• August 30, 2015

Lincoln U. Requires Its Students to Step on the Scale

At Lincoln University, in Pennsylvania, students who are deemed too heavy must pass a physical-fitness course.

As part of the university's core curriculum, campus health educators weigh and measure all freshmen during the fall semester, and later calculate each student's body-mass index, or BMI. Those with a BMI above 30, which suggests obesity, must enroll in a one-credit course called "Fitness for Life" before they graduate. Students can satisfy that requirement if they "test out"—by subsequently earning a BMI below 30—or by passing a sports course.

As first reported on Wednesday by the university's student newspaper, The Lincolnian, some students and faculty members at the historically black institution have recently complained about the requirement. The newspaper quoted a sophomore who said, "It's not up to Lincoln to tell me how much my BMI should be." In the same article, a freshman asked: "What's the point of this?"

The point is to keep students healthy, says James L. DeBoy, chair of Lincoln's department of health, physical education, and recreation. All Lincoln students have long been required to pass a two-credit course called "Dimensions of Wellness," which covers array of subjects, such as alcohol, drugs, nutrition, and sexual health.

While revising the department's curriculum in 2006, however, Mr. DeBoy and his colleagues concluded that the university should do more to help students become more physically fit. The result was a course designed for students who are overweight. It includes walking, Pilates exercises, and fitness games.

"There's an obesity epidemic," Mr. DeBoy says. "The data are clear that many young people are on this very, very dangerous collision course with heart disease, diabetes, and stroke—health problems that are particularly bothersome for the African-American community."

Lincoln adopted the fitness course for freshmen who enrolled in 2006, but its existence did not cause much of a stir until this fall, when the university sent e-mail messages to some 80 seniors—16 percent of the class—who had yet to fulfill the requirement. In a faculty meeting on November 3, officials agreed that they "must make every effort to directly notify the remaining undergraduate students who have not made an effort to meet this graduation requirement," according to minutes posted on the university's Web site. The minutes also state: "We should have the university attorney look at this requirement to determine if it is legal."

Weighing the Policy's Legality

Several experts on higher-education law were not quite sure what to make of the policy. "I can understand that the university's trying to help its students, but it's a weird idea," said Susan L. Wheeler, a policy and legal affairs adviser at James Madison University. Nonetheless, she suggested that physical-fitness requirements, which were once ubiquitous at colleges, may become legally problematic only if an institution failed to exempt a student who was physically incapable of exercising. "If they accommodate, it may be a nonissue," she said.

Military academies can demonstrate that minimum requirements for physical fitness are essential to their missions. But can a traditional university say the same? The question intrigued Laura Rothstein, a law professor at Louisville University and a leading expert on disability discrimination. She speculated that a student could challenge Lincoln's requirement under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. "But I can't tell you how that would turn out—it would be breaking new ground," Ms. Rothstein said. "The key would be whether the obesity and size of a particular student is a disability."

John F. Banzhaf III thinks such a finding would be unlikely. A professor of public-interest law at George Washington University, he has been dubbed "The Man Who Is Taking Fat to Court" for his use of legal action to fight obesity. He describes Lincoln's requirement as reasonable.

"The law here is not completely settled, but it seems to apply only in cases of extreme obesity," Mr. Banzhaf said of disability protections. "In order to be considered disabled, it must be to the point where someone suffers severe limitations in performing everyday activities. Among college students, it would be hard to find a kid who is that obese."

Peter F. Lake was not so sure about the requirement, however. Mr. Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University, wrote in an e-mail message that the BMI could be construed as legally protected medical information: "Being put in a class with other 'at-risk' BMI's walks a little close to disclosure."

Legal issues aside, Mr. Lake questioned the educational value of a mandatory course for some, but not all, students. After all, to encourage physical fitness is one thing; to require it is another. "Is it really good to brand people?" Mr. Lake wrote. "Will enforced wellness like this work?"

Similar questions inspired Tiana Y. Lawson, a student at Lincoln, to offer her personal take on the requirement. This week the Lincolnian published an opinion column she wrote called "Too Fat to Graduate," in which she describes her objection to the mandatory fitness course.

Defending Some Extra Pounds

Ms. Lawson described how it had taken years for her to accept that she would never be a size 2. "I didn't come to Lincoln to be told that my weight is not in an acceptable range," she 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."

Mr. DeBoy has heard those concerns from other students before. Since 2006, roughly 15 percent of each incoming class has been found to have a BMI over 30. Some students have come to his office to complain about having to take the course. Hearing that you're overweight is not easy, he concedes.

Yet Mr. DeBoy believes the university is doing its students a service. He describes the fitness course's instructors as caring and encouraging. He recalls watching students who at the beginning of the semester could not walk for 15 minutes without getting winded; by the end, they were jogging with ease. Soon he hopes to start collecting hard data on the students who complete the course, to determine what, if any, effects the program may have.

"We as health educators are responsible for students' total well-being, not just academic and cognitive, but physical and social," Mr. DeBoy said. "If a student is being wheeled out on a stretcher at age 35 or 40, they will never be able to say, 'I wish someone had told me that this would happen.'"

Mr. DeBoy has faith in the BMI as a measure of health. Within the medical community, however, the index has its doubters. Some experts have argued that the formula, which depends solely on height and weight, is too simplistic. Because it measures proportionate body weight—and not body fat—it may overestimate obesity, especially among athletes and those who are particularly muscular.

J. Eric Oliver, a political-science professor at the University of Chicago, has argued that the BMI reveals far too little about how people live, how they get sick, and why they die. In Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America's Obesity Epidemic (Oxford University Press, 2006), Mr. Oliver wrote: "BMI is not only a poor measure of health, it is actually a lousy measure of obesity."

Whatever the case, Lincoln University appears to be the first university to make weight testing mandatory. James C. Turner, president of the American College Health Association and executive director of the University of Virginia's department of student health, said in an e-mail message that he had never heard of this kind of requirement. "I don't know if there is any evidence," he wrote, "that such a policy would result in weight loss."


1. midwife85 - November 20, 2009 at 07:38 am

And how does the university plan to deal with anorexics and bulemics who are equally likely to be un-healthy?

2. jffoster - November 20, 2009 at 07:49 am

Lincoln U is a "state related" university. With the confused system in Pennsylvania of what is a public college and what isnt, I'll leave the legal question to legal specialists in this area.

A number of movements over the years justified in the name of health have really been about social class. A classic case is the history of suntans and the alternate adoptions and abandonment of their desireability by the upper classes. Most recently the upper classes began to skedaddle away from suntans just about the time that tanning saloons arose -- any King-Kwick clerk could buy a suntan in January without vacationing at Miami beech or the Bahamas. Of course it was done in the name of "health" but we have known since at least the 1920s about the relationship of overexposure to sun and skin cancer. Ochsner Melanoma Center in New Orleans wasn't founded in 1995.

Lincoln University doesnt want a lot of graduates who look lower class. Upper class people tend to be thinner (partly because they take a fair amount of their supper in liquid form--and I don't mean beer.).

3. peggy875 - November 20, 2009 at 08:22 am

What does this have to do with getting your degree? Do all of the faculty and staff/administrators have to meet this criteria? Ridiculous!!

4. sdorley - November 20, 2009 at 08:40 am

This is just plain stupid. As if we didn't already have enough courses that are "bird" ones--easy and not the least applied to academics. Now we have the fat police hiding as "fitness" people. Are we next going to have Anti-gay courses where the end result is to become straight in 4 years? Christian courses to reaffirm our belief in "one nation UNDER GOD?"

I agree with jffoster: this is purely targeting blacks because of the stereotyped heavy, large-bottomed women. You want people to be fit--give them free health club memberships with FREE personal trainers. And look at the swill you are serving in the dorms--a carb-addict's dream.

What's next? Entrance scholarships based on your incoming weight? The skinnier you are, the more money you get. Sigh.

5. ichrysso - November 20, 2009 at 08:47 am

This is interesting. Colleges and universities feel the need to curb alcoholism, so why not obesity? I personally think that enough about physical well-being and nutrition is taught at the elementary and secondary school levels and there is no need for more "for your own good" programs. We need to start making people responsible for their own decisions and actions.

"Lincoln University doesnt want a lot of graduates who look lower class. Upper class people tend to be thinner (partly because they take a fair amount of their supper in liquid form--and I don't mean beer.)." This sentence sounds like both a fact and an opinion - do you work for Lincoln?

6. alpern - November 20, 2009 at 08:48 am

Why worry about "disclosure" when obesity is visible to anyone who can see?

I think faculty should also be encouraged to improve their health. At my state university smokers have to pay extra for their health insurance and this policy could be extended to those who shold lose weight.

I find the comment above about the liquid supper to be totally idiotic. The writer clearly has some issues!

7. bdelidow - November 20, 2009 at 09:00 am

I have never heard of anything so rude as asking a student's BMI - that is personal health information and I would as likely parade naked through the center of campus as allow some "health educator" access to my person. It's none of their business! A requirement that all students attend a PE class does not mean the University gets to decide who is "obese" and what they "should" do about it - how RUDE! And creepy!

In addition - BMI is a poor indicator of the actual "fatness" of a body. These "health educators" may end up targeting some people who are extraordinarily fit, but short for their muscle mass. Idiotic.

8. jffoster - November 20, 2009 at 09:36 am

No, Ichrysso (5) I don't work for Lincoln -- don't even live in the Commonwealth. Read the sentence in the context of the entire comment.

Alpern (6), do you understand what the reference of "liquid supper" is to? Upper classes tend to dine later than the lower classes and preceed it with distilled spirits or wine. We have the expression "beer belly" but not 'Burbon bellys'. Nor 'whiskey bellys'. And, not, for the really upper classes, 'whsky bellys'.

9. dank48 - November 20, 2009 at 09:37 am

As mentioned above, it's "acceptable" for a college to try to curb alcohol abuse, and we know how Every Right-Thinking Person feels about tobacco. Why not obesity?

What on earth is next?

10. cabby329 - November 20, 2009 at 09:49 am

I agree with the issue the article brings up about BMI as a valid measurement of health.

As a short female who has a lot of muscle mass from working out and exercising, my weight:height ration is higher than "healthy" on the BMI scale. Yet, I am an avid exerciser and consider myself to be in good health for someone my age. Classifying students based on BMI is not only an invalid measurement, but it doesn't capture the proper populations. As someone mentioned earlier, you can have a good BMI, but practice horrible habits (including bulemia, anorexia, binge eating, etc.). There must be a better way to cover all of these eating issues. BMI is certainly not the way.

11. edfaculty - November 20, 2009 at 09:56 am

Mr. Deboy states that "as health educators".....Well, in order to be a "health educator" there is a national board examination that certifies that the person is a competent professional. The National Commission for Health Education Credentialing is responsible for this examination process and those credentials are the CHES. Once CHES is achieved, annual continuing education units must be acquired in order to maintain the CHES credential. Mr. Deboy is not CHES and thus cannot claim to be a health educator. Also, a CHES would not put all emphasis on a BMI rating! It is a well known fact that BMI is the worst evaluation of someone's body status and thus physical health! There are 6 dimensions to health and wellness. And within each dimension are multiple sub-dimensions, and sub-sub dimensions. While one dimension is the physical, placing all emphasis on a sub-sub dimension (body fat) is an unacceptable concept! Much more important physical health indicators include blood pressure, cholesterol levels, blood glucose, triglyceride numbers, injury history, illness history, genetics, and family health history. You need a complete health assessment in order to get the whole picture of a person's health status. Just my two cents....a proud health educator and CHES since 1994!

12. upstate - November 20, 2009 at 10:04 am

How about no diploma if you smoke?

13. commserver - November 20, 2009 at 10:38 am

The following was stated
"This is interesting. Colleges and universities feel the need to curb alcoholism, so why not obesity? I personally think that enough about physical well-being and nutrition is taught at the elementary and secondary school levels and there is no need for more "for your own good" programs. We need to start making people responsible for their own decisions and actions

Unfortunately, it is not common to see courses about nutrition in HS. It is funny that often the school cafeteria offer the types of foods that lead to obesity. This is because of the US food program. HS buy food according to guidelines set up by the US government and it is often to the benefit of the agricultural interests, not the students.

14. unusedusername - November 20, 2009 at 10:43 am

This is absolutely silly. Colleges are academic institutions. They have a right to judge people only on academic performance. This "fitness test" is blatant discrimination.

Of course, this is the consequence of colleges butting into students' private lives. When colleges spend time and resources on anti-drinking and anti-smoking initiatives, it is only a matter of time before overeating comes up. I remember debating about cigarette taxes 20 years ago, saying "If we're going to put huge taxes on cigarettes in the name of 'health', why charge a special tax on fast food?" Everybody laughed then--of course nobody would ever propose that.

15. mathmaven - November 20, 2009 at 11:02 am

What about thin students who don't exercise or eat right? They do exist, you know. When we send the message that thin automatically equals healthy, we endanger the well-being of unhealthy thin people, because we allow them to think they have no reason to worry. It is an extremely well-documented fact (although willfully ignored by many) that it is possible to be fat and healthy, and just as possible to be thin and unhealthy.

If you want fit students, measure fitness, not body size. If you want healthy students, measure health, not body size.

With all of the other barriers to degree completion that students-- especially minority students-- already face, I cannot imagine why Lincoln wants to create another one. Maybe they just don't want fat kids applying there in the first place.

16. opiniononly - November 20, 2009 at 11:08 am

We must admit obesity in our Country is climbing at an exponential rate, however, I do not believe our Country should not wait until students are in college before addressing this issue. When I was a student, physical education was a daily one-hour required class through high school first year followed by another year of required physical education electives your second year. I do not recall obese children in the numbers we see them today. My daughter was not required to take physical education outside of one semester during her middle school years, ages 11 through 13. Because of this, I kept her in AYSO soccer as long as I could. As all soccer parents know, trying to leave work to rush home, get the kids and make it to practices, is not a luxury we all can afford. I believe our elementary through high school education should require physical education throughout their years in entirety. What better message can our public education send to stress the importance of maintaining your health?

17. ccherry - November 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Lincoln's policy promotes good health and is not onerous. It is also fair, so long as freshmen know about it before matriculating. Obesity is associated with many health risks, and people habitually underestimate their caloric intake while overestimating their level of exercise. A mandatory course targets those at greatest risk. A BMI of 30 is also pretty high, except for the unusually well-muscled. A physical exam could distinguish the healthy from the unhealthy. In the worst case, failing the standard compels taking only a 1-credit hour course, not expulsion. In this respect, the course is akin to an incidental area requirement.

Yes, Lincoln could choose to tie alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drug use to graduation. But it chooses to do something about obesity. There is nothing inherently hypocritical in this choice, or in choosing to administer one policy instead of a gamut.

18. jaysanderson - November 20, 2009 at 01:02 pm

Comment #9 asks "What on earth is next"?

This is nothing compared to what will likely accompany a federal takeover of health care. Fat tax, soda tax, candy tax, parents charged for serving cupcakes to their kids or letting them play football. This thrill ride just began and I'm already motion sick.

19. esselan - November 20, 2009 at 01:13 pm

How about this? If students don't like the school's requirements...they should choose a different school.

20. mathmaven - November 20, 2009 at 01:32 pm

Regarding comment #18: It's lucky for all of us, then, that the federal government is not attempting to take over health care. Just to reform it, which is sorely needed and long overdue.

21. bedegrayne - November 20, 2009 at 01:49 pm

So I agree with a lot of other people on here. What does this have to do with getting an education? It sounds like another trick to keep the college more elite and only have certain types of students attending it. This sounds very much like discrimination in many forms and one of these students should file complaints with the federal government. If they want to make it mandatory, EVERY student should have to take the class, no matter what they weigh. Besides, hasn't anyone ever heard of the freshman 15? Just because a student might weigh less when they first come in, they might not weigh the same after their freshman year.

22. sbohrer - November 20, 2009 at 01:52 pm

Besides the inaccuarcy of BMI as a measure of health, universities are a prime site of eating disorders! Studies (APA) indicate that focus on BMI increases the rate of such disorders. This type of judgment also demonstrates discrimination by body size. Not only should this governing of the student body be discouraged, the University students and those concerned about them should be outraged.

23. zing42 - November 20, 2009 at 02:05 pm

BMI is a mindless parlor game about as meaningful as the horoscopes in Cosmopolitan. Naturally, it wows administrators who are susceptible to surface appearances. A BMI of 30 is not an infallible indicator of obesity. Some "obese" types are former athletes now out of shape. We recently buried a contemporary with a BMI that had to be 15 - courtesy of 30 years of alcoholism, anorexia, bulimia, and whatever pharmaceuticals were available. What is inside counts most. Lincoln students should vote with their feet.

24. btuberville - November 20, 2009 at 03:27 pm

Yes, let's worry if Lincoln U students or any U students are obese; who cares if they can't spell "obese" or use it correctly in a sentence (if they know what one of those is to begin with)? If we're only dealing with bodies, then send 'em to the gym. I thought, in higher ed, we were supposed to be - well, for lack of a better word - "higher" in what we aspire to be and to teach.

Maybe I'm wrong.

25. ferbot - November 20, 2009 at 07:32 pm

I recently took my BMI test & DR. DeBoy stated that since my BMI was 30 but my waist measurement was only 34"; I was exempt from taking the class. BMI is not the only measurement they are using - he said something about cross-validation.

26. maja_mikkels - November 20, 2009 at 11:27 pm

I think this has very much to do with the fact that the school is historically black and that it therefore has a more paternalistic attitude toward its students.

The idea that you can't graduate because you have a BMI over 30 is upsetting.

But as someone above suggested, weight is seen as a class marker, and if all the graduates from Lincoln are slim and "elegant" looking, they figure that the "value" of their degrees will go up.

In a few years, if you apply somewhere with a degree from that school, employers will know that you are not obese.

27. alexausten - November 21, 2009 at 12:38 am

This is ridiculous. As many have observed, adults should be doing everything they can to help build students' self images and create an atmosphere of mutual acceptance instead of subjecting students to unnecessary humiliation. It's what's in the head -- and the heart -- that counts. And once launched, eating disorders can impact victim's lives for decades.

28. choirguy - November 21, 2009 at 08:50 am

As a 1980s graduate of a university in Tulsa, Oklahoma that has measured student fat for years (they used skin-fold measurements and underwater weighing long before BMI was even dreamed up), I can tell you that this system opens up all kinds of wounds for me. I've always had weight issues. At various times in my life I have worked very hard to control them. As a student, the last thing I wanted to think about during stressful academic times was whether I was going to pass that damned skin fold test (which I rarely did). [Regardless of the PE class - and we were required to take one every semester - you had to pass the skin fold test to pass the class. I have several Fs from PE classes on my transcript.] Bottom line -- I am and have always been more likely to want to get healthier when I decide I want to do it. Educate the students to the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, but don't become the "Big Brother" fat police!

29. nmgwishi - November 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm

The only problem I see with this program is that they are exempting certain people. Instead of making those who are obese feel as if they're outcasts, they should make this mandatory for all students. At my undergrad, everyone had to have two credit hours of physical activity, and most people, even myself took the 2 credit course where you learned about different health and safety initiative such as the original one employed by LU. But in my major, I also had to take 2 more credit hours of physical activity.

Most universities have fitness centers free of charge for the students, but that doesn't mean people will use them. My campus had four, and I didn't use them regularly until my spring semester senior year. The university has an obligation to make sure the students are healthy. And a one credit class that students will go to for 50 minutes one day out of the week for 15 weeks is not that bad.

30. amnirov - November 21, 2009 at 12:30 pm

It sounds to me like more than a few of the naysayers are crying bacony tears of anguish over this.

31. thepadrino - November 21, 2009 at 12:47 pm

The point is to keep stundents depressed and angry for even making them do this.The point is to keep students healthy Is a joke.

I was large in school this would have just added to the misery.

I went to school to learn not to be weighed if I want to be weighed and be healthy ill go to the dang doctor.


32. marilynwann - November 21, 2009 at 05:20 pm

This policy is a perfect example of weight-based discrimination. Our science shows that regular physical activity magically makes people healthier; it does not turn fat people into thin people.

Such a policy stigmatizes (and segregates!) fat students. It also ignores the health of thin students and even predisposes them to avoid exercise (because it's no longer an enjoyable activity for people of all sizes, but a punishment for being fat).

The sad fact is that young fat people are often very athletic and enjoy sports, dance, etc., until some coach or teacher tells us we don't look like everyone else and so are not welcome.

Students of all sizes should be welcomed in exercise environments, not shamed and blamed and punished and coerced.

33. marilynwann - November 21, 2009 at 05:22 pm

I forgot to mention...

Suggested reading for people who think eugenics directed at fat people will solve all the world's problems, including global warming, healthcare reform, and the economy:

"The Fat Studies Reader," edited by Esther Rothblum, PhD, and Sondra Solovay, JD, just out this week from NYU Press.

"Health At Every Size: The Surprising Truth About Your Weight," by Linda Bacon, PhD

34. timebandit - November 21, 2009 at 05:25 pm

Why not just require everyone to take a physical fitness course? That's fair, and I bet there will even be some jocks who could use reminding that pizza and beer does not a balanced diet make. The challenge will be to make everyone feel welcome in such a course, not just the physically fit. But it could be a way to introduce people to different types of things they can do to maintain a reasonable fitness level, and have students each make their own couple of goals for the class rather than this being imposed. As for it being mandatory, sometimes that's for our own good -- and if I hadn't been required to take a PE course in high school, I never would have realized I liked lifting weights (in my women's weightlifting class)....

35. peopleofsize - November 22, 2009 at 11:15 am

PeopleOfSize.com has started an iPetition to address this discriminatory and potentially dangerous Lincoln University "wellness" course. Please view and sign and forward link!


36. raymond_j_ritchie - November 23, 2009 at 01:50 am

This is outrageous. Where are the EEO/AA thought police when you need them? I have never had a BI below 30 since I was in primary school. Today you are not allowed to harrass someone because they are black, hispanic, one legged, one-armed or talk with a funny accent, practice weird religions or sexual practices but you can exclude and humiliate someone for being "overweight" as much as you like. Often the harrassment is quite vicious. As pointed out above, what about all those pathetic female students you see everywhere with grey skins and are walking skeletons? What has body mass got to do with academic achievement?

37. tolerantly - November 23, 2009 at 11:00 am

Tiana hasn't got a "slightly high" BMI. At a BMI of 30, you're fat. Obese. You put on a freshman fifty. And she's kidding herself if she thinks it's a non-issue.

Is it Lincoln's business? No, but it's mine so long as I'm required to help pay for her insulin and neuropathy checks and lumbar, hip, and knee problems.

38. davi2665 - November 23, 2009 at 12:37 pm

BMI is one measure of obesity, but not necessarily a good measure of a specific individual's risk for coronary artery disease, potential for a stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and other maladies that accompany obesity. The risks also are age-related, as indicated by recent data that in older individuals, having a bit more weight is sometimes a better risk than being underweight, according to the highly contrived "ideal weight tables." If the health police want to start addressing disease risk (which then translates into health care costs), obesity is only one of many measures. Perhaps Lincoln U. needs to require glucose tolerance testing, triglyceride levels, cardiac-specific C-reactive protein levels, B-type naturetic peptide levels, cortisol diurnal rhythms, 24 hour catecholamine production, and several other measures that are better predictors of disease risk than BMI. Better yet, perhaps they can run the entire genomic analysis of cancer-related gene expression, and genotypes that predispose for many other types of diseases, and require comprehensive medical intervention on all fronts. It's bad enough when big brother wants to do some of this "for our own good", but universities should stay out of our personal business.

39. mestengo - November 24, 2009 at 07:13 pm

If you are too stupid to understand that a BMI of 30 is a problem you are too stupid to be recognized as a college graduate.

The only attractive fat is the bacon next to my eggs as I sit my 22 BMI sized body down for breakfast.

40. rlpeterson - November 30, 2009 at 10:07 am

It used to be socially acceptable for people to use race, religion, or class to inflate their egos so they could delude themselves into thinking they were better than everybody else. These days, respectable people can't do that anymore; it's frowned upon. I suppose that's why some (like mestengo, apparently) have turned their attention to other people's weight.

Young people engage is all manner of unhealthy behaviors. I find it interesting that Lincoln U is directing so much concern and attention to this one aspect of good health. It suggests that there's something else going on here.

One final observation: Bragging about one's "22 BMI sized body" is pretty pathetic.

41. rpatillo82 - November 30, 2009 at 11:26 pm

What ever happened to a plain old Phys Ed. requirement? I had to take a half credit gym class back in college in order to graduate. Then again, all the students did---no matter if they were big or small. I took golf...and I passed.

Now there's all this "Dimensions of Wellness" nonsense and classes designed specifically for obese students?

Every time I think our society can't get any more stupid, something like this comes along that totally changes my assessment.

This is really absurd.

42. laoshi - December 01, 2009 at 02:41 pm

All the more reason to make sumo a college sport.

Add Your Comment

Commenting is closed.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.