The purpose of this Interdisciplinary Writing test is to determine how well you can write to persuade others to think as you do about an issue. In this test, you will read three short articles about an important issue, take a position on the issue and write a first draft of a persuasive letter. You must support your position with information from each of the source materials. Your response will be read and scored by trained readers.
In this Interdisciplinary Writing test, you will think about and take a position on an important issue: whether organ donors or their families should be financially compensated. While you are working on this test, you will use skills and knowledge you learned in your language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, the arts and other classes.
Organ donations save lives. However, often not enough organs become available for the number of people who need a transplant. To solve this problem, some advocates suggest that organ donors or their families should be financially compensated. Those opposed to the idea of financial compensation argue that paying for organs is not ethical.
Your score will be based on the following criteria:
1. Position ─ Did you take a clear position on the issue?
2. Comprehensiveness ─ Did you use information from each of the three sources that are provided?
3. Support ─ Did you support your position with accurate and relevant information from the source materials?
4. Organization ─ Did you organize your ideas in a logical and effective manner so that your audience will understand and follow your thinking?
5. Clarity and Fluency ─ Did you express your ideas clearly and fluently using your own words?
You will have 55 minutes to complete this test. The following schedule is suggested:
25 minutes for reading the source materials and planning your letter; and
30 minutes for writing your letter.
You may re-read or refer to the source materials at any time during the test. You may also highlight or make notes on the sources if this is helpful to you.
Know your purpose for writing and remember to: READ, THINK, PLAN, WRITE.
The following editorial appeared in the June 1, 1999 issue of The Hartford Courant. The editorial discusses some of the pros and cons of Pennsylvania's plan to pay some financial compensation for organ donation.
It's Not A Gift Or An
Incentive, It's Organ Buying
BY ELLEN GOODMAN
It would be nice to think of this as a simple problem of supply and demand. A test case for Economics 101. A problem for the marketplace.
Over here we have 66,000 potential customers on a waiting list. Over there we have 5,500 products. How do you satisfy all these customers? Where's the supply to meet the demand? But we aren't talking about a shortage of "Star Wars" tickets or Beanie Babies. We are talking about a shortage of human organs. We are talking about people who die waiting for a liver or a heart or a lung. We are talking about thousands who might have left behind a legacy of life.
Until now, we've kept economics out of this group portrait. Although there are reports of kidneys for sale in poor countries, Americans don't put organs on the free market. We not only have a taboo against buying organs, we have a law against it.
Now the state of Pennsylvania is going to try a new experiment-or perhaps an end run-around this taboo. The details will be announced soon by an advisory board. But the outline is already clear. The state is beginning a three-year program to pay $300 to help donors' families pay for funeral costs.
State officials insist they are not in the organ-buying business. The money is low, the check goes to the funeral parlor. They prefer to think of this as a reward, a societal thank-you note for the gift.
But they also hope that the program will provide an incentive. This is a test-just a test-to see whether a financial incentive of a few hundred dollars will increase the number of organ donors.
In short, Pennsylvania is trying to find an ethical line between reward and compensation, between a thank-you note and a paycheck. They are creating that ethical oxymoron, a paid gift.
I understand the motive behind this, even the desperation. Some weeks ago, after writing about the organ legacy of my cousin Karen, I heard from dozens of grateful and needy families. There's been a long and frustrating attempt to increase the number of folks who check off the donor box on their driver's license, and the number of families who give permission at moments of enormous grief.
In Pennsylvania, a center of transplant surgery, there are personal stories that reinforce the thinking behind this $300 difference. And stories that raise doubts.
Consider the death of John White, a 20year-old whose organs helped a dozen others but whose family was left to raise funds for a funeral.
Surely they deserve the $300. Consider, on the other hand, the parents of 2-year-old donor Max Kaner: "When we decided to donate it was purely altruistic."
Is one person's reward another person's insult? Is money an incentive or a turn-off?
This is not the first discussion of economics and donors. Some economists have talked of a futures market in organs. Others have suggested that we offer a tax write-off like the one for charity to those who sign on as a donor.
But unease and suspicion already shadow the feelings of some families faced with this choice. A $300 reward inevitably would mean more to poorer families. Does that start us on the business plan that has already made a flourishing market for "donor" eggs?
What happens if the Pennsylvania experiment begins a bidding war? Pennsylvania offers $300 for a funeral. Do I hear another bid? New York offers $600? California offers $1,200? SOLD!
This experiment will be conducted under the eyes of an ethics panel. But when all is said and done, it is by no means clear how it can measure success.
Joseph Moreno, an ethicist at the University of Virginia, says this offers a paradox: "If they do increase the supply of organs one would infer that families were price sensitive. I'm not sure that's a good thing. If, on the other hand, it doesn't increase the organ procurement rate, well, then families aren't price sensitive, but we also haven't gotten any more organs."
Society should offer collective gratitude to donors and families. But there is something unseemly and ultimately destructive in this $300 solution. In the end it undermines the value that encourages donation, a value that says there is something money can't buy: altruism.
Copyright @ 1999, The
Boston Globe Newspaper Co./Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with
permission.
The following article appeared in the December 10, 1998 issue of Machine Design. In it arguments are made for the necessity of paying for organ donations.
Why
Not Pay Organ Donors?
BY STEPHEN J. MRAZ
Biomedical engineers have come up with incredible devices-heart-1ung machines, artificial knees and hips, a host of new ways to peer inside the body, and tools for performing surgery on unborn babies. But so far, they can't compete with Mother Nature when it comes to building replacements for hearts, kidneys, corneas, and lungs. I f you lose your lungs or kidneys to disease or accident, your best hope for anything near a normal life is to get a transplant.
Unfortunately, organ donations aren't keeping up with the need. Even though people can easily sign-up to donate their organs, few do so. And whether that's out of denial, fear, or closely held beliefs, the end result is still the same for the thousands of people waiting for organs-a needlessly wretched existence.
So wouldn't it be wise to do practically anything that would boost donations, like overturning current restrictions on paying for organ donations? After all, whenever there's organ-transplant surgery, everyone profits except the donor and his or her heirs. The surgeons, doctors, nurses, and everyone at the hospital make money, the hospital adds to its prestige while it trains and maintains its staff, and it's often cheaper for the insurance company in terms of long-term care and public relations.
According to Milliman & Robertson Inc., a Wisconsin-based health-care firm that monitors transplant costs, patients (or their insurance companies) paid an average of $253,200 in 1996 for a heart transplant and year's worth of follow-up care. Equivalent costs for liver transplants are $314,500 and it runs $116,100 for a kidney transplant. Would it really be so far out of line if the person who made all that possible, or his heirs more likely, were rewarded with say, 10% of that cost?
Or maybe HMOs and insurance companies could give discounts, 10 to 15%, for policyholders and members who agreed to let their organs be used posthumously. This would give carriers a source of organs for their clientele and provide their clientele a monetary reason for participating in organ donor programs.
What harm could this do? Raise medical costs? Not likely. It costs more to keep people alive waiting for organs than it would to pay for the organs outright. And the longer patients wait, the less likely their chances for survival. Would it lead to a black market in stolen organs? Paying derelicts and college students for blood hasn't led to an outbreak of drained corpses littering the nation. Or would the plan guarantee the rich get better treatment? I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but sheiks, senators, and other well-heeled patients already get better treatment than coal miners, engineers, editors, and working stiffs. Better health care for more money is one of the incentives built into capitalism.
On the upside, if paying for organs increases their supply, the number of operations should increase, along with success rates, and that should push overall costs down. A bigger supply of human tissue would also be available to researchers, who might come up with cures for otherwise untreatable diseases sooner, rather than later. At the very least, there would be fewer people with their lives on hold waiting for donors.
Now none of this would eliminate true organ donations given purely for the sake of giving. For most people, there should be enough gratification knowing that when they're done with their body, it might help some child see or walk, some man or woman continue working and raising a family, or perhaps ease someone’s pain.
In a perfect world, altruism would be sufficient reward. But if it takes a few bucks to grease the skids-and there seems to be enough money to pay for $6 Tylenol capsules and $1,200-a-night hospital beds-there should be enough to pay for vital and irreplaceable organs and tissues.
Copyright @ 1998 Penton
Publishing Inc. Reprinted with permission.
The New York Times published this editorial on May 7,1999. It explores the issue of payment for organ donations and offers several alternatives.
BY JEROME GROOPMAN
I recently helped a family friend in his quest for a liver transplant. He suffered from longstanding hepatitis and would die without a new organ. I directed him to an outstanding transplant center in New York.
Like all transplant candidates, my friend entered a race against death where the finish line keeps changing.
No one knows when a liver will become available because of the scarcity of organs.
Furthermore, your name moves up or down on the waiting list depending on how sick you are.
For three months my friend steadily deteriorated.
On the brink of coma, he received the organ.
His life was saved.
This story is typical in the United States, where the number of people in need of new livers, kidneys, lungs, hearts and pancreases is far greater than the number of available donors. Thousands die waiting.
It is imperative that this crisis be addressed. While there have recently been important advances in the biology of stem cells, which may someday provide tissue for transplants, and tissue engineering, a made-to-order organ from the laboratory is still many years away. The only realistic solution is to greatly enlarge the pool of potential organ donors to accommodate the need.
The plan by the State of Pennsylvania to pay $300 toward the funeral expenses of a dying person in exchange for access to his organs is drawn from good intentions but is seriously misconceived. The incentive should be for the living, not the dying-for the healthy potential donor, not the grieving family. That kind of incentive would limit abuse and stay within legal and ethical boundaries.
It comes as no surprise that it is Pennsylvania that is taking this step. The University of Pittsburgh is one of the premier centers for organ transplantation, a pioneer in its basic biology and patient care. Centers of such renown attract the largest numbers of patients and therefore have the longest waiting lists. But we also have to acknowledge that there is intense competition among transplant centers for viable organs. Beyond prestige, transplantation is a lucrative clinical program, and it has valuable spin-offs, like research grants, fund-raising and patents. A law of this type in Pennsylvania would go a long way toward relieving this particular stress on its premier transplant center and give it a competitive advantage.
Yet, despite the good that could come from increased donations in Pennsylvania, one immediately sees the potential for abuse in the plan. End-of-life decisions are complex and influenced by many forces.
Money should never be one.
Would a family, overtly or subconsciously, decide to withdraw life support prematurely so as to have usable organs for donation? Might a doctor be asked by a family not to administer a treatment that had a small but finite chance of saving a life because it had a very significant chance of damaging the kidneys or lungs or heart, thereby making the patient ineligible as a donor?
An open market will be created by the plan, a market for death.
What will
prevent other states from upping the ante to trump Pennsylvania to bolster
their /
own transplant programs? There are already state-based committees assessing their strategic regional needs.
Will New York pay $1,000, only to be topped by a bid from Massachusetts of $3,000? Once the doors are opened to a free market, the price is always negotiable.
Furthermore, governmental programs in the United States are often co-opted by the private sector.
Could a for-profit transplant center be established that pays an even greater gratuity to offset the funeral expenses, far outbidding any states?
The price that Pennsylvania offers to open the auction is a small amount of money for everyone but the very poor.
We run the risk of singling out human beings for their organs based on their financial status. Will poor families with sick members move to Pennsylvania to avail themselves of the funeral stipend? How long will a person need to reside in a state before death for the benefit to be paid? How will funeral homes, which themselves compete for a lucrative market, be prevented from exploiting the stipend to get more business by paying money to the family through back channels?
The more one considers the Pennsylvania plan, the more clear are its logistical loopholes and moral deficiencies.
Still, we return to the desperate need for organs to save lives.
Appealing to the good will of the citizenry to enroll as organ donors has had limited success.
Concrete incentives are needed. One precedent is in the fixed tax benefit given for other forms of charity.
This incentive should be provided to the healthy on a renewable yearly basis.
Each year that a person volunteered as a potential donor, he would be rewarded.
Several possibilities come to mind.
The state could waive for that person the fee for a driver's license or some other tax that affects poor and rich alike.
There could be a tax deduction related to the individual's health care premiums.
Or a box on the state or Federal tax form could be checked each year to indicate one's donor status, and a line below would provide a fixed deduction. There would be no market.
A yearly tax incentive given for charity is morally different from a cash payment to defray the costs of a specific death-related event, like a funeral.
To insure parity among the states and prevent competition, such an incentive would need to be uniform. That would mean national oversight. There also needs to be a national investment in creating a mechanism to deliver organs efficiently to transplant centers across the country to relieve the unbalanced waiting lists of the premier institutions.
The reward to the living should stop here. The current statute should stand: no direct payments.
No person can sell his organs as a live donor.
This restriction protects against a market that would invariably exploit the poor.
Only within families can a healthy member freely volunteer to donate one kidney or part of the liver, without impairing his health.
It is time to stop the uncertain race against death that is run by patients in need of organs. The Pennsylvania plan, while deeply flawed, nonetheless serves as a catalyst for a concerted national debate about how to achieve this.
We should begin from the premise that the incentive should go to the living, not the dying. Only the living can make a rational and moral choice.
Copyright @ 1999 The New
York Times. Reprinted with permission
Preparing to Write Your Letter
Arguments FOR financial
compensation for organ donors or their families.
Based on your reading of the source materials, list below the most important arguments, or points of view, presented to support financially compensating organ donors or their families. Also list the evidence or claims which support each argument.
Preparing to Write Your Letter
Arguments AGAINST financial compensation for
organ donors or their families.
Based on your reading of the source materials, list below the most important arguments, or points of view, presented to oppose financially compensating organ donors or their families. Also list the evidence or claims which support each argument.
The purpose of this Interdisciplinary Writing test is to determine how well you can write to persuade others to think as you do about an issue. In this test, you will read three short articles about an important issue, take a position on the issue and write a first draft of a persuasive letter. You must support your position with information from each of the source materials. Your response will be read and scored by trained readers.
In this Interdisciplinary Writing test, you will think about and take a position on an important issue: whether to allow an athlete who commits a crime to participate on a sports team. While you are working on this test, you will use skills and knowledge you learned in your language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, the arts and other classes.
Athletes' off-the-field misbehavior is often overlooked by coaches, the media and fans. Some believe a harder line should be taken with athletes who break the law. Because athletes are often looked upon as role models, they believe an athlete who commits a crime should not be allowed to continue to participate on a sports team. Others think athletes are natural-born risk-takers, and it is this very attribute that both makes them good athletes and gets them into trouble. They believe it is often a second or third chance that enables some athletes to straighten out their lives; as long as an athlete isn't running from the law, his or her off-the-field behavior is no one else's business.
You will read three short articles about the off-the-field misbehavior of some athletes, take a position on the issue and write a letter to the editor of your school newspaper. In your letter, you must support or oppose allowing an athlete who commits a crime to participate on a sports team. Your letter should include information from each of the source materials.
Below are the steps you will follow:
1. Read the source materials.
Before taking a position on the issue, it is important that you read all the source materials on the off-the-field misbehavior of some athletes. As you read the source materials, you may underline information, highlight or write notes on the articles themselves.
2. Prepare to write your letter.
You have been given two organizers which you may find useful as you consider the various arguments for and against letting an athlete who commits a crime participate on a sports team. You may use the organizer that best suits your position. In addition, scratch paper has been included for any additional notes or outlining you may wish to do in preparing to write your letter. You are not required to complete these pages, and they will not be scored.
3. Write your letter.
Write a letter to the editor of your school newspaper either supporting or opposing allowing an athlete who commits a crime to participate on a sports team. You must include information from each source.
Your score will be based on the following criteria:
1. Position ─ Did you take a clear position on the issue?
2. Comprehensiveness ─ Did you use information from each of the three sources that are provided?
3. Support ─ Did you support your position with accurate and relevant information from the source materials?
4. Organization ─ Did you organize your ideas in a logical and effective manner so that your audience will understand and follow your thinking?
5. Clarity and Fluency ─ Did you express your ideas clearly and fluently using your own words?
You will have 55 minutes to complete this test. The following schedule is suggested:
25 minutes for reading the source materials and planning your letter; and
30 minutes for writing your letter.
You may re-read or refer to the source materials at any time during the test. You may also highlight or make notes on the sources if this is helpful to you.
Know your purpose for writing and remember to: READ, THINK, PLAN, WRITE.
USA Today published this article on September 18, 1998. This article discusses some of the background checks that colleges are conducting before recruiting high school athletes.
Background Checks
Becoming Part of Recruiting Process
BY STEVE WIEBERG
Policies on punishment vary. But more and more, in addressing the issue of athletes' off-the-field misbehavior, schools are focusing their attention on another front.
They're drawing a harder line in recruiting, taking a longer and more careful look at the character of the 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds they're bringing to campus in the first place.
"For too long, we probably left character out of the equation in recruiting," Northwestern athletic director Rick Taylor says. "Schools across the country. . . have taken kids that probably shouldn't be in college. We've held these athletes up on a pedestal, and we've gotten away from making them accountable and responsible for their actions."
"If you do what you need to do on the front end in recruiting," adds Miami (Fla.) athletic director Paul Dee, "trouble at the 'back end' might not happen-or at least not as often."
For the past several years, Dee says, "Miami has spent a lot more time finding out who the recruits are, talking to guidance counselors, talking to teachers, maybe other people in the community. They know the neighborhood, and they know the individuals. Ask what kind of people they are and what kind of citizens they are. Try and gather as much information as you can."
That's what schools are doing nationwide:
Fresno basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian has made a career of extending second and sometimes subsequent chances to players, and it was his facilitation of Courtney Alexander's transfer from Virginia a year ago that exhausted local patience. The guard had been convicted of beating his fiancee and suspended from the Cavaliers the previous July.
Alexander has been a model citizen since his arrival at Fresno, but might the Bulldogs' new policy have headed off some of their other recent problems?
"There is the possibility that someone (who wound up in trouble) might not have
been here," athletic director Al Bohl acknowledges.
"I think it would have blocked a fair number, but not all of them," says John Shields, an agricultural economics professor who proposed the new athletic codes. "It certainly would have required the athletic director and president to put their signatures on (the questionable admissions)."
Although Tarkanian's rosters have been among the country's deepest in second-chance players, he's hardly alone in accepting players with troubled histories.
Washington State welcomed running back Michael Black when others wouldn't because of an auto theft conviction at age 16, an armed robbery conviction at 17 and a total of 26 months spent in jail. With the Cougars, however, he kept his nose clean and his onfield production high and helped them reach last season's Rose Bowl.
Louisville has extended not only a second chance, but a third to promising running back Raphael Cooper, whom Minnesota kicked off its team in May 1996 after a string of off-the-field problems. He transferred to the Cardinals, was kicked off the team and expelled from school for a year for his involvement in an incident in which he and three other players caused more than $10,000 damage to cars in a university parking lot, then was reinstated this summer by new coach John L. Smith.
Also reinstated was linebacker Craig Gotcher, who pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal mischief. The other convicted players left.
"Young people do stupid things, and they get into trouble," says John Crosset, a University of Massachusetts assistant professor of sports management who studies athletes' criminal tendencies. "The difference between me and a juvenile delinquent is that 1 didn't get caught, and 1 think most people can say that. I've seen some kids in here who have made a mistake and are gone.. .Have we helped someone do the hard work necessary to make change?"
Northwestern's Taylor, for one, isn't buying. "For every Michael Black," he counters, "you probably have five kids that schools take a chance on and don't succeed. They are a self-fulfilling prophecy. You'd like to think you can give kids a second chance, but we're into giving kids third and fourth chances. And it goes all the way down into high school. They think because they're athletes that they can get away with anything, and we've got to stop that mentality."
Copyright @ 1998 USA TODAY.
Reprinted by permission.
The following article appeared in the November 6, 1998 issue of The New York Times. The article examines some of the problems professional football players have had with the law.
Even Athletes Get
Benefit of the Law
BY IRA BERKOW
One of the first things you have to know about football players is that if they truly cared about the health and welfare of others, they wouldn't be playing football. Breaking someone's bones, after all, is an aspect of the job description.
And one of the first things you have to know about people who run football is that if they truly cared about the health and welfare of their football players, they wouldn't let them play football.
What must also be known about football players is that under the law they must be treated like any other citizen engaged in any other occupation in the Republic.
The point that one out of five of the 500 players in the National Football League, according to a recent study, has had some brush with the law, from an arrest to an indictment to a conviction, has led some to say that the league, for the crass benefit of profit, turns a blind eye and deaf ear to the sometimes repugnant if not illegal and even violent off-the-field activities of some of its-and ourSunday heroes.
A most recent and egregious example occurred last week when Leonard Little, a St. Louis Rams linebacker, was charged with involuntary manslaughter after he rammed his sports utility vehicle into a car. The other driver died, and tests found that Little's b1oodalcohol level was about twice the legal limit.
To compound the problem, or perhaps to illuminate it, the Rams' head coach, Dick Vermeil, said he would welcome Little back with enthusiasm.
In other words, Little is such an important player to us that what he does elsewhere is his business-and the law's-as long as he still sacks quarterbacks.
In an article in (The) New York Times, Jeff Benedict, co-author of the recently published book, "Pros and Cons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL," wrote that "felons" are allowed to play in the NFL, and should not be. He said that "the league today has dozens of players who have gone from jail to the playing field." The NFL, Benedict added, "should declare ineligible for the college draft any player who has shown a pattern of arrests for violent or drug-related crimes."
"It should also ban any current player who is convicted of a violent crime or felony drug offense, with the option to reinstate the player later," Benedict said.
While a worrisome number of players in the league have had legal problems-and the league and the players' union provide for counseling-it is also understood that one who has paid his debt to society under the law cannot be discriminated against in hiring.
And just because 70,000 people cheer the exploits of a running back charged with, say, rape or domestic violence or unlawful use of a gun or some other heinous crime, it doesn't mean the man did it. After all, there is a presumption of innocence-the athlete's role model or hero status, the fictions of an advertising age, notwithstanding.
"Sometimes it's only fair to give a man a second chance," said Don Shula, the former coach of the Miami Dolphins, at the recent Boys' and Girls' Club of America Hall of Fame dinner in New York. "Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't."
Shula might have added that if you can contribute to the team, you are given a second or third or even fourth chance, unless, like Lawrence Phillips, domestic as saulter but runner supreme, you may actually be finished after your fifth or sixth chance.
And if legal charges are dropped or the player is acquitted-recall the false accusation against Michael Irvin-the league shouldn't play judge and jury and make its own findings.
Benedict added that "for years the NFL has been suspending and banning players who gamble or use steroids. Certainly, rapists and drug dealers should be as strictly punished as a player who places a bet."
Gambling and the use of steroids-to gain an unfair advantage and perhaps force opponents to use harmful drugs in order to compete-may affect the integrity of the game. The league is within its bounds to ban players for that. As for the rest, what do we have courts and hoosegows [jails] and gendarmes [policemen] for, anyway?
If guys aren't running from the law-the law says properly that they may be allowed, if they choose, to don football frocks and run into each other for a living.
Copyright @ 1998 The New York Times. Reprinted by permission.
This article was published by USA Today on September 18, 1998. The selection reports on studies of the behavior of college athletes.
Studies Raise Eyebrows
BY STEVE WIEBERG
As colleges contemplate what to do about law-breaking athletes, recent studies suggest athletes might be more prone to criminal acts than the general student population.
However, even the authors point out that the studies are inconclusive because of inconsistencies in crime reporting.
Still, results are intriguing.
One study in 1995 and 1996 by Todd
Crosset, an assistant professor of sports management at the University of Massachusetts, and then-Northeastern graduate student Jeff Benedict, found athletes "over-represented" in reports of campus violence against women. At 10 Division I schools, including five with perennially ranked football or basketball programs, athletes made up 3.3% of the overall male student population but 19% of the "reported perpetrators" in sexual assault cases handled by judicial affairs offices. They made up 35% of reported batterers.
Meanwhile, a study in the May issue of the Journal of American College Health found that college athletes tend to binge drink more often than other students, 7.34 drinks a week to the non-athlete's 4.12.
And the University of Idaho's Center for Ethics found high school senior athletes score 12% below non-athletes on a morals test administered as part of a continuing study by the school. Athletes agreed more often than others that it's acceptable to bend the rules.
"Athletes are.. .risk-takers. They do things," Tennessee athletic director Doug Dickey says. "They may have a tendency to be a little risky about what they do."
Says San Diego State athletic director Rick Bay: "I don't know if it's a product of so many kids coming out of deprived cultural backgrounds and broken homes or whether there are simply more temptations when kids get away from home for the first time. But my gut reaction is that...there are simply more problems than ever before."
That is the public's perception as well. In an ESPN on-line survey last fall, 83% of 6,645 respondents said they thought college and pro athletes were committing more criminal acts than 25 years earlier. Almost 68% said bigtime sports makes athletes violent.
And asked if colleges should revoke the scholarship of an athlete convicted of a crime, 84% said yes.
Copyright @ 1998 USA TODAY.
Reprinted by permission.