4A - Thursday, April 7, 2011
The Michigan Daily - michiganclaily.com
4A - Thursday, April 7, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
BRUNO STORTINI
E-MAIL BRUNO AT BRUNORS@UMICH.EDU
STEPHANIE STEINBERG
EDITOR IN CHIEF
MICHELLE DEWITT
and EMILY ORLEY
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
I'itrss i s.obblePe 5 1 (
soreK i J easss rC .it
.-
Give college athletes their cut
KYLE SWANSON
MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
A delayed reaction
DPS alerts must reach students more quickly
University employee walking through the Chemistry Build-
ing on early Monday morning reported that she saw a man
pointing a gun at her. She walked away and returned a few
minutes later, and the man was gone. Whenever an incident occurs
on campus that involves a potentially armed person, the Univer-
sity's Department of Public Safety has a responsibility to imme-
diately inform students of the situation using the emergency alert
system. Some students instantly received text messages or phone
calls from DPS, but many students weren't informed of the event
until the next day. DPS needs to ensure that there is a unified emer-
gency response to all students when a dangerous situation occurs.
According to an April 4 Daily article, DPS
spokeswoman Diane Brown chose not to send
a crime alert via e-mail because police were
nearing an "all clear" of the situation. How-
ever, at 1 a.m. on Monday, an emergency alert
was sent via text message. Another text mes-
sage alert was sent at 1:25 a.m. that informed
recipients the situation was "all clear." Stu-
dents who had previously signed up for the
text messaging service were alerted of the
potential danger, but students who were not
had no idea. A mass e-mail was finally sent at
10:30 a.m. on Monday that notified all students
of the recent events.
It's troubling that only some students were
informed of a dangerous situation as it was
occurring while others received a notification
more than nine hours later. All students should
have been informedimmediately. Whenever a
gun may be involved, regardless of the sever-
ity of the situation, DPS should inform every
University student.
Brown should not have choseto hold off on
informing the studentbody of the alleged gun-
man until the next morning. Even if the emer-
gency was contained and the situation was
nearing an "all clear," students have a right
to know when a dangerous event is occurring
on campus. Since the reported gunman was
never found, it was a very real possibility that
he was still somewhere on campus after the
"all clear" was given.
Brown said in the article that police "didn't
have solid enough information at midnight to
warrant activating the emergency alert," pri-
marily because the witness of the crime wasn't
certain if the gun was real. Whether or not the
employee saw an actual gun, DPS should have
sent aprecautionary alertto all students. Their
intent to not cause a panic is understandable,
but an alert that makes students aware of the
scenario and notes that it is not an emergency
situation would have been prudent.
It's not uncommon for students to walk
around campus at midnight - the time when
the incident occurred. Students need to know
about situations like this in order to take extra
precautions and be extremely aware of their
surroundings. Regardless of how well DPS felt
the situation was contained, it had a responsi-
bility to inform the student body of the poten-
tially serious situation.
Students always need to be aware of their
surroundings late at night, and even more so
if there is a possible crime. Fortunately, no one
was hurt as a result of Monday's incident, but
DPS's failure to properly alert the entire stu-
dent body was disappointing.
Senior year of high school: A
man approaches me with a
letter in hand. Greedily, I
snatch it and rip
apart the enve-
lope. "Congrat-
ulations! The
University of
Michigan foot-
ball program has
decided to offer
you an athletic
scholarship to JOE
play..." My rac- SUGIYAMA
ing heart stops
before I reach
the end of the letter, and I collapse
on the tile floor of my high school
cafeteria.
Lucky for me, this situation didn't
exactly pan out -= as I'm sure it didn't
for thousands of other five-foot-
eight offensive linemen - and my
life didn't end as a result of receiving
a full ride to play football at the Uni-
versity. Phew - really dodged a bul-
let there. But every day, high school
athletes are given the opportunity
to go to school for free and play the
sport they love as amateurs.
Recently though, these scholar-
ships have come under fire by former
players and experts who feel their
service to their university is worth
more than a free education. In the
HBO series Real Sports with Bryant
Gumbel, an exposd examined exactly
what the college players of revenue
sports - football and basketball -
are truly worth to universities well
as how they should be compensated.
The NFL and NBA pay their play-
ers 57 percent of the leagues' total
earnings. This percentage seems
representative of their worth to each
institution - after all, the players
are the ones who fill the seats and
sell the gear. The earnings of col-
lege football and basketball players
are a bit more modest. They're paid
through education and exposure to
the next level of competition. But
again, the players create revenue.
So why aren't they getting their cut?
Enter the non-profit college sports
that make up the vast majority of
college athletics.
Instead of the $275,000 a year
that each Michigan football player
would be making - according to
the precedent set by the NFL - the
players receive a scholarship worth
between $25,000 and $50,000. This
is 9 to 18 percent of the optimal
$275,000. Though this discrepancy
is extreme, looking strictly at the
numbers undervalues the education
that is beingreceived.
One of the panel discussion mem-
bers for Real Sports was former
Michigan football coach Rich Rodri-
guez. Rodriguez suggested that the
value of a scholarship is not fully
realized because of the economic
backgrounds that many of the play-
ers come from. Education may not
be a point of emphasis in the fami-
lies of the athlete, which may cause
him to fall into the mindset that the
purpose of his scholarship isn't to
learn, but to play football.
This misguided point of view
could and should be remedied
through - wait for it - education.
Nearly all my classes in the civil
engineering department start with
presentations that highlight every-
thing that can be accomplished with
the education received at the Uni-
versity. Talk of suspension bridges
and super structures is enough to get
any civil engineer's blood pumping
and offers insight to how education
is the path to professional great-
ness. This same idea could easily be
translated for the athletes who view
course load as an inconvenience
rather than a privilege. By educating
student-athletes about what they
can achieve with their minds, the
term student-athlete becomes much
more significant.
Even with the scholarships that
are awarded to football players, it
still seems unfair for a group of 85
individuals to make millions of dol-
lars for an institution and not be
somehow compensated for their
contribution. Another suggestion
by Rodriguez was to give student-
athletes money for their living
expenses. Student-athletes are
often bogged down by their sport
and don't have time to get a job to
pay for things like travel to games.
Playing a sport is a full-time job,
minus the paycheck.
Paying players
an hourly rate
is appropriate.
The NCAA should look at their
athletes more as members of a work-
study program, instead of slaves
of an unpaid internship. Paying
student-athletes on an hourly basis
- at a reasonable rate - would be
appropriate compensation for their
service to a university. It would also
silence the critics who wish for col-
lege athletics to remain amateur
sports if these "jobs" were compen-
sated at the same level as someone
who works at the UGLi.
Student-athletes carry a burden
that I don't pretend to understand.
The added pressure of needing
to win for their school in order to
generate revenue places a massive
amount of stress on the teams and
players. Though paying football
players a percentage of total reve-
nue similar to what NFL players get
would be foolhardy, a little compen-
sation for this burden isn't too much
to ask for.
This compensation, combined
with the scholarship student-ath-
letes are already receiving, could
silence the college sports purists, as
well as reduce the degree of exploi-
tationthat many athletes feelthey're
subject to.
-Joe Sugiyama can be reached
at jmsugi@umich.edu.
0
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Will Butler, Ellie Chessen, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Melanie Kruvelis'
Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga,
Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb, Asa Smith, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner
ROBBIE DEMBO I
Takedisabilities survey
FAHAD MUHAMMAD SAJID I
The politics of scapegoating
Do you have a disability? Do you have a
friend who does? We are looking for students
with chronic or mental health conditions,
visible, invisible, auditory, visual or learning
disabilities, or something totally different, to
take our survey. Here's why:
For the past several months, a group of pas-
sionate student activists have been designing
a study to document the experiences and per-
spectives of students with disabilities. Our goal
is to not only better understand how students
with disabilities navigate University life, but
to advocate for changes that will create a more
accessible, equitable and welcoming campus
community. We are appealing to all students
with disabilities. Spend a few minutes taking
our survey - share your story and together we
can work to make the University a better place
for students with disabilities.
Our motivation has been guided primarily
by the absence of data describing this signifi-
cant demographic of students - those with
disabilities. The University knows how many
students are registered with the Services
for Students with Disabilities - more than
1,400 - but it does not necessarily know or
understand what their challenges and con-
cerns are. Are students satisfied with the
accommodations provided by the University?
Is there a climate of tolerance and inclusion
for people of different ability identities? Can
students with disabilities easily navigate the
University bureaucracy and access essential
resources? Do students with disabilities feel
comfortable "outing"' themselves to profes-
sors and GSIs? How many students hide their
disabilities for fear of stigma? These are just
some of the questions we were asking, to
which we could not find any clear answers.
Through informal conversations and for-
mal focus groups, we have begun to under-
stand that while students with disabilities
have unique and valid concerns, they aren't
being asked for their feedback. And many
students with sincere grievances have a dif-
ficult time finding suitable recourse. We
hope to change that. Our team, the Disability
Affairs Commission of the Michigan Student
Assembly, has created a survey to provide an
outlet for students with disabilities to express
their satisfaction, dissatisfaction or ambiva-
lence. We hope to capture in our survey the
ways in which the University is serving stu-
dents with disabilities, as well as the ways it
is failing them. But we know that in order to
approach representatives of the University
with any findings that describe what students
with disabilities are thinking and feeling, we
need to have a sufficient sample size. Put dif-
ferently, in order to make an impact, in order
to advocate for change, we need to show the
University that students with disabilities
demand to have their voices heard.
Which is why we are appealing to you.
Whether you openly identify as having a dis-
ability or keep it to yourself, whether you are
registered with SSD or not, whether you are
satisfied with your experience or think things
can be improved around campus, we hope
that you will take a few minutes to complete
our survey. With your anonymous responses,
we will have the data necessary to identify
and advocate for the specific changes that
will most benefit students with disabilities.
Make your voice heard by visiting http://
tiny.cc/DisabilitySurvey.
Robbie Dembo is an LSA senior. He is a
member of the Disability Affairs Committee
of the Michigan Student Assembly.
On April 16, 2007, in what turned out to be one of the
deadliest shooting incidents by a lone gunman in the his-
tory of the United States, Korean-born Seung-Hui Cho
killed 32 people and wounded many others on the Vir-
ginia Tech campus, taking his own life at the end of the
rampage. When The Washington Post followed up with
Cho's family after the incident, it was discovered that,
fearing reprisals, they had gone into hiding, with an FBI
agent and a lawyer serving as their only contact to the
outside world. At the same-time, some Korean-American
religious leaders called on their communities to partici-
pate in a 32-day fast to repent for each death.
But why should the onus of denouncing Cho's actions
fall on the Korean-American community? In U.S. law
there is no place for guilt by association, so the only per-
son answerable for the acts of terror at Virginia Tech
was Cho. Not his family. Not his community. Indeed,
many Korean-Americans criticized the fasting proposal,
arguing that it drew undue and irrelevant attention to
the killer's ethnicity. And they were absolutely right.
On March 10, 2011, Congressman Peter King (R-NY)
launched the first of a series of hearings called "The
Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim
Community and that Community's Response." Aptly
described as a new McCarthyism and a modern day
witch-hunt, King's hearings, hiding behind the fagade
of national security, are aimed at making two misguided
points: radicalization and violence are exclusively the
domain of Muslims, and the entire Muslim community
must bear the cross for the sins of a few truly rotten
apples. And on both counts, he is dead wrong.
Is it expected of Christians to publicly defend their
moral uprightness every time a child molestation case
involving a priest comes forward? Is it expected of Jews
to distance themselves from the extremists whenever a
Baruch Goldstein, who in a suicide mission in 1994 killed
29 praying Muslims and wounded 125 in Hebron, decides
to forcefully reclaim parts of the Promised Land? The
answer is an obvious and emphatic "no." You stand trial
for your crimes and your crimes alone, and that is abasic
and inviolable tenet of the law.
The fact is, propensity to violence will continue to
exist wherever there is an "us" and a "them." It cuts
across identities of any and every sort and doesn't belong
exclusively to the realm of religion. From the secular-
Hindu Leninist-Marxist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, who
have committed more attacks than Hamas or Hezbollah,
to Adolf Hitler, who, driven by nationalism and a sense
of racial superiority, launched a war that would result in
the deaths of at least 60 million people around the world,
to former President Harry Truman and his decision to
drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities only to signal
America's post-WWII primacy to the USSR, the causes
of violence abound and share no affinity with any one
reason or group.
Evil has no identity and is certainly not confined to
any conceivable category. Moreover, every religious
community has its idiots. There are those who will
point to the Qur'an and argue that because the terrorists
involved in whatever case said they were following the
book, that's exactly what the book must say, and that all
other Muslims must also believe in their twisted logic.
Yet, the Ku Klux Klan, the largest and most vicious ter-
rorist group in the history of the U.S., whose members
lynched African Americans over an extended period of
time, maintained that it was following the Bible. But
does the KKK really represent Christianity? And must
Christians apologize for its actions?
So just as Anthony Hopkins, the Alabama preacher
who killed his wife and stuffed her body in a freezer
when she found him molesting a girl, does not repre-
sent Christianity or Christians, and just as the Kach and
Kahane Chai, the Jewish terrorist groups who want to
see Arabs expelled and religious law imposed in Israel,
do not represent Judaism or Jews, Major Nidal Hasan,
who killed 13 and wounded 30 at the Fort Hood military
base, does not speak for Islam and does not represent
Muslims. He stood trial for his crimes and his alone, and
no American-Muslim should feel the need to account or
apologize for them.
Congressman King's hearings point to dishonesty of
the highest order and conjecture of a dangerous kind.
By insinuating that violence starts and stops with Mus-
lims (when accordingto the FBI, 94 percent of terrorist
attacks on U.S. soil were committed by non-Muslims
between 1980 and 2005) and that even the law-abiding
ones must somehow be held responsible, he is destroy-
ing the very fabric of this society and tearing to pieces
the values that make this country great. These hear-
ings are not only reprehensible and counter-produc-
tive but also truly un-American, and must immediately
be discontinued.
Fahad Muhammad Sajid is an LSA senior.
0
0
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer than
300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. We do
not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@michigandaily.com
a