Unionizing Athlete-Students

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.  

"Invasion" of Privacy, or an Invitation?

I realize I'm a bit behind on this subject in terms of its publicity (and therefore much of its volatility), but I was just reminded of it twice already this week, as my phone told me that some applications are in need of updating and I purchased a new computer.  In the case of the phone, I've been informed that the Facebook app needs to access "additional permissions", including

• Your messages - "allows application to read SMS (text) messages"
• Take pictures - "allows application to take pictures and videos with the camera...at any time the camera is seeing
• Your personal information - "allows an application to...add, remove, change events (on your calendar)"; "allows an application to read all calendar events stored on your phone"; "allows an application to read all of the contact data stored on your phone"; "allows the application to read personal information stored on your device"

And these are only the new ones.

As for the computer, I had been happily running Windows XP for, well, the my entire life of owning a computer, but just upgraded to a Windows 8 operating system.  I must say, and I can't be the only one, I am astounded by how much information we're giving out about ourselves to the very instruments that already cause so much grief.  I realize I sound like a Luddite here, but the amount of personal information required is getting out of hand. I just learned that for new versions of Office, an email address is kept on file so that documents can now be saved to the "cloud".  Cool, alright, I get it. One can now access them from any device, at any time, and share them with whomever, however, they see fit. But doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that we rage against "the man" collecting our data when we post it online willy-nilly?

So why exactly are we so upset with this whole "invasion of privacy" thing?  I mean really.  I can't be the only person who's recognized that our "privacy" went out the window a long time ago.  The above examples are for one single application on my phone and a personal computer that may be getting a bit too personal. Consider the following additional examples (by no means an exhaustive list):

• Online banking
• Quickbooks
• Income tax software
• Credit cards
• GPS
• Email
• Facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Search engines
• On-Star
• LowJack

We've been willingly giving out our information - our names, our interests, our spending habits, our very location - for over a decade. Every site we visit, every search term, every call, every text, every email, every single post that makes us lol, hell, every book we check out from the library, someone, somewhere, is seeing it.  We don't seem to have an issue with our search engines shuffling through our information to better direct ads to our individual interests.  "Well," you argue,"that's not an actual person doing it, it's all automated!"  Of course it is!  So do you really think the NSA has enough operators to listen to every single phone call happening everywhere all the time?  Pretty sure our unemployment rate would drop to zero.  And if you really think your phone is being tapped and your calls are being listened to, either you have a very high opinion of yourself, or you're probably doing something you shouldn't.

The way I see it, the only reason we have lost all semblance of privacy is because we've chosen to.