Thanks Bruce for beating me to the punch.  You highlighted the fundamental
issue underlying the scholarship debate -- enriching the student or enriching
the school.  The difference between an athletic scholarship and others is
that the school demands something from the student, and is not simply
rewarding the student for good HS marks or for financial need.  The school
desires to do well in sports that interest the public, ergo, few badminton
scholarships are awarded to students, male or female.  Having established
that the quid pro quo for the scholarship is athletic prowess, the question
is therefore whether the school should set certain of them aside to fund a
separate but unequal system of athletics.  It strikes me that we have had
such an issue before.  Thus, to me the "put up or shut up" argument that
follows is this --  if students are being rewarded for athletic prowess, they
should compete for them on an equal basis -- One hockey team for the best 20
males and females, one volleyball team, etc.  If that egalitarian system
strikes someone as unfair (and I recognize that this system is, at this point
in time, absurd), then they are then asking for special consideration from
the school.  In my mind, are therefore not in any position to "demand"
equality if they are unable to achieve it on an even playing field.   Just a
note, I am aware of the physiological differences between men and women, so
that one gender is better suited for certain sports, the other for some
others.  If we are prepared to recognize these "real world" differences and
accomodate them, we should also recognize the "real world" differences in
funding and not demand blind equality.
I hope these thoughts do not inflame the list too much, but, after reading
everyone else's thoughts on the subject, I felt I had to add my 2 cents.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.