[76lsjumb]

Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:



https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/w...ge-sports/



-m.

This is especially enlightening:

The claims about cuts’ being necessary to diversify the student turn out to be bunk too. For a start, athletics have long been recognized as a bridge builder into underserved communities. And many of these teams are already far more diverse than the overall student body. Nearly half of Stanford’s wrestling team, for instance, are either first-generation collegians or from low-income households, compared to just 17 percent in the school overall. The teams Stanford is poised to cut also represent fully half of the Asian student-athletes on campus.

Speaking purely of this article in terms of persuasive writing, I don't think it makes much of a case at all against Stanford. Very little in the article is specific to Stanford. Mainly two items: the $4 million per year claimed savings vs. raising $30 million and the diversity of the wrestling team.

The money argument is clearly the strongest one here, but the author could have done a much better job on the issue. Stanford has repeatedly made public statements that this is a cost saving exercise so it is on point. The author could have stressed the point much better, given background on the origin of the numbers quoted, the likelihood they are real, and the rest of the case for how one can get $4 million per year from a $30 million endowment.

The diversity bit is weak. Firstly, while it is an issue floating around the ether, Stanford has not made that case. While I am not sure that I believe this wasn't an issue on the mind of several people involved, it's hard to claim this is a bogus argument Stanford made when Stanford didn't make that argument. Secondly, if 11 teams are being cut but only one can be singled out as contributing to diversity that's probably an issue for the other 10. And the one he chose, while it may do a good job bringing economic diversity, is overwhelmingly white.

Finally, the author raises the issue that sports builds camaraderie and other good stuff. All true, but that doesn't say anything about just what fraction of a student body should be recruited athletes. Stanford isn't proposing eliminating intercollegiate athletics, just changing the number. Where Stanford, or any university, should end up on this scale is unaddressed.

Of course, if the exact same article had appeared in The Atlantic, or Vox, or The NY Times, it would be Pulitzer-worthy.  I chuckled when I saw that NR had a piece in support of the athletes, because I halfway expected that to cause the Board to change it’s position and support the Administration... :-)

[76lsjumb]

Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:



https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/w...ge-sports/



-m.

This is especially enlightening:

The claims about cuts’ being necessary to diversify the student turn out to be bunk too. For a start, athletics have long been recognized as a bridge builder into underserved communities. And many of these teams are already far more diverse than the overall student body. Nearly half of Stanford’s wrestling team, for instance, are either first-generation collegians or from low-income households, compared to just 17 percent in the school overall. The teams Stanford is poised to cut also represent fully half of the Asian student-athletes on campus.

Speaking purely of this article in terms of persuasive writing, I don't think it makes much of a case at all against Stanford. Very little in the article is specific to Stanford. Mainly two items: the $4 million per year claimed savings vs. raising $30 million and the diversity of the wrestling team.

The money argument is clearly the strongest one here, but the author could have done a much better job on the issue. Stanford has repeatedly made public statements that this is a cost saving exercise so it is on point. The author could have stressed the point much better, given background on the origin of the numbers quoted, the likelihood they are real, and the rest of the case for how one can get $4 million per year from a $30 million endowment.

The diversity bit is weak. Firstly, while it is an issue floating around the ether, Stanford has not made that case. While I am not sure that I believe this wasn't an issue on the mind of several people involved, it's hard to claim this is a bogus argument Stanford made when Stanford didn't make that argument. Secondly, if 11 teams are being cut but only one can be singled out as contributing to diversity that's probably an issue for the other 10. And the one he chose, while it may do a good job bringing economic diversity, is overwhelmingly white.

Finally, the author raises the issue that sports builds camaraderie and other good stuff. All true, but that doesn't say anything about just what fraction of a student body should be recruited athletes. Stanford isn't proposing eliminating intercollegiate athletics, just changing the number. Where Stanford, or any university, should end up on this scale is unaddressed.

Of course, if the exact same article had appeared in The Atlantic, or Vox, or The NY Times, it would be Pulitzer-worthy.  I chuckled when I saw that NR had a piece in support of the athletes, because I halfway expected that to cause the Board to change it’s position and support the Administration... :-)