Dieting Is Not the Answer

Dieting is probably the single most popular method of ‘shedding the pounds’ even though it is one of the least effective ways of doing so.  I would guess that this popularity comes from the fact that it seems such an easy way out.  Supposedly all one has to do is eat a little less food and change around the content of one’s meals.  This small step, unfortunately, never seems to really work out.  The ubiquitous sorrow of dieters is the constant craving to return to the foods they used to eat, the unending desire to eat just a bit more, and despair at seeing the pounds quickly return with any lapse of discipline.  These are all signs of the truth; that dieting is a fundamentally wrong-headed and short-sighted approach to achieving good health.

            The downfall of dieting is above all its obsessive focus on changing the purely cosmetic in as little time as possible.  More often than not, it is about trimming the waist down for swim suit season, and not about leading a healthy lifestyle.  Motivating dieting is a fundamentally flawed ethic; the perception of one’s physical wellbeing as just another annoying dilemma, like electric bills, to be solved with a quick fix.  The truth is that a healthier body is achieved through a consistent lifestyle based upon regular exercise and sound nutrition, not through painful rituals of self deprivation that last until the individual loses their will to endure.  Strangely enough, though, dieters seem to take almost perverse satisfaction in the pain they undergo as a cause of their arcane eating habits.  They seem to have a concept that stems from the fundamental flaw in their approach—that eating must be paid for with sufficient atonement and guilt as electricity is paid for with money.  The end result for each case in theory is that the problem is swiftly dispensed with and gone until it is next brought to the individual’s attention.

            The human body, however, cannot be deferred until next month.  It is the constant vessel of our existence and the decisions made every day shape its rhythms and tendencies.  Good health and the leaner body that results is not the product of a month, but of a lifetime.  Deciding to change months or years of precedent within a short period is like trying all at once to stop the inertia of a moving ship and then immediately change its direction.  Thus, dieters have the sensation of tugging against an overwhelming force.

           

            Any solution to the issues of body weight and health must be established on a correct understanding of the human body.  To bring real change, one must gradually leave behind a sedentary lifestyle.  It is true that beginning exercise will be painful to those who are unaccustomed to physical activity, but the human form is far more capable than most people realize.  Within a month, a sedentary person can reach the threshold where exercise no longer feels awkward and painful.  A month might seem like a long time to endure, but once surmounted, the way is open to achieve years of good health and enjoyment.  In comparison, an awful month of dieting invariably ends in guilt and failure.  Even in the rare and temporary instance of success, one is changed in only the most superficial sense.  The old system remains, struggling always to return to its normal state; the body is scarcely any healthier than before.  Ultimately, the very practice of cutting back on calories is a self-defeating behavior.  The body responds by conserving energy and storing up what it can; the status quo resumes the moment the fasting is broken.

            Regular exercise, on the other hand, changes the very way the body processes energy.  The body well-cared for craves nutrient rich, hearty foods.  Empty calories, excessive sweeteners, and grease become repugnant.  Dieters like to cut out carbohydrates and every form of fat, trying to live off of lettuce and low calorie shakes.  The very materials they attempt dispense with are essential for a healthy, physically active person.  In fact, many endurance athletes observe a practice known as ‘carbo-loading’ the night before a competition or challenging workout.  Gaining excessive weight is simply not a concern for someone who frequently gets out and moves around.  For the physically active, eating healthy portions of good food is an enjoyable daily necessity.  Overeating loses its appeal with increasing fitness and fades from one’s lifestyle.  People who work out have fine-tuned bodies that give warnings when the balance is disrupted; they suffer acutely from abuse that a sedentary person might be able to ignore.  Once a regimen of fitness is adhered to for a time, it is as though a ship has gained inertia in a desirable direction—it is a course that requires great force to change.  The very principle of the human body that frustrates dieters is the ally and aid of one who pursues fitness.

The Dark Joke of the Modern Totalitarian State

Some of the most ruthless individuals who ever lived, the rulers of Nazi Germany comprised a weird, oddly comical collection of personalities no author could ever have conceived of. They were the type that get left out at (or not invited to) dinner parties: Hess and Roehm, gays in a regime that reviled homosexuality, Himmler, the disgruntled chicken farmer, Papen, the effete noble, Goebbels, failed playwright and pint-sized propagandist, Funk the obsequious Wormtail, and Frick the professional desk jockey who signed off people’s lives as if it were any other paperwork. Nay forget Ribbentrop a diplomat with no social skills, Keitel the military yes man, and Rosenberg, the pseudo-philosopher. As weird as all the rest put together was Adolf Hitler, a failed artist, ex-homeless person, a man who actually enjoyed WWI, who was a vegetarian yet ate a mountain of sweets every day, whose tantrums were so intense that detractors referred to him as ‘carpet chewer’, who sported history’s most ridiculous mustache, who was a megalomaniac incapable of having a two way conversation. Only Goering—the flying ace and popular war hero with his infectious grin balanced out the cast of criminals. If it were not horribly real, one might think it some warped black comedy. People would certainly wonder if the author was mentally imbalanced.

What originates that certain sense of weird one gets when looking upon these deranged rulers and the states they create? Do maladjusted minds bent on oppression have a certain element in common?

***

Across the river Spree in modern Berlin, it is clear that the East German regime was in force not so long ago. When I was staying there, I most definitely got a monstrous, unsettling feeling of weirdness.  In the Friedrichshain district, it was tough to get a street address because of the gigantic blocky buildings with no signs that took up an entire city block and which were built along vacant eight lane roads and 20 meter wide sidewalks. The balconies of towering, dismal condos were painted bright primary colors in eye scorchingly poor taste, and the subway interiors all through the East side were tiled in single colors varying at each stop between mud brown, bile yellow, and scrubs green. In the sterile and ominous atmosphere of the former STASI headquarters, there were landscapes of Mitte district hung on the walls rendered in simple patterns and neutral colors—as if it were a design for a paper cup.

Thinking over it all, I wonder if such mind boggling oddness is just a byproduct of modern dictators. Consider Kim Jong Il, an autocrat who denounces Western culture, yet for whom a basketball signed by Michael Jordan is an appropriate gift. Consider the tyrant Ceausescu, a cobbler, who while oppressing Romania for more than twenty years, hailed himself as ‘The Danube of Thought.’ He squeezed a country impoverished by his disastrous policies to build himself a ‘people’s palace’ of bizarrely grandiose proportions.(James Bond would opine he had an edifice complex.) In Berlin, almost all of the Third Reich buildings were destroyed, but the former Luftwaffe headquarters remains—a giant neo-classical brick that of course covers an entire block.

Absolute rulers have been common throughout history and gigantic palaces a staple, but something sharply distinguishes the variety that arose from nation states in the 20^th century. Most autocrats of the past paid at least nominal respects to a higher power or ideology (God, the Gods, the way of Heaven) and had a whole host of bureaucrats, nobles, and even eunuchs over whom they had varying degrees of control. Some of these rulers certainly rivaled modern dictators in ruthlessness and vanity, but there were other powers in the state they had to contend with and they did not have the same opportunities provided by later technology. The new tyrants in contrast establish themselves at the top of the ideological and spiritual hierarchy. The resulting state is founded on a strange cult of personality. Any checks and balances of power such as parliaments and elections are just a quick fix for discontent or a phony show for the benefit of other nations. Mass media and cameras allow the unrestrained dictator to infiltrate every aspect of every citizen’s life and modern weaponry gives the ability to oppress millions with impunity even while loathed by all except for a cadre of well-paid loyalists.

This unparalleled power enjoyed by a modern totalitarian ruler, rather than being awe inspiring ironically has an opposite effect. Culture, artwork, and architecture suffer ludicrously with the suppression of free thought. With every absurdly large and blocky building the dictator constructs, every unremarkable portrait that is painted, and every dull propaganda-laced program put on the air, the comically bloated egotism and small, self-serving thought behind it all becomes ever more apparent. In this lies a certain dark joke, that these improbable people who no one would want at their dinner party are running a country. Their willingness to hide cameras in people’s houses, in the clothing of unofficial informers, and even tree trunks says more about their own petty paranoia and personal abyss of insecurity than it does about those who are monitored through every day for any trace of treason.

Visiting the vestiges of totalitarian states gave me feelings of dread, fear, a spine-tingling cold, and at times the urge to laugh. All together, it comprised that feeling of weirdness. A medieval ruler had no equivalent means of direct observation, influence, and involvement, but with these new technologies, more light is shed on the deepest intent of the autocrat—the drive to subsume an entire population into their being until it becomes indistinguishable from any other bodily appendage.

Madeleine L’engle, in a Wrinkle in Time, imagines a world called Camazotz where an entire society functions in perfect synchrony with a central, disembodied brain. The slightest act of non-conformity is treated as an aberration and pathogen; a threat to the body. I found myself thinking of Camazotz as I encountered the unnaturally square, coldly utilitarian, the eerily tidy, and the chillingly bland. However, I very much doubt that such a terrible allegorical world could ever come to be. The mission of a megalomaniac goes against the very grain of the human spirit and from this folly, I think, derives the dark joke.

The Greek System Must Be Abolished

Assuming one has just encountered an Earth university for the first time; one might be surprised to learn that almost without fail some of the oldest and most beautiful buildings on campus are given over as exclusive places of residence for student organizations. This certainly seems suspect from the outset, but one might suppose that there is a reason for this. Surely these houses must be reserved for the best students, the most brilliant aspiring scholars of their generation while their more mundane counterparts live in austere block housing. It is unfair and unwise to promote a master class at school. One cannot always predict who will do best in life and encouraging such a social divide could lead to unhealthy rivalries. As reprehensible as this course is, one can at least grasp the premises upon which the university is acting. All logical suppositions are blown away, however, when one learns that these buildings are in fact handed over to the party houses and social clubs and that this is widely accepted and taken for granted by both students and the older generations.

These clubs give themselves names with Greek letters and shroud themselves in an obnoxious pseudo-mysticism of brother/sisterhood. They are most associated with wacky costumes and getting drunk. They boast about philanthropy in the daylight, but this consists usually of adopting a road or gathering some unwanted canned food or litter a few times a year. This is a facade of respectability as a service organization and feeble attempt to justify their existence and the enormous assets with which they are endowed by the administration. Don Corleone had more legitimacy with his ‘olive oil business’ than does the Greek System.

Giving any student faction gifts of the school’s most splendid houses, even if they do work hard at philanthropy, is a colossal misdeed. This sort of pork barrel undermines the spirit of fairness which is essential to the unadulterated pursuit of knowledge and fundamental inquiry towards truth. This violation is compounded by its widespread nature and the fact that this property is given to factions that inflict grievous damage upon the educational environment. Besides being a violation of principles, the awarding of a house invests the fortunate faction with great power—the safe sphere in which the residents can do as they please and if they so desire, flout the laws and values of the institution in which they are embedded. It is unfortunate, that these powers, which should be allowed no student organization, are given away to party clubs.

Allowing a student organization a house lends great prestige and is tantamount to a high endorsement from the university itself. As a result, fraternities enjoy a position as prominent organizations that tend to dominate campus social life. They are equipped with the exclusive rights to meeting places on campus outside of the university’s immediate control and are thus a natural center. The Greek organizations find themselves in a position from where they have great influence upon the life and culture within academic institutions—perhaps in some cases more than is possessed by the actual school administration. The Greeks guard their power jealously and dole out membership rights only to those who please them best, or at least those who are most dedicated to aping them. The result is an atmosphere of social exclusion and conformity in an institution that is by nature dedicated towards promoting individuality and visionary thought.

Greek houses are a constant source of frustration for universities everywhere: they produce embarrassing incidents, send a regular stream of drunks out onto campus who proceed to damage school property and attack other people, create frequent loud disturbances, and are freehouses for illegal activities. Unfortunately, even progressive administrations rarely abolish the Greek system. Perhaps they fear that less students would come to their school without the party culture or that certain alumni would cease to give money, but as I see it the important choice is between upholding the central principles of a center of learning or continuing with their policy of appeasement and lack of courage to challenge or offend—an approach that gains respect from no one. Many universities have taken partial measures such as relocating Greek houses to less visible areas or having a new British style house system. These might seem steps in the right direction, but the proper message cannot be sent and true conviction be expressed unless the Greek system is eliminated from the grounds of the university—a final rejection of gross favoritism and outright corruption. A new sort of student would enroll at the school, one more dedicated to learning and new alumni would graduate, causing the old to decrease in importance. Even if the university as a result of such policy lost the funds to construct that shiny new building, the advantages of being intact in integrity and bereft of the glaring contradictions of life that so easily breed cynicism would be interminable and incalculable. The university would gain more of the real, well earned prestige that comes only from producing a large number of enlightened minds.

Video Games Are High Art and a Beneficial Addition to Society

The advent of computer and console gaming in the last 30-40 years has brought upon the world an entirely new category of art, the greatness and implications of which have not yet been appreciated by the vast majority. In fact, video gaming has been a nexus of controversy since its inception, a new technology that has caused unease, fear, and even revulsion in its detractors. It has been blamed for obesity, violence, addiction, breakdown of morality, reduction of intelligence and creativity—a slough of claims with varying degrees of validity. Though, electronic gaming can be abused like any other technology, it will with the passage of time be recognized for the great invention that it is.

I

 

In painting, the cubist movement superceded traditional conceptions of perspective and space. In electronic media, gaming has challenged traditional forms of experiencing art. Traditionally, art is appreciated by a passive observer, one who by definition enacts no change upon the work in the act of experiencing it. Video gaming is a form that goes beyond the standard of voyeurism and by its very nature entails the exploration of new realms.

Perhaps the reader has wished to go inside a painting or book—has desired that a beautiful sculpture come to life. Not only is this longing futile, most forms of high art have ropes, signs, guards, thick glass, proximity alarms; multiple layers of protection to keep the work strictly unchanged for the next observer. Even to touch, in these cases, would be impossible. Video gaming, however, is by definition hands on and the player is actually in a sense ‘within’ the work.

A video game is intricately crafted, a synthesis of many art forms that is closest in nature to architecture—a team of designers and engineers create an elaborate and spacious structure designed to weather any foreseeable event, which is then decorated and brought to life by master craftsmen and artisans. The result is truly greater than the sum of its parts, a work of art that not only is participatory in nature, but which can be changed in form by the will and actions of experiencer. The potential in electronic gaming for amorphism has resulted in works that mold themselves to the choices and preferences of each player. No two people will gain exactly the same impression from a painting or imagine things the same way when reading a novel; yet such works are regarded as being intrinsically static in nature. Video games, on the other hand, capitalize on the fact that no two observers are alike.

II

 

Computer and console games, unfortunately, have not yet been accorded their proper place among the other widely acknowledged forms of great art. As of yet they are dismissed by many as a waste of time and are far more frequently associated with society’s problems than inspiration and enlightenment. This state of affairs is regrettable since the benefits and potential benefits of electronic environments far outstrip any harm that comes from its abuse.

Perhaps most frequently, video games are blamed for numerous negative effects in children. Certainly, children are immature and prone to many types of excess if they are not guided by adults. Video gaming is no exception, but one must consider that a gaming console or computer is far beyond the financial means of most children as are the games. Many offended adults not only purchase gaming consoles but allow their children to use them without restrictions. The problem is thus easily solved where it arises. And when done in moderation, video gaming, like any other good thing, confers its many benefits upon people of all ages. Computer and console games require constant problem solving, quick and effective reaction to the most adverse circumstances, well planned, efficiently executed strategies, a knack for creativity and improvisation, thorough exploration, and in general the ability to rapidly analyze and piece together a comprehensive whole from a great amount of information. Playing a computer game is not only entertaining; it is a demanding cognitive process that sets the mind pleasantly abuzz with activity.

I have on occasion seen people try gaming for the first time. Almost always, the reaction is complete bewilderment and frustration. They are mentally unprepared to deal with the array of processes that faces them. The real time strategy game, for instance, is a well known format to almost any gamer and is easy enough to master. I once convinced my own father to try Age of Empires II for awhile, an effort that quickly fell flat. After some thought, I realized that one must acquire a sophisticated set of skills before even attempting to play a computer or video game. It occurred to me that it is not so simple to learn to play real time strategy. One must know which buildings produce which units for how much of which resources as well as how to begin with maximum speed a balanced economy that provides these resources in the correct quantities. The level of knowledge I just described covers no more than the first few minutes of a given game, but all it takes is a moment’s consideration to come the realization that gaming is a rigorous mental exercise and a wholesome influence on any human being.

 

III

 

Like other art forms, video gaming has the potential to render the fantastic into our reality in an immediate and moving fashion. That video gaming excites such controversy is a testament to its power. The advent of games such as Mortal Kombat scandalized a nation; it was not long before a ratings system similar to that used in cinema was created for electronic games. The impact made even upon detractors of the medium is so great that they routinely express deeply held fears of video games adversely shaping the behavior of human beings. Their concerns, however, are misguided not only because of a misunderstanding of gaming, but also of human nature.

One role of art is to satisfy the human desire to engage in fantasy. Ordinary life builds up many frustrations in each individual—frustrations which result in violent impulses that cannot be freely expressed. Critics blame gaming for anti-social behaviors because they do not understand or are unable to accept that anger and violence are a normal part of the human psyche. No human impulse is a bad thing until it is expressed in a destructive manner, and art—gaming included—is a means of providing human beings a constructive channel for pent up energies. Children of the 21^st century enact frequent play violence through use of their gaming machines. As recently as the 1950s and 60s, life was not so easy. My father had his front teeth permanently damaged in a fight over control of a treehouse. Animals were tortured, scrapping over turf with other bands of children was commonplace, and shooting targets and live animals with BB guns went without saying. After considering actual human play behavior, it is absurd to see fantasy enacted through video games as any kind of threat. People have a need to explore and test out the parameters of their surroundings, an endeavor that sometimes calls for forceful methods. Not only do video games satisfy this need, they allow human beings to enjoy godlike amounts of power without any responsibility and to break taboos at will. This very characteristic is most alarming of all to critics, but ultimately they are prudes. Being a ruthless dungeon overlord for a couple of hours is a truly enjoyable experience in which we gleefully acknowledge and indulge our deepest fantasies; it is an activity that leaves us refreshed and ready to cope once again with the rigors of a societal existence.

 

 

IV

 

Since the creation of electronic worlds is yet a young technology, what wonders or dangers will come is a matter of conjecture. One day, the process of making an electronic space down to the last intricate detail will become so easy and inexpensive that anyone will be able to create one. At the opening of the 21^st century, the production of video games has some parallels with the baroque and classical periods of Western music. A composer in Europe two to three hundred years ago required a rich and noble patron in order to pursue his trade and have access to an orchestra. Today, it requires the resources of a wealthy enterprise to assemble an orchestra of programmers, artists, composers, and writers and to release a finished product on the mass market. The current era has, like the classical or baroque eras, produced many masterpieces, but the medium of electronic gaming will flower even more spectacularly when improvement of technology frees it from the necessities of profit making and demographic appeal.

As a closing consideration, following video game technology down its logical course leads to a time when those spectacular electronic worlds can no longer be distinguished from reality. This is a time that has often been addressed in nearly every canonized form of art and which will surely present adventures, dangers, and opportunities for humankind. Such an age may very well dawn during my life and I would attempt not to make the mistake of turning away with reactionary fear, instead approaching with curiosity coupled with a healthy sense of caution.

Sports Do Not Belong in Schools

Sports, especially the most popular team sports have become such an inseparable part of society that they have become a problem. Millions of kids grow up with schools and families that seem to value their athletic skills above all else. This is a strange situation considering that sports have no practical use in adult life. It is a person’s decision if they wish to spend a large amount of their time playing a game, but this should not be done in institutions of education. How can hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions be spent on a football program alone when it has nothing to do with the educational mission of the school? Exorbitant spending on sports is not just impractical or a nuisance. It is the outright graft of public funding. Even if a majority of citizens approve of elaborate high school sports programs, that does not change the fact that it undermines everything that a school stands for. To make things worse, almost every school puts aside several large spaces for no function other than playing games. It would be no better than building a new video game arcade on the school grounds. Even though sports in schools are rarely challenged by taxpayers, there has been some discontent and correspondingly there are several main arguments that I have encountered in support of sports in schools so far.

1. Promotes Physical Fitness
2. Builds Character, Promotes Values
3. Sports Scholarships, Make the big leagues.
4. Sports require use of the mind. Teaches strategy.
5. Sports make money for the school. Adds prestige to the school. School spirit.

The very first is perhaps the most popular and the closest to legitimacy. It is true that sports can vastly increase physical fitness, but this does not give them full justification. They are still games that incidentally result in a higher level of fitness. Sports at the same time can have detrimental effects or limited effect because of their overwhelming emphasis on a limited set of activities. Wrestlers, for example, become so desperate to stay in a particular weight class that they will starve and even dehydrate themselves, compromising their health. Athletes in a number of sports take questionable chemical supplements that are expensive and that can have ill effects in the long term. All this grows from an obsession to become obsessively good at some obsessively repetitive activity such as throwing a ball through a hoop. It is exactly this sort of highly specialized repetition that regularly results in long term injuries to joints, cartilage, and ligaments.  In sports, social status and and even self esteem hang in the balance. Sports are not about fitness, they are about winning some game.  If increased fitness results from it or becomes necessary, so be it.  If breaking the body down becomes necessary, so be it.

For many people, sports are synonymous with fitness and it is true that some of the fittest people participate in a sport. However, they are still just playing a game, just like any child, no matter what feats they can boast. The central goal of true fitness is simply to maximize the health and physical potential of the body. Nothing more. Sports in the most traditional sense are not the the most efficient or effective way to achieve this goal. Soccer increases cardiovascular fitness, but a soccer practice takes at least two hours and is filled with extra socializing and highly specific drills. One of the players could have ran 6-7 miles, and easily returned in less than an hour. However, a high school soccer player spends so much time learning how to kick a ball that he might conceivably have trouble even making that distance. He or she spends hours a week as an athlete doing activities which have no or relatively little benefit to fitness. A normal high school soccer team probably takes up a sizable piece of land on or near the school grounds and requires a sizable amount of money for coaching, uniforms, and training equipment. If the players ran several miles a day instead, they would require almost no resources on the part of the school and would be much more fit while devoting less than half the time that they used to. The saved money could become a contribution to a fund for new academic buildings on the newly opened space.

One might ask what I would replace sports teams with. I would propose the concept of high school fitness groups devoted directly to attaining cardiovascular endurance, muscular endurance, muscular strength, healthy body composition, and increased flexibility. If there were coaches in such a program, they wouldn’t put together play books, they would teach their students how to care for their bodies in the most effective way possible. Perhaps even education in proper nutrition and diet could be included. A serious and beneficial program like this is what is worthy of being included in an educational institution. And I’m not talking about the lukewarm and half-hearted P.E. classes all across this nation. A fitness group, just like a sport, would be a voluntary extracurricular activity but each participant would compete against themself rather than others. Through such an approach, this system could avoid one of the great pitfalls of sports; its tendency to include only a handful of the most physically talented individuals. Fitness groups would give encouragement to every student to improve and maintain their bodies through activities such as weight training, running, and biking.

Then there’s the next argument; that sports, particularly team sports ‘build character’ and somehow instill ‘values’ into a new generation. This entire concept is as irrational as it is vague. I’ve never read or heard any solid explanation of what these ideas mean, but the best definition I could give just from observation is that sports have some untouchable essence of greatness that is conferred onto those who participate in them. And, those who didn’t participate don’t have an understanding of this almost magical experience. Though criticisms coming from people like me who have never been involved in a team sport might be well intentioned, we just don’t get it. This argument is an all time favorite because one can just recite it like an incantation and feel as though they have proved their point. It is an all purpose seal. Even if I had played team sports and had been the best player on the team, a sports person could simply claim I’m just one poor man inexplicably cut off from that undefinable spirit.

Somehow, sports are supposed to mark a passage, a transition from boy to man and girl to woman, a way to prepare a young person for “success.” In some nameless way, learning to play a game accomplishes all these things. Some would try to give an explanation by claiming that it teaches a kid to be competitive. In what? The kid was playing a game for hours every week rather than learning real skills to make him or her competitive in the marketplace. A raw and primal understanding of competition won’t help someone write a resume or perform a job well. It could concievably aid in giving someone a ‘win at all costs’ mentality. This would most likely just result in a person being alienated and disliked.

Others would try to explain the magic of sports by saying it teaches a child leadership, a time honored tradition, an ethic of the athlete, an ability to be gracious in defeat and magnanimous in victory. And somehow, the playing field is the only place where these values can be learned in their entirety. Therefore it follows in this course of reasoning that people who didn’t participate in organized sports as a kid are somehow lacking in their “moral fiber.” This right here just cuts it.

I am tired of people trying to justify bloated sports programs with sentiments about an intangible and mystical element. There’s nothing special or glorious about going outdoors to play a game. Not even if people are watching you. People could just as easily exhort the magic of video games to squeeze money for a Halo team from educational institutions. If anyone came up with a financial plan involving such expenditures, however, no one would take it seriously. A Halo team would not even be given a moment’s consideration. But with eight controllers plugged into a video game console, team playing is possible and therefore the players will be educated in teamwork, both in and out of the game, right? The players will also win and lose, teaching them how to accept any outcome gracefully. Some of them will excel beyond the others and thereby be trained as great leaders. Most people might disagree with me on these suppositions, but I can claim that there is a certain glorious spirit embodied in the controllers that only a true player can understand and therefore I am still right and my critics wrong no matter what they might say. Then to add insult, I imply that my long hours of playing have given me a sort of aura of greatness completely beyond their limited comprehension.

To me, the use of this argument demonstrates a lack of thought, honesty, or both. It is a viewpoint that is inherently full of conceit and condescension toward any who might disagree and allows no room for discussion. When someone uses this argument, I can no longer take them seriously. If that’s the best sales pitch they can offer as a reason to spend huge amounts of public funds on sports, they should be laughed at for coming up with such a ridiculous spending plan.

The next argument is that playing sports can get players a sports scholarship or if the athlete tries super hard, a ticket to the big leagues. This belief is technically true. It certainly is possible, but only a few of the very best at any one school would ever have a chance. And then, as most people know, only a few of even that elite group could ever make the pros. There is no way anyone could ever argue that sports are an efficient way to send people to college. And even if it was a practical method to get to college, it would still be counter to the purpose of an educational institution.

Colleges should not offer sports scholarships. Why are they paying to have students come to their school for reasons other than the academic? It doesn’t make sense and it shouldn’t be done. It’s the same graft of funds if a public university is using tax dollars to bring someone to the college for ridiculous reasons. It doesn’t matter whether they’re paying for someone to come play play golf or checkers. It has nothing to do with why the university is there.

A common justification for sports scholarships is the fact that critics like me forget that ‘athletes can be smart too.’ The sports supporter then points out that some athletes have a perfect GPA while competing in a sport at a high level. If the people in question are so intelligent and hard-working, I admire them. However, I was talking about sports scholarships. If this money was instead diverted to grants handed out for academic achievement, these students who happen to be athletes would have been rewarded as they deserved for being intellectuals. If they happen to play games on the side, fine. That’s beside the point and should have no importance. I think these people are being shown respect if they are honored for their real achievements. These talented individuals are denigrated when they are tossed money for their skill in athletics. Certainly these students are multi-faceted individuals for whom sport is one small corner of their lives. Finally, in the instance that an applicant to a university is a good athlete but a poor student, he or she is identical to any other poor student. The concept should be straightforward and intuitive. Let good students in while handing them money and don’t let bad students in. Where is the disconnect?

Not only are sports scholarships difficult to get, they reward smart and determined students for their recreational activities and provide a corridor for students who have no interest in learning to enter the school. So, if anything, this topic is potentially an excellent justification for sports not to exist in either high school or college.

There is still the claim that playing a sport works the mind the same as any other academic pursuit. Those who argue from this point say that players learn strategy. Once again, it’s not a thing that can be learned just from books. One has to go out there and do it with grit and resolve. In this mode of thought, the athlete is the general who goes on campaign through mud and snow, conquering his rivals while the passive student is the pathetic armchair general who obsesses over how battles long past might have turned out if he or she had been in command. For some reason, though, I’ve never heard any explanation as to how any strategy in sports relates to academics or any other skill. The usual approach is to say ‘It teaches strategy’ and stop abruptly right there. How does following coach’s instructions teach any appreciable amount of strategy, let alone any type that is useful outside of the game? Strategy and planning aren’t even usually a player’s duty. How are the athletes to get any intellectual stimulation when their coach happened to have a good game plan? If it is such a great concern that students learn strategy, have them play chess, a game that is closely associated with academic skills. Most schools already have a chess club. Cancel sports, buy more chess boards, and the former athletes having been trained in ‘strategy’ should hold their own. Once again, expenditures would be cut while increasing effectiveness. However, the purpose of the argument in question is ultimately not to prove that sports teach strategy, but rather to provide a quick, convenient excuse for the misuse of tax money. Even if sports did teach strategy, the chess program would still be only a fraction of the cost.

Still, there is the assertion that sports provide money to the school, are essential to a certain prestige, and foster ‘school spirit.’ It is true that some sports programs turn a profit for the school but these are few. A sports program is almost always a money losing venture because the goal is to spend money until victory is achieved and then spend even more money to assure more victory. Sports teams are not typically thought of as fundraising mechanisms. They are usually promoted as an end unto themselves.

In the instance that a sports program is profitable, it ought to be treated as an off campus activity like any other investment scheme.(should the best paperweight salesmen be semi-students living on campus if the school makes money investing in a paperweight company?)  If a college wants to hire people to play a game for profit, what are the players doing on campus as students?  They ought to be outside contractors brought in as entertainers.  To include them as students and even shining examples of the scholastic model makes a mockery of the school.  It would be equally ludicrous to promote master paperweight merchants as ‘model students’.

Whether they turn a profit or not, these teams are touted as a means of filling the trophy case and giving prestige to a school. Supposedly, no one will take a school seriously if its sports programs are not state of the art. A school with poor sports programs somehow suffers a lack of ‘excellence.’ The essence of school spirit oozes right down the drain in a time of constant defeat, causing the entire school to became disheartened and less effective. Supposedly, school loyalty becomes non-existent and the student body loses any sense of unity. Somehow, the extra-curricular activities of a handful of the students are thought to give meaning to the entire student body. Thus it is necessary to devote a huge portion of the budget to sports.
I certainly believe that a school is in need of improvement if winning at sports is the main thing to boast about. In this case, the solution is to eliminate them straightaway and bolster academics. Then maybe the school will start speaking of outstanding scholastic achievements instead of wasting time and money on exorbitantly expensive games. If there must be an idea like school spirit, let it center around activities that are related to the purpose of the school. Besides, it is simply moronic to suggest that the entire educational system will somehow be degraded without pep rallies and other typical school spirit activities. School spirit. What an interesting phrase among an already large book of ambiguous terms used by sports supporters. I have entered the phrase into google and always the term is linked to sporting events and cheering for the school mascot. What does the outcome of a basketball game have to do with the spirit of the school? Since a school exists to teach, wouldn’t this ethereal force be embodied by the best students? What do sports have to do with anything educational? It seems at this point that the spirit of the school, the driving purpose, is a different or even opposite idea from school spirit. If this is so, then eliminating sports teams would not cause any great trauma. In fact, the school would enjoy great benefits.

Sports supporters can get away with their flimsy reasoning because their position is not really challenged. None of the arguments I’ve ever encountered have any merit, but the school system seems to be stuck as it is right now. A majority of parents, administrators, and students appear to support or at least accept the ubiquitous presence of sports in schools. However, this is irrelevant because there is a clearly stated mission for all schools and almost always for each individual school. I have visited some school websites and every one so far has had a mission statement, not one of which has had a word specifically regarding sports. Are these statements there just to sound good and not actually apply to real life? If schools are going to ignore their mission, why even bother with the hypocrisy. Why don’t they just call themselves ____ high school and sports training camp? Because it would be a blatant acknowledgment of the true situation. People just might look at the sign on the front of the school/athletics training camp and try without success to reconcile these two elements.

If some parents believe sports are so important for their children, they should be willing to pay for membership in a privately owned league. They have been allowed for too long to get a free ride from the educational system at the expense of everyone else. Their desires not only challenge the fundamental mission of every school but infringe on the rights of every tax payer who does not believe precisely as they do. Furthermore, schools have made themselves into free multi-million dollar training facilities for professional sports. Scouts regularly draw upon the talent developed in the plethora college and high school programs. Professional sport is a lucrative business, so it is foolish as well as criminal for public schools to offer any free services. I am no great fan of professional sports but I have nothing against them. If people want to pay their own money to see athletes, fine. However, I’m sure these clubs would be averse to having to spend more money on their own extra-scholastic farming systems. After all, professional teams have been given free goodies for no reason for so many years that they by now feel entitled. Professional sports organizations would probably do everything they could to protect their interests in schools, but once these programs were eliminated, any resulting problems would be dealt with. There would probably be drastic expansion of farming leagues for every sport and these alone would successfully supply the pros with their much desired talent. If there was any resulting decline in pro sports, too bad. They would have lost access to a resource that shouldn’t have been available in the first place.