Which is More Important to Colleges: Athletics or Academics?

21 years ago, the University of North Carolina began offering fake classes to many of its student athletes so that they may maintain eligibility for their respective sports. 3 years ago, this academic fraud was uncovered by the NCAA but eventually pushed aside as not a significant problem. Then, a counselor who worked closely with student athletes at UNC during this time, came forward with new information and staff members involved, all of which was news to university administrators. This prompted an 8 month investigation by Kenneth Wainstein (former U.S. Justice Department official and current chair of a White Collar Defense and Investigations Group hired by UNC), and as of four days ago, it has been found that the counselor was telling the truth, and that this scandal was much larger than anyone realized.

Julius Nyang'oro, former chairman
of the UNC department that ran
the "shadow courses," was indicted
on fraud charges last December

Over the span of 18 years, at least 3,100 sudents (1,500 or more of whom were athletes) were enrolled in this "shadow cirriculum" - classes that had no designated instructor and gave out all high grades, regardless of work quantity or quality. According to Wainstein, “By the mid-2000s, these classes had become a primary - if not the primary - way that struggling athletes kept themselves from having eligibility problems.” These athletes (some of whom couldn't write, couldn't read multisyllabic words, or couldn't read at all) were offered a free, high quality education that that they were completely unqualified for. But instead of at least taking advantage of that by working hard and actually earning a spot in the school (and on their teams), they decided to cheat their way out of it. And all with school officials endorsing their decisions.

While all 9 of the staff members Willingham mentioned in the original investigation were proven to be involved and subsequently fired, justice didn't come soon enough. How could something like this have gone on for so long, undetected and unresolved? And anyway, shouldn't the goal of an educational institution be to push students to succeed both in and out of the classroom, not one or the other?

While what occurred at UNC may have been extreme, it is well known that acclaimed colleges across the country have a habit of accepting less academically qualified athletes over more academically qualified non-athletes. What does it day about the American education system if colleges, of all places, are deprioritizing student's academic abilities in favor of their athletic abilities?

Is a Full Night of Sleep Possible for High Schoolers?

For most high school students across the nation, there is no sound worse than the shrill ringing of an alarm clock in the morning - a sound that often comes after a painfully long night of homework and a painfully short night of sleep. Although being tired seems to simply be a fact of life for many teenagers today, it shouldn't have to be.

Numerous studies, conducted both recently and in the past several years, have clearly shown the need for students to get a sufficent amount of sleep. According to the American Acadamy of Pediatrics (AAP), "The research is clear that adolescents who get [8.5-9.5 hours of] sleep have a reduced risk of being overweight or suffering depression, are less likely to be involved in automobile accidents, and have better grades, higher standardized test scores and an overall better quality of life." Additionally, almost 30% of sleep deprived students (less than 9-10 hours per night) surveyed in 2006 by the American Sleep Foundation reported falling asleep in class at least once a week (New York Times Article). 

However, because of hormonal changes causing teenagers' sleep cycles to shift (go to bed late/wake up late) and extracirriculars/excessive homework keeping students up into the waking hours, it is not reasonable to simply request earlier bedtimes. Because of this, the AAP has been calling for years for schools to shift start times to at least 8:30 a.m., but still "an estimated 40 percent of high schools in the U.S. currently have a start time before 8 a.m.; only 15 percent start at 8:30 a.m. or later. The median middle school start time is 8 a.m., and more than 20 percent of middle schools start at 7:45 a.m. or earlier."

All of this research has been made very clear to high schools nationwide, so why does it seem like everyone is as sleep deprived as they've always been? And since it is clear that starting school later can't completely fix "one of the most common – and easily fixable – public health issues in the U.S.," what more can be done?

Death with Dignity

In January of this year, 29 year old Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and given only a few years to live. Then, only 70 days later, she was told that her tumor had grown aggressively and that she only had six months left, six months that would include excruciating pain, violet seizures, and gradual loss of vocal and motor skills. She had just begun her life with her new husband and hoped to have a family, but now it was all being taken away. After hearing this news, Brittany knew that allowing her cancer control her remaining time would not only cause her to suffer immensely, but her loved ones too. That's why, on November 1st (just after her husband's birthday), Brittany will be given pills that will allow her to pass away peacefully, on her own terms: music playing, family by her side, and in the comfort of her Oregon home.

 Though known commonly as assisted suicide, Brittany stated in an interview that "When people use the word suicide, it’s highly inflammatory and just incorrect because I am already dying from cancer. And people who commit suicide are typically people who want to die, and are killing themselves... I don't want to die. But I am dying. Death with dignity is the phrase I'm comfortable using. I am choosing to go in a way that is with less suffering and less pain." 

Death with dignity, despite being a highly controversial topic for many years, allows for those with terminal illnesses to live their life to the fullest, pain-free. It gives them a sense of control over something that can seem uncontrollable. It gives peace of mind in knowing that all of the horrible things that come with terminal illness "are not mandatory." Especially in Brittany's case, where a cure in no where in sight, there is really no point in undergoing gruesome treatments that will only delay, and worsen, her inevitable passing. Currently, this practice is only legal in five states, but Brittany is fighting for a change. Fighting for death with dignity to be a "healthcare choice," and therefore a "freedom." 

With large organizations and people such as Stephan Hawking supporting this cause, I believe a change is on the horizon. After all, shouldn't the only person who can decide your threshold for suffering be you?

View Brittany's full story here:

Racism on the Big Screen

While watching trailer after familiar trailer at the theater earlier this week, one really caught my eye: Exodus: Gods and Kings. As it played, I began to recognize the well-known actors and actresses who were playing lead roles: Christian Bale, Sigourney Weaver, Joe Edgerton, Ben Kingsley, and more. While all are extraordinarily talented, it puzzled me. Wasn't this film supposed to be set in ancient Egypt? And if so, why are the lead roles being portrayed not by those of African or Middle Eastern descent, but by those of European descent?

This remained on my mind for quite some time, and, after looking deeper into it, it proved to be even more troubling than what I thought. Not only were white, American/British actors cast to play the royalty of ancient Egypt (let alone cast at all), but when they chose to include people of color, it was mainly for the roles with the least dignity (such as theif, slave, assassin, "lower class civilian", and servant). 

Racially-biased casting is even more evident in this powerful image from Exodus. 

Besides being wildly historically inaccurate, this sends a very strong message to the viewers -  specifically younger ones. It gives the idea that white supremacy was not only a concept developed in relatively recent world history, but that it has been around for thousands of years, and in places not even inhabited by a white population. It gives the idea that giving white actors/actresses wigs and spray tans is an acceptable way to uphold the integrity of a very well-known story. It gives the idea that getting big (which the film industry often interprets as white) names in the credits is more important than respecting a culture and staying true to that story.

I still cannot believe that despite the progress we've made, films cast such as this one still exist. How could this be acceptable? And if something as powerful and impactful as the film industry can't be counted on to display good standards of racial equality, how can we ever expect racism in the real world to change?