Following the argument set forth by a letter to the editor on Feb. 12, I should give up on my academic ambitions. I mean, I could always “just pick up a rubber ball instead.”
Okay, right. Because it’s that easy!
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a pretty scrawny guy. The prospect of me playing sports for an NCAA Division I team is pretty damn funny. But I guess if it’s just as easy as “pick[ing] up a rubber ball,” I should go ahead and give it a shot, right?
If only it were so simple.
But my student-athlete companions and I both have to work hard to maintain our attendance at this school. And because of NCAA requirements, some of those athletes may have to work harder. Student athletes as a group already have a higher GPA than the regular student body as a group.
To say that giving student athletes scholarships for their athletic performance creates a “disparity between athletes and students who are here purely to learn” is a bogus argument. The only disparity created — the only animosity created — is by people who seek to pit one group against another. And that seems to be exactly what Ms. Radic was trying to do with her letter. What starts out as a reasonable argument about the way that student fee money is spent turns into a divisive and subtly racist tirade against a particular group of people at this university.
As much disdain as I have for the way that student fee money is spent, I cannot tolerate what the letter devolves into. Perhaps we do spend too much of our General Fee on athletics. I don’t make very much use of the money I contribute to the teams, after all, since it’s a rare day when I make it to a game. But to say that we shouldn’t spend so much money on athletics because the students here who are athletes are given an exaggeratedly easier time because of their “entertainment value” is a great oversimplification of a really complicated situation.
And you know what the worst part is? People who really do want to see some change in the way General Fee money is spent are going to have to wait a little longer. Because now everybody will focus on this bad argument against the problem instead of the problem itself. So what has Ms. Radic’s letter accomplished? It’s only kept us in the dark for longer.
Isaac Smith is a junior studying political science at Ohio University.
