WHO PLAYS?

March 12, 1999

A federal judge has struck down NCAA rules setting academic requirements for incoming freshmen student athletes. This leaves each school to set its own requirements. Cedric Dempsey, President of the NCAA; and Jeffrey Sammons, a professor of History at New York University whose research focuses on the intersection of sport and race, gender and class issues, discuss the impact of the old rules and of the court decision on college athletics.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: College sports and academic standards, and to Phil Ponce. PHIL PONCE: Sports fans are mad about March again. It's the NCAA College Basketball Tournament, an annual rite of spring, a time for highlight reels -- office wagers, and bragging rights for the last team standing on the hardwood floor later this month in St. Petersburg, Florida. But off the court, there's another battle going on in college sports, one over academic standards for student athletes. It's a debate that's been going on for 13 years. In 1986, the NCAA set minimum thresholds for all incoming freshmen athletes. So-called Proposition 48 required both a 2.0 high school grade-point average, or GPA, in 11 core courses, and either a combined 700 score on the college entrance test known as the SAT, or a 15 on the one known as the ACT. Students below the Prop 48 bar were ineligible to play college sports as freshmen. The goal was to increase graduation rates by preventing colleges from exploiting athletes by playing them, and then letting them leave school having learned little. But there were critics. John Thompson, then-coach of the Georgetown University men's basketball team, and others, argued that the policy did not accurately predict a student's academic future, and discriminated against minority and low-income athletes. In 1989, Thompson protested the policy by walking off the court just before the start of a game. This came a week after the NCAA voted to deny Prop. 48 students athletic scholarships, as well as eligibility. The NCAA reversed the scholarship rule a year later. But the academic cutoffs remained, as did the controversy. In 1996, 310 NCAA schools with the largest sports programs, known as Division I schools, modified Prop 48 and gave it a new name, Proposition 16. Prop 16 still required minimum test scores and grades, but was designed to be more flexible for students who met one standard, but not the other. For example, a student athlete with a 2.0 GPA needed to score at least 1010 on the SAT. But someone with a higher GPA of 2.5 only needed an SAT score of 820. But critics still cried discrimination, and a number of student athletes who claimed to be harmed by Prop 16 filed a class-action lawsuit in 1997. The suit charged that Prop 16 had an unjustifiable disparate impact on African-American student athletes. On Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge in Philadelphia agreed and struck down Prop 16. So for now, just as the NCAA Tournament is underway, each Division I school could decide on its own who gets to play. The NCAA plans to appeal the ruling. Joining me now are Cedric Dempsey, President of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the NCAA, and Jeffrey Sammons, Professor of History at New York University. His areas of research include sports and race. Gentlemen, welcome. PHIL PONCE: Mr. Dempsey, the crux of the judge's objection to the system that the NCAA had in place was the reliance on the standardized tests, the conclusion being that it had - using -- or relying on standardized tests had this despair impact on African-American student athletes. Why was the NCAA using standardized tests? CEDRIC DEMPSEY, President, NCAA: Well, again, it goes back to the basic reason of why we started initial eligibility, as you indicated in the previous introduction, in 1986. There was a feeling at that time that there was a lot of misuse, abuse of student athletes. Many had -- many student athletes were being admitted to higher education who could not read or write. I remember this program running a segment of their news on interviewing athletes who were not able to read. And there was a large hue and cry by the public that we should have higher standards. And the Association, as part of higher education, addressed that issue by looking at certainly the grade point average and looking at minimum test scores. PHIL PONCE: Mr. Dempsey, was Proposition 16 working? Was it helping ensure that student athletes were prepared to succeed in college, or had the capacity to? CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Yes, one of the goals certainly of the initial eligibility standards was to raise graduation rates. And what we have seen since the introduction of Proposition 48 and now with Proposition 16 is that student athletes graduate at a higher rate than the normal student body. PHIL PONCE: Professor Sammons, was that a worthy goal? JEFFREY SAMMONS, New York University: I think that's a worthy goal, but I understand that studies were conducted before Proposition 48 was instituted, and those studies revealed that 47 percent of those African-American athletes who would have graduated would have been denied eligibility under the standards of Proposition 48. Furthermore, the NCAA maintained that before those rules were instituted or enacted that athletes were graduating at a higher rate than the non-athletic student body. So I'm concerned about the use of a cutoff score on a standardized test to determine eligibility because, not only of the findings of disparate impact but of cultural biases of the tests. These tests are often linked to socioeconomic factors and also, there was no real validating studies to show that these exams predicted anything. And there are serious questions about what the exams actually tell us. At most, they may tell us something about a student's first year success rate, but that's even in question. PHIL PONCE: Mr. Dempsey, how about that, was there, well, an unrealistic reliance on standardized tests as far as their predicting which students might succeed? CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, I think we go back again. There's been a constant issue throughout the initial eligibility debates that we've had since 1986 and actually going back to 1984, and that is the access and opportunities for student athletes versus the ability to project academic success. And that has been a balance that the Association has studied on a regular basis -- actually, the data that was provided by the court -- or to the court and was used by the court in determining that the minimum test score was illegal, from their perspective, they felt our information did not support our existing criteria. And we are in the process of re-evaluating that and do it on an annual basis. Last August, the President's Commission charged our special committee that deals with academic eligibility to review different options. We have four options that are being studied at the present time based upon the accumulated data that we have each year in reviewing this. And it is -- it's a constant issue. The encouraging part of the court decision to me was the acknowledgment that, as an association of higher education, that the NCAA certainly was in its right to have expectations of student athletes to have test scores. What they did disagree with was what was mentioned, that the 820 as a cutoff was illegal. And one of the options that we are studying at this point is really a full-scale, sliding scale, if you will, determination for initial eligibility. PHIL PONCE: So Mr. Dempsey, just to make sure I understand you, one of the options that you have on standby would include continued use of standardized tests but in a slightly, what, relying on them in a slightly different way? CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, on a sliding basis, just like you showed in some of your visuals in introducing this topic, where a student athlete might have a 2.0 average and would need a 1010 -- 820 they would need a 2.5. As you might go down on an SAT score, as an example, the requirement for their GPA would need to go up. And that is a scale that has been supported by many and certainly supported by a Minorities and Opportunities Committee that the Association has. PHIL PONCE: Professor Sammons, do you have a problem with the NCAA using standardized tests in some fashion or to some extent? JEFFREY SAMMONS: I certainly have problems with the SAT. Let me be specific about one of the plaintiffs in that suit. Latree Shaw, University of Miami, who was graduated five in a class of, I believe, 307 from a high school in Philadelphia, had a very high grade point average, but because she scored below 820 was declared ineligible. A student could technically have a 4.0 or a perfect grade point average, be ranked number one in his or her class, and still be ineligible under the current rules of Proposition 16. I would like to say something to - CEDRIC DEMPSEY: We don't have any rule any longer, remember that. Contextualize this, that I see the NCAA is really taking a short cut of a quick fix in trying to deal with a much bigger problem, and I think that is the increasing professionalization and demands of college -- intercollegiate athletics on the student athlete. I see the student athlete as really having a full-time job as a student athlete with the long seasons, with the training periods, sometimes two seasons, weight rooms, all kinds of study about play books and games, et cetera, et cetera. So there really has to be something done to balance the demands of athletics and the demands of education. So I would like to see some serious reform in what has become a big business, a mass entertainment forum that I think has gotten out of control, and one of the reasons why the NCAA instituted the rules with the establishment of the President's Commission in 1983 was because of the out-of-control quality of intercollegiate athletics -- PHIL PONCE: Well, let's get Mr. Dempsey's response to that. Mr. Dempsey, how about that? Are student athletes more akin to employees, who are working for a business, the business of sports, as opposed to athletes in the -- students in the pursuit of academics? JEFFREY SAMMONS: Well, I think not. And I've been in intercollegiate athletics for 48 years now, and I think I've seen the spectrum and range of what has happened in intercollegiate athletics as an athlete and as a teacher, as a researcher, as an administrator and now as president of the national organization. We must keep in mind intercollegiate athletics involves 333,000 young people, and probably the vast majority -- 97 - 98 percent of those people -- are having wonderful educational experiences to enhance their educational development and growth. There is no question that we have in our high-visible sports, in Division I, primarily football and men's basketball, where most of the issues that have been mentioned -- are before us. And we're trying to address those right now. We have a special committee dealing with basketball issues and specifically basketball because that is where many of the problems, in particular with minorities, that's where many of the problems exist. PHIL PONCE: Mr. Dempsey, very quickly, at this point the judge has ruled against you. What is the NCAA going to do? CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, we have some concerns about the ruling, and certainly at this time, because it does place us in somewhat of a chaotic environment if it stands and our stay is not accepted by the courts. We are preparing for student athletes to sign letters of intent on April 7th, and at this point we have now 310 rules of eligibility based on institutions, and that's not fair to the individuals because presently now, they only need to fill out one form that can be used by institutions to determine eligibility. Now they might have 300 - PHIL PONCE: Mr. Dempsey, I'm afraid we're out of time. I thank you. And Professor Sammons, I thank you, as well.