At 3:50 p.m. Monday afternoon, the Daily Tar Heel Twitter account broke the news that the classes at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill would transition to an online learning environment. In lieu of the playful banter between Tar Heel and Wolfpack students, I will instead say it’s important to realize that Tar Heels are students just as much we are, and that COVID-19 affects people in the same way, regardless of collegiate allegiance. To all the students at UNC, I wish you nothing but the best and I hope you stay safe.
I doubt that what happened at UNC on Monday won’t happen elsewhere, specifically at NC State. It doesn’t take a far extension of the mind to say that NC State may have to face a dilemma similar to UNC’s and switch to online learning as well. Normally, any decision about the transition to online classes, or anything about academia for that matter, wouldn’t require commentary from a sports writer. The strongest opinion I hold on the matter is that a decision to send students home should be done with the safety of the student body in mind and, as such, should apply to everyone equally.
If there is one thing that I do feel comfortable speculating about, it’s the students that I’ve been asked to write about here at Technician.
There’s a growing movement within the student-athlete community to get colleges to let them play sports again. That desire to play is only natural: These students have been playing sports their whole lives and only want to get back to doing what they enjoy. Unfortunately, playing sports isn’t plausible when everyone is taking online classes, a reality that seems more possible with each passing day. What’s worse is that schools seem to be exhausting every possible option to see if playing sports truly is plausible.
While it sounds nice to think about, the NCAA isn’t acting altruistically all of a sudden and bending to player demands to play — the void left behind by college sports would leave universities hemorrhaging potential profits. And so, instead of striking down the possibility of having sports with one fell swoop and ensuring everyone’s safety, the NCAA has instead opted to cancel fall championships, except for football, and allow for fall sports to try again in the spring. Individual conferences, notably the Big Ten and the Pac-12, were left to decide whether they wanted fall sports to continue unabated, which the Big Ten and Pac-12 decided wasn’t in their best interests.
And, of course, in the event that fall sports are allowed to continue, then student-athletes will have to stay on campus, regardless of outside circumstances.
Clearly there is a difference between how schools are treating regular students and students on athletic scholarships. Whereas schools would undoubtedly send regular students back home when the situation on campus is unsafe, there is still serious debate as to whether the same level of concern is given to student-athletes.
Walter Byers served as the NCAA’s first executive director, holding his post from 1951-1988. During his long tenure, he coined the phrase “student-athlete” in order to clearly state that the young men and women who benefited from his organization were students first and athletes second. In the years since Byers retired in 1988, the term “student-athlete” has come in handy for the NCAA when challenging their athletes’ right to pay, such as in the case of Kent Waldrep, a former TCU football player who became a paraplegic due to injuries sustained while playing and was denied worker’s compensation because the NCAA convinced the jury Waldrep was participating in an “extracurricular activity” and therefore not eligible to pay.
The bottom line is this: Student-athletes are treated like students by the NCAA in legal proceedings despite their unique relationship with institutions of higher learning. So why are they being treated differently now?
Soon after UNC announced a transition to online classes, ESPN, CBS Sports and other outlets announced that fall sports would continue as scheduled, a decision that can only be described as insidious. If UNC’s decision is anything to go on, a blueprint has been made where colleges can act with impunity, acting as though they’ve taken the precautions to keep every student safe, when other students are being kept in the environment that schools felt wasn’t safe for everyone else. The blatant inconsistency with which student-athletes are treated should not be lost on anyone — while student-athletes were once treated with a “students first and athletes second” mindset, which is convenient in theory, now it is plainly obvious some schools, in practice, are more concerned with the athlete part of their student-athletes.
To contrast, what does a student-centric view of the student-athlete look like in pandemic times? While student-athletes wouldn’t get paid for their work, they would get treated like every other student on campus, meaning their health and well-being would be thought of when colleges consider whether to move out students or not. If everyone else gets to stay safe at home, so should the student-athletes. In other words, the NCAA would back up their “student first, athlete second” view that they’ve touted and act with consistency. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the course of action taken in our timeline.
In some ways, this has only confirmed the uncomfortable truth many know but are afraid to admit to themselves. Athletic talent separates student-athletes from the rest of the student body, and having a trait like athletic talent gives added value to what you can contribute to your university, your conference and, indeed, the entirety of collegiate sports. Fiscally speaking, that value is the millions of dollars the NCAA makes from March Madness, college football, the College World Series, etc. That same NCAA turns around to their student-athletes and says the value they bring to a school is only worth a scholarship for a college education, regardless of the lengths student-athletes go through to earn them that money.
I’m of the opinion that student-athletes are students first and athletes second, and that while student-athletes use athletics primarily to get college education, the athlete part of themselves is something that cannot be ignored and must be compensated justly. But the NCAA’s interpretation of the term they’ve championed for so long is painfully fluid and up for interpretation more times than is allowable for a phrase with serious legal ramifications. Student-athletes are treated solely as students when they seek more than a scholarship as reimbursement for their work and yet are treated only as athletes when a global pandemic hits and they have to stay on campus for practice while their fellow students head home.
While in the process of trying to protect the lives of students, the NCAA leaving behind and endangering the lives of other students is nothing short of disingenuous.
I say this while recognizing that there is a vocal faction of student-athletes wanting to play, and if they are willing to take the risks of playing in the middle of a pandemic, then so be it. But should the decision to play be made for them by the NCAA, thereby going against the wishes of those who don’t want to play? And if they play, should they be willing to play in a hazardous environment without expecting reward for their willingness to play in such conditions?
If student-athletes have to stay on campus while other students, no different from them according to the NCAA, are advised to leave, it’s an admission that the NCAA has been acting paradoxically since its inception and that student-athletes are different from their fellow classmates. And with that acknowledgement must come a way to remedy the situation, and that remedy must be conceding that student-athletes are employees of the universities they play for. Until then, colleges and universities that withhold student-athletes from leaving campus for the purposes of sports cannot with good conscience say that they believe the people they’ve been using as cash cows are students first and athletes second.
