1. Ruffneck wrote:

c’mon Mark;

If there is one place in America with an undeniable left leaning agenda, it’s the school system. We don’t teach students to survive in the real world where fighting for what you want is the only thing that matters. We instead teach how unfair situations are and that life needs to be a level playing field where competition and free thinking should be rewarded with penalty and censure. That is to say that as long as the “level” playing field means slanted to the left where the playing field is actually several different fields on different levels.

For years the anti-religious left has taught us that our founders were not religious while we stare at the angels and the word God (with a capital G) plastered all over the monuments in DC, Philadelphia, Boston and other historic areas. They were most certainly not the definition of Catholics but they were guided by those religious foundations. Sometimes you just have to look and ask yourself questions at what you are looking at, not just rely on what your professors are trying to teach you.

Smart people understand how to ask those questions and will filter through the garbage that the fringe will try to pass through. The only problem that remains is what happens when we are teaching the students not to question and never think for themselves and label them evil for questioning and to be afraid of the free thinkers?

2. Liam wrote:

Freedom of expression does not allow bible thumping god freaks to indoctrinate our children in the public school system? People need only stand up to this. File suit against the Texas State Board of Education. Thank you for addressing the issue head on.

3. JohnInMA wrote:

Certainly athletics are not the only source of revenue for most institutions. So, what makes athletes different? If they are not different, then to be perfectly equitable, one most consider, for example, the value of academic staff and graduate staff in attracting research dollars. Similarly, one must consider those people as well as administrative staff whose efforts or reputations contribute to giving towards endowments and the like. In some cases, those are more impressive than the athletic revenues.

In reality, to me, Dr. Hill’s argument is either weak or incomplete. In applying and accepting the pimp analogy you must not look beyond the very crust of the comparison. If you do, you find nothing binding the athletes in servitude, and to the contrary (I am guessing without data or a report at hand) the athletes are actually more likely to benefit from their circumstances to a degree greater than the average undergraduate. In addition, they are free to leave or move one after graduation. For example, those who are truly top at their respective games are very likely to go on to quite an enriching career. Even if average, the introductory level in some professional sports dwarfs the salaries of most any entry level position for someone earning a 4-year degree. For those who are not good enough or lucky enough to move into professional sports, but do earn their degree, it is my experience that in many cases, if not most, they also have benefits that many undergraduates do not receive. That is, the larger the fan base the larger the revenue to the school, to some proportion. Such a fan base does offer preferential hiring to athletic candidates, again in my experience.

So, it seems to me that the upside of the “sacrifice” the athletes must make is better than the upside for many non-athlete students. Anecdotal exceptions exist, such as the stellar student at a well known school who perhaps has the privilege of many high paying choices upon graduation, or the average athlete who cannot compete in the business marketplace. But it surely isn’t as simple a situation as posited by the pimp analogy.