Athletic victories educational defeats

Big-time sports distort educational values,

Faculty members need to restore a better balance

To characterize the marriage of big-time athletics and American higher education as 11 strained" would be an understatement. The debate over the role of athletics in higher education centers increasingly on the fact that athletics programs profoundly influence the ability of colleges and universities to address their broader public purpose. As public criticism of the scandals and hypocrisies of major college athletics programs deepens, higher education pays a price in the form of declining credibility and public trust. This decline diminishes higher education's moral authority to deal with other important societal issues and challenges. Simply put, if universities cannot conduct their athletics programs with integrity, how can they be expected to solve problems such as deficiencies in public education, poverty, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and the need to prepare a work force for the global economy of the twenty-first century?

Attempts to initiate substantive reform have been almost as much a part of the higher education landscape as the classroom lecture. But despite the well-intentioned efforts of many intelligent and dedicated people, these attempts, beginning with a 1929 report from the Carnegie Foundation, have yielded few results. Ironically, the reform efforts have correctly identified the major issues-overcommercialization, the compromising of academic integrity, misplaced fiscal priorities, overzealous boosters and alumni, and exploitation of student-athletes. Moreover, although people may disagree about specific measures needed to mitigate the problems, the general recipe for reform has also been agreed upon by many higher education leaders. It recommends increased presidential control, fiscal restraint, minimization of commercial intrusion, and the establishment for student-athletes of academic standards, expectations, and outcomes comparable to those for students generally.

Why, then, have we been unable to implement meaningful change? The sad reality of athletics reform is that without the active engagement of a critical mass of people in the higher education community, meaningful change will never occur. The forces against it are simply too entrenched for any commission, no matter how prestigious, to craft a report that will result in substantive change.

Despite these seemingly overwhelming odds, three recent developments offer a glimmer of hope. First is the release last year of the latest report from the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Second is an embryonic effort by faculty members to be heard on athletics issues. Third is the publication of several books on college athletics, particularly The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values by William G. Bowen and James L. Shulman. These books have shattered many time-honored assumptions about college sports and redefined the parameters of the debate regarding the role of athletics in higher education. The challenge now for the higher education community is to build the critical mass necessary to turn these trickles of opportunity into a steady stream of reform.

Faculty Role

Virtually all observers of higher education agree that presidents and boards of trustees must spearhead athletics reform. The Knight Commission's original reform agenda, outlined in its 1991 report, Keeping Faith with the Student-Athlete, was based on presidential authority. And its 2001 report, A Call to Action: Reconnecting College Sports and Higher Education, specified the role of board members as follows: "Presidents cannot act on an issue as emotional and highly visible as athletics without the unwavering public support of their boards."

Yet even though presidents and boards must lead the way, they cannot do it alone. As the 2001 Knight Commission report states, "Change will come, sanity will be restored, only when the higher education community comes together to meet collectively the challenges its members face." In short, it is time for everyone with a stake in the future of American higher education to step up to the plate of athletics reform.

The faculty's responsibility for defining and defending academic values requires them to become directly engaged in the issue. Simply put, without significant faculty attention and involvement, the critical mass necessary to force substantive change cannot be achieved. If for no other reason than their sheer size as a higher education constituency, faculty are well situated to provide the momentum necessary to transform reform concepts into actual change.

Traditionally, faculty have been seen as too concerned with their disciplines to sustain meaningful involvement with athletics reform. To expect faculty to initiate and execute change is unfair. The fact is, professors have little direct access to the mechanisms for change. As I have noted, it is presidents and boards who have the influence, authority, and responsibility to initiate reform.