Coming to a Conclusion

So how far have we come from 1968 to 2011? Has racism been left out of college sports? Do student athletes succeed more or less pass the NCAA?

I think it is safe to say that racism does still exist in the NCAA. But, I don't think that is in relation to proposition 16 or proposition 48. Whether we like it or not stereotypes continue to haunt us all, and it doesn't help that the media surrounds us with false images on a daily basis.

I think a big part of the racist argument for propositions 48 and 16 was that it was trying to leave certain "types" of students out of the chance to receive higher education. But isn't "weeding" people out by grades what we have always done. In high school I know that for myself personally based on my marks I was not allowed into certain "honors" courses. At the time I was offended by these things because I thought I deserved the same opportunity to learn more and learn harder material. But now looking back on that it hasn't really affected me at all. If people want to attend university they have to work really hard to get there, and if you set your mind on something you can achieve it.

I do not believe that setting a higher SAT cut off point and a higher GPA average is racist. I think it is smart. It helps students understand what they are getting themselves into. Although I think that there could be a better system than using the SAT, I do understand why it is implemented (because it is universally the same). Striving for academic excellence is a good thing and I believe that the NCAA is trying to push their future athletes to be the best they can be. The NCAA wants to make sure that when university is over, the students who don't make it to the pro's still go on to be successful professionals in other fields, and if academics are not stressed then that is not possible.

In the past African American students were scoring the lowest on their SAT scores but now its not only that specific population of students. Many different racial groups struggle on the SAT including a percentage of white students. I don't believe the problem is with how smart you are but with how well you can take a standardized test. How can someone say that black students are worse at taking standardized tests than others? I think that is absolutely ridiculous. SAT prep courses are offered at a majority of the high schools in the United States and some are free. Therefore it IS possible for every one to prepare on an equal level.

For the student-athlete today graduation rates are at an all time high! In 2003 almost 80% of all student athletes graduated within the NCAA schools, compared to 76% in 1998. Obviously the regulations that the NCAA are putting in place are helping athletes to succeed on a higher level. I truly believe the proposition 16 and proposition 48 have strived to make EVERY student have a bright future, no matter what race they are. Instead of viewing it as setting standards for freshman student athletes, I think it should be seen as setting GOALS for freshman student athletes. The act of goal setting should be applied to everyone at a young age, in turn instilling drive in young individuals to excel in academics, and create promising futures for themselves.

The President Honors NCAA Student Athletes

I found this video to be very interesting because of how it starts and how it finishes. FIrstly President Obama states that he knows everyone is "proud of all the trophies they brought home this year"...not all the A's they brought home this year, secondly he says that, " you guys attended school while getting up early every morning to put in countless amounts of hours into practices." When he said this I thought he was going to say "countless amounts of hours in class time". So as he starts with an emphasis on athlete he finishes with an emphasis of the future and what you will be after you are an athlete either a doctor or a lawyer, or a nurse, or a mom or a dad he says.

The African American Student Athlete

From a young age many African American boys dream of becoming pro athletes. These dreams are created through media which is constantly telling them that "black men can jump". In history, African Americans have been known to be incredible athletes, some of the most famous athletes to this day are African American such as, Isiah Thomas, Carmelo Anthony, Bo Jackson, Reggie White, Arthur Ashe and Althea Gibson. A lot of the times it seems that success=sports is driven into these young kids minds therefore striving to become pro is what they think is the best thing out there. Instead of believing that they can become doctors, or lawyers they believe that being pro is the only way to success.

The fact that black males are continuously being recruited to universities at young ages, and according to the NCAA if you are 19 and have graduated high school you are eligible to be drafted into the NBA, the drive to excel academically is lower. Therefore some high school students dont even think about the NCAA they only think about the pros, and in that case education is thrown out the window. Going back to previous research I think it would be very smart if students were not allowed to play sports in their freshmen year; it would help their understanding of why they are attending higher education in the first place and would allow them to become fully immersed in the study body and culture.

Within higher education institutions things start to get skewed on certain levels. In some schools teachers or professors are required to give updates about their student athletes performances in class. They are given sheets to fill out accessing the students in class participation,attendance, overall attentiveness, and marks on assignments. Singling out the student athlete in this way is unfair because how can professors keep track of all students especially in large lecture classes. Some professors in large lectures dont even take attendance. Right away the student athlete is segregated from the rest of the class, putting them in a different lime light. Sometimes when student-athletes receive special attention or teachers are told to give them special attention, teachers automatically assume that something is wrong or dysfunctional with the student. Therefore this segregates them even more. Due to this some students in the class become bitter because now an idea has been in place that some students are more or less important than others.

Due to their athletic abilities African American Studies are treated differently within the classroom. Sometimes they are given special privileges and other times they are not treated with the same amount of respect as other student athletes. Since being a NCAA athlete is like being a super star many of these kids gain lots of attention from their peers, teachers, and obviously coaches. A lot of this attention is positive praise about athletic performance. Instead of teachers focusing on praise about games they should focus on helping their students with academics. It just goes to show that even faculty can be thrown off by their star power.

Black men have been notoriously stereotyped as phenomenal athletes. "To help sustain the American "racial status-quo" (Davis, 1990, p.180), the I.Q myth (Jensen, 1969), and the promotion of sociobiology (Alper, 1978), the over-representation of young black males in revenue-generating college sports can be used to rationalize the existence of social and racial stratification. In turn, institutional patterns and policies emerge in higher education which act to absolve the comparatively lower graduation rate of black vis-a-vis white student-athletes (Wiley, 1991). Such patterns and practices can stem from what Knowles and Prewitt (1969) define as institutionalized racism." (Clarence Spigner)

African American students should not just be measured and applauded for their athletic capabilities they should be encouraged to work hard on and off the field. If academics were stressed as success instead of sports I think the dreams of many student athletes would change.

African American Student Athletes: academic support or institutionalized racism- Clarence Spigner

US Department of Education Challenges NCAA

Here is a discussion about Secretary Duncan and implementing new reform for the student athlete.

U.S. Secretary of Eduaction- Arne Duncan

On January 12, 2010 U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed the NCAA. His main point was that all students are students before they are athletes. HIs interview comes from the NCAA's website, the article is titled "Secretary of Education- Duncan Urges Student-Athlete Balance". I though this would be a good starting point for me to present my views on the research I have done on the history of Rule 48.

Obviously Rule 48 was instated in 1986 and times have changed. In the beginning of my blog I presented the old NCAA academic requirements and then the new ones. Obviously if the NCAA is continuing to push for high academic standards than all the issues of the past are still relavent. Many student athletes are only recognized for their talent. Their talent over shadows everything about them and therefore they are sometimes exploited. Due to the money that student athletes bring into the school this is also an issue of concern. Some people believe that the authority within the university and colleges don't care as much about the student athletes marks because they are more concerned with how much money they are creating in revenue for the institution.

Although it is true that these student athletes are not compensated for their work and that coaches are making millions of dollars of of their success, it is important to realizes that student athletes gain an incredible experience for playing in the NCAA. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan played basketball for Harvard, and recalls how much being on a college team changed his life and how much he grew from it. Arne Duncan also graduated with flying colors from Harvard and went onto a very successful career. For most students who dream of being in NCAA most say their main focus is going pro. Only about 1 out of every 12,000 students makes it pro and therefore this is why it is extremely important to stress the challenges student athletes are facing with academics. It is crucial to graduate with a degree nowadays in order to go somewhere in life. Student athletes can sometimes get lost in the many practices they have to attend, away games, travelling, and then on top of that trying to balance homework, exams and papers. According to Arne Duncan, in 2010 "student athletes were performing better academically than non-student athletes." So does this have anything to do with the implementation of proposals such as 48 and 16? I think it does. WIthout the NCAA taking steps to better education students would not have been pushed to give it their very best. The NCAA has been criticized for not focusing on the right things. For example some say they should be focusing on high school teaching and making sure that getting rid of "mediocrity" starts there instead of at the university level.

For the student athlete, graduation should be the most important thing on their minds. Without completion of graduation life can get tough, so staying on task is crucial. Making sure that you have the support you need to keep up with work and letting people know when you ned help is important. I think Duncan puts it pretty perfectly, " The goal should be to go to college, to figure out what you love, study that and graduate. Whatever happens after that athletically will just be icing on the cake."

The Life of a Student Athlete

This video shows interviews with coaches and student athletes in the NCAA. I thought the comment under this video on you tube was quite interesting as well. It read "life as a student- athlete=helping coaches get their bags of money"... thought that would be something interesting to think about.

Diving Further Into "The Journal of Negro Education"

Upon further research from my last entry, an article entitled "NCAA Rule 48: Racism and Reform" came to my attention. In this article Vernon L. Clark, Floyd Horton, and Robert L. Alford explore rule 48 and reveal information about surveys that were released after Rule 48 was implemented.

According to the three above mentioned men people who opposed the rule found it to be "racist, overtly exclusionary, and an arrogant act". While reading this I had a serious problem with anyone who thought that higher education was racist or exclusionary. I have always thought that if people put in the work, time and effort that they are able to achieve anything. I guess I had never really taken into consideration economic backgrounds in relation to academic achievement. It is known that a majority of students who come from poor economic backgrounds, and poor living situations do struggle with academics, but I believe that as long as tutoring is offered and that a support system is put in place any one of those students can thrive. Therefore in this article, I agree with the recommendations that have been offered to put in place of Rule 48.

Lets start at the beginning of this article though and discuss the controversy according to Clark, Horton, and Alford. Obviously like I have previously talked about Historical Black Colleges and Universities have disagreed with the rule because it was though to limit the amount of black student athletes in Division I sports. Many people believed that there wer other strategies that could be used instead of implementing the SAT cut offs. Many HBI's (Historically Black Institutions) believed that "setting a minimum cut off point for athletic participation puts undue pressure on institutions that don't require minimum SAT scores for athletic participation." (Clark, Horton, Alford)

In response to the controversy a survey was circulated to all HBI's. When it was returned 80% of the respondents were not in favor of rule 48 because, "The cut off scores were not defensible on sound educational grounds, it created dual admission standards with the student athlete/student, no blacks were represented on the council making the decisions, and because the committee making the decisions was award that the majority of blacks couldn't meet the requirements." (Clark, Horton, Alford)

On the other hand there was some positive responses to the survey. Many thought that (like I did) with support of family and friends the black student athlete would react affirmatively to rule 48. They also offered alternatives to the rule that I think were quite enlightening. First off the suggested that "1st year students should not be allowed to play sports in order to allow for an adjustment year/period", secondly " a committee should be created that represents all institutions to revise the rule", thirdly " remedial assistance programs should be created at all institutions to further help students with their academic needs", and lastly, "the NCAA should concentrate on high schools and attacking the problem of under prepared students". (Clark, Horton, Alford)

Although I do agree with these recommendations, I don't think that rule 48 is too strict. I believe that in higher learning education should come first before sports or any other talent for that matter. Without a proper education, when leaving the NCAA most student athletes are dropped and left with nothing to fall back on, and thats why I think Rule 48 was created to benefit the future of the student athlete.

Now focusing on the other side, Reform INSTEAD of Racism it's important to talk about Lloyd Hackley. Hackley was a former chancellor of the University of Arkansas. He was in favor of rule 48 and said that it was "long overdue and doesn't go far enough". Also supporting 48 was T. H. Bell former Secretary of Education. Bell held a series of meetings starting May 13, 1983 that were constructed in order to " light a fire under state legislatures to improve teachers training, standards and pay and to toughen the curriculum of the countries schools." (Clark, Horton, Alford) Like the previous recommendations I discussed Bell also thought that there should be a first year adjustment period were no sports were to be played. On top of this Bell also wanted there to be academic performance ratings for first year students who would want to participate in sports in 2nd year. Bell's ideas for performance reviews for academics is brilliant and I think this is how Universities and Colleges should run today. It is extremely difficult to play college level sports and balance a full academic work load, and with tutoring, counseling, and academic performance reviews students would be able to keep up with their work at lot easier.

For most college athletes their academics fall under the radar due to their talent over-shining them. If an adjustment period was allowed in first year of university, students would be able to get a grasp on the curriculum and its difficulty without falling behind due to sports and practices.

The SAT and Fairness

Check out this link from about.com The SAT Test

Taking a Look at the "Journal of Negro Education"

"The Journal of Negro Education (JNE), a scholarly refereed journal, was founded at Howard University in 1932. It is one of the oldest continuously published periodicals by and about Black people. At the time of its inception, however, there was no publication that systematically or comprehensively addressed the enormous problems that characterized the education of Blacks in the United States and elsewhere." (The Journal of Negro Education)

While reading multiple articles from the JNE I came across one entitled "The Impact of Rule 48 Upon the Black Student Athlete: A Comment". In this article Alexander Williams talks mainly about standardized testing and it's unfairness as a regulator upon student athletes acceptance. The NCAA has put standards onto student athletes but not all students. Therefore someone applying to University of Virginia for instance, who is NOT an athlete does not have to have the same GPA or SAT scores as a student athlete. Therefore all students are not being treated equally.

Why have these particular scores been chosen for the cut off points for student athletes applying to Division I schools? The SAT has been known to not represent students accurately. Many students have challenges when facing standardized testing and therefore this results in lower test scores. In 1938 the Chronicle for Higher Education published an article about whites and blacks and the SAT's. In this article it was proven that from the years 1976-1982 the average SAT scores for white students was above 700 and the average for blacks was below 700. Black students averages scores did not reach to 700 until after 1982. (Williams) So is the cut off at 700 placed at the the time because that was the most recent figure of average attainment by black students? Alexander Williams contemplates this question and goes into further research about the SAT and its main problems. He says the Rule 48 or Proposition 48 is going to affect black students the most due to "racial disparity in test scores, a long history that disparity is traceable to racial, cultural and economic biases inherent to the test, and the absoluteness of the 700 cut off" because white students can attain these scores and black students cant. (William)
"The SAT score of 700 for entering freshmen student athletes limits the pool of black student athletes in higher education", William states. When concerning the SAT many courts have ruled that the "tests perpetuate discrimination in schools".(William)

The NCAA cannot legitimately mandate educational policy for high schools. Therefore it is each high schools responsibility to insure that inspiring NCAA athletes have those skills. When the rule was first instated it was thought that basketball and football would be affected the most due to the fact that there were many black players (as there still are today). With the rule in place many deemed it racist due to the fact that it would diminish the number of black athletes.

Taking all of this information into consideration I think it is important to question the purpose of universities and colleges. Aren't students supposed to be learning and growing in knowledge, and skills and embracing their talents?

How The Eligibility Rules Have Changed

Proposition 48's demands seem quite easy compared to the regulations the NCAA has now. The number of core classes has increased to 14, and the scale has also been extended. Therefore you can have a GPA of 2.5 and an 820 on the SAT, GPA of 2.75 and a 720 on the SAT, GPA of 3.0 and a 620 on the SAT, or a 3.55 and a 400 on the SAT. (NCAA Eligibility Center) With these new regulations in play, they definitely put increased pressure on the student athlete, and yes many students are unable to play college sports due to not meeting the requirements. So which students are being singled out the most?

NCAA Student-Athlete Commercial

Check out this video, if you listen closely you can hear what they are saying. Why did the NCAA choose to single out African American student athletes in this promotional video?

The NCAA and Proposition 48

In 1986, the NCAA enacted Proposition 48 which raised the standards in grades for the student athlete. It stated that, in order to play in a Division 1 sport as a freshman, students must uphold a 2.0 GPA in 11 core courses, and a combined score of 700 on the SAT. (Pound) When the proposition was first instated people were outraged, due to the fact that they believed it was racist. Many college coach's and parents understood that the act was going to inhibit poor and African American athletes from attending colleges and universities of their choice.(Pound) On the other hand many teachers and parents praised 48 for refocusing on the aspects of education. I asked myself many questions while researching this topic, and my first question was why wouldn't coaches and parents want their student athletes to strive in the academic world? I have created this blog in order to discover the underlying problems with proposition 48 and why it was deemed as racist. I will be looking into the NCAA and their standards, along with researching both sides of the argument.