A topic in the news for a couple weeks is the ruling that athletes participating at Northwestern University have the legal right to unionize, and it's something I've been rolling around in my head for some time but haven't been able to form a coherent reaction just yet. Almost as though I'm arguing with myself about how to feel... But I figure at the very least I could sit down and (figuratively) put pen to paper, so I apologize if this reads somewhat stream-of-consciousness-ly.
To begin, I can understand and empathize with where this athletes are coming from. It is true that the NCAA has made bank from their efforts - coaches and executives making millions atop millions season after season, often being paid more than any other person on campus, from professors to the president. Only a few years ago, Barry Alvarez filled in for the recently-vacated head coaching position of the Wisconsin Badgers football program for the final game or two of the season, receiving a six figure bonus for coaching, and another five figures for going to the Rose Bowl, all on top of his seven figure salary as athletic director. So I get it. If I was working day in and day out, seeing none of the fruits of my labors, I would be frustrated as well. Hell, I'd probably go work for Wall Street where the same thing happens but at least I'd get a paycheck.
That being said, I think this is a systemic issue within the NCAA that needs to be addressed, rather than continue to erode out higher education system. The title of this post is no mistake. These people are more frequently referred to as "student-athletes", to stress that the "student" comes first, but that's not really the case, now is it? One of the primary arguments for the team is that they spend upwards of 60 hours each week on football, therefore, it's a job. But let's think for a second: if they're spending all this time at practice, when exactly are they going to class and/or doing homework/studying? And going a step further, how, then, are they all pulling 4.0's?
I can't help but feel this movement undermines the entire history of unionizing. We've all read Grapes of Wrath at some point (at least many of us, or at least know the premise), and I couldn't possibly imagine that this is the same thing. Hell, even Boy Meets World tackled the issue when the 9th grade students "unionized" after reading the book in an attempt to protest their tests at the school. Thank you 90's TV for portraying more than any show these days ever could hope to imagine.
But I digress.
The point is that I don't really think this is a positive portrayal of our current system - neither our educations system nor labor movements. These people are brought to schools for one reason. And when they graduate, chances are they still read at a fifth grade level anyway (and to think that I'm worried about undermining our higher education). If anyone needs more evidence, simply listen to any professional athlete be interviewed.
And chances are they majored in Communication. Explain that one to me.
These athletes are receiving a free education, comped room and board, and an almost guaranteed graduation from any number of universities, while the rest of us flounder in student loans for the next two decades. So could I make an argument that perhaps students themselves should organize? The masses could fight for lower tuition or better dorms. I mean, they spend more time at class, studying, and doing homework than many full time careers, so they really should be compensated for it, right? Not to mention extra-curricular activities like student government, clubs, and the like. Why are these different than athletics? Because athletics brings in money? So now we give more leeway and perks to athletic students while the smart ones drop out and start tech companies. Go figure.
All in all, I think I would stick with the argument that the NCAA needs to heavily overhaul their entire system, and, at the same time, we need to remember that athletes should students FIRST. Breakthroughs in human development - medicine, science, economics - rarely, if ever, come from the field or court. They come from educated, progressive-thinking, insightful individuals. Believe it or not, their is no Nobel prize for running the 40-yard dash (but those who can run it best call the prize money for winning the Nobel a slow night out. So at least we have our priorities in the right place).
Perhaps this is yet another case of affluenza. And the gap widens.
No comments:
Post a Comment