Your experiences match pretty much my expectations. The main point at issue is the attitude of the faculty towards student athletes at Duke. My proposition - which your point A seems to support - is that this attitude probably reflects the prejudices of these faculty members rather than the actual performance of the students. I see no specific problem with the proposed solution of associating particular faculty members with the teams (though I see it as a bit fatuous and condescending to the coaching staff and students). The real condescension, however, is from the faculty who dismiss college sports and treat Duke student athletes as second class citizens.
Somewhat pertinent article. Pertinent in that the Durham County DA and the DPD aren't the only screw-ups in law enforcement. And remember, the DriveBy Media swallowed this story guts, feathers and all, too...
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060920/NEWS/609200304&SearchID=73257519078096
Karr computer missing
By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
On the day prosecutors offered John Mark Karr a plea bargain, Sonoma County sheriff's officials Tuesday acknowledged they lost a computer containing images used to charge Karr with possessing child pornography.
- snip -
Yeah, I don't see any benefit to this, but no harm either. What will happen is some facutly member interested in athletics and probably a particular sport will get the assignment, maybe after lobbying for it. There will be no improvement in communication, but no harm to communication either.
I suspect the Duke faculty members who are biased against sports don't even know which students are athletes and which are not. I know I rarely know who is an athlete or not in my big classes that lots of people take and by the time they are in my smaller classes, I know the athletes as people not athletes.