Bloggers Love Controversy: Speaking Out on Issues of Education and Race

After writing about the academic issues most college programs are facing, I realized that the one of the major themes of this blog is controversy. The reasoning is simple, controversies are thought provoking, and most importantly controversy means that someone is paying attention to a concern or problem. The sports world is also full of push and pull between two opposing forces, both on and off the court. However, unlike in sporting contests, when it comes to ideological debate there isn’t an easy way to keep score as many different arguments are crafted by members of the contrasting viewpoints. It was with this spirit that I searched the web and found two authors who sought to uncover two issues and encourage a new understanding of difficult topics. The first is a column on the Huffington Post by Oakland, CA pastor Byron Williams titled “The Duplicity of March Madness.” In this article Williams attacks the millions of dollars and man-hours put into programs to guarantee wins that result in players being tossed aside once their eligibility has expired. He sees the atrocious graduation rates as a symptom of the economic exploitation of college athletes, and looks into the reasons such a system has formed. The second is a post on Deadspin by Dashiell Bennett named “Geno Auriemma is Not Afraid of White Kids.” Bennett analyzes comments made by University of Connencticut women’s head basketball coach Geno Auriemma (pictured left) during the team’s press conference before starting final four action. His words inflamed the debate about race issues in athletics, and were an attempt to attract more attention to women’s college basketball, with limited success. For convenience I have posted my responses below as well as on the respective blogs.

“The Duplicity of March Madness”

I want to thank you for writing this piece and really showing the other, less exciting side of the coin that is college basketball. While you highlight many negatives, I feel like you also overlook some arguments that can be made for the other side. If one of the primary purposes of going to college is to obtain knowledge and skills that will serve an individual in both their future life and career, then I would argue that college athletes are getting a strong education. Even though most players wont play in a professional league, many still find careers in fields related to their sports. College sports also teach values such as fair competition, teamwork, hard work, practice, and above all dedication. While many schools do have extremely low numbers of student-athletes earning degrees, the graduation rates of most programs are still on par with the average higher education institution in the United States. Given the extra demands placed on these individuals, is it fair to hold the programs to the high standards set by the individual institution or the seemingly more relaxed requirements the NCAA has established? It appears to me that the NCAA condones this behavior considering how infrequently they hand down punishments and the wide range of loopholes that schools can easily abuse. How do you see a solution being implemented, or the system being overhauled? You raise a lot of issues and concerns in your writing but do not offer any sort of fix or hope for optimism in the future.

You also raise the issue of John Calipari (pictured right), the newly hired “savior” of the University of Kentucky men’s basketball program, being hired with obscene amounts of cash to win games, not graduate players. But I would argue that his hire is beneficial beyond simply counting up the wins and losses. While he was rewarded with an enormous contract during difficult economic times, a lot of the compensation is coming through a number of endorsement deals the university has brokered. These top quality programs are also great examples of how much a single team can give back to a university. He is the face of the program and to a great extent the entire school. He is selling the higher education experience that should include a competitive sports program. If one of the NCAA’s goals is to enhance the collegiate experience for the whole student body, then hiring a coach to come in and win games is beneficial to the school and all those who attend. I understand your argument that it amounts to nothing more than exploitation of the athletes but isn’t it true they are also being offered a chance at a top-notch education? Where does the blame lie, with the schools, the individuals, or the system?

“Geno Auriemma is Not Afraid of White Kids”

I want to thank you for bringing awareness and analysis to Geno Auriemma’s disgraceful comments. You are right that no members of the media, or other figures in college basketball besides Auriemma have made any comments about Stanford being white or soft. There do exist a number of stereotypes about the differences between west coast and east coast basketball. Traditionally teams from the west are considered to be more athletic, and less physical than those that hail from back east. Auriemma himself admits that he tried to recruit some of Stanford’s top players, so was it when they turned him down that he suddenly soured on their abilities? This appears likely. I agree with your reaction, as this appears to be an attempt by Auriemma to grab attention away from the more glamorized men’s NCAA tournament. However, while you argue his team is ignored because they are so much better than their competition, he could have just as easily turned that into a positive. He chose not to go into his team’s own strengths, such as their impressive thirty point average margin of victory, or their attempt to go for another undefeated season which hasn’t happened in men’s basketball since Indiana University in 1976. If he had made a statement saying his team is just as good if not better than several division one basketball programs, would you have paid any attention or dismissed it without a second thought?

By opening his comments by saying “I’m going to get criticized for this” he acknowledges that he knows his statements are wrong and he anticipates a flurry of controversy will descend upon him. I wonder what you think Auriemma hopes to accomplish with these racist remarks? Does he see either the Connecticut program or women’s basketball benefiting from admitting that some of the nation’s top figures still cling to long outdated beliefs? Any future recruits that happen to be white will certainly be taking a long look at the benefits and drawbacks of playing for Connecticut. They might question their ability to earn playing time on a very competitive and talented squad when the head coach already has a negative preconception of their talent. I also wonder what the consequences will be for women’s basketball overall. There still exists a lack of black talent in the coaching ranks, and this certainly doesn’t look to further the cause. If white players are considered tough it is because they are also considered to be smarter, and better students of the game compared to black players who rely on physical prowess and little on brainpower. Do you think that Auriemma deserves a punishment, or at least a rebuke for his comments? Does this bring attention to an important issue, or will it simply be swept under the rug like so many controversies involving iconic sports figures?