IDS 1: The Promoting Fairness and Equality in Education Act (Debating)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Quota systems have been ruled to be illegal by the Supreme Court countless times, so this bill wouldn't even be constitutional.

I am all for diversity, but this isn't the way to go about it.

Also, the last part is something I can't support. I'm not going to kill college athletics. A lot of those scholarships are supported by boosters anyway, not state funds.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Quota systems have been ruled to be illegal by the Supreme Court countless times, so this bill wouldn't even be constitutional.

I am all for diversity, but this isn't the way to go about it.

Also, the last part is something I can't support. I'm not going to kill college athletics. A lot of those scholarships are supported by boosters anyway, not state funds.

The colleges should be spending that money on merit-based academic scholarships.  They are supposed to be academic institutions and have no business giving out scholarships to people just because they happen to be good at sports.  If the outcome of fixing this problem is the death of college athletics and the constant scandals that go with it, so be it.  I certainly won't shed a tear.  Colleges should not be giving out scholarship money to people just because they can play football.

As for quotas, I'm pretty sure part of that Civil Rights bill the Senate passed also established quotas (although I could be mistaken).  If so, I don't see why that is constitutional and this isn't.  In any event, as I told Speaker Maxwell, I'm happy to hear alturnatives to quotas (an imperfect solution, to be sure), but so far I haven't seen any alturnative proposals for how to deal with this problem.

If it did establish quotas, it will be overturned in court as soon as someone decides to sue on its behalf. Neither bill is constitutional, whether it be this one or the Civil Rights bill that was just passed.

And it's okay if you are OK with killing off college athletics, it doesn't mean I am okay with it and I won't support this bill as long as that is in it. Athletics are a huge source of revenue for universities and the money from them goes to other academic scholarships. And the scholarships given to athletes are a good thing because these kids otherwise may never have a chance to go to college due to financial difficulties.

Many of those that are on scholarships grow up in the inner city with no money and no means to get an education beyond high school. Plus. most schools don't admit just anyone. There are NCAA standards.

As such, I really don't see any  way I can support this because of the aforementioned reasons and the constitutional violations it will cause.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Quota systems have been ruled to be illegal by the Supreme Court countless times, so this bill wouldn't even be constitutional.

I am all for diversity, but this isn't the way to go about it.

Also, the last part is something I can't support. I'm not going to kill college athletics. A lot of those scholarships are supported by boosters anyway, not state funds.

The colleges should be spending that money on merit-based academic scholarships.  They are supposed to be academic institutions and have no business giving out scholarships to people just because they happen to be good at sports.  If the outcome of fixing this problem is the death of college athletics and the constant scandals that go with it, so be it.  I certainly won't shed a tear.  Colleges should not be giving out scholarship money to people just because they can play football.

As for quotas, I'm pretty sure part of that Civil Rights bill the Senate passed also established quotas (although I could be mistaken).  If so, I don't see why that is constitutional and this isn't.  In any event, as I told Speaker Maxwell, I'm happy to hear alturnatives to quotas (an imperfect solution, to be sure), but so far I haven't seen any alturnative proposals for how to deal with this problem.

The Civil Rights Bill is obviously terrible, but sure, I'll try to come up with something before my term is out.

What alternatives to this could there be? Given the objectives of this bill, I don't see how it can be made viable.

There are already some protections in place to increase diversity on college campuses, but they don't involve quota systems.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Has no one here heard of the NCAA? They are the independent oversight of college athletics. It's not like these schools are willy nilly out there doing as they wish without consequences.

This whole witch hunt against college athletics makes no sense to me. They do a lot of good for athletics and universities. And the scandals are just a small portion of the athletes that attend these schools. They're bad, yes, but no reason to outlaw or severely change how the system works.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Has no one here heard of the NCAA? They are the independent oversight of college athletics. It's not like these schools are willy nilly out there doing as they wish without consequences.

This whole witch hunt against college athletics makes no sense to me. They do a lot of good for athletics and universities. And the scandals are just a small portion of the athletes that attend these schools. They're bad, yes, but no reason to outlaw or severely change how the system works.

Dude, I trust the NCAA about as much as I trust a tabacco company to look out for public health.  If the NCAA has consistently proven one thing, it's that they exist to exploit college students.  They even admitted coming up with the term "student-athlete" in order to avoid having to pay athletes workman's comp. for severe injuries they recieve during games.  The NCAA isn't the solution, they're part of the problem.

Well, ok, then what do you suggest? Government oversight of college athletics?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I guess I'm just trying to understand the purpose of this bill given I will never vote to get rid of athletic scholarships and I would hope Flo would never sign such a bill should it pass.

If we are getting into a debate over college athletic oversight, then that's a whole different can of worms.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Well, I'm okay with the bill aside from the sports scholarship banning. As long as that's in there, it'll be a no go for me.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I won't vote for anything that eliminates athletic scholarships or hinders them in any way. I maintain they are net positives for the lives of college athletes, and taking away opportunities to go to college for millions of kids each year isn't something I can be supportive of.

If we want to talk increased oversight of athletic programs aside from the NCAA, I'm fine with that, but not putting limitations on what state universities can give scholarships to.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I don't have anything in mind because I don't know how to fix college athletics. No one seeks to know what to do. But banning athletic scholarships isn't the way to go. You'd just be letting a few bad eggs spoil opportunities for millions of kids to get the opportunity to go to college.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Another point I want to make is if we make this law and defund scholarships for athletics, students will just go to other schools in other regions and we can watch enrollment in our schools decline and the educated population leave.

This would be bad for all of us in this region. A lot of people don't just chose colleges for what they want to study. They chose them for the extracurriculars.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Another point I want to make is if we make this law and defund scholarships for athletics, students will just go to other schools in other regions and we can watch enrollment in our schools decline and the educated population leave.

This would be bad for all of us in this region. A lot of people don't just chose colleges for what they want to study. They chose them for the extracurriculars.

Colleges should first and foremost be academic institutions, not athletic institutions.

I had this argument with my grandfather the other day...

Anyway, while in an ideal world that is true, that's not the case. People chose colleges for all kinds of reasons - party scene, sports, location, class size. Some people do pick them because they're academics are great, but not everyone. College is just as much about the social aspect as it is academics. You go there to learn, but you also go to make friends, memories, and feel like you're part of something.

If we do what you want to do, enrollment will drop at our schools, they will have less money for research, and revenues will decline. I want the South to have the best colleges with the best experiences, not boring places were you just go to class and go back to your dorm to sit idly while studying. We're sure to attract less of the cream of the crop.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

PiT, your idea could work, but i also worry it may just have no teeth to it. What incentive do wealthy donors have to donate? Many already do, but for things like facilities and food courts to make the offerings better for students. We can pass something like you propose though since it wont change anything if schools decide not to use it. I would support your propsal.

And I know i am right about chosing schools based on athletics here. I know plenty of people that chose schools because they wanted big time athletic programs to participate and attend the events. It is very big in our region especially. If we ignore that, we are going to hurt ourselves immensely.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I can support something like that, PiT, I just hope it doesn't have adverse effects on academic scholarships.

the way I understand it is, if a booster donates X amount towards scholarships, the government will reduce their funding by that amount? Is this decided on a year by year basis?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

PiT is right. I am just too afraid to mess with the current system to encourage even more low income students to take on debt. And of course, I won't ever support doing away with or limiting athletic scholarships because they do provide many inner city and lower income students a chance to go to college without having to take on debt, and this is something that seems to be overlooked by many here, especially those who don't  go to schools with major athletic programs.

But never fear, I have been elected to speak on their behalf.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

That looks fine.

I think we all know how to best cut spending at these schools, but it would involve having a discussion no one wants to have given how it is political suicide to discuss it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

That looks fine.

I think we all know how to best cut spending at these schools, but it would involve having a discussion no one wants to have given how it is political suicide to discuss it.

But paying coaches millions and millions of dollars isn't wasteful spending, right?

Coaches pay isn't the root of the problem. And most of the salary comes from ticket sales, boosters, and the like, not tuition.

This witchhunt against college athletics must stop. Especially in the south of all places, where sports play a huge role in the college experience. I am not going to be the one that hurts enrollment and interest in our schools. As a lifelong southerner, I know how important sports are in attracting students.

I vote aye on the amendment.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The changes seem fairly harmless to me, and at least it mostly does away with the notion that college sports aren't allowed in the south. I couldn't think of anything worse to do than outlaw sports in our region.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye