I'm sure we're going to agree to disagree, which is fine. Besides, it's looking more and more like a moot point.
For me saying black students' lives are being devalued means that the decision is being made knowing it will disproportionately affect BIPOC people and making the decision anyway because you value their lives less than white people. In other words, race is a factor in the decision. Or that white students are being given some advantage in this arrangement that BIPOC students will not get.
Two other items. First, if the point is to say an unintended side effect of this policy is that the people who may suffer from this are predominantly BIPOC, then what do all the intentionally racist actions universities took in the past have to do with it? Bringing those up implies it is yet another intentional slight by the universities, which I don't believe for a second. Instead, the author should have pointed out policies where unintended consequences disproportionately affected BIPOC students.
Second, if less than half the students were BIPOC and the same decisions were made, would it devalue their lives? What about less than 10%? What if there were only 2?
In the end, the question comes up - should a different decision be made simply because more students are BIPOC? If the answer is no, then it's not fair to say BIPOC lives are being devalued.
I don't think the majority of football players, all three divisions, are black. It may be 50/50 in Division I, but basically's it's not a black/white thing, it's a public health issue. It will be strange to see some teams playing a spring schedule and the Power Five not. They could fit in a 10-game schedule in March-May - I wish they would.