In light of Malcolm Gladwell's recent visit to UB, now is a time to question football's role within collegiate institutions. And more specifically, should UB continue to have a football team?
"I don't think any college should have a football team," Gladwell told The Spectrum on Wednesday. "The case in 2013 for football to be part of the educational mandate of a school is really weak."
The "case" for football programs at universities seems clear: to make money. For some schools, football is a very profitable resource that brings in a substantial amount of revenue. For others, however, it is not.
But excluding the schools for which football becomes a drain on resources - where the program ends up costing its athletic department more than it makes - it becomes a moral question that should drive this debate.
This is a matter of ethics.
"A school should not be doing anything that damages the health of its students," Gladwell said. "That's really obvious, especially when you're not paying them. That's even more obvious."
There are various long-term health consequences for students playing football. They become susceptible to neurological damage - as Gladwell pointed out, there is powerfully suggestive evidence that shows many football players are vulnerable to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative neurological disorder.
This carries with it a whole host of effects, including serious psychological strains that accompany the condition. CTE is the direct consequence of being hit in the head repeatedly - something football players experience due to their participation in the sport.
The neurological risks that players face are just a facet of the potential negative consequences that come from playing the game. Many players break bones, tear ligaments, dislocate body parts, etc.
Not to mention, many players are more likely to experience early death as a result of their involvement in a sport that wears the body down.
These effects are what Gladwell has adamantly argued make the game of football morally problematic - especially at a collegiate institution.
"People shouldn't go to college to play sports," he said. "I'm a big believer in intramural sports. But you come here to get an education. You don't come here to hit someone else on the head."
It is certainly true that football (and other sports) helps many students afford an education. In fact, it has historically been a potent tool to provide underprivileged students a way to get a degree.
Here at UB, many football players benefit from the scholarships they receive, and of course, most don't go on to the NFL. Because of football, they were able to come to UB.
In that sense, football is incredibly useful for educational purposes - it provides talented young people an outlet to not only get into a school to educate them, but to make it a sustainable environment. Through funding and the level of structure of being a college athlete, many football players can gain from playing the game; they can use it to their educational advantage.
Gladwell's point should not be taken lightly. Most importantly, it shouldn't be acknowledged as valid in theory but unfeasible in practicality. A lot of people respond to his claims and think something along the lines of, "Well, sure it's dangerous, but football will never go away."
And of course, we like watching it too much.
The only way it will go away is if enough people stand up to make it go away. In our view, more people need to seriously think if young men inflicting long-term harm on themselves is worth the price of our personal enjoyment.
email: editorial@ubspectrum.com
Photo: The Spectrum Archives
