Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Pay college athletes

MAGGIE MIHAYLOVA | COLUMN

I

walked into the lab, finished
with my classes for the day
and ready to get some data. I

had been wrestling with the lab
equipment for weeks. The computer
kept crashing, turning entire days
into wasted time. Luckily, it was
put down to its final resting place.
We now had a brand-new computer
and I was ready to finally get
some results. As I was setting up, I
realized that the laser was not lasing
at all. To fix this kind of problem,
you have to adjust small mirrors and
align the inside of the laser cavity. I
had done this before, but I had help.
This time, I was on my own. After an
hour of moving the beam up, down,
left, right, a laser came out the other
side. I had fixed it. I felt better about
myself than I have ever felt finishing
a homework problem set, and now I
was ready to take data.

This type of experience was

not a one-time thing for me, and
not an experience only I have had.
I have talked with many other
undergraduates at the University of
Michigan doing research, not just
in physics, and a ton of them have
had to work through issues on their
own. Figuring out how to solve
one of these issues is an invaluable
experience. You not only learn a
new skill, but you learn how to
solve problems on your own and
are able to gain confidence in your
own abilities.

A lot of people stress the

importance of doing research as
an undergraduate, but I feel that
they don’t always talk about the
most important reasons for it. A
reason commonly cited is to gain
experience in your field to prepare
you for graduate school. This
is usually directed to convince
students in the hard sciences —
physics, biology, chemistry — to get
into research early. It is true; it does
help students prepare for what they
will be expecting in graduate school,
and as Sarah Webb pointed out in an
article for Science, many graduate
schools “have come to expect it.”

Though this reasoning is drilled

into students’ heads from the
moment they step on campus, it has
a small scope and is often restricted
to a specific group of students

focused on STEM research. It raises
the question: What about those in
the social sciences?

I have a friend who had to

participate in research for the
Psychology Department for her
marketing major. I think that this
experience sets a great example of
what many people should do. Just
because she is not majoring in
psychology does not mean she
couldn’t participate in research
in the field, especially since many
of the skills she learned were
directly applicable to her future
marketing profession.

You could ask me, “But why

would I do research in a field that
might only be tangentially related
to the field that I am in, when
instead I could get an internship
that directly relates to what I want
to do?” I would respond, “Go for
it! Do what’s best for you,” but I
would follow that comment with
an attempt to convince you that
what’s best for you would be at least
a semester of research.

An internship will look pretty

good on your résumé. However,
think about all the other people
doing the same internship you are
— maybe not exactly the same, but
similar and standard. Employers
have seen that résumé before; it’s
not
necessarily
anything
new.

Nowadays, you have to stand out
and do something different. The
thing that could set you apart could
be research.

However, the reason for doing

research should not be so you can
just stamp it on your résumé as
another checkbox checked. The true
value of research is what it teaches
you. A study by John Petrella and
Alan Jung concluded that doing
research as an undergraduate can
help in creating more tolerance
for obstacles, learning to work
independently and boosting self-
confidence, among other things. I
have seen this while participating in
my own research. In the example I
opened with, I was able to deal with
a problem that came up, figure it out
on my own and felt better about my
abilities afterward.

According to data from the

United
States
Department
of

Labor, in 2017, over 60 percent of
those between 16 and 19 years of
age worked in either the service
occupation or sales. Now, I am
not disparaging anyone in these
industries, but some of the jobs in
these sectors, which most 16-19
year olds take part in, do not offer
much opportunity for ingenuity or
discovery. I have worked both as
a barista in a coffee shop and as a
busboy in a restaurant, and in each
one, I had to stick to the rules and
steps that I was told when I started
the jobs. There was not much
room for creativity, and I pretty
much just followed instructions
and went through the motions.
Undergraduate research offers
a break from these types of jobs.
You are able to work on projects
in which you need to think
critically and develop new ways
of doing things.

According to the National

Science Foundation, as of 2016,
the
University
of
Michigan

spends the second most money
on research and development
of any U.S. university. It spends
the most out of any public school
and is only beat by a private
university,
Johns
Hopkins

University. In my opinion, it
would be a crime not to at least
explore the option of doing
research while attending this
university. There are a ton of
ways to start, from applying to
the
Undergraduate
Research

Opportunity Program to just
emailing professors as I did.

Mirroring the slightly self-

righteous motto of our university,
you might not immediately be the
best at research, but you will get
to work with the best and will
be given a real chance to help
lead a project. Research will be a
new experience for many, but no
matter what your major is or what
your career ambitions are, it will
be helpful in one way or another.
So in preparation for next fall, or
even this summer, look into doing
some research.

I

t was a surreal Saturday. As
the seconds dwindled down
in what was a close, low-

scoring and sloppy March Madness
basketball game, Michigan vs.
Florida State, the entire bar was
silent. Each breath began to pulsate
to the same rhythm, a hypnotic
mumbled version of “The Victors,”
as we watched the five sweeping
flat-screen
TVs
with
ignited

interest. Then, with the realization
that we were going to win — “The
Wolverines are going to the Final
Four!” — the bar erupted into a chaos
of chants, screams, hugs, clinks of
glasses and euphoric happiness.

It was in this moment of

observing pure joy that I turned my
gaze back to the screen. I watched
as these 19 young men celebrated
in a manner almost identical to us,
but with a barely visible hesitation.
They still hadn’t made it: They had
to worry about the next game, their
homework due on Monday and
various other concerns normal
college students face. Whereas
we fans would head home for the
night, the weekend stretching
before us, they were faced with a
long, packed schedule.

Before starting college at the

University of Michigan, I didn’t
know much about the NCAA. I
had read a few things about its
supposed exploitation of players,
but it wasn’t until I arrived on
campus that I realized the weight
of this truth. Before, I had viewed
student-athletes
as
celebrities,

arrogant and entitled to their full-
ride scholarships, fancy gear and
free passes in class. Now, I see them
everywhere, in the flesh — asking for
double servings in the dining hall,
studying in the basement of East
Quad Residence Hall, stopping at a
tabling event in Angell Hall — and I
realize that they are real people; real
college students. They are here both
to learn and represent our school —
to further both their education and
athletic career. The only difference
between me, a freshman, and
Jordan Poole, a freshman, is that he
is part of a department that makes
up to $158 million in revenue for the
University— and I am not.

The most profitable college

sports are men’s basketball and
football. These sports generate
huge amounts of revenue for the

NCAA
and
their
universities

through ticket sales, merchandise
and
television
viewership.

According to the NCAA, about
$821 million is generated through
television and marketing rights
from
the
Division
I
Men’s

Basketball Tournament and about
$130 million is generated through
ticket
sales
to
championship

events. Moreover, in 2013, CBS and
TBS split $1 billion in revenue just
from March Madness. And two
years ago, the University generated
more than $97 million for football
and earned a $60 million profit.

There is no denying that these

athletic programs make a lot of
money, so where does it all go? In
football, there are the reasonable
investments,
such
as
facility

maintenance, travel expenses and
student scholarships, but there
is also a large amount diverted
to extravagances, such as flashy
new jumbo screens or the usage of
private jets. Coaches also receive
generous and arguably excessive
salaries. Jim Harbaugh is known
as college football’s highest-paid
coach, with yearly pay of $9 million.

With all the money and deals

and chaos, the students often get
pushed aside in the financial battle.
The industry is so concerned with
profiting that it exploits their
players. In exchange for their
athleticism,
student-athletes

receive
full-ride
scholarships,

which includes their tuition, room
and board. They get to travel and
play the sport they love. However,
behind the glamour and seemingly
righteous
compensation,
they

struggle in even their menial
needs. In an interview with
Shabazz Napier, former University
of Connecticut Huskies basketball
player, he stated that “some nights I
go to bed starving.” His sentiments
have been echoed by many student-
athletes who believe that a full-
ride does not sustain a real college
lifestyle, one that includes buying
textbooks, going out to eat or
attending events.

Critics suggest that student-

athletes, like other busy students,
should
be
grateful
for
their

scholarship
and
follow
the

standard path of getting a part-time
job to make that extra money. Yet
I would argue that their position

as an athlete for a university
functions as a job. For example, in
a 2013 report on Northwestern’s
football program, it is outlined that
a player’s “typical training camp
day entails mandatory meetings,
film sessions and practices from
6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.” Something
that consumes one’s day cannot
be labeled as a hobby, especially
when its results come in the form of
billions of dollars.

Student-athletes
also
lack

security. As of 2013, universities
aren’t required to provide health
care when an athlete is injured,
which leads to steep medical
bills, and oftentimes, rescinded
scholarships. One notable story
is that of Kyle Hardrick, a former
University of Oklahoma basketball
player who now works 12-hour
shifts in the oil fields near his home
in Texas. During his freshman year
of college, he tore his meniscus,
and after a lethargic reaction by the
athletic department, the university
refused to pay for his surgery
and rehab. However, in hopes of
playing, Hardrick went through
with the operation and recovery,
paying out of his own pocket. Once
ready and optimistic, his head
coach Lon Kruger decided that
“Kyle really don’t belong here” and
the university rescinded Hardrick’s
scholarship. It is a disgrace that
universities
can
so
blatantly

disrespect and discard such vital
members of their institution.

There needs to be impactful,

dynamic bylaw change within
the association. Student-athletes
deserve
better
compensation,

in whatever form it may hold.
The current situation is not
fair.
Student-athletes
provide

and
produce
so
much
for

their universities, and yet the
NCAA profits in an extremely
disproportionate manner. With
the implementation of a work-
study type program, free lifelong
health care and non-rescindable
scholarships,
student-athletes

will find themselves represented
and respected, and therefore
empowered, in performing for the
school and sport they love.

The importance of research as an undergrad

ROBERT DALKA | COLUMN

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

DAYTON HARE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ALEXA ST. JOHN

Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND

ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors

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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Robert Dalka can be reached at

rpdalka@umich.edu.

The Michigan Daily Editorial Board
commends Schlissel for his proposal,
and calls on the board to listen to
the opinions of both students and
faculty to approve this change. At
the same time, we commend the
student activists who made their
voices heard to get us to this day. It
is time we acknowledge our own
history and take the proper steps to
ensure we honor those who reflect
the values of our community.

Across
the
nation,
at

universities like Yale University and
Georgetown, students have come
together to address the growing
issue
of
controversial
building

names. A name, especially one of a
prominent university building, has
a special kind of presence that is
felt throughout a campus. Recently,
University students have focused
their efforts on the C.C. Little Science
Building and Winchell House in
West Quad. Little was unremarkable
as University president with a tenure
of only four years from 1925 to 1929.
While he tried to implement various
university policies, he remains
infamous for his support of eugenics
as well as his role in the spread of
tobacco propaganda in the country.
Winchell, similarly racist, published
“Proof of Negro Inferiority” in which
he tried to explain the “biological
proof” that African Americans were
inferior. On a diverse campus, the
glorification of Little and Winchell,
inherent in the naming of a building,
does not support the image of
inclusivity that the University works
to purport.

The proposal to rename the

building would not have been
possible without the determination
of students on campus. The Editorial
Board would like to commend all of
the student activists and leaders on
campus who organized and fought
to change the name of C.C. Little.
There have been years of fighting
from students, determined to correct
what they saw as a visible display of
values severely incompatible with
what our campus hopes to embrace.
As a University that is trying to fight
for diversity, equity and inclusion on
campus, changing the name of the
C.C. Little building and Winchell
House is a formidable step in
promoting inclusivity for students
on campus. With campus issues like
these, student voices should be heard
and heeded as we are the ones who
interact, both directly and indirectly,
with buildings on campus. We call
on the Board of Regents to listen to
student concerns and understand
that they have taken the time to go
through the process to implement
this change on our campus.

Additionally,
we
hope
the

University considers the changing
of the C.C. Little building’s name
a first step, not a final resolution.
Oftentimes, building renames and
other policy changes happen as
a result of student protests and,
while the action on this project by
the University is commendable, we
hope the administration pays due
respect to the work of the student
activists by being proactive and
work to audit all names of existing

University buildings. Students have
already expressed concerns over
the names of other buildings such
as Angell Hall. Instead of waiting
for campus activism, the President’s
Advisory Committee on University
History, which assesses building
rename requests, should apply
guidelines, such as those used at Yale,
to show students on campus that
their concerns are prioritized and
have a lasting effect on University
policy. What is most important is
the inclusion of student perspectives
in
administrative
and
board

discussions on how the campus can
better reflect the values we find most
important.

Let us be clear: Removing the

names of despicable individuals in
our University’s past from buildings
must not be construed as an erasure
of their legacies at the University.
Should the board approve this
measure, the University must take
steps to ensure that the legacies of
C.C. Little and Alexander Winchell
live on, not atop the honored
pedestals of named facilities, but in
the historical record. The University
should publicly display, whether
in a plaque or exhibit or another
medium, that these individuals had
previously been honored, and that
it took significant student activism
for the names to come down. The
University must never hide its
history of honoring these individuals
and the student activism it took to get
to this change.

HANNAH MYERS | CONTACT HANNAH AT HSMYERS@UMICH.EDU.

Maggie Mihaylova can be reached

at mmihaylo@umich.edu.

A

s undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Michigan,
the names of places become embedded in our language. For many,
C.C. Little is the name of a bus station, a location for class or simply

a landmark to give directions. Underneath our colloquial use of the name,
however, is the inherent glorification of a man who stood for everything
University students and administrators oppose. This week, after years of
protest, discussion and deliberation, University President Mark Schlissel
has proposed to the University’s Board of Regents to rename the C.C. Little
Science Building along with Winchell House in West Quad Residence Hall.

FROM THE DAILY

Regents should listen to activists and Schlissel on C.C. Little

Illustration by Joe Iovino