At quite a few schools, the athletics programs become the tail that wags the dog, consuming vast sums of money while simultaneously dragging down actual education. The big UNC scandal a decade ago is Exhibit A for that.
But what about smaller schools that compete at the low-level NCAA Division III, or perhaps just have club sports? Still a waste?
In today’s Martin Center article, Professor Joseph Knippenberg argues that sports programs have a place.
He writes:
I think that athletics — at least at the Division III level — are far from the worst of the extracurricular or non-curricular undertakings pursued by our colleges and universities. While the fieldhouse, the soccer pitch, the pool, and the football field might not be the proverbial playing fields of Eton, there is some truth to the old saying about those fields and war, probably wrongly attributed to the Duke of Wellington. College athletics can emphasize and cultivate personal responsibility, self-discipline, and teamwork, which are certainly life skills useful in the classroom and beyond a student’s collegiate years. What’s more, the metrics of athletic success can’t be inflated the way grades almost always are.
He makes a sound point. For many students, some athletic competition adds to the enjoyment of life, and if schools can provide that without undermining their educational mission, that’s good.
Knippenberg also observes that athletics might be the only place on campus where the “diversity” obsession won’t take hold: “I would venture to say that, unlike lots of academic departments, many athletic departments don’t use political tests to screen their coaches. . . . So I’ll suggest that athletic programs might actually serve as a source of ideological and intellectual diversity on otherwise politically homogeneous campuses.”
The locker room might be the “safe space” for the unwoke, and there’s something to be said for that.