<p>“But defining “added value” solely as “revenue” is not necessarily appropriate for a non-profit institution, such as UF.”</p>
<p>It deff. is if you are talking about EMPLOYEES. Don’t forget, I believe these players should be employees with the option to exercize free tuition, not the mandate to go to school.</p>
<p>My brain hurts and I need to finish up my application for yet another masters degree, this time at a “top 20” school. God, I love school!</p>
<p>Are public institutions allowed to do this??</p>
<p>Who cares? It’s not as if anyone can do anything about it.</p>
<p>Bleeding-heart liberalism will continue to triumph!</p>
<p>AA was successfully challenged at Michigan. The problem with challenging it in every case based on the equal rights provision is that the legal system is so convaluted, time consuming and esoteric that it really takes someone of superior wealth with time on their hands or a civil rights group to effectively challenge AA proctices in courts. Nevermind sticking with these cases through the appellate level. Your average Joe who is discriminated against doesn’t have access to these resources.</p>
<p>The way I see it, it is cut and dry. Look at it this way; imagine the outrage if great African American athaletes were getting black balled by the NBA, or even UF’s basketball program because there wasn’t enough diversity on the teams. Or because the teams were underrepresented by the UPPER socioeconomic level and therefore lacked diversity. Almost noone would deny this was discrimination. This is really the same concept, but putting it in this context it is easier to digest that it is wrong. A sports team must recruit based on talent and must be race and socioeconomically blind. Just because society views someone as being privaledged, it is just as wrong to deny them something that they have earned due to their merits and achievements as it is to grant them something they haven’t earned based on their status. In parallell, granting someone of lower socioeconomic level something they haven’t earned based on status is just as wrong. This especially rings true when they are passed by strictly due to the fact that they were unable to “check” the correct race box. If a policy maker wants to help URM’s or low socioeconomic citizens, they should change the system to give them the oppertunity to earn a chance to compete on a level playing field.</p>