The recent dispute between John Thompson, the coach of Georgetown University's basketball team, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) raises interesting questions about collegiate athletics and education, a relationship that is highly corrupt. There is, however, a proposal that, if adopted, would reduce corruption in collegiate athletics, maintain educational and athletic opportunities for deprived youngsters, and restore the meaning of a college education for athletes.
A year ago, the NCAA established minimal standards with respect to high school grades and scores on the SAT as requirements for participation in collegiate athletics. Colleges and universities were permitted, however, to offer athletic scholarships to students who did not meet these standards as long as they did not participate in competition. If their collegiate work was satisfactory in the freshman year, they could then participate in competition in subsequent years. This year, the NCAA removed the freshman exemption, a move protested by Thompson on the ground that it would cause too many youngsters from deprived backgrounds to lose their chance for a college education.
Although I share Thompson's desire to expand educational opportunities for youths from deprived backgrounds, the NCAA standards are ridiculously low to begin with, and the freshman exemption allowed many schools to make their candidate eligible with such courses as basket weaving. Georgetown and Thompson take education seriously and graduate a high proportion of their athletes, but their concern is not the general rule.
Furthermore, major collegiate athletics are corrupt. The educational institutions that ought to be setting the moral tone for the nation are instead behaving in ways that legitimate the scandals in business and politics. Major athletics are money raisers and alumni pleasers. Athletes, only a relative handful of whom will succeed in professional sports, are attracted by largely false hopes and used for the glory of schools, alumni, and fans. Exploitation is the correct term to describe this practice.
In principle, these teams should be professional and the athletes should be paid. This idea, often proposed, will not be adopted. Therefore, let me propose an alternative that is unlikely--but perhaps not impossible--to be adopted and that may have other advantages.
Let us agree that furthering the education of deprived youngsters is a good idea. After all, many of them are illiterate and incapable of holding a decent job. Others are capable only of the simplest and lowest-paying jobs. It would be good for them and good for the country if their skills could be improved. But let us not corrupt the idea of a college education, for that is extremely valuable to society.
Two tiers of students
Let us have two tiers of students. One would be composed of athletes who would be admissible under normal circumstances. These would be given athletic scholarships to colleges or universities and would remain eligible as long as they made satisfactory progress toward a degree.
A second group of athletes--those not normally admissible but possibly including those not interested in a
...
Read Full Article
|
