IF THEY CAN FIND THE TIME WITHIN THEIR SCHEDULE TO FIT IT IN, THEY SHOULD DO SO. BUT DO NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THEM IF THEY DO NOT GET TO DO IT.

I've always thought this is a tough call. It's good for student-athletes to support their communities, yet the spirit of the service is compromised if the activity is demanded rather than freely given. That's probably just me, though. Student-athletes seem to be exceptionally generous with their time.

I admire what Division II is doing with its community-engagement effort, by the way. This business of using athletics (and athletes) to make the entire institution more accessible is a fresh approach that should be followed closely.

I think it's a toss-up. On one hand, it's a really great thing these student-athletes are so engaged, but at the core, they are there to get an education and participate in sports. However, there is something to be learned from being a good steward of your community. Those type of life-lessons are hard to mimic in the classroom.

Community engagement should be strictly voluntary. Forced love is not real love and student athletes already have plenty on their shoulders.

Loving for personal gain, or charity for good business, is really more like manipulation. Remember, love is not self seeking. What are you teaching athletes by forcing them to serve? The answer is not character. There will always be students who want to serve, give them the opportunity and they will do it. With good leadership, it can become common culture.

Some students who are forced will become resentful, even (or especially) if they already had the heart to volunteer. Forcing them takes the true meaning out of it and they know it. You also get half-hearted effort out of some, either because they don't want to be there, or because they have so much to do that they don't have time to take care of themselves.

Schools should realize they are part of a bigger picture, that they dynamically exist with and within a community. Community involvement should be a priority; but it should be a strong value, not a rule or forced obligation. Charity should be done because it's the right thing to do.

Generally, I believe most athletes would like to participate in community service. Being an athlete is all about participation. But it should not be forced upon them and I think some coaches go to far with the "I Own You" theory.

Many student-athletes have no idea where their obligation to "give back" ends, and their coaches use these athletes to look good to Administration. There has to be some oversight in this area.

If "giving back" becomes too excessive, in the end, a school could lose very talented student-athletes who opt to transfer because they are mentally and physically exhausted from excessive "giving back." That type of publicity is not good for any school.

Why not have two mandatory community service projects for freshmen -- and if it makes their heart feel good and they enjoy it -- they should continue going on their own or with a group that the university organizes. As Ryan said in this same comment section -- forced love is not real love.

I've always thought the manipulation of making people go to those community service events was sad. People should choose and fully engage in order to call it true service.

athletes take 5 years to graduate often enough - shouldn't they get out of school by cutting back obligations?

I am glad to see the percentage of posters who echo what I have been trying to say for years -"forced volunteerism," some people call it service learning, is an oxymoron.

Anything mandatory is a chore. From our mandated education programming to service learning, all our athletes are learning is how to check off requirements rather than get involved in the experience.

As someone who has worked in a DII athletic department, I have witnessed the positive and negative sides of somewhat "forced" service initiatives. I feel that the student-athetes that really want to do it should do it and the ones that don't shouldn't have to be involved. There are usually enough of the former at each school that the latter should not have to be forced to do something. Because when they are, you can tell that they are just going through the motions, and if anything, that's a disservice. On the other hand, the ones that community service appeals to typically shine bright enough in what they do to cast a positive beacon on the entire athletic program. And that's the real crux of the issue...are departments really sponsoring these loads of community service activities to do good things in the community? Or are they just trying to get some good local publicity in the face of much negative coverage of collegiate athletics by some influential sectors of the media? E.G., I think the five or six members of the swimming team that volunteer to teach weekly swimming lessons to less fortunate children can be a positive enough force to make a real impact on the kids, the community and the campus. Whereas I've seen some members of some teams say things like, "Yeah, I was hoping to sleep in but now we have to go clean up some park on Sunday." I don't really think that is doing a lot of good, even if the park looks a little better than it did before the kids got there. What happens is the kids put on their IPods, sleepwalk around the park for a few hours, grab a few pieces of litter and it's back to the dorms. Not really engaging the community or even each other. But hey, the University probably will get a lot of mileage out of a few photo-ops of their students picking up litter in a nearby park. That's what each athletic department needs to decide: Are we really going to do this the right way, or are we looking for some cheap PR from our scholarship kids?