That's a pretty bad argument. Again the position the guy quoted took was that allowing anyone not academically qualified into the university was a "bad idea". I've read some pretty good arguments that college sports should be done away with for this very reason.
First
In the context of the article...thats
not what he said. Mr Graglia thinks “lower[ing] standards to admit members of
preferred groups” is “a bad idea”. Its pretty clear the best you can attribute to him is, he doesn't like making any determinations based on race, unless I missed the part where there was an allusion to anything other than race as the basis for this article.
You may take liberty to extend his thoughts for the purposes of a discussion, but I think its wrong to attribute your logical extension to him.
Next
Generally speaking...Comparing the two "preferred groups" you and I are addressing, "athlete" and "minority" simply on the basis of the lower entrance standards each might enjoy is, at a minimum, overly simplistic, and in fact, lower entrance standards is the ONLY similarity these two "groups" share....As well, this comparison exercise between athlete and race feels pretty close to conflating avocation with race ... Yuk.
Put it this way...If Podunk state decided to make athletic scholarships be awarded such that athletes needed to surpass standard academic entrance requirements...would anyone care (outside profit and entertainment considerations)? Because "athlete" is a choice, an avocation. What if Podunk state decided African American students needed to surpass standard academic requirements to be admitted? We'd all cry foul...That should pretty much tell you the utility of the comparison. These things aren't comparable.
isn't allowing academically unqualified individuals who happen to run fast into a university so they can sell tickets social engineering albeit vis a vis some perverted market rationale? Isn't a "desired" life experience and the "ability" to share that with others as much a valid criteria as the ability to dunk a basketball"
I don't think athletic scholarships have anything at all to do with social engineering as I understand it. We don't offer athletes for diversity sake, or any other altruistic purpose...they are what their 40 is, so to speak...and they bring to the campus whatever their race/background is...and being an accomplished athlete is not basis for the presumption of diversity. Having excellence in an avocation like football, and consequently being asked to join a campus community regardless of your ethnicity is anti-social engineering in my book. Athletes are the epitome of a performance only rating....so no altruism, all performance...I can't see that as any form of social engineering.
Whatever value you place on diversity for diversity's sake...for the benefit of life experiences...fine. I think that hand is a bit overplayed though...I would argue a second generation Japanese kid from the south side of Chicago is going to bring something different than a second generation Japanese kid from Cherry Hill, NJ. So where does diversity come from...really? Plug any race or ethnicity into that scenario, and be honest with yourself. I'm not against diversity. I happen to believe if we stepped away from the "programs" the diversity at universities would look like the population...and I for one don't see the problem with that, but I understand others don't see it that way. Thats Cool. Point here was I disagreed with the analogy/comparison you were using....
