University forces fat students to take fitness class to graduate

[MrMacphisto]

They can start now from ranks. impose it first to the faculty members, janitors and all the staff in the administration. after that they can sweep all the students.

I'll third that one (since FF already seconded it).

 

[Angel77]

I believe part of why they don't require it in colleges is because DARE already exists in most pre-collegiate schools. Or at least, it did when I went to school. I suppose more recent graduates of high school can correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption.

If it turns out that education warning about drugs is no longer commonplace in high schools or middle schools, then I personally would support a DARE-like class in colleges.



I'm not necessarily advocating this sort of exercise class either. I'm just elaborating on how the logic behind the class can be defended.

Yeah, we had the D.A.R.E. program back when I was in school but I don't know if that's still the case nowadays? I do remember attending an assembly for it where this cop that showed us a joint and told us what uppers and downers were and what the effects on alcohol can do on our bodies. I was a kid back in the 80's, during the whole "Just Say No" campaign, and I still ending up drinking more than I should and smoking a bit more weed than I should have in college. Had I been forced to take some sort of "this is bad for you" class, I don't know if that would have really worked on my 18 year old brain who though she knew everything if it didn't work on my 8 year old brain. I dunno. I think I'm just stubborn lol. Thank goodness none of this partying affected my schooling but I know a lot of kids that this did happen to.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Yeah, we had the D.A.R.E. program back when I was in school but I don't know if that's still the case nowadays? I do remember attending an assembly for it where this cop that showed us a joint and told us what uppers and downers were and what the effects on alcohol can do on our bodies. I was a kid back in the 80's, during the whole "Just Say No" campaign, and I still ending up drinking more than I should and smoking a bit more weed than I should have in college. Had I been forced to take some sort of "this is bad for you" class, I don't know if that would have really worked on my 18 year old brain who though she knew everything if it didn't work on my 8 year old brain. I dunno. I think I'm just stubborn lol. Thank goodness none of this partying affected my schooling but I know a lot of kids that this did happen to.

I can confirm that DARE still existed in my school system in the early 90s. Beyond that, I don't know.

While I would agree that no amount of schooling will deter all kids, I can honestly say it deterred me from using harder drugs. I still smoked pot, but I wasn't going to try heroin or coke. If anything, just watching "Trainspotting" is a good way to scare yourself away from heroin. "Requiem for a Dream" also works.

I think, overall, things like DARE are good to have in place, because you at least have to make an attempt at guiding kids in the right direction. I feel the same way about sex education as well.

As for classes aimed at lowering the obesity rate, I generally support the idea as long as it is done universally as others have said. Anything in place to get people more physically fit is usually going to be something I support.

 

[vladtickleman22]

Fat people now have to take a class to graduate so they are healthier. Next let's make goths, emos, scene kids etc take a class on how to properly dress for the workplace. Because people need to look presentable style-wise just as much as health-wise. Tattoos/piercings/body mod is just simply unacceptable if you are going to have a degree and be in a some kind of position of power. A person must get laser treatments to remove tattoos and have all unnatural holes in the body heal up completely withhout scarring in order to recieve their degree...

Please note the sarcasm in this post. Which really isn't that much sarcasm, because after all once you start dictating things for certain groups. You can start dictating things for other groups.

To anyone who would say you can't start preventing people from getting degrees for the things i have listed. Before i read this i would have told you that a person could not be prevented from getting their degree for being fat either.

 

[goddess_nemesis]

A Pennsylvania university's requirement that overweight undergraduates take a fitness course to receive their degrees has raised the hackles of students and the eyebrows of health and legal experts.

I don't have a problem with them making a requirement for students to take a fitness course. The problem is they are singling out students who are considered overweight. That's ridiculous. Either it's a requirement for EVERYONE or there should be no requirement at all.

 

[kis123]

I call bullshit on this one. Sounds like discrimination to me. And overweight doesn't necessarily equal unhealthiness and not all overweight people got that way by overeating, etc.

You lady, are my new best friend!

There are many things that come into play where obesity is concerned and not all of them are from overeating. My son gained nearly 100 lbs because his doctors were treating him like a lab rat giving antidepressents and mood managers like passing candy. I watched him blow up before my eyes and he was just miserable. The autism and mental health issues only made matters worse; first he's ostracized for being autistic and then caught hell for getting fat. Let's just say he doesn't miss a thing about high school......

 

[DeBris]

I'll third that one (since FF already seconded it).

Oooooooh, I LIKE that!

It is easy. Follow the leader. The principal must diet now, FIRST.

 

[..Glamorous..]

I personally think they should make everyone take a fitness class, at least once. That's what they do where I go to school. Besides.. it's easier to get in a work out if it's already in your schedule!

 

[Redmage]

A university is requiring overweight students to take a fitness class in order to graduate... I think it's hilarious.

I honestly don't see why they're so riled up. People in America have handed over so much responsibility to the government and those in power, haven't stood up to defend their neighbors when those neighbor's rights were trampled on, and even defended this nanny state, why get riled up when they tell you you're fat as a house, and either work out or don't graduate from a university YOU paid to attend?

It's a private college, not a state school. Most schools set graduation requirements of some sort - you don't get your diploma just because you paid to attend.

I have a prediction. If a lawsuit arises out of this, and if a court orders the school to drop this requirement, you'll complain then about the government coming in and telling the school what to do. Sometimes I think the complaining is the important part.

 

[milagros317]

They let the smokers, drinkers, drug users, and promiscious graduate without any more than passing the ACADEMIC requirements of their degree studies. Why are they singling out the fat folks? Either put the rule across the board or let it go IMO.

That's what I was thinking. There are plenty of activities besides overeating that can endanger your health and college students have been known to engage in those also. So why single out the overweight students?

PS: Phys Ed classes were required of all freshmen when I was one. But that was a long time ago.

 

[Mitchell]

I get the Philadelphia TV stations, and I heard about this. Personally, I agree with Jeff, Kis, and others who said that this is extremely narrow minded and wrong of the University.

Its one thing to "encourage" fitness and good health, but its yet another to say to students at a University "Four years of your hard work and good academic performance isnt good enough, to graduate, that is so, only if you're thin". Bullshit. Wouldnt that be the same thing as if they discriminated against any other group?

Oh, and Kis, I saw your post about your 92 year old grandmother. I had a great aunt who was very overweight, and ate the worst foods possible. She died about four years ago... at age 94. So, it goes to show that in the cases of your grandmother, and my great aunt, obesity is not the only factor in length of a person's life.

Mitch

 

[Angel77]

I can confirm that DARE still existed in my school system in the early 90s. Beyond that, I don't know.

While I would agree that no amount of schooling will deter all kids, I can honestly say it deterred me from using harder drugs. I still smoked pot, but I wasn't going to try heroin or coke. If anything, just watching "Trainspotting" is a good way to scare yourself away from heroin. "Requiem for a Dream" also works.

I think, overall, things like DARE are good to have in place, because you at least have to make an attempt at guiding kids in the right direction. I feel the same way about sex education as well.
As for classes aimed at lowering the obesity rate, I generally support the idea as long as it is done universally as others have said. Anything in place to get people more physically fit is usually going to be something I support.

I definitely agree with that. I didn't ever do anything harder than pot and perhaps D.A.R.E. was the reason? "Trainspotting" would definitely scare anyone away from heroin! Whew....

 

[MrMacphisto]

Fat people now have to take a class to graduate so they are healthier. Next let's make goths, emos, scene kids etc take a class on how to properly dress for the workplace. Because people need to look presentable style-wise just as much as health-wise. Tattoos/piercings/body mod is just simply unacceptable if you are going to have a degree and be in a some kind of position of power. A person must get laser treatments to remove tattoos and have all unnatural holes in the body heal up completely withhout scarring in order to recieve their degree...

Please note the sarcasm in this post. Which really isn't that much sarcasm, because after all once you start dictating things for certain groups. You can start dictating things for other groups.

To anyone who would say you can't start preventing people from getting degrees for the things i have listed. Before i read this i would have told you that a person could not be prevented from getting their degree for being fat either.

If a college decides to implement classes or extracurricular requirements as contingents to graduation, that is a matter to take up with the authorities involved if you feel they are unreasonable or unnecessary.

As kis mentioned earlier, "federally protected groups" cannot be discriminated against, but there's a reason why obesity or any of the styles of dressing you mentioned are not.

As for medical conditions, that is already covered by existing law. You cannot discriminate against people that have medical conditions that cause them to be obese, because said conditions would fall under the definition of a physical handicap -- the handicapped are a federally protected group.

That being said, obese people without a medical condition can be discriminated against because that reflects a lifestyle choice.

The same is true for how someone dresses.

For some perspective, let's take a closer look at federally protected groups.

Race -- you're born with this, therefore this is not a choice.

Gender -- you're born with this, and while it is true that you can change this with hormone therapy and/or surgery, it's mostly not a choice.

Sexuality -- you're mostly born with this as well. While there are debates concerning whether or not it is a choice, there is still a genetic component to orientation that has already been proven.

Religion -- as mentioned in the Constitution, you have the freedom to believe in whatever deity/deities you want to -- which also protects most clothing and other ritualistic traits that come with religion.

Handicaps -- both mentally and physically, people can either be born with, develop, or be injured to attain these disadvantages, and therefore, this is also not a matter of choice.

So, there should be a clear understanding that there is a huge difference between what things are allowed to be discriminated against and what isn't, and why these things are the way they are.

Again, I'm not necessarily defending controlling so much of college life with classes, but there are some logically flawed counterarguments being presented in this thread that I felt needed some correcting.

 

[MrMacphisto]

It's a private college, not a state school. Most schools set graduation requirements of some sort - you don't get your diploma just because you paid to attend.

Well, it's state-related. That means it receives public funding but has independent control like a private college.

Ultimately, that keeps the college somewhat vulnerable to public decisions though. For example, taxpayers could put pressure on the state to remove Lincoln from its list of Historic Black Colleges and Universities if they didn't remove this particular policy from graduation.

I have a prediction. If a lawsuit arises out of this, and if a court orders the school to drop this requirement, you'll complain then about the government coming in and telling the school what to do. Sometimes I think the complaining is the important part.

No kidding... funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[Musicroxmysox]

I fully think this is absurd. I could go through and list all the reasons and such, but I believe they have already been covered.

Seriously, don't charge me $20,000-$60,000 a year and then try to control my weight. What's next, controlling everything I want to eat, or the length of my hair and fingernails. It's micro management like this that creates extra nonsense not needed. College is stressful enough and there are enough problems without starting initiatives like this.

I seriously hope this school has some lawsuits coming there way, because I believe they would absolutely deserve them for this new rule.

 

[vladtickleman22]

If a college decides to implement classes or extracurricular requirements as contingents to graduation, that is a matter to take up with the authorities involved if you feel they are unreasonable or unnecessary.

As kis mentioned earlier, "federally protected groups" cannot be discriminated against, but there's a reason why obesity or any of the styles of dressing you mentioned are not.

As for medical conditions, that is already covered by existing law. You cannot discriminate against people that have medical conditions that cause them to be obese, because said conditions would fall under the definition of a physical handicap -- the handicapped are a federally protected group.

That being said, obese people without a medical condition can be discriminated against because that reflects a lifestyle choice.

The same is true for how someone dresses.

For some perspective, let's take a closer look at federally protected groups.

Race -- you're born with this, therefore this is not a choice.

Gender -- you're born with this, and while it is true that you can change this with hormone therapy and/or surgery, it's mostly not a choice.

Sexuality -- you're mostly born with this as well. While there are debates concerning whether or not it is a choice, there is still a genetic component to orientation that has already been proven.

Religion -- as mentioned in the Constitution, you have the freedom to believe in whatever deity/deities you want to -- which also protects most clothing and other ritualistic traits that come with religion.

Handicaps -- both mentally and physically, people can either be born with, develop, or be injured to attain these disadvantages, and therefore, this is also not a matter of choice.

So, there should be a clear understanding that there is a huge difference between what things are allowed to be discriminated against and what isn't, and why these things are the way they are.

Again, I'm not necessarily defending controlling so much of college life with classes, but there are some logically flawed counterarguments being presented in this thread that I felt needed some correcting.

I don't see how any of the arguments are flawed at all. Just because the things i and others have mentioned CAN be discriminated against doesn't mean they SHOULD be.

My point wasn't anything more then saying once fat people are ok to discriminated against. Other groups will start being discriminated against. Then we have a situation where instead of just passing the courses in order to get one's degree. You'll need to be thin, have a crew cut, no facial hair peircings or tattoos.

Granted there are schools which require things like this already. But they have been standard from the start. Not suddenly changed effecting peoples graduating times.

 

[MrMacphisto]

I don't see how any of the arguments are flawed at all. Just because the things i and others have mentioned CAN be discriminated against doesn't mean they SHOULD be.

My point wasn't anything more then saying once fat people are ok to discriminated against. Other groups will start being discriminated against. Then we have a situation where instead of just passing the courses in order to get one's degree. You'll need to be thin, have a crew cut, no facial hair peircings or tattoos.

Granted there are schools which require things like this already. But they have been standard from the start. Not suddenly changed effecting peoples graduating times.

The grandfathering issue is certainly a reasonable concern. Clearly, that was an oversight on the part of Lincoln's management. I would assume that this will probably result in quite a backlash.

Now, aside from that particular detail, you've pointed out that other schools have implemented conformist policies regarding things like weight and dress.

I suppose the question I have is... "What determines when this discrimination is acceptable and when it isn't?"

Honestly, I think this particular question would have made this thread more intellectual in nature....

 

[vladtickleman22]

The grandfathering issue is certainly a reasonable concern. Clearly, that was an oversight on the part of Lincoln's management. I would assume that this will probably result in quite a backlash.

Now, aside from that particular detail, you've pointed out that other schools have implemented conformist policies regarding things like weight and dress.

I suppose the question I have is... "What determines when this discrimination is acceptable and when it isn't?"

Honestly, I think this particular question would have made this thread more intellectual in nature....

You stated yourself that things like weight and dress are not discrimination. The way in which Lincoln has gone about this was just plain bad.

 

[MrMacphisto]

You stated yourself that things like weight and dress are not discrimination. The way in which Lincoln has gone about this was just plain bad.

Read my response again. It is discrimination, but it's not illegal discrimination.

I know we typically think of discrimination in a negative sense, but figuratively, it is discrimination.

 

[poopies]

Remember that movie Heavyweights? This reminds me of that. I like that movie.

 

[vladtickleman22]

Read my response again. It is discrimination, but it's not illegal discrimination.

I know we typically think of discrimination in a negative sense, but figuratively, it is discrimination.

My mistake.

 

[Radiohead 7140]

Remember that movie Heavyweights? This reminds me of that. I like that movie.

Lars was the best

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Remember that movie Heavyweights? This reminds me of that. I like that movie.

OMG - I haven't thought about that movie in forever. You just earned 40 bajillionty awesome points.

 

[LD_Tickler]

I would support a University mandate that required fitness courses so long as

a) this requirement wasn't introduced in the middle of some people's academic careers. All new admissions should be made aware of it, and students who were admitted before this rule should be exempted

b) it applied to all students. Not just particular ones.

 

[goddess_nemesis]

PS: Phys Ed classes were required of all freshmen when I was one. But that was a long time ago.

It was a requirement for all students working on their Generals at the community college I attended to take some form of a fitness class.

I see nothing wrong with making a fitness class a requirement as long as it is a requirement of everyone. Learning about healthy nutrition and exercise is important to everyone, not just people who are overweight.