Selective Educational Requirement for College Graduation

[Benjamin]

Now that the first class to have this requirement imposed is nearing graduation day -- students who entered in the fall of 2006 -- the school faces criticism from both students and outsiders about the fitness class policy.

One of those students is Tiana Lawson, 21, whose recent editorial in the student paper has drawn national attention to the issue. Lawson wrote in The Lincolnian that she would be more understanding if the requirement applied to everyone. She thinks all students, not just those with a high BMI, should have to take the class.

"I didn't come to Lincoln to be told that my weight is not in an acceptable range," Lawson wrote. "I came here to get an education which, as a three-time honor student, is something I have been doing quite well, despite the fact that I have a slightly high Body Mass Index."

Lawson, who told CNN she had been putting off getting her BMI tested until this year, recently found out she would have to take the class. At first angry, Lawson said she is now more "confused" about the requirement.

"I don't know why they would want some people to be more healthy than others," she said.

But James DeBoy, chairman of the school's Department of Health and Physical Education, says the requirement is just like courses to help students' communications or math proficiency. The faculty also has a priority to be honest with students, he said.

"We, as educators, must tell students when we believe, in our heart of hearts, when certain factors, certain behaviors, attitudes, whatever, are going to hinder that student from achieving and maximizing their life goals," he said.

Moreover, if there were unlimited resources, the fitness opportunities would be for all students, but that is not the reality, he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/30/lincoln.fitness.overweight/index.html

 

[Johnv]

This isn't news. Most colleges have a PE requirement. Mine did. In my case, the least physically active option was circuit training, which is the class I took. It required meeting certain health goals, including completing a circuit three times per week. If a student can't do that because they're fat, it's not the school's fault. It's no excuse. I've seen lots of overqeight people at the gym that could run circles around me on a track.

Having classes based on BMI or weight is no different, imo, than having different classes based on proficiency or aptitude. Unusual, yes, but inappropriate, no.

 

[Benjamin]

This isn't news.

Is anything news to you? Might be to some.

Having classes based on BMI or weight is no different, imo, than having different classes based on proficiency or aptitude. Unusual, yes, but inappropriate, no.

Yes, it being selective off the BMI is unusual. Agreed, not inappropriate.

 

[StefanM]

Having classes based on BMI or weight is no different, imo, than having different classes based on proficiency or aptitude. Unusual, yes, but inappropriate, no.

Not necessarily. Despite its causes, obesity is a medical condition.

Should the university require underweight students to take nutrition classes?

 

[Salty]

... Should the university require underweight students to take nutrition classes?

I would say yes!

and while they are at it, all colleges (including Christian) should off a personal finance course.

 

[Johnv]

Not necessarily. Despite its causes, obesity is a medical condition.

So what? So is alcoholism, but that that doesn't mean that colleges should cater to drunks. PE is a degree requirement. It shouldn't be excused because a person is obese.

Should the university require underweight students to take nutrition classes?

That's a good idea. I believe that it's one of the PE options in some colleges. It was in mine.

... all colleges (including Christian) should off a personal finance course...

One of the general education requirements is 3 or 6 units of business. One of the classes that fulfills the requirement is personal finance. I took it. It was a great course.

 

[StefanM]

I would say yes!

and while they are at it, all colleges (including Christian) should off a personal finance course.

Why should a (state-funded) university be the "nanny" requiring its ADULT students to take courses based on individual medical conditions?

I have no problem with a universal requirement that does not discriminate. I don't think exercise classes do much good, but I can't object if it's not discriminatory.

I would have no problem with a personal finance requirement, if required of all students. Now, if we started targeting people based on income, then I say no way!

 

[StefanM]

So what? So is alcoholism, but that that doesn't mean that colleges should cater to drunks.

That's a good idea. I believe that it's one of the PE options in some colleges. It was in mine.

There is a difference between catering to drunks and forcing individuals to take courses based on medical condition.

If EVERYONE is required to take a PE course, I have no problem with the requirement. I just don't see the value in segregating students into the "fat" class.

 

[Salty]

Why should a (state-funded) university be the "nanny" requiring its ADULT students to take courses based on individual medical conditions?
...

Because, it a student/graduate dies shortly after school, then that has been a waste of taxpayer money.

Besides the purpose of college is to learn, and nothing unreasonable should be avoided.

The problem we have in this country is a lack of responsibility and the fact we expound on "my personal rights"

Salty

 

[StefanM]

Because, it a student/graduate dies shortly after school, then that has been a waste of taxpayer money.

Besides the purpose of college is to learn, and nothing unreasonable should be avoided.

The problem we have in this country is a lack of responsibility and the fact we expound on "my personal rights"

Salty

Then should we refuse to educate those with major illnesses? (congenital heart diseases; diabetes, cancer, etc)

Just because something is good to learn doesn't mean that we should require it. There is a point at which you have to cut off subjects. Nevertheless, I have no problem with requiring all students to study a subject. I have a major problem with only requiring people with medical conditions to do so.

 

[Johnv]

There is a difference between catering to drunks and forcing individuals to take courses based on medical condition.

What you're missing is that obesity is caused by a person's actions (moving too little, eating too much). It's those actions that cause the medical condition.

If EVERYONE is required to take a PE course, I have no problem with the requirement. I just don't see the value in segregating students into the "fat" class.

Class placement based on BMI for PE is no different than placement based on score, aptitude, or proficiency. In fact, putting someone in a class that's specific to their current condition typically results in a better class experience, not a worse one.

 

[StefanM]

What you're missing is that obesity is caused by a person's actions (moving too little, eating too much). It's those actions that cause the medical condition.

Class placement based on BMI for PE is no different than placement based on score, aptitude, or proficiency. In fact, putting someone in a class that's specific to their current condition typically results in a better class experience, not a worse one.

Many medical conditions have antecedent causes. This is something a doctor should address with the individual, not the university.

We must consider the stigma of obesity in American society as well.

At what point do we stop?

Should we administer psychometric examinations and prescribe psychology courses for those with tendencies toward mental illnesses?

 

[Johnv]

Many medical conditions have antecedent causes. This is something a doctor should address with the individual, not the university.

Then, if a student has a medical condition which precludes the ability to complete a class, by all means, let that persons' physician issues a doctor's written note saying so. But that's not what's happenning here.

We must consider the stigma of obesity in American society as well.

Being dummer is a stigma as well. Should we abandon aptidude exams as prerequisites for classes?

 

[Benjamin]

Why should a (state-funded) university be the "nanny" requiring its ADULT students to take courses based on individual medical conditions?

I have no problem with a universal requirement that does not discriminate. I don't think exercise classes do much good, but I can't object if it's not discriminatory.

Why should state-funded colleges not educate our young adults, who at such a young age are obviously beyond a healthy standard of weight, and make this a requirement? This also falls within the finance topic you brought up as they WILL be a burden of health care; I read an article the other day that said type 2 diabetes will double in the next 25 years while the cost of treating it will triple. (Who will end up funding that?)

I have a major problem with only requiring people with medical conditions to do so.

I have three questions here: #1. Although it leads to medical conditions, since when is overeating and lack of exercise a medical condition.

#2. Why is it taboo to teach something that is good for both the individual and society in the whole, even if we only begin by teaching those most affected first because of a lack of facilities to require it for all? (The article addresses this)

#3. Where were all these obesity medical conditions 40 years ago?

 

[Salty]

#3. Where were all these obesity medical conditions 40 years ago?

Well, lets see, only 1 tv per house, kids played outside, no internet, few kids had cars......

 

[just-want-peace]

Well, lets see, only 1 tv per house, kids played outside, no internet, few kids had cars......

Far better solution than "classes" after-the-fact!!!

 

[Trotter]

As a part of the overweight sector, I see this as discrimination.

Like it or not, the school is targeting overweight people. That's the point , you say. Hogwash. If a school required everyone to take it, fine. but they are not. They are separating out those overweight and forcing them to take a class no one else is required to take. By making the class a condition of graduation the school is going above and beyond "helping" people and instead are harassing them.

Discrimination against the overweight and obese is the largest sector (no pun intended) of discrimination in the US... and there is nothing done about it. Blacks and other minorities are protected. Women are protected. Even homosexuals are protected. Gotta spare tire? Back of the bus, chubby.

 

[Johnv]

It's HUGE leap to equate being overqeight with being black, female, etc. You can't change your race or gender. You can change your weight. I don't by the "discrimination" argument. My wife is 40 pounds overweight, and she doesn't buy the "discrimination" argument either. In fact, she favors using BMI as an indicator for which health class one wil be in.

 

[Salty]

It's HUGE leap to equate being overqeight with being black, female, etc. You can't change your race or gender. You can change your weight. I don't by the "discrimination" argument. My wife is 40 pounds overweight, and she doesn't buy the "discrimination" argument either. In fact, she favors using BMI as an indicator for which health class one wil be in.

Well, actually you can change your gender, and Michael Jackson pretty much showed us you can get close to changing your race.

But anyways, is making overweight people take those classes considered discrimination - YES -, but lets remember that discrimination in itself is NOT a negative action. Some discrimination is good. For example, how many women believes that men should not be allowed to use the ladies room - if you don't that is (good) discrimination.
Hope you get my drift.

Salty

overweight by 100 pounds according to US Army Standards.
Not proud of it, just giving you the facts.

 

[Johnv]

Well, actually you can change your gender, and Michael Jackson pretty much showed us you can get close to changing your race.

I was REALLY hoping to avoid Michael Jackson and Chastity Bono jokes, but you beat me to it.

....discrimination in itself is NOT a negative action. Some discrimination is good. For example, how many women believes that men should not be allowed to use the ladies room - if you don't that is (good) discrimination.
Hope you get my drift.

You make a really good point. I remember a job in college I got with a legal firm. They chose me over a person who was slightly more qualified because I was neater in my appearance than the other person. They used how I dressed as a discriminating factor. The other person dressed like a slob.