Before I continue, I ask that before you hit the reply button to yell and
scream at me that you read what I have to say first. I really don't want to
read a response that comments on every other sentence, hence my general
posting here, not quoting any individuals.
 
 
 
People have been arguing over to what extent U Maine's support of Walsh had
an effect on the students, whether the students should care or not, did
they have a right to ask for his resignation, he's only a hockey coach and
not a teacher.
 
Consider these situations:
 
College athletic coach is found to be in violation of both school and NCAA
rules. While under investigation breaks more rules. Most coaches have been
fired for lesser violations, but this one keeps his job after a short
suspension -- a slap on the wrist, really.
 
College freshman (non-athlete) is accused of plagiarism on a freshman
english paper. Although the source of the copied material can not be
identified by faculty, it is clear the student did not write the paper by
themselves and is therefore in clear violation of school policy. Student
expelled.
 
College freshman (student-athlete) is arrested for brawling in a bar and
possession of a fake ID. Student is also found with alcohol in dorm room.
Violating athletic scholarship considerations, dorm rules, school
regulations, and federal law, student is suspended for 3 games and is
"encouraged" to attend counseling.
 
 
While these may not be overwhelmingly common situations, these are
certainly not unheard of, especially to the readers of Hockey-L. The above
situations are obviously angled to show that the non-athlete is treated
unfairly, while the coach and athlete receive preferential treatment.
 
It is exactly this view however, that is maintained by many students and
teachers in many institutes of higher education throughout this country. In
this light, I'm not surprised at the reaction of the UMaine student
population to the Walsh situation. Rather, I'm surprised that it took this
long to make its way into the public eye.
 
 
From personal experience as a teacher at the university level I can tell
you two things about how an administration's policy and attitudes about its
employees (in this case, athletic coaches) can and should matter to the
average student or faculty member:
 
 
1. Teachers are often approached and otherwise contacted by coaching staffs
of colleges regarding their student athletes who happen to be in their
class. For the most part the purpose of this communication is to "establish
a relationship" and "let the teacher understand the needs of the
student-athlete at the univeristy and college level." What this means is
that the coach, his staff, the team -- nee the entire university -- would
like special treatment. Thusly teachers (and other faculty) often feel
undue pressure from the athletic department, their own academic department,
and the administration as a whole.
 
 
2. Students -- including student athletes -- who are not involved in a
"major univeristy sport" very often have significantly strong feelings
about those that are. Among them are basis of admission, priority
scheduling of courses, re-scheduling of final exams and deadlines, housing
assignments, and more. Very often students feel that these "student sports
figures" are in a position of advantage, that they are given a few more
breaks than Joe Student.
 
 
Obviously there are cases to be made for each side of the above statements.
Here on Hockey-L we've had many discussions about the life of the student
athlete, and I think most of us are in agreement that most SA's --
especially hockey players -- are at the top of their class, are exceptional
students with solid work ethics, and do not receive special breaks.
Likewise, there are few teachers who would openly admit to being
"influenced" by a coaching staff, just as there are more than a few
teachers who have never even been approached.
 
However, the issue here is not what you and I *know* to be true, nor is it
what the NC$$ or Sports Illustrated has "found" to be true. The issue is
that of public opinion, and although it may be formed through ignorance of
a situation it does indeed have a major effect on every aspect of higher
education. Most students see certain student-athletes having exams
rescheduled because of a "big game." Yet these same students feel that they
only get an exam rescheduled if there's a death in the family. Likewise
teachers *feel* that if they don't give an extension on a paper due date
that a player may (god forbid) stay up late and be tired at practice or
during a game.
 
Plain and simple, many students and teachers alike have strong, often
ignorant impressions about the "big deal" student-athletes. These opinions
are for the most part kept in check. Except when these opinions are pushed.
 
 
To wit, to hear that students at the University of Maine have voiced their
opinions about Walsh and the adminstration is not surprising at all. Nor is
it surprising that, like it or not, the situations revolving around Maine's
athletic department have had a major effect on enrollment. After all, one
of the best recruiting practices that ANY college or university has in
place is student opinion. Whether it comes in the form of campus visits,
siblings, alumni, friends, or word on the street, negative opinions do
indeed spread.
 
Two perfect examples of public opinion having a significant effect on
enrollment Boston University and Boston College. Both have high standards
for enrollment, and both schools have academic programs and departments at
undergraduate and postgraduate levels are among the 10 best in the world.
 
Both schools however, constantly fight to gain more respect for their
academics. But what's one of the more commonly heard opinion about these
schools, especially around the New England area?
 
BU: Oh, Boston University? Yeah, it's a good school I guess, but there are
just sooo many people and well, there's no campus.
 
BC: Boston College? Their football team sucks. But they got some hot women!
 
It doesn't matter to most people that at BU, all but one of the individual
schools within the system have a lower enrollment than most "small"
colleges that focus on one area of study (such as lib arts or engineering).
It doesn't matter that most students at BC could care less about any sport,
especially football. It doesn't seem to matter that these schools have
professors like Elie Wiesel and Isaac Asmiov, people who clearly helped
define the 20th century.
 
Yet the college guides continue to highlight the fact that one-pass wonder
Doug Flutie went to BC and Seinfeld's "George" Jason Alexander went to BU
(for one year). Heck, I remember when I told people I was teaching at BU,
and the reponse I got was "weren't they like one of the best places to pick
up women, according to Playboy?"
 
 
Therefore I'm not at all surprised that Maine students have responded in
such a manner. Heck, most people that go to the "city" schools of Boston
think that most Maine (and New Hampshire) students are simply podunks
learning about chainsaws and cows (no offensse intended). Location alone
alone can greatly hurt public opinion and enrollment. If Dartmouth didn't
belong to the Ivy league, would they be as respected today?
 
And while I agree that the Boston Globe article was poorly substantiated,
the impetus was there to kick the article into motion in the first place.
Students are upset. They feel cheated and slighted by the administration,
and when people are frustrated in such a manner, the press loves to listen.
 
 
 
Jason Kekoa Greene
http://www.kekoa.com
 
now a member of...
Parsons Brinckerhoff
4D Imaging multimedia group
http://www.pb4d.com
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.