There is an article from Atlantic Magazine by Jemele Hill called "It’s Time for Black Athletes to Leave White Colleges". You may recall Hill as the sports writer who called Trump a white supremacist and got canned from ESPN for it. She is now a staff writer for Atlantic Magazine.
Hill argues that black athletes ought to attend historically black colleges and universities (HBCU). She notes that the 'Power 5' conferences in college football have a cumulative black enrollment of 2.4% but that black athletes are an overwhelming and featured part of their athletic programs. The NCAA had total revenues of 1.1 billion in 2017, and Hill notes 844 million of that, or 76%, comes from TV revenues for the NCAA basketball tournament. A study on graduation rates finds that 54% of NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament athletes are black. She and other writers have called this exploitation. Some have compared it to slave labor.
Is this argument reasonable?
Black athletes overwhelmingly choose large schools with successful athletic departments, and this is not HBCU institutions. She argues that black athletes ought to choose HBCUs because they have been instrumental in the creation and maintenance of a black professional class. She notes HBCUs have produced "80 percent of the black judges, 50 percent of the black lawyers, 50 percent of the black doctors, 40 percent of the black engineers, 40 percent of the black members of Congress, and 13 percent of the black CEOs in America today."
That is a very impressive academic achievement record for the HBCUs. It is not, however, relevant to her argument that black athletes should attend HBCUs. Hill in essence asks black athletes to compromise the development of their talent to help others develop theirs. So.....black athletes subsidizing athletic programs at white schools is racist and expoitational, but black athletes sacrificing their maximum potential for the good of other blacks is community service?
Let us assume her position (and more on that later) about exploitation is true. It does not consider the good or needs of the black athlete. They do not have stellar academic records. There is a 26 point difference in graduation rates for black compared to white male athletes. They are not going to be judges, lawyers, doctors, or scientists. They do not have glowing resumes or high ACT scores; in fact, too many have behavioral and academic records that would preclude their attending college at all except for their athletic skills. Why should they a priori consider HBCUs when these schools have lousy athletic programs, lousy facilities and lesser coaches? That is like asking intellectually gifted students to avoid Harvard, Yale and Stanford to attend lesser state schools to increase the schools' academic standing. Talk about exploitation!
Besides this obviously bad choice for the individual it is a lousy choice for the school. Ramping up an athletic program takes a lot of money, and most smaller, liberal arts schools do not have the funding to create serious athletic programs. Admittedly, basketball is an exception, and several smaller liberal arts schools are perennially in the NCAA tournament, such as Belmont, or the Catholic universities of the Northeast. This latter group, however, gets underwriting from an organization much larger than the NCAA.
Hill makes a point out of NCAA payments per Power 5 school- 40 million dollars. Lots of money. The University of Tennessee, home of several major, major athletic programs (despite the ongoing public agony of its football team) had a budget of....2.3 billion. NCAA payments are thus 1.7% of all university revenue. The Athletic Department budget (2006 is the best source I could find) is 66 million. NCAA payments thus constitute 2/3 of the athletic budget, except NCAA money doesn't even GO to the athletic department. It goes to the school. The Athletic Department's revenues come mainly from football at 49%, and 'development' (meaning boosters and other donors) at 23%. Boosters gave 15 million to the athletic department, not the university. If you think that money would have gone to the school better think again.
There is another part of this that Hill leaves out. Most NCAA money goes for athletic scholarships. The money earned is exactly what lets these athletes attend college at all.
The money black athletes generate goes directly to their welfare and support. It is difficult to see this as exploitation, let alone slavery. In a free market a student or worker can go where they like, and the money generated supports the very scholarships and programs that keep athletes in school. Hill's argument is superficially reasonable and facile, but in fact ignores these ethical and data realities. For the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For a person with a racial animus, everything is seen through the lens of racism and exploitation. It isn't.
Ted
Hill argues that black athletes ought to attend historically black colleges and universities (HBCU). She notes that the 'Power 5' conferences in college football have a cumulative black enrollment of 2.4% but that black athletes are an overwhelming and featured part of their athletic programs. The NCAA had total revenues of 1.1 billion in 2017, and Hill notes 844 million of that, or 76%, comes from TV revenues for the NCAA basketball tournament. A study on graduation rates finds that 54% of NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament athletes are black. She and other writers have called this exploitation. Some have compared it to slave labor.
Is this argument reasonable?
Black athletes overwhelmingly choose large schools with successful athletic departments, and this is not HBCU institutions. She argues that black athletes ought to choose HBCUs because they have been instrumental in the creation and maintenance of a black professional class. She notes HBCUs have produced "80 percent of the black judges, 50 percent of the black lawyers, 50 percent of the black doctors, 40 percent of the black engineers, 40 percent of the black members of Congress, and 13 percent of the black CEOs in America today."
That is a very impressive academic achievement record for the HBCUs. It is not, however, relevant to her argument that black athletes should attend HBCUs. Hill in essence asks black athletes to compromise the development of their talent to help others develop theirs. So.....black athletes subsidizing athletic programs at white schools is racist and expoitational, but black athletes sacrificing their maximum potential for the good of other blacks is community service?
Let us assume her position (and more on that later) about exploitation is true. It does not consider the good or needs of the black athlete. They do not have stellar academic records. There is a 26 point difference in graduation rates for black compared to white male athletes. They are not going to be judges, lawyers, doctors, or scientists. They do not have glowing resumes or high ACT scores; in fact, too many have behavioral and academic records that would preclude their attending college at all except for their athletic skills. Why should they a priori consider HBCUs when these schools have lousy athletic programs, lousy facilities and lesser coaches? That is like asking intellectually gifted students to avoid Harvard, Yale and Stanford to attend lesser state schools to increase the schools' academic standing. Talk about exploitation!
Besides this obviously bad choice for the individual it is a lousy choice for the school. Ramping up an athletic program takes a lot of money, and most smaller, liberal arts schools do not have the funding to create serious athletic programs. Admittedly, basketball is an exception, and several smaller liberal arts schools are perennially in the NCAA tournament, such as Belmont, or the Catholic universities of the Northeast. This latter group, however, gets underwriting from an organization much larger than the NCAA.
Hill makes a point out of NCAA payments per Power 5 school- 40 million dollars. Lots of money. The University of Tennessee, home of several major, major athletic programs (despite the ongoing public agony of its football team) had a budget of....2.3 billion. NCAA payments are thus 1.7% of all university revenue. The Athletic Department budget (2006 is the best source I could find) is 66 million. NCAA payments thus constitute 2/3 of the athletic budget, except NCAA money doesn't even GO to the athletic department. It goes to the school. The Athletic Department's revenues come mainly from football at 49%, and 'development' (meaning boosters and other donors) at 23%. Boosters gave 15 million to the athletic department, not the university. If you think that money would have gone to the school better think again.
There is another part of this that Hill leaves out. Most NCAA money goes for athletic scholarships. The money earned is exactly what lets these athletes attend college at all.
The money black athletes generate goes directly to their welfare and support. It is difficult to see this as exploitation, let alone slavery. In a free market a student or worker can go where they like, and the money generated supports the very scholarships and programs that keep athletes in school. Hill's argument is superficially reasonable and facile, but in fact ignores these ethical and data realities. For the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For a person with a racial animus, everything is seen through the lens of racism and exploitation. It isn't.
Ted
The use of the word "should", or the phrase "ought to", is nothing more than one person's attempt to impose their values upon another or upon a group. One of the most significant goals in the founding of this country is to give each individual the right of self determination. Yes, at time, black people were not included, and there is nothing defensible about slavery, but that is now settled. Most "black" people in this country have a significant amount of Caucasian and other genetic composition. Today, the US black population is far better off than their distant cousins still residing in the African continent. Through the unfortunate history of slavery, they are now in a position to pursue their individual goals and are restricted by the attitudes of the black community more so than by any oppression from whites.
ReplyDelete