[OT] Colgate adds athletic scholarships

Interesting news ...

HAMILTON, N.Y. (AP) -- Breaking from its long-standing tradition of awarding financial aid solely on need, Colgate University announced Monday that it would begin offering a limited number of athletic scholarships as part of a plan ``to enhance excellence in programs across the campus.''

The policy, approved Saturday by the school's board of trustees, will go into effective with the class entering in fall 2004.


[sports.yahoo.com]

Jay Wang '99 wrote:

Interesting news ...

HAMILTON, N.Y. (AP) -- Breaking from its long-standing tradition of awarding financial aid solely on need, Colgate University announced Monday that it would begin offering a limited number of athletic scholarships as part of a plan ``to enhance excellence in programs across the campus.''

It's almost Orwellian. "To enhance excellence in programs across the campus" = "win more games". If they wanted a broad enhancing of excellence, they would award academic scholarships for students with a commitment to English, Music, Physics and Political Science.



Post Edited (10-20-03 18:03)

Boy, it's a good thing they turned down that invitation to join the Ivy League.

I guess that means that some people's dreams of the ECAC being an "all-academic" conference is officially down the tubes.

Come on, though, let's be fair. Scholarships or no, Colgate is still, academically speaking, head and shoulders above the vast majority of DI hockey schools.

[Q]Dovidio said the change would reduce the number of recruited athletes by about 25 percent. Roster size was not expected to decrease because walk-ons and other students who can play Division I sports but who are not recruited athletes will still be among the students attending Colgate, he said. The change also is expected to have another effect.

``Winning teams are phenomenal for school spirit. So the more winning teams we can have, the better it is for all of our students and faculty,'' Colgate president Rebecca Chopp said.

Chopp said the university wasn't adding any money to its scholarship pool, only rearranging it. [/Q]There is the rub. Start Athletic Scholarships and therefore have to recruit fewer athletes, and if you are not adding to the scholarship pool, then the money for those athletes comes at the expense of funds going to other students (who would receive it on the basis of need).

So, more money to athletes, less to other needy students, and fewer otherwise deserving students able to attend Clarkson.

Is this great or what?

Jim Hyla '67 wrote:

[
So, more money to athletes, less to other needy students, and fewer otherwise deserving students able to attend Clarkson.

That's it! It's all a Colgate plot to shrink the student body at Clarkson!

Yes. All of those ECAC CU schools are so d@mn similar, I could never tell them apart.



Post Edited (10-21-03 04:29)

At least CU schools don't get confused with liberal arts schools in Iowa

JH

colgate turned down an invitation to join the ivy league? was that one of the "what they were thinking?" moments in colgate's history, or did the decision (to not join) make sense at the time?

i learned a new thing today, and it's not even 7am!

Actually, it was 7:06. You wasted too much of the morning and I don't know how you will catch up.



Post Edited (10-22-03 11:00)

big red apple wrote:

Actually, it was 7:06. Your wasted too much of the morning and I don't know how you will catch up.

Wasted? Been out drinking too much last night?

crodge2k wrote:

big red apple wrote:

Actually, it was 7:06. Your wasted too much of the morning and I don't know how you will catch up.

Wasted? Been out drinking too much last night?

How the hell did you respond with the typo intact? I edited that within seconds of my original post!

Min-Wei Lin wrote:
colgate turned down an invitation to join the ivy league?

Oops, now I'm spreading the rumor. It was a joke, in reference to an oft-repeated (by Colgate students) myth.

Umm, perhaps I spend too much time online and just caught it at the right moment

After all, it only took 20 minutes for TMQ to get pulled from ESPN.

crodge2k wrote:
After all, it only took 20 minutes for TMQ to get pulled from ESPN.

Yeah, what happened with that? Did he write something inappropriate/non-PC? Because he did that all the time...

[Q]Yeah, what happened with that? Did he write something inappropriate/non-PC? Because he did that all the time...[/Q]


TMQ was fired for racist comments in one of his web pieces for the New Republic. Whether the comments were in fact racist is obviously up for debate, you can read about it on the New Republic website. I doubt that TMQ is racist, but his comments were certainly inappropriate, IMO. Obviously ESPN was sensitive to the issue, considering the whole Rush thing.

Pete Godenschwager wrote:

[Q]Yeah, what happened with that? Did he write something inappropriate/non-PC? Because he did that all the time...[/Q]


TMQ was fired for racist comments in one of his web pieces for the New Republic. Whether the comments were in fact racist is obviously up for debate, you can read about it on the New Republic website. I doubt that TMQ is racist, but his comments were certainly inappropriate, IMO. Obviously ESPN was sensitive to the issue, considering the whole Rush thing.

Anti-semitic, specifically. The comments were pretty bad, but his apology was, I think, sincere. (A lot of people disagree, and think his apology was weak.) You can read his column and apology here: [www.tnr.com] (This is the apology, which contains a link to the earlier post.)

There is a good summary of the commentary (with a lot of links to the greater blogosphere) here: [www.instapundit.com]



Post Edited (10-22-03 12:31)

big red apple wrote:

Pete Godenschwager wrote:
TMQ was fired for racist comments in one of his web pieces for the New Republic. Whether the comments were in fact racist is obviously up for debate, you can read about it on the New Republic website. I doubt that TMQ is racist, but his comments were certainly inappropriate, IMO. Obviously ESPN was sensitive to the issue, considering the whole Rush thing.

Anti-semitic, specifically. The comments were pretty bad, but his apology was, I think, sincere. (A lot of people disagree, and think his apology was weak.) You can read his column and apology here: [www.tnr.com] (This is the apology, which contains a link to the earlier post.)

There is a good summary of the commentary (with a lot of links to the greater blogosphere) here: [www.instapundit.com]

Even more specifically, anti-Semitic comments directed towards Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, parent company of ESPN. I thought Easterbrook was smart, in general, but that's pretty frickin' stupid.

While the comment was only mildly anti-semitic, I'm willing to write it off as a genuine mistake. Actually, I had to read the article twice to catch it.

However, he should have known that criticizing Michael Eisner, while working for a Disney owned company is just plain career suicide. Eisner always had the reputation of vindictiveness, so the result is not wholly unexpected IMO, especialy in light of the Limbaugh debacle.

JH

Jeff Hopkins '82 wrote:

While the comment was only mildly anti-semitic, I'm willing to write it off as a genuine mistake. Actually, I had to read the article twice to catch it.

However, he should have known that criticizing Michael Eisner, while working for a Disney owned company is just plain career suicide. Eisner always had the reputation of vindictiveness, so the result is not wholly unexpected IMO, especialy in light of the Limbaugh debacle.

I certainly agree that it wasn't surprising that he was fired for criticizing his boss, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate. And it certainly isn't right that Abe Foxman is beating the drum hard on this one in an attempt to shame Easterbrook out of the public sphere. OK, too far off-topic.



Post Edited (10-23-03 10:28)

[Q]While the comment was only mildly anti-semitic, I'm willing to write it off as a genuine mistake. Actually, I had to read the article twice to catch it.

However, he should have known that criticizing Michael Eisner, while working for a Disney owned company is just plain career suicide.[/Q]
Now come on. I'm willing to admit that what he said, in context, wasn't that bad, but he has to be extraordinarily stupid to allow it into his writing in the first place. "Jewish executivies, who worship money above all else." Come on! That's playing directly off of a long-term stereotype and is extremely offensive. In context, did he mean that all Jews are like this? No, I don't think he did, and I'm Jewish. But it's downright stupid to say it.

Would it be okay to use the phrase "shoplifting African-Americans", what about "terrorist loving Muslims", or "trailer-dwelling southern hicks"?? Do any of those phrases mean that for everybody? No. It doesn't mean all blacks are thiefs or all Muslims love terrorism or all southerners are white trash, but it sure as hell comes across that way.

I don't think he's truly anti-Semetic, just incredibly careless. Even if he didn't mean it that way, it would certainly come off that way to some readers - promoting anti-Semetism. He may not deserve to lose his jobs for being anti-semetic (nothing says he is), but he deserves to lose his job for the utter carelessness and stupidity of his comments. When you're writing about religion, don't be stupid.



Post Edited (10-23-03 13:24)

[q]In context, did he mean that all Jews are like this? No, I don't think he did, and I'm Jewish. [/q]

I'm Jewish, too, and I didn't find that particular comment overly offensive, though I can understand how some would. In the grand scheme of things, that is a pretty mild comment. Unlike some people in the public eye, I'm not out to find racists under every bush (note: small B).

While I don't agree with perpetuating stereotypes, I just think that the response was somewhat disproportionate to the offense. People who make comments like that need educating more than they need punishment. Was he stupid or careless? Clearly. Did he deserve to be fired. No way.

So either "The Mouse" was being overly PC, or Eisner was clamping down on dissent. IMO, a little of both, but more of the latter.

JH

DeltaOne81 '03 wrote: He may not deserve to lose his jobs for being anti-semetic (nothing says he is), but he deserves to lose his job for the utter carelessness and stupidity of his comments. When you're writing about religion, don't be stupid.

He is hardly stupid about writing about religion. He is a very good and thoughtful religion writer, actually. This was more of a misguided appeal to virtue that drew upon some very ugly stereotypes.

If every time a writer said something stupid it cost him/her a place in the community of writers there would be no writers left. I can't agree with you here, Fred. People who make mistakes (even big ugly public ones) have to be given the opportunity to redeem themselves, and I think his apology was sufficient.

BRA,

I don't think that he should be blacklisted or anything, and I'm sure he will (and should) get plenty more jobs. I'll give you an example that might illustrate it.

As liberal as I am, I thought people should have gotten over the Trent Lott thing. The man apologized 10 times, and clearly didn't mean it the way it was played. It was stupid and careless, but not vicious. He paid his price in his apologize and controversy, he didn't mean... fine, move on.

I also think this guy should be forgiven and we should move on, however, here's the real difference. Senator is a one in a kind job, and being forced to resign is pretty much like being banned from the industry. But there's plenty more writing jobs for Easterbrook, and he'll be fine - and by all means she should be. I certainly would walk around the office shouting about "Jewish executives, who worship money above all else" and expect to have my job at the end of the week. Neither do I think I should be unable to ever find similar work again, if it was taken out of context.

I think everyone should move on from the Easterbrook thing, but I'm not shocked he was fired and I don't think it was horribly out of line. Not saying you have to agree, just explaining my opinion. I definitely don't think we should crucify the guy forever for it and kick him out of journalism.

Also, I never meant to imply that he's always stupid when writing about religion... just that he was incredibly careless this time.

DeltaOne81 '03 wrote:

"Jewish executivies, who worship money above all else."

attributed to Gregg Easterbrook
Come on! That's playing directly off of a long-term stereotype and is extremely offensive. In context, did he mean that all Jews are like this? No, I don't think he did, and I'm Jewish. But it's downright stupid to say it.

I'm not taking a position on this issue, and have obviously contributed to both thread drift and off-topic discussion expansion (for which I apologize).

I do want to correct one thing about DeltaOne81's post, though. The direct quote, from Easterbrook's blog entry (this was not part of a column for The New Republic but came instead from the blogs of their columnists and therefore was not subject to review by an editor) reads:

"Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?"

The full context of the quote might help in understanding it. You can find that at: [www.tnr.com] . BRA's post above has a link to the apology.

Chris



Post Edited (10-23-03 19:45)

TMQ has resurfaced at nfl.com: [www.nfl.com]

(With the next Cornell hockey game not until after Xmas, I figured some folks might be looking for something to help fill that time.)