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.
No comments:
Post a Comment