October, 2003- In the just-published book, Reclaiming the Game, former Princeton University President William G. Bowen and former All-American collegiate athlete Sara Levin say the core educational missions of academically selective schools are being threatened by the manner in which athletics has become imbedded within the institutional structure of higher education. They point to a significant admissions advantage for athletes whose names appear on coaches’ recruitment lists, consistent underperformance by such athletes in the classroom and, in many cases, patterns of social behavior that set them apart from their fellow students. They offer a number of recommendations for reform, including a reduction in the number of recruited athletes; raising the academic standards for those who are recruited; monitoring the academic performance of those who are accepted; encouraging athletic participation by non-recruited "walk-on" students; and hiring and evaluating coaches based on their overall performance as teachers, not merely on their win-loss record. They also suggest establishing a new national-level reorganization of Division III institutions -- preferably operating within the NCAA -- with membership based on a commitment to an athletic program well-balanced with educational values.
This summer, members of the NCAA Division III Presidents Council proposed a reform package following a two-year analysis of the division's policies and practices. Their goal was to determine the proper role athletics programs should play in the future education of Division III student-athletes. An oversight group composed of members of the Management Council and Presidents Council originally targeted five areas for reform: financial aid, membership, eligibility and recruiting, playing and practice seasons, and championships, with changes proposed in every area except championships. The majority of the reform package was supported unanimously, though disagreement has surfaced about those sections regarding scholarships by Division III institutions in sports classified in other divisions and red-shirting.
Richard L. Torgerson
President of Luther College and Chair of the President’s Council, Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
(563) 387-1527
marschka@luther.edu
Why all the fuss about a national reorganization of Division III? Is it because athletics no longer function within the mission of some D-III institutions? Is it because there is an athletic arms race in D-III related to the way student athletes are recruited?
The issues Division III is facing -- including the length of seasons, scope of championships, red-shirting, eligibility, and recruiting -- can be resolved within the current D-III framework. And just as other NCAA divisions are breaking some myths, such as “athletics are the road to riches” (or the road to ruin), we must dispel widespread notions that D-III institutions bend the rules, particularly when it comes to giving admissions advantages to gifted athletes. Division III must create an assessment process to garner the facts, and as presidents, we must be vigilant in ensuring that institutional financial aid is not inappropriately used to build our institutions’ reputations.
Peter T. Mitchell
President of Albion College
(517) 629-0210
ptmitchell@albion.edu
Having attended the NCAA national meeting and watched the maneuvering to derail the initiatives offered by Bowen and Levin, I believe it's time to rein in an activity that has become anti-intellectual in tone and works at cross-purposes with the core mission of a liberal arts college. The original D-III philosophy, with its focus on balancing athletics with academics, but also with performing arts, undergraduate research, and campus organizations, must be reaffirmed.
Albion College supports efforts to force a choice: either regain what Bowen calls "the love of the game" as a valuable enhancement to an intellectually rigorous undergraduate experience or reorganize the 100-150 liberal arts colleges of the 430 D-III members into a legitimate D-III and ask the others to choose between D-I or D-II. The reclaimed D-III should advance the tenets of healthy competition, good sportsmanship, and leadership development. Only the presidents are empowered to make these changes. The proverbial ball is in our court.
R. Stanton Hales
President of The College of Wooster
(330) 263-2311
shales@wooster.edu
Although Division III encompasses a great variety of institutions in terms of size, geographic location, athletic tradition, and curricular focus, there is supposed to be near-uniformity in athletic philosophy. The purpose of intercollegiate athletics in D-III is not to win championships but to provide a wide range of competitive opportunities that complement but do not conflict with the primary academic purpose of college. Reclaiming the Game illustrates that the Division's practices are increasingly at odds with this philosophy. It is time to reclaim D-III's original purpose, first by energetic attempts to pass the legislative reform package at the 2004 NCAA convention in January, and second, if this is unsuccessful, by realigning into a new grouping in which all members act fully in accordance with this philosophy.
Richard F. Celeste
President of Colorado College
(719) 389-6700
lellis@coloradocollege.edu
The NCAA, which is proposing legislation that will not allow Colorado College and seven other institutions to offer financial aid to student-athletes who compete in Division I programs, may not realize the disadvantages we face compared to our peer Division I institutions. We are not allowed to hold committee positions in Division I. We do not receive any portion of the Division I championship monetary disbursement, or the annual Academic Enhancement payout to all Division I programs, or Division I funding for Sport Sponsorship, or Division I Grant-in-Aid funding, or access to the Student-Athlete Special Assistance Fund. Every time our students take the ice or field, we carry this added burden. Why? Because we believe in the values that underpin the Division III philosophy. Our Division I and III student-athletes take the same classes and receive the same treatment as other students-and they cheer for each other's success.
Dale Rogers Marshall
President of Wheaton College
(508) 286-8244
mgraca@wheatoncollege.edu
Wheaton College (Mass.) supports the NCAA Presidents Council and Management Council proposal for reform in Division III athletics that will be voted on at this January's NCAA convention. The presidents in our league, the NEWMAC, have also started to provide leadership for reform.
New rules are a necessary step in reforming college sports, but they won't be successful without fundamental cultural changes on America's campuses. The problems identified by William Bowen and Sara Levin, and by the NCAA itself, are real. However, many schools like Wheaton have not slid down the slippery slope examined in Bowen and Levin's book. We manage to keep athletics in better balance, viewing it as an opportunity to reinforce the important values of teamwork, discipline, ethical competition and respect for others. We resist the pressure to win at all costs, instead emphasizing coaches' primary role as educators, and operating study programs and mentoring to underscore that academics come first.
While the pressure to ratchet up the emphasis on sports continues, presidents, athletic directors, faculty, alumni and trustees all have a responsibility to push back, to insure that we enroll scholar-athletes not athletes.
Katherine Haley Will
President of Whittier College
(562) 907-4201
president@whittier.edu
The book Reclaiming the Game serves as an excellent catalyst for reflection on the proper place of intercollegiate athletics on a college campus. We at Whittier College firmly believe that athletic skill and academic excellence need not be mutually exclusive. We embrace the NCAA Division III philosophy, which is that athletics contribute to the educational mission of the institution. In our liberal arts setting, participation in athletics encourages students to develop the physical, social and emotional skills necessary to cultivate both a sound mind and sound body.
Authors Bowen and Levin offer a number of valuable insights. However, I look with caution at the sweeping reforms they suggest at the institutional, conference and national level. I believe that with proper presidential oversight and sound athletic leadership, we can continue to achieve proper, well-balanced co-circular programming in athletics while not compromising the educational values that we hold in high regard.
Click here for more statements
|
