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