Student athletes and racism

Re “A Jim Crow divide in college sports,” Opinion, Jan. 11

Division I college football and basketball programs generally do not “subsidize” other sports on campus. The vast majority of all Division I programs lose money, and the spending of those football and basketball programs is far higher in both real terms and in costs per athlete than the “non revenue” sports like track and field.

Those few programs that do make a profit typically use those funds for their own “needs,” such as improving their facilities or paying for “increased costs.”

Victoria L. Jackson is correct that athletes — black athletes in particular — fail to graduate at higher rates than the rest of the student population. But all students admitted to college through preferential admissions, and not just athletes, fail to graduate at the same rates as the general college population.

Students admitted to college through preferential admissions are often “mismatched” academically, and that is the real problem. For athletes, the additional time commitment is burdensome and adds an obstacle to graduation.

Asking whether athletes should “share” in the rewards at the few schools that do generate a profit with their programs is legitimate. Implying that the system is racist is not. Doug Thorne

Temecula

Jackson points out that football and men’s basketball produce revenue that benefits all other college athletes. She notes that the “revenue-sport athletes are disproportionately black.”

Our politically correct milieu promotes highlighting instances where blacks or women seem to get the short end of the stick. Conversely, when either of those groups benefit from a discrepancy, we are encouraged to turn a blind eye.

In this case, Jackson notes that whites benefit from the labor of blacks but ignores the fact that women’s college sports are funded by revenue generated by male athletes. Andrew Kadar

Beverly Hills