’ Vitale accepts the laissez faire approach, while Packer was outraged that the colleges (and Nike and Addidas, by extension) exploit these kids by leaving many of them hanging without an education.</p>
<p>What being a college football player means to one fine young man.</p>
<p><a href=“captimes.com | The Capital Times: Madison WI News”>captimes.com | The Capital Times: Madison WI News;
<p>Opie, it’s not snobbery. Dowling claims in his blog that “President McCormick has directed his office to compile a complete list of Rutgers courses that may be successfully passed by entering students with 5th grade reading comprehension.” That’s his issue. Nobody wants to deny opportunity to any kid who can bring his or her athleticism to Rutgers in exchange for an education. It’s also perfectly reasonable, in most people’s eyes, to drop the standards a bit in acknowledgement of the huge time commitment it takes to reach DIV 1 sports talent level. But Rutgers is NJ’s flagship University. What the heck do we even HAVE courses that could be passed with only 5th grade reading level??? I’m an alum & I find that distressing.</p>
<p>SS, yea it is in a way. It is making the assumption because they couldn’t then (hs) they can’t now. I was a better college student than a HS student. The reason? college made sense, HS didn’t and my maturity level grew and I understood the importance of education. Admitedly, while I am a dim bulb, my lightbulb went off in college. I’m not alone in that aspect and while mine lit up, I knew others who simply burned out at the same time. We can guess but we don’t know.</p>
<p>As far as a 5th grade reading level, I would bet that there’s a learning disability involved there that because of lack of funding wasn’t caught eariler. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t fuss about 5th grade reading level as a life insurance contract by law, is written to an 8th grade reading level comprehension and people still find that confusing. 
</p>
<p>What Rutgers can do simply is what the UW (WA) does. Guarantee a college education no matter how long it takes. If Rutgers football brings em in for four years and they can’t degree in that time, they continue to pay until that person gets that degree or passes away whichever comes first. That way there is a finanical incentive for coaches to get kids degreed. What the public and the school should be telling a coach is this… “sure we’ll let you bring in this kid who underqualifies for enrollment and we’ll expect to see a action plan on how you are going to help him be successful and a contingent plan if he isn’t and how it factors into the budget.” </p>
<p>In other words if you are going to use them, really complete that promise you made to their mom’s that you would “look out for and take care of”… </p>
<p>Believe me, more than just black kids get discarded in college atheletics. God help you if you get hurt.</p>
![http://www.uwbadgers.com/photos/437_3.jpg[/url]](http://www.uwbadgers.com/photos/437_3.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
