Lincoln U. introduces mandatory PE class for BMI > 30

[Themightytom]

If this were really about the justice of such a requirement, objections would have been raised when it was introduced. This is more about students who procrastinated an assignment and don't want to be held accountable.

Except that being fat, while unhealthy, cannot be constructed as a prerequisite to learning, for example, advanced mathematics, while several basic mathematical notions unequivocally can. This does not mean that the whole thing is a bad idea, but different arguments are required.

I am actually making a different argument.

If the sole purpose of college required curriculum is to prepare a person for increasingly advanced curriculum, then health doesn't really matter beyond a baseline ability to learn. thats a different argument, we had it regarding elementary school students and the school lunch program a year ago, i'm not reopening that. Sure for some people, all college leads to is more college.

But if the goal is a productive member of society who at some point APPLIES what he's learning in college, than college becomes an opportunity to screen ffor society wide issues that need to be addressed. If we're having a civil rights revolution, than a diversity class might be neccesary, if we are having a technological revolution, than technology courses are required, if we have an obesity epidemic, lets make health classes part of the curriculum. maybe not exercise neccesarily, but at least nutrition. I realize its social engineering, but the issue is pervasive enough to warrant an intentional intervention.

[Broomstick]

On top of that, the requirement is not being applied uniformly. Students with below-30 BMIs are not being put through their paces to see whether they are healthy. Instead, the health course requirement is applied only to people who are presumed to need it, with everyone who does not fall into the "presumed" category being automatically exempt.

People with a BMI over 30 are not "overweight", they are OBESE. You're not talking about someone just a couple pounds/kilos over the ideal but who are obese.

If colleges can require classes in remedial math, science, history, language, etc. why not remedial health?

If I had gone for, say, a history degree, I might well have not been required to take any math courses. I would know enough math to be tolerably educated in the subject by the standards of a liberal arts degree, after all.

Bullshit. Even if you test out of the minimum/required math courses in a non-math degree you still have to take math (at least in the US). I know this from experience. I "tested out" of math (even with my poor abilities), English, and a couple other things when getting my degree and yet I still had to take a minimum number of courses in those subjects. The only difference is that I could free choose which such courses I took. Thus, instead of core English I took advanced courses. Instead of core math I took calculus of symmetry and other more-advanced-than-minimum-required math.

But I would not be able to get away with simply asserting that I had the necessary math skills. I would have had to take tests to prove that I had the skills, that I did not need remedial math education. In fact, I had to take such tests anyway (the SAT, the college's own placement exam, and the AP Calculus test).

Likewise, if a student wishes to be exempt from a physical fitness requirement, they should have to provide positive proof that they are fit, not merely a lack of proof that they are not fit.

On the other hand, having a BMI of over 30 is pretty strong evidence that you are unfit, have deplorable eating habits, and don't exercise. If your BMI is that high as far as I'm concerned your unfit until proven otherwise.

They should have to jog a mile, lift a noticeable percentage of their body weight, do some sit-ups, or otherwise demonstrate that they satisfy the minimum physical requirement the way I had to show that I satisfied the minimum math requirement. But they don't; all they have to prove is that they have a small waistline.

The only way to have a small waist and a BMI even near 30 is to have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger during his Mr. Universe days. Again, these are not people just a little overweight.

For example - this is reputedly a person with a BMI of 25, the high end of normal weight.


Here's another BMI 25 in somewhat less buff condition:


Now I wouldn't call either of those guys skinny, but they're not grotesque. It doesn't require a leap of faith to imagine them running a mile or doing some push-ups. Especially the first guy.

This is more what a BMI of 30 looks like:

Now, they certainly aren't the fattest people on the planet, not by a long shot, but this is the bottom end of obese. These gals would probably only have to lose 10 lbs or 5 kg to drop into the top end of the "overweight" category.

Is it possible to have a BMI of 30 and yet be fit? Yes. It is possible - but you would have to be a kick-ass athlete of rock-hard muscle. Such a person will look more like the 25's up there than the 30's. As long as there is a means to screen out the super-athletes with the high BMI's this doesn't strike me as outrageous. (Presumably, they'd also exclude pregnant students from this, as pregnant women need to gain some weight for a healthy pregnancy/baby and that could push them up to 30) They're NOT targeting people a little overweight, this is pointed to those who are a LOT overweight.

[Resinence]

Because BMI is not a perfect measure of obesity, students also have their waist circumference measured, he said.

While true, unless you're a fucking shredded power lifter, if your BMI is 30 you're unhealthy, and at a big risk of type II diabetes, no buts about it really. It's like those fat assholes you see in gyms who lift big numbers and go "fuck yeah I'm ripped!" when it's not even a decent percentage of their bodyweight - some wouldn't even be able to do a single pull up. Thats not fit.

I'm really not even sure how well forcing people to exercise would work if their diet doesn't change, they are not going to be getting the right intake anyway, processed shit isn't very conductive to getting your blood pressure down. A better way would be to take resting heart rate and do a general fitness test like a beep test, only not as strict as the military obviously. Though I get the feeling that if it was in anyway meaningful they would be pulling a LOT more people into this program than just taking BMI 30+'s.

Seems like just another "we want to do SOMETHING" plan, but it's not going to work without education, and education won't work when people are in college because they have already picked up society's general belief that people who care about being fit are elitists and vain assholes. Seriously I've heard "OH MY GOD I CAN SEE YOUR COLLAR BONE EAT SOMETHING" like it's a BAD THING. Educating ignorance away is the answer, and thats hard because fat parents will write sick notes for their fat kids to get out of gym like always.

[Broomstick]

That's because your weight has no bearing on how you can perform a desk job.

Actually, it can. Someone obese, for example, might require specially ordered rather than standard office furniture (I know - I've had to order such furniture for obese colleagues). Someone with an obesity-related health problem might well miss days of work, have to take time off to see doctors, etc. It can impact one's ability to travel. The obese can be perceived negatively - rightly or wrongly - and this can impact their chances of landing sales positions, or even a job as a front-desk receptionist.

As for people with metabolic disorders - I have a sister with such. Nonetheless, she manages to avoid outright obesity even if she is heavier than ideal. It's hard there's no question of that, but it's doable.

[Resinence]

As for people with metabolic disorders - I have a sister with such. Nonetheless, she manages to avoid outright obesity even if she is heavier than ideal. It's hard there's no question of that, but it's doable.

They are also a small percentage of the amount of people who are obese, I don't think people get that while being overweight is not so bad really, being obese takes genuine effort, it's expensive and you have to eat a lot of food to maintain a BMI over 30 unless you have a thyroid problem.

[Themightytom]

As for people with metabolic disorders - I have a sister with such. Nonetheless, she manages to avoid outright obesity even if she is heavier than ideal. It's hard there's no question of that, but it's doable.

They are also a small percentage of the amount of people who are obese, I don't think people get that while being overweight is not so bad really, being obese takes genuine effort, it's expensive and you have to eat a lot of food to maintain a BMI over 30 unless you have a thyroid problem.

I eat about the same as my dad, he is nowhere near as phsyically active as I am, I'm doing SOME kind of exercise every day. I am hypothyrridic, he is not. The exercise component is obviously a factor, but he also drinks GALLONS of water. We're both 5'10, I am 168 he is 374.

At this point obesity has left him with nerve damage along his arms, he tore a bicep lifting hismelf out of a chair that never grew back, he has severe back problems, knee problems, bowel control problems, poor self esteem etc. he also has developed a heart condition and sleep apnia which was attributed to weight on his lungs interfering with his breathing during sleep for years. He can't get himself to regularly exercise and when my mom convinces him to try something like aquarobics, he does it for a few days and then becomes manipulative and self sabotaging to get out of it.

it seems much easier to AVOID getting obese than to recover from it.

[General Zod]

I am actually making a different argument.

If the sole purpose of college required curriculum is to prepare a person for increasingly advanced curriculum, then health doesn't really matter beyond a baseline ability to learn. thats a different argument, we had it regarding elementary school students and the school lunch program a year ago, i'm not reopening that. Sure for some people, all college leads to is more college.

But if the goal is a productive member of society who at some point APPLIES what he's learning in college, than college becomes an opportunity to screen ffor society wide issues that need to be addressed. If we're having a civil rights revolution, than a diversity class might be neccesary, if we are having a technological revolution, than technology courses are required, if we have an obesity epidemic, lets make health classes part of the curriculum. maybe not exercise neccesarily, but at least nutrition. I realize its social engineering, but the issue is pervasive enough to warrant an intentional intervention.

I agree that people need to do more to take care of themselves, but I don't believe that forcing them into a class because their BMI is too high is the correct approach, especially when some people will just as easily slide back into bad habits once they don't have to do it. These aren't grade schoolers that need mollycoddling we're talking about after all.

[AMT]

But if the goal is a productive member of society who at some point APPLIES what he's learning in college, than college becomes an opportunity to screen ffor society wide issues that need to be addressed. If we're having a civil rights revolution, than a diversity class might be neccesary, if we are having a technological revolution, than technology courses are required, if we have an obesity epidemic, lets make health classes part of the curriculum. maybe not exercise neccesarily, but at least nutrition. I realize its social engineering, but the issue is pervasive enough to warrant an intentional intervention.

Except what makes it the Universities responsibility to do such a thing? To me, using a postsecondary education in this manner creates a slippery slope. One day, it's forcing people to exercise, the next it could be forcing people to follow a certain belief, or worse.

I don't think it's a college's place to try and socially engineer lifestyle choices on those who choose to attend.

That being said, if this class was a universal requirement for all students, regardless of physical health (beyond those who are physically unable to complete the class, who could do a similar component based on education and nutrition perhaps), I wouldn't have a problem with it.

However, singling out people who have a certain BMI is discriminatory, and in addition is likely to create a social stigma upon those forced to take the class.

People with a BMI over 30 are not "overweight", they are OBESE. You're not talking about someone just a couple pounds/kilos over the ideal but who are obese.

If colleges can require classes in remedial math, science, history, language, etc. why not remedial health?

Because people with a BMI less than 30 could possibly need "remedial health" as well? Again, if they want to have a health class, then they should make it a core requirement, regardless of degree. Otherwise, you're promoting a thought that basically says "if you're skinny, you're healthy. We only care about those who are above a certain BMI."

It would be the same thing if they forced all tobacco users to do this class, or everyone who engages in premartial sex to attend a class where they promote their belief in sexual education. If you're going to do it, then do it universally, not as what is essentially a punitive measure.

Bullshit. Even if you test out of the minimum/required math courses in a non-math degree you still have to take math (at least in the US). I know this from experience. I "tested out" of math (even with my poor abilities), English, and a couple other things when getting my degree and yet I still had to take a minimum number of courses in those subjects

Actually that's not entirely accurate. I was able to CLEP (the college info test) out of math classes. Since my degree only required basic math, I never had to take a math class at the college level if I chose not to. This was an accredited state university, not some fly by night thing. The point of CLEP is basically to get credit as if you took the class. That means if you get the credit, it counts as that component in every way.

On the other hand, having a BMI of over 30 is pretty strong evidence that you are unfit, have deplorable eating habits, and don't exercise. If your BMI is that high as far as I'm concerned your unfit until proven otherwise.

Except that by doing so you're enacting punitive measures on an environment that the University itself helps to create (re: the fact it has a KFC on campus).
If they're going to act puntively, then they should, at the very least, not provide the tools which will cause those attending the school to be punished.

However, even if that were not the case, this is discriminatory, just as if it were a mandatory sex education class for those who get caught having sex in their dorm room.

They're NOT targeting people a little overweight, this is pointed to those who are a LOT overweight.

To turn that around in a hypothetical way, is it ok to target racist acts to say... a full blooded black man over... Tiger Woods?
After all, Tiger is only a little black, while the full blooded black man is a LOT black.

See why that kind of thinking can be considered discriminatory?

[Broomstick]

They are also a small percentage of the amount of people who are obese, I don't think people get that while being overweight is not so bad really, being obese takes genuine effort, it's expensive and you have to eat a lot of food to maintain a BMI over 30 unless you have a thyroid problem.

Thyroid problem is not a sufficient excuse. My sister's metabolic disorder in an inactive thyroid gland - it simply stopped working in her late teens (a hundred years ago she would have simply died as a result - this was not a minor malfunction but a complete shut down). Management of her disorder requires her to take her daily medication, be careful about her diet, and exercise. Nonetheless, she has avoided obesity for 40 years. She even had two kids along the way that wrecked havoc on her system and required hospitalization and several readjustments of her medicaiton. Nonetheless, she isn't and hasn't been obese. As I said, it is difficult - but doable. Just like managing diabetes or gluten intolerance or a myriad of other medical conditions are manageable.

I agree that people need to do more to take care of themselves, but I don't believe that forcing them into a class because their BMI is too high is the correct approach, especially when some people will just as easily slide back into bad habits once they don't have to do it. These aren't grade schoolers that need mollycoddling we're talking about after all.

Or maybe, after some education and practice, they won't slide back into bad habits. Colleges are allowed to regulate alcohol use, set curfews (at least they were in my day), and otherwise impose rules on their student body. If you don't like it you are free to go to a different school. If a student was found to be deficient in math they would be forced to take remedial math. If a student is deficient in health why shouldn't they be forced to do something about it? If they don't like it they can go elsewhere.

Except what makes it the Universities responsibility to do such a thing? To me, using a postsecondary education in this manner creates a slippery slope. One day, it's forcing people to exercise, the next it could be forcing people to follow a certain belief, or worse.

Or maybe people should get the fuck over the idea that exercise and eating properly is punishment. It's not.

That being said, if this class was a universal requirement for all students, regardless of physical health (beyond those who are physically unable to complete the class, who could do a similar component based on education and nutrition perhaps), I wouldn't have a problem with it.

By that argument even the best math student should be enrolled in remedial math, and native speakers of English should be taking English as a Second Language classes.

I'm sorry - if you're obese you are deficient in taking care of yourself. I'm sorry if that pinches anyone's ass, but it's a fact.

However, singling out people who have a certain BMI is discriminatory, and in addition is likely to create a social stigma upon those forced to take the class.

Singling out people who are deficient in language skills is discriminatory, and likely to create a social stigma upon those forced to take the class. Cry me a fucking river. The solution is not to continue to enable poor skills but to educate people. If they later choose to ignore their education that is, indeed, their problem but the school is supposed to education.

People with a BMI over 30 are not "overweight", they are OBESE. You're not talking about someone just a couple pounds/kilos over the ideal but who are obese.

If colleges can require classes in remedial math, science, history, language, etc. why not remedial health?

Because people with a BMI less than 30 could possibly need "remedial health" as well? Again, if they want to have a health class, then they should make it a core requirement, regardless of degree. Otherwise, you're promoting a thought that basically says "if you're skinny, you're healthy. We only care about those who are above a certain BMI."

Actually, no - you can be overweight by a small amount and be healthy. Nowhere did I say you have to be skinny to be healthy. But if someone is maintaining a good weight on their own they already have that basic life skill, they don't need remedial health lessons. If someone is obese they ARE doing something wrong in regards to taking care of themselves.

It would be the same thing if they forced all tobacco users to do this class, or everyone who engages in premartial sex to attend a class where they promote their belief in sexual education. If you're going to do it, then do it universally, not as what is essentially a punitive measure.

Quite a few schools either maintain no smoking areas on campus and in dorms or are entirely no smoking. If you go to a Christian college you may well be required to take sex education courses. Loyola University in Chicago is a Catholic college and religious classes are mandatory for people of all faiths or lack of faith. If you don't like the requirements of the school pick a different school.

Bullshit. Even if you test out of the minimum/required math courses in a non-math degree you still have to take math (at least in the US). I know this from experience. I "tested out" of math (even with my poor abilities), English, and a couple other things when getting my degree and yet I still had to take a minimum number of courses in those subjects

Actually that's not entirely accurate. I was able to CLEP (the college info test) out of math classes. Since my degree only required basic math, I never had to take a math class at the college level if I chose not to. This was an accredited state university, not some fly by night thing. The point of CLEP is basically to get credit as if you took the class. That means if you get the credit, it counts as that component in every way.

Then either things have changed a LOT since I got my degree, or you went to a slacker college. Back when I was CLEPping out of courses (I took AP courses all through high school) I was told that I still had to take # of credits in the subjects I CLEPped, I just got to choose which ones.

On the other hand, having a BMI of over 30 is pretty strong evidence that you are unfit, have deplorable eating habits, and don't exercise. If your BMI is that high as far as I'm concerned your unfit until proven otherwise.

Except that by doing so you're enacting punitive measures on an environment that the University itself helps to create (re: the fact it has a KFC on campus).
If they're going to act puntively, then they should, at the very least, not provide the tools which will cause those attending the school to be punished.

Newsflash: you can actually eat KFC, McDonald's, and other fast food WITHOUT becoming obese. You DO have to exercise self control, which is apparently entirely lacking in some people. When I eat at McDonald's I get a small burger and a small fry and unsweetened tea rather than the McGargantuanObsenity Burger, SuperHugeFries, and GallonOfHCFS. Ditto for all the others. People just can't be bothered to have self-discipline, though, and they then blame their problems on everything BUT their poor decision making.

To turn that around in a hypothetical way, is it ok to target racist acts to say... a full blooded black man over... Tiger Woods?
After all, Tiger is only a little black, while the full blooded black man is a LOT black.

See why that kind of thinking can be considered discriminatory?

No. You can't change your race. You CAN change your weight and fitness. This is not discrimination based upon an inflexible destiny. No one is born obese. Even people who have been obese a long time can lose weight and become fit. If you CHOOSE to remain obese that is your choice. Don't whine when that choice has consequences.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that people need to do more to take care of themselves, but I don't believe that forcing them into a class because their BMI is too high is the correct approach, especially when some people will just as easily slide back into bad habits once they don't have to do it.

So what superior approach would you suggest? One which is presumably immune to backsliding, hence validating your criticism of this idea?

These aren't grade schoolers that need mollycoddling we're talking about after all.

The fact that they aren't grade-schoolers does not mean they don't need mollycoddling. High school students vastly overestimate their own maturity.

[wolveraptor]

These aren't grade schoolers that need mollycoddling we're talking about after all.

The fact that they aren't grade-schoolers does not mean they don't need mollycoddling. High school students vastly overestimate their own maturity.

Perhaps the issue is more that they can't be mollycoddled because they have the option to transfer and/or sue. A primary school student wouldn't have that option, nor the mindset necessary to do so. They'd probably be much more receptive to the plan this college is implementing, and it'd probably be a lot more effective at instilling good habits in the long run.

[AMT]

Or maybe people should get the fuck over the idea that exercise and eating properly is punishment. It's not.

You're right. It's not. Which is why this should be a universal class rather than a discriminatory one. After all, even people with BMI lower than 30 can use more education on healthy habits, can't they?

By that argument even the best math student should be enrolled in remedial math, and
native speakers of English should be taking English as a Second Language classes.

Quick question: why should students take English as a second language? The US doesn't require people to know English at all, and from my experience, knowing English is not a requirement to join a college, though the benefits would be great, obviously.

Anyways, a more apt comparision would be that those who can't do a certain aspect of math, no matter how good or bad they are at other areas of math needs remedial math.
As a comparision, BMI is one aspect of healthy living, while... multiplication is one aspect of math.
By your reasoning, anyone who can do multiplication but can't do say... addition, subtraction, division etc. won't need remedial math, but if they can't multiply, into the class they go!
By focusing on only those who are above BMI 30 you do the same thing.

I'm sorry - if you're obese you are deficient in taking care of yourself. I'm sorry if that pinches anyone's ass, but it's a fact.

No one's arguing that it's not. The issue here is that they're focusing on one narrow aspect and ignoring the others, while also not doing anything else to help maintain healthy attitudes on campus.

As you stated earlier, it's not a punishment for people to learn habits. So why not make it a universal requirement, so everyone can benefit? Otherwise, it can be seen as a punitive member against the fatties, and a case can be made for discrimination.

Quite a few schools either maintain no smoking areas on campus and in dorms or are entirely no smoking. If you go to a Christian college you may well be required to take sex education courses. Loyola University in Chicago is a Catholic college and religious classes are mandatory for people of all faiths or lack of faith. If you don't like the requirements of the school pick a different school.

The important emphasis there is that it's mandatory for all students, regardless of their affiliation. Again, I see no problem with that. I have an issue by being discriminatory towards a group, say... forcing atheists into Christian indoctrination classes, as an example.
If it's a blanket requirement, fine. If it's forced on a narrow population while completely ignoring anything else that can benefit from the class or should use it (in the case of PE, everyone who is physically capable), then it's not.

Then either things have changed a LOT since I got my degree, or you went to a slacker college. Back when I was CLEPping out of courses (I took AP courses all through high school) I was told that I still had to take # of credits in the subjects I CLEPped, I just got to choose which ones.

I would suspect the former, as the school I went to is generally considered one of the best in the region (according to US News and Weekly Reports anyway), though that is neither here nor there regarding the fact that CLEP can count as college credit.

No. You can't change your race. You CAN change your weight and fitness. This is not discrimination based upon an inflexible destiny. No one is born obese. Even people who have been obese a long time can lose weight and become fit. If you CHOOSE to remain obese that is your choice. Don't whine when that choice has consequences.

What about those who choose to engage in premartial sex? What about those who choose to be athiest? If you force people to take a class base on their personal choices, then that is discrimination, especially when its a class that can be beneficial to everyone, not just people in that narrow range.

[Lusankya]

Quick question: why should students take English as a second language? The US doesn't require people to know English at all, and from my experience, knowing English is not a requirement to join a college, though the benefits would be great, obviously.

Pretty much any university has the language of teaching as a requirement to join. Native speakers are assumed to already have competence, which is why you may have not known that it was a requirement, but people from countries that don't speak the local language have to prove their competence. In the US, colleges usually want a score of about 75-85 in TOEFL (out of 120), while in Australia, the favoured test is IELTS, and universities usually require a band score of 6-5-7.0 (out of 9).

As you stated earlier, it's not a punishment for people to learn habits. So why not make it a universal requirement, so everyone can benefit? Otherwise, it can be seen as a punitive member against the fatties, and a case can be made for discrimination.

If they didn't want to take the course, then the fatties have had three years in which to lose the weight. They have also had three years in which to take the matter up with the faculty, but it seems that it's only now that they're bitching about it - maybe because it has finally occurred to them that the have to get off their fat asses. If they enter a university that states as one of its requirements "In addition to this, you must meet condition X by graduation, or take a remedial class", then you have a choice to either meet condition X by graduation, or take the remedial class. It's not as though the university's BMI standards are that high, either, so they can't complain that it's an unreasonable expectation.

[AMT]

Pretty much any university has the language of teaching as a requirement to join. Native speakers are assumed to already have competence, which is why you may have not known that it was a requirement, but people from countries that don't speak the local language have to prove their competence. In the US, colleges usually want a score of about 75-85 in TOEFL (out of 120), while in Australia, the favoured test is IELTS, and universities usually require a band score of 6-5-7.0 (out of 9).

Huh, learn something new every day. Thanks for the info!

If they didn't want to take the course, then the fatties have had three years in which to lose the weight. They have also had three years in which to take the matter up with the faculty, but it seems that it's only now that they're bitching about it - maybe because it has finally occurred to them that the have to get off their fat asses. If they enter a university that states as one of its requirements "In addition to this, you must meet condition X by graduation, or take a remedial class", then you have a choice to either meet condition X by graduation, or take the remedial class. It's not as though the university's BMI standards are that high, either, so they can't complain that it's an unreasonable expectation.

None of this changes the fact that the class is discriminatory based on the reasons I stated above. Using your argument with my parallels, the atheists had three years to take Jesus Christ as their savior, etc. etc.

So far I've not seen one argument that holds water stating why it's ok to force one aspect of people to take a class regardless of any other criteria, when there can be others who don't have this aspect who might need the class just as much, or more, and it's a class that benefits anyone who takes it.

[Darth Wong]

So far I've not seen one argument that holds water stating why it's ok to force one aspect of people to take a class regardless of any other criteria, when there can be others who don't have this aspect who might need the class just as much, or more, and it's a class that benefits anyone who takes it.

You're full of shit. It's actually not unusual to give students a pass on courses if they can establish that they are already qualified in some way. If this course is intended to address weight control problems, and people don't have weight control problems, then it makes perfect sense to discriminate in favour of people who already have that problem under control. The word "discriminate" does not automatically mean "wrong", fucktard.

[Lusankya]

You are missing the point where not being a obese lard-ass (unlike being a Christian or being a Republican) is a skill, and not a state of being or a religion. The evaluation is basically a screening test to see whether or not the person needs extra training to meet the school's requirements. Sure, there are other ways that a student can be unhealthy, but obesity is the most common, the easiest to test for and is one that is easiest for them to run a course to counter.

As long as they give the students adequate warning so that the students can obtain the necessary skill in their own time before being forced to take the course, I don't see any problem with it.

[AMT]

You are missing the point where not being a obese lard-ass (unlike being a Christian or being a Republican) is a skill, and not a state of being or a religion. The evaluation is basically a screening test to see whether or not the person needs extra training to meet the school's requirements. Sure, there are other ways that a student can be unhealthy, but obesity is the most common, the easiest to test for and is one that is easiest for them to run a course to counter.

Which changes the fact that such a class using such criteria is still discriminatory how, based on what I stated above?

Again, I see no argument that supports not making this a mandatory class rather then a punitive one based on one criteria and ignoring all others.

As long as they give the students adequate warning so that the students can obtain the necessary skill in their own time before being forced to take the course, I don't see any problem with it.

Except that, again, by doing so you discriminate against a specific group, blantantly ignoring any and all other factors along those lines, especially in a class which would benefit anyone taking it.

Again, so far I haven't seen one argument which shows why this class couldn't be mandatory, and why it's ok to discriminate against a specific segment of the population while ignoring any and all other factors.

[Darth Wong]

STOP acting as if the word "discriminate" automatically makes something wrong, asshole. This is not something the person has no control over. Is it also wrong that I didn't have to take basic English courses when I went to university, since I am already fluent? Surely even fluent English-speakers could still potentially use a refresher course, right? By your idiot logic, 100% of students should be forced to take the same basic English courses as the ESL immigrants.

[Lusankya]

Some universities in China require a certain level of Mandarin before students can graduate. If not, they have to take mandatory classes and resit the test until their level is adequate. Han Chinese do not have to worry about this requirement.

Is this discriminatory?

Well, obviously it is, but do you consider it to be unreasonable discrimination?

[Broomstick]

Or maybe people should get the fuck over the idea that exercise and eating properly is punishment. It's not.

You're right. It's not. Which is why this should be a universal class rather than a discriminatory one. After all, even people with BMI lower than 30 can use more education on healthy habits, can't they?

Not necessarily. If you're at a good weight then obviously you've got the hang of balancing eating and activity. As to what constitutes a healthy diet, that covers a wide range of possibilities as there is no one perfect diet.

By focusing on the obese the university is putting resources to those most in need. By your reasoning everyone could use more math... but no one is forced to take math beyond a certain extent. If they choose to take more math, great, but once you meet certain requirements it's not required. Likewise, in this case if you meet a certain standard - and a BMI under 30 is a very minimal standard! - you are not forced to take more classes in this area. You can take more courses to improve your health, but only those in need of "remedial health" have to. Once they meet the requirement of a BMI under 30 they, too, will no longer have to take further classes in this area.

Quick question: why should students take English as a second language? The US doesn't require people to know English at all, and from my experience, knowing English is not a requirement to join a college, though the benefits would be great, obviously.

If you live in the US and don't know English you ARE at a huge disadvantage. English may not be the official language, but it is the de facto language of government, commerce, and business.

And, as Luysanka pointed out, universities and colleges DO have language requirements, and for the vast majority in the US that is English. If you don't meet certain language requirements you simply won't be admitted. Or you may be required to take remedial classes prior to starting your intended course work for a degree.

I'm sorry - if you're obese you are deficient in taking care of yourself. I'm sorry if that pinches anyone's ass, but it's a fact.

No one's arguing that it's not. The issue here is that they're focusing on one narrow aspect and ignoring the others, while also not doing anything else to help maintain healthy attitudes on campus.

Actually, there is no mention of what might or might not being done besides this. Perhaps the campus has banned smoking. Perhaps the campus has walking trails and bike racks to encourage transportation that is also exercise. When I was in college we have mandatory attendance at seminars on protecting yourself/safety, alcohol use and abuse, and various other "health" topics.

In fact, on checking their website, while they do have KFC on campus they also have a salad bar, offer fresh fruits at every meal time, steamed vegetables, and other healthy fare. These people are not being force-fed fast food, they do have healthy choices. They have a "smart market" serving solely vegetarian food (no guarantee of healthiness, but usually so). So the idea that these students have no choice but to gorge on greasy, deep-fried fast food does not match the reality on their campus.

Their dining service also has links to nutrition information, a dietitian, and other health services open to all the school students.

As you stated earlier, it's not a punishment for people to learn habits. So why not make it a universal requirement, so everyone can benefit? Otherwise, it can be seen as a punitive member against the fatties, and a case can be made for discrimination.

Why do you assume people who are maintaining a normal weight need a class on eating better and maintaining a health weight? Are they not demonstrating that ability/habit already?

The important emphasis there is that it's mandatory for all students, regardless of their affiliation. Again, I see no problem with that. I have an issue by being discriminatory towards a group, say... forcing atheists into Christian indoctrination classes, as an example.
If it's a blanket requirement, fine. If it's forced on a narrow population while completely ignoring anything else that can benefit from the class or should use it (in the case of PE, everyone who is physically capable), then it's not.

The requirement is graduating with a BMI less than 30. That applies to ALL students. The only students being singled out are those who, after several years, have not accomplished that goal on their own and will need help to reach it.

C'mon - there are people with Prader-Willi Syndrome who manage to keep a BMI under 30. Allegedly normal individuals should be able to do the same.

No. You can't change your race. You CAN change your weight and fitness. This is not discrimination based upon an inflexible destiny. No one is born obese. Even people who have been obese a long time can lose weight and become fit. If you CHOOSE to remain obese that is your choice. Don't whine when that choice has consequences.

What about those who choose to engage in premartial sex? What about those who choose to be athiest?

There are colleges that forbid premarital sex and who require that you be Christian to attend. These requirements are legal if disclosed prior to admission. If you do not like those requirements go to a different school. No one is forced to go college, or to a particular college.

LU of Pennsylvania requires you to graduate with a BMI under 30. If you don't like that go elsewhere.

If you force people to take a class base on their personal choices, then that is discrimination, especially when its a class that can be beneficial to everyone, not just people in that narrow range.

You know, I'm tired of arguing this bullshit. If you're too stupid to understand the difference between racial discrimination and simply eating more than you should while not moving enough to maintain a less than obese body I just don't feel like explaining it to you. That's like saying giving people who choose to drive too fast speeding tickets is discrimination. If you go to a school that requires you to graduate with a BMI under 30 then having to take a "remedial health class" to meet that requirement is not discrimination, it's a consequence of your failure to meet a commitment.

[Broomstick]

Except that, again, by doing so you discriminate against a specific group, blantantly ignoring any and all other factors along those lines, especially in a class which would benefit anyone taking it.

Demonstrate that this class would benefit ANYONE taking it. Seriously. In fact, let's use myself as an example. I have maintained the exact same body weight (+/- about 5 pounds, which is a normal weight fluctuation over the course of a month for a woman of reproductive years) for thirty years. This body weight works out to a BMI of 25, which is considered in the "normal" range. I've also maintained the exact same height, but I think we all recognize that maintaining height is a hell of a lot easier than maintaining weight Tell me - what could this class possibly teach me? Could I do better than maintaining the same body weight for 30 years? What fucking point would there be in my taking it? Shouldn't I be able to "CLEP out" of that class, having demonstrated a superior ability to maintain my weight for three decades?

Again, so far I haven't seen one argument which shows why this class couldn't be mandatory, and why it's ok to discriminate against a specific segment of the population while ignoring any and all other factors.

Why SHOULD it be mandatory? Again, it's like arguably that fluent, native speakers need to take ESL courses. That's bullshit.

The "discrimination" is a consequence of poor decision making, not innate traits. See again what Mike said about discrimination.

[AMT]

STOP acting as if the word "discriminate" automatically makes something wrong, asshole. This is not something the person has no control over. Is it also wrong that I didn't have to take basic English courses when I went to university, since I am already fluent? Surely even fluent English-speakers could still potentially use a refresher course, right? By your idiot logic, 100% of students should be forced to take the same basic English courses as the ESL immigrants.

Except that we're discussing college students, not people wanting to immigrate to a country. Two completely different groups. In addition, my logic does not state that everyone could benefit from an English as a Second language class.

You are trying to strawman me saying that everyone can benefit from physical education into saying that I believe that everyone can use "remedial" classes in every single aspect of every single facet of life. I am not

I am only saying that it is discriminatory and even stupid to force one specific group to take this class when everyone can benefit from it, especially groups which are considered to be unhealthy which are ignored by this single, specific, criteria. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some universities in China require a certain level of Mandarin before students can graduate. If not, they have to take mandatory classes and resit the test until their level is adequate. Han Chinese do not have to worry about this requirement.

Is this discriminatory?

Well, obviously it is, but do you consider it to be unreasonable discrimination?

Again, apples to oranges. Physical and nutrtional edjucation, as well as exercise, provide tangible benefits for everyone who participate. Language is subjectionally beneficial.

[Darth Wong]

STOP acting as if the word "discriminate" automatically makes something wrong, asshole. This is not something the person has no control over. Is it also wrong that I didn't have to take basic English courses when I went to university, since I am already fluent? Surely even fluent English-speakers could still potentially use a refresher course, right? By your idiot logic, 100% of students should be forced to take the same basic English courses as the ESL immigrants.

Except that we're discussing college students, not people wanting to immigrate to a country. Two completely different groups. In addition, my logic does not state that everyone could benefit from an English as a Second language class.

Wrong, asshole. I was talking about university students at my university who were required to take basic English classes if they did not appear to be proficient already. What are you, a goddamned retard? What part of "when I went to university" are you too goddamned stupid to understand?

You are trying to strawman me saying that everyone can benefit from physical education into saying that I believe that everyone can use "remedial" classes in every single aspect of every single facet of life. I am not

Wrong, asshole. I'm saying that you think it's always wrong 100% of the time to discriminate against anyone in terms of which courses they're expected to take. This is the second time you have grossly misrepresented my argument, asshole. How much of this do you expect me to tolerate?

[AMT]

Except that, again, by doing so you discriminate against a specific group, blantantly ignoring any and all other factors along those lines, especially in a class which would benefit anyone taking it.

Demonstrate that this class would benefit ANYONE taking it. Seriously. In fact, let's use myself as an example. I have maintained the exact same body weight (+/- about 5 pounds, which is a normal weight fluctuation over the course of a month for a woman of reproductive years) for thirty years. This body weight works out to a BMI of 25, which is considered in the "normal" range. I've also maintained the exact same height, but I think we all recognize that maintaining height is a hell of a lot easier than maintaining weight Tell me - what could this class possibly teach me? Could I do better than maintaining the same body weight for 30 years? What fucking point would there be in my taking it? Shouldn't I be able to "CLEP out" of that class, having demonstrated a superior ability to maintain my weight for three decades?

One: Healthy lifestyles require more then maintaining a healthy weight. You can be at a low BMI yet still be unhealthy. Learning new techniques in this is beneficial.

And exercise, another regular component of PE classes, is beneficial to everyone who can safely physically participate.

There you go, two things that can benefit you.
Also, weight/BMI is not the only criteria to what makes one "healthy", which is part of the point I've been trying to make.

Why SHOULD it be mandatory? Again, it's like arguably that fluent, native speakers need to take ESL courses. That's bullshit.

Except as I stated above, comparing one to the other doesn't work.

The "discrimination" is a consequence of poor decision making, not innate traits. See again what Mike said about discrimination.

And see again my response on this.

[AMT]

Wrong, asshole. I was talking about university students at my university who were required to take basic English classes if they did not appear to be proficient already. What are you, a goddamned retard? What part of "when I went to university" are you too goddamned stupid to understand?

I apologize for misreading that. It happens.

However, you only attack the first part of my statement, while ignoring the point I made where ESL classes are situationally beneficial while nutrtion eduction and exercise can benefit everyone.

Wrong, asshole. I'm saying that you think it's always wrong 100% of the time to discriminate against anyone in terms of which courses they're expected to take. This is the second time you have grossly misrepresented my argument, asshole. How much of this do you expect me to tolerate?

Actually no, I'm not misrepresenting you. Please point out the specific part where I said that discrimination is always wrong and I will concede that point. I said that discrimination in this specific case is wrong, due to the points I've said repeatedly throughout this thread.