There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Parents
Former Member
Lainey writes: "Scholarship money, whether it is academic or athletic, should go to Americans first. If there is money left over, or perhaps as Rob suggested a small percentage of all scholarship money, should be offered to foreign students.
Why? What is so magical about being "American?" Other than for those who moved here and were naturalized isn't it just really an accident of birth? Why draw artificail boundaries?
Here is an example of how arbitrary and silly it is . . . .
In 1920, my dad was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. His dad, an American citizen, and child of Norwegian immigrants, moved to Canada to serve in the Canadian Navy to fight in World War I. He did so before America got involved because he thought it was the right thing to do while Wilson pursued an isolationist/pacifist strategy that ultimately failed.
So my dad was born Canadian. His family moved to Boston in the late 20's. My dad grew up in the U.S. and then joined the U.S. Navy, fought in WW II and was granted citizenship after fighting in the Pacific as an Aviation Machinist's Mate First Class and serving as a flight engineer on PBYs.
So all of this "American's First" rhetoric kind of pisses me off. My dad, as a Canadian citizen, was an all state tackle (both ways) at Boston's Weymouth High in '37 and '38 who was offered a full ride football scholarship to Boston University. He didn't take it as it was the depression and he needed to go to work to help support his family. Then, still as a Canadian citizen, he joined the U.S. Navy and fought in the Pacific theatre to preserve democracy for the world . . . and to defeat despots . . . for the world . . .
So who among you thinks that in offering my dad a football scholarship Boston Univeristy was out of line by not serving "American's first?"
So think about that before you adopt the knee jerk "american's first" attitude . . . we are all citizens of the world . . . where we live, and the citizenship we enjoy, is for most of us an accident of birth. The real question is "are we making the world a better place?" Are we contributing? I have to think that spending time erecting walls and creating boundaries is wasted. It's tearing them down that makes the world a better place to live. I want to know why citizens of the country that was the primary force in tearing down the Berlin Wall would want to expend energy in building walls within our own boundaries.
Reasonable people can disagree . . . regardless, I hope that some find this food for thought,
carl
Lainey writes: "Scholarship money, whether it is academic or athletic, should go to Americans first. If there is money left over, or perhaps as Rob suggested a small percentage of all scholarship money, should be offered to foreign students.
Why? What is so magical about being "American?" Other than for those who moved here and were naturalized isn't it just really an accident of birth? Why draw artificail boundaries?
Here is an example of how arbitrary and silly it is . . . .
In 1920, my dad was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. His dad, an American citizen, and child of Norwegian immigrants, moved to Canada to serve in the Canadian Navy to fight in World War I. He did so before America got involved because he thought it was the right thing to do while Wilson pursued an isolationist/pacifist strategy that ultimately failed.
So my dad was born Canadian. His family moved to Boston in the late 20's. My dad grew up in the U.S. and then joined the U.S. Navy, fought in WW II and was granted citizenship after fighting in the Pacific as an Aviation Machinist's Mate First Class and serving as a flight engineer on PBYs.
So all of this "American's First" rhetoric kind of pisses me off. My dad, as a Canadian citizen, was an all state tackle (both ways) at Boston's Weymouth High in '37 and '38 who was offered a full ride football scholarship to Boston University. He didn't take it as it was the depression and he needed to go to work to help support his family. Then, still as a Canadian citizen, he joined the U.S. Navy and fought in the Pacific theatre to preserve democracy for the world . . . and to defeat despots . . . for the world . . .
So who among you thinks that in offering my dad a football scholarship Boston Univeristy was out of line by not serving "American's first?"
So think about that before you adopt the knee jerk "american's first" attitude . . . we are all citizens of the world . . . where we live, and the citizenship we enjoy, is for most of us an accident of birth. The real question is "are we making the world a better place?" Are we contributing? I have to think that spending time erecting walls and creating boundaries is wasted. It's tearing them down that makes the world a better place to live. I want to know why citizens of the country that was the primary force in tearing down the Berlin Wall would want to expend energy in building walls within our own boundaries.
Reasonable people can disagree . . . regardless, I hope that some find this food for thought,
carl
