looe oo>\

ED-SPORTS, 7/13/88, ELB/lsm

EDUCATION DAILY Consensus Topic #4: College Athletics

Ernest L. Bayer

In 1929, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching—pi^^red a report entitle^A^ayican College Athletics.

hat h/gher education was being poisoned by a corrupt

and corrupting system. In speaking about the destructive

influence of big-time athletics, the report said: "More than any

other force, athletics have tended to distort the values of

college life and to increase its emphasis on the material and the

monetary. Indeed, at no point in the educational process has

commercialism in college athletics wrought more mischief than in

rifii'** ul u i> uf Lhiji ji'̂ poi- L ni.e as djjJ. ^ . if iluil wuiub ui Li.i Jyjiepogt uie dz> d^L j.uif{Ty aj va l'j^. -/Xjl. aJAJZLji + /x_ Si +rjc*£> k f C

zmjzi -.̂ r ~ ~— -—1 : • ii • a e ^ c ^ g ^ f ^ ^ , Ofespite a

numbii uf iLiitBl ooandai»p in rn "lingo a Lius, xgollege and-high

school coaches still go- tog ii: it. recruiting athletes — fi * ' recruitmg atnietes -*or i

bhat—yggy, colleges^sper v ax city pas grams. It is estimated L-hafc—!jps«y, colleges spend

about $500 million each year to recruit athletes. The college

athlete begins^his career before he gets to college?

^ undergraduate athletes are recruited to serve as fodder for a r t*? ~t .*- j

competitive machine that pleases -the—siusmi-andcorporate jlc: "

boosters, but, violates the integrity of the college and has

little, if anything, to do with education.

ED-SPORTS, 7/13/8 8, ELB/lsm 2

It may well be that college athletes should be paid for

their efforts, if the present system is maintained. Eighty years

ago, the former president of Stanford, David Starr Jordan

proposed just such a system when he said: "Let the football team

be frankly professional. Cast off all the deception. Get the

best professional coach. Pay him well and let him have the best

the town and the alumni will pay for. Let the teams struggle in

perfectly honest warfare, known for what it is and with no

masquerade of amateruism or academic ideas. The evil in current

football rests not in the hired men, but in academic lying and in

the falsification of our own standards as associations of

scholars and men of honor.*

I support the imposition of minimum academic standards for

college athletes, and the National Collegiate Athletic

Association (NCAA) and institutions themselves have taken some

important steps in this area. The Carnegie Foundation has also

proposed that when serious athletic violations are discovered,

the accreditation status of the institution should be revoked—

along with eligibility status for the NCAA. I would also

recommend that freshmen be ineligible for varsity sports.

More than rule-changing and tinkering is needed, however. A

response shaped solely by more regulation and stiffer penalties

will not, in the end, make a decisive difference in the quality

of the undergraduate experience for the college athlete or on the

campus as a whole. Administrators and faculty must assert

greater leadership and demonstrate that they care what happens to

student athletes off the playing field. Perhaps the time has

ED-SPORTS, 7/13/88, ELB/lsm 3

come for faculty at universities engaged in big-time athletics to

organize a day of protest, setting aside a time to examine how

the purpose of the universities are being subverted and the

integrity is lost. Further, the Board of Trustees have an

absolutely critical role to play in stopping the corruption of

big-time sports.

School and higher education officials can help to ensure

that their athletes receive a quality education by shifting

priorities from destructive competition for the few to health

related programs for the many. The physical well-being of every

student should be viewed as an important and sacred obligation.

Every college should develop a comprehensive, well-supported

program of intramural sports. Again, this theme is stressed in

the 1929 Carnegie report, when then-^Foundation president Henry

Pritchett recommended that, *« . .inter-college and intramural

sports be brought back to the stage in which they can be enjoyed

by large numbers of students and where they do not involve an

expenditure of time and money wholly at variance with any ideal

of honest study.® f ' o, , > ^ - - -T

Intercollegiate sports should be organized and operated to

serve.student "athletes, not the institution. Success in class

must be the most important objective. Indeed, the time has come

for everyone who cares about the future of higher education, not

only to oppose the abuses of big-time athletics but more

importantly, to urge a larger vision on the campus.

Page 2

4. Do college, two—year college, or even high school, coaches go too far in recruiting athletes for their varsity programs? Should schools, and/or athletes, be barred from competition if they do not maintain minimum grade point average or graduation rates? Should college athletes be paid for their efforts? Is the traditional scholar/athlete a thing of the past? Do you favor minimum grade point average standards for high school and college athletes? Have recent NCAA eligibility regulations made junior and community colleges mere weigh stations for athletes looking to beef up their grades? How can school and higher education administrators ensure that their athletes receive a quality education? (DUE July 15).

5. Have schools integrated handicapped and nonhandicapped students as well as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, prescribes? If not, what can schools do to achieve such integration, both for mildly and severely handicapped students, within the constraints of individualized edu-cation programs required by P.L. 94-142? Is the Law's least restrictive environment provision given too much emphasis at the expense of weighing certain students' individual needs? Besides eliminating structural barriers, how can higher educators ensure that handicapped college students are afforded the same education opportunities as nonhandicapped students? (DUE Sept. 15).

6. Are standardized teas, aich as the American College Testing (ACT) program and she Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), or even the standard IQ test, biased against minority students? Should they be used to determine a student's acceptance to, or placement within, a higher education institution? What are some ways educators can more accurately assess a student's knowledge or aptitude? (DUE Nov. 15).

I have arranged to extend your subscription to Education Daily for one year at no charge. If you have any problems receiving the newsletter, please contact me and I will take care of it personally. Thank you agin for agreeing to participate in the Consensus. If you have any questions or suggestions for improving the feature, please call me.

Sincerely,

Executive Editor Education Daily