|
Articles Conference Reviews |
D.5 College-Athletics and Student-AthletesD.5 Contested Spaces, Contested Knowledge: Exploring All our Relations with College-Athletics and Student-Athletes The composition course I am currently teaching is restricted only to Educational Opportunity students and student-athletes. I am also a writing tutor in my university’s Student Athlete Academic Services. Consequently, I was very interested in the panel consisting of Cassie Wright, Billie Hera, and J. Michael Rifenburg (Chris Drew was not present) titled “Contested Spaces, Contested Knowledge: Exploring All Our Relations with College-Athletics and Student-Athletes.” When I first began teaching in our program, I was told that the program administrators attempted to keep the number of athletes per class to no more than 3 and the number of athletes from the same sport to a maximum of 2. I was reminded of this rule this quarter because I currently have five football players in my class. I began to think about what this rule says about how athletes are perceived by the academy. To me, this rule implies that student-athletes are harder to work with, that they are going to be disruptive, that they are not going to take the course seriously, that they are going to do the minimum work required in order to remain eligible to play, that they are “dumb jocks,” and that they are going to be especially difficult if you have multiple students from the same sport. These are the exact assumptions that Cassie Wright criticized in her “Contested Spaces, Contested Knowledge: Exploring All Our Relations with College-Athletics and Student-Athletes.” As a former NCAA athlete herself, Wright brings an insider’s perspective to the discussion of Student-Athletes. Wright has found that “student-athletes are contested subjects” and that there has typically been a level of disdain in how they are perceived. According to Wright, the title of “student-athlete” delimits their rhetorical identity because it causes them to be seen as athletes only. Wright pointed out that athletes (and especially black, male athletes) historically have been marginalized subjects and are often seen as at risk more than any other student population. Wright claimed that as a result of this status, the academy typically has been oppressive to (again mostly black, male) athletes, which has caused them to resist identifying themselves with the academic community. Wright argued that the knowledges that athletes possess are contested within the academy, and that it is the institutional barriers and antagonism towards athletes that causes them to resist the title of student and to see themselves as athletes only. Wright stated her belief that this is a negative trend, and therefore she calls her own work “student-athlete advocacy work.” Wright concluded her argument with the claim that student-athletes have a hybrid identity and that the unique knowledges that they posses should be used to enliven and enrich our classrooms. Billie Hera’s case study “Students as Athletes or Athletes as Students: Constructing a Writer Identity in First Year Composition” supported many of Wright’s claims. Hera’s study focused on a black, male, track athlete in a predominantly white, upper class, Texas college. Hera argued that a major problem with student-athletes is that they are behind on academics, but need to pass their classes in order to play their sports. Whether or not this is actually true, what is true is that they struggle with their identities as athletes and as students. The student Hera studied eventually left the school because he could not figure out how to negotiate his identity as a student and could not deal successfully with authorities (particularly female authorities) in the classroom. He continued to have these problems at the school he transferred to. Based on her research, Hera found that collegiate-athletics as an institution influences the ways student-athletes are viewed and how they view themselves. According to Hera, although the “party line” is that academics comes first, it is implied that athletics actually comes first, which causes student-athletes to see themselves as athletes first, or athletes only. Hera’s study implies that had the subject of her research been able to see himself as a student and been able to identify with the academic community, he may have been more successful in college. J. Michael Rifenburg’s “Sophists and Sport: Competitive Rhetoric in Student-Athlete Tutoring Sessions” began by discussing the educational program proposed by Isocrates’ that combined intellectual education with athletics. Because of the high level of educational challenge posed to contemporary student-athletes due to their athletic demands, Rifenburg suggested that we meet athletes where they are when we engage in tutoring sessions with them. In other words, because athletes are surrounded by competitive rhetoric (because they are immersed in athletic competition), Rifenburg suggested we should use the same type of rhetoric when we engage with them in student-athlete tutoring sessions. For example, we might use competitive rhetoric to construct a vocabulary for talking about ideas and to grapple with each other over these ideas. According to Rifenbury, this jointly constructed vocabulary could lead to a more critical awareness of what the ideas mean. Based on the responses in the Q and A session, it seemed as though Wright, Hera, and Rifenburg were “preaching to the converted” as they say. Most audience members had taught athletes or had worked with athletes in tutoring centers and were interested in or already doing what Wright called “student-athlete advocacy work.” Because of this, many of the questions were practical ones about the possibility of teaching classes exclusively for athletes. Also brought up was the idea of eligibility versus success. Overall, the panel encouraged audience members to go even further in taking their athletes seriously, not just as athletes, but as students, intellectuals, and knowledge-makers. I have had athletes in my classes every quarter that are the absolute opposite of the stereotypes that Wright criticized, and I can honestly say that I am enjoying my football players very much this quarter. Their unique experiences have been a great contribution to the course. This panel made me even more conscious of how I perceive student-athletes and how they see themselves, which has caused me to make a much more concerted effort to let them know that their contributions to the course are valued. |