National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentMay 4, 1998
Guest editorial -- Simplistic answers to difficult questions
BY EDWARD H. HAMMOND I am writing this as a response to your front-page article "A Brewing Dilemma on Campus" (April 6 issue of The NCAA News). The recent deaths of college freshmen at Louisiana State University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology from consuming too much alcohol are indeed paramount tragedies -- tragedies we should all work to prevent. But if we draw the wrong lessons from these deaths, they will occur again.
Let's start with some basic facts, drawn from a recent study conducted by the Core Institute at Southern Illinois University. More than two-thirds of college students -- 67 percent to be exact -- say they don't binge drink; 72 percent have never missed a class because of drinking; and 67 percent say they do not drive under the influence of alcohol. These statistics are not cause for complacency or no action. But they do paint a more realistic picture of the problem we are trying to solve and in doing so, increase our ability to find a workable strategy. The fact is that the drinking age splits the college population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, students who are 21 and older who can purchase alcohol legally account for nearly 70 percent of the college population. In an era when many high-school seniors take a year or two off between graduation and their freshman year of college ... at a time in which a considerable percentage of all students spend more than the traditional four years as undergrads ... and in a job market that requires advanced degrees for an increasing number of entry-level positions, simple rules that try to ban alcohol from college students and the college environment don't work. And that's why the recent tragedies at LSU and MIT must be viewed in a broader, more realistic context. Rather than giving in to the obvious -- but mistaken -- notion that the proper response to these deaths is to limit access to alcohol for all students and alcohol-beverage advertising, we need to recognize that such a strategy could backfire. Instead of spending all of our attention and energy on prohibition, we need to understand that -- like Tom Sawyer whitewashing Aunt Polly's fence -- such a simplistic approach may make an undesirable thing look very desirable indeed, thereby promoting just the kind of behavior we'd like to discourage. Now let's apply the insights of researchers to this problem. Many of those who have studied drinking among college students, such as Michael Haines of Northern Illinois University, have noted that distortions of what is really happening on campus have the effect of "normalizing the misbehavior we are trying to prevent." That is, if students -- for whatever reason -- perceive a particular type of behavior to be the norm, a group of students are likely to alter their personal actions to fit in with the crowd. Thus, by focusing our attention on the problem of abusive drinking -- a type of behavior that characterizes a minority of the campus population -- we can help create a "false norm" that encourages precisely the type of behavior we're trying to eliminate. We may be trying to say, "Abusive drinking is a terrible and dangerous problem -- don't do it." But at least some kids will hear us say, "Abusive drinking is what most people do when they're in college, but you should be different." As the chairman of National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness week, I know that it is more productive to focus on changing attitudes that will ultimately lead to changes in behavior. We need to make sure students know the majority rules ... and that the majority believes and practices good judgment, self-discipline, and mature, responsible decision-making. The most effective way to spread that behavior is through peer-to-peer education that combines positive peer pressure with information on alcohol and its effects. Education about alcohol needs to be supported by the alcoholic-beverage industry. The industry shouldn't have a choice -- it should be part of the solution. Let me very clear. For the 30 percent of students who are under the legal drinking age, our message should be very simple. Don't break the law. Underage drinking is illegal and dangerous. For all students, our message about abusive drinking should be equally straightforward: "Abusive drinking is dangerous to your health. Don't do it." But for those who can purchase alcoholic beverages legally -- nearly 70 percent of the college population -- our message should be equally realistic: "As an adult, you can choose to drink. If you do, remember, the majority rules ... do so responsibly." By understanding the complexity of a college campus, and by recognizing that a large percentage of the students at most colleges and universities can drink legally if they choose to, we can reinforce the healthy norm. By spotlighting the increasing number of legal drinkers who drink responsibly, and by drawing attention to them, we can help create a standard of behavior that will change their attitudes and actions. By educating students about relevant state laws and responsible social behavior, we will help to reinforce the positive behavior of the majority of college students and encourage attitudes that can help prevent tragedies like those that occurred on college campuses last fall. Edward H. Hammond is president of Fort Hays State University and is chairman of National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week. Letter to the Editor -- Girls benefit from July evaluation periodWarning: Dangerous decisions will take away opportunities for girls basketball and have long-term effects on women's college games. Kansas City was an exceptional, well-planned Final Four for women's basketball. The four participating teams played the game itself to an even higher level. There was a scary moment at the Women's Basketball Coaches Association convention, however, as word spread of the possible elimination of the July evaluation period for girls' basketball. For now, it is only discussion, but be warned that it could become reality. I believe that we as parents, fans, coaches and friends of women's basketball need to be fully aware of the cost that this decision could bring about for girls everywhere. Women's basketball cannot afford to change the recruiting window that now exists in July if we truly want our game to grow and continue to provide opportunities for girls to compete in the summer and beyond. Talented players throughout the country need this month to play basketball. It is a great time to compete against good competition, as well as be evaluated and developed. I still see playgrounds and summer leagues not being open to girls in their own neighborhoods! Where do these girls get to play? Several states do not permit high-school coaches to coach their players in the summer months or provide open gyms. Where do these girls play in July? We as college coaches need to continue to be present at the certified venues in the July basketball period so that girls and players can be promoted, evaluated and appreciated. We have a responsibility as college coaches to see this continue. Summer basketball is highly competitive, fun and provides future scholarship evaluation for thousands of girls each day in July. Let's not deny girls the chance to play, be coached, travel, earn a scholarship or compete. Keep the July window open so opportunities continue to flow for the young ladies and our great game.
June Daugherty Opinions -- Thoughts vary after athlete-employment rule adopted
Noel M. Ragsdale, faculty athletics representative "If they're going to cheat, they're going to cheat in any context. So, the students should not be constrained or restricted from earning what they might legitimately be able to earn because of concerns about that kind of problem."
Ferdinand A. "Andy" Geiger, director of athletics "There's a possibility for abuse of every rule in the book. This is certainly something that's open to abuse, but that's a damnable excuse for not trying to do something that's right. Why not say we're not going to have speed limits on the highways because they're subject to abuse?"
Lewis Perkins, director of athletics "Obviously, it's very good for student-athletes. I'm encouraged that the NCAA is looking at ways of helping student-athletes. Philosophically, I'm 100 percent behind it because I don't feel we're allowed to do enough to help a kid."
Rob Oller, columnist "Gosh, looks like the NCAA has struck again. A rule that allows college athletes on full scholarship to work during the school year for up to $2,000 became reality (April 21) when the NCAA Division I Board of Directors ratified legislation known as Prop 62. "Previous rules stipulated that full-scholarship athletes, the largest group being football and basketball players, could not work jobs while their sports were in season. The NCAA was concerned that certain 'friends of the program' might be tempted to lure Johnny Rocketarm with offers of megabucks for miniwork. "Sounds paranoid, but never underestimate the 'generosity' of rabid boosters. That's part of what bothers me about the new rule. It empowers those I trust least: big-money 'fans' who attempt to buy national titles."
Allison Jones, women's basketball coach "Everyone knows there will be abuses. Kids will get paid and not show up for work. Boosters having involvement with coaches and players is not good. How high up the chain will this be enforced?"
Skip Holtz, football coach "One of the very reasons you had these restrictions in the first place was so that boosters couldn't get involved. How do you regulate and monitor them? I don't think you can."
Vic Trilli, men's basketball coach "There is always the possibility for people to abuse the system. Those are the things that have to be worked out, but at least we've got our ears to the concerns of the student-athlete. "But how we are going to monitor and work and make it all fit together is the key. It's like a big puzzle. There is a lot of pieces that need to be fit together."
Gambling
Tom Grey, leader "It's the tip of the iceberg. You have Arizona State in basketball last year, Boston College in football, now Northwestern. Maybe it's all anecdotal. Or could we suggest that what you've got is widespread campus betting? "If gambling is entertainment, which is what it's billed as, how can you all of the sudden say to people 'You can gamble, but we're not going to let people shave points?' "Maybe we ought to look not at the symptom but at the cause, and could it be that gambling is out of hand? You can't be a little bit pregnant. And with legalized gambling, we're trying to say we're a little bit pregnant.''
Roy Williams, men's basketball coach "I would hope they're (student-athletes) not involved themselves in the actual gambling. In most cases the most pressing concern is someone in the underworld looking for the edge. That's the first thing (student-athletes) have to be aware of.... "You can't ignore the fact players could be involved (themselves) in gambling. But I'm more concerned with people trying to get information from them (for gambling purposes)."
Frank Deford, commentator "All the gum-flapping and the hand-wringing about how sinful sports betting is strikes any young man as obscenely hypocritical. We live in a society where betting is legal for lotteries, casinos, slot machines, horses, dogs. But we draw some transparent line and say that it's somehow only sinful to bet on games, while at the same time we allow gangsters to profit by that twisted reasoning. "Besides, everybody knows that legal sports wagering happily proceeds in the great state of Nevada and throughout much of the rest of the world. People will bet, everywhere they will bet on sports. "Now if sports gambling were legalized in America, the profits could pay college players a reasonable remuneration. Also, the money could be used to fund inner-city sports and other worthy athletic endeavors. "Or we can, like the Pharisees, keep shouting to the heavens about how dreadful gambling is, letting the gangsters grow richer off our high moral posturing. "The legal prohibition against sports gambling simply doesn't work. After the breast-beating dies down, there will be another college basketball scandal soon enough. Kids who see that they are cheated will cheat."
Title IX
Editorial "(A)t a great many schools, sports isn't a moneymaker and it is at these schools that cuts in men's programs have been made: Since 1993, 16 NCAA men's swimming teams have been dropped, including the one at UCLA, where swimmers had won 22 Olympic medals. Between 1994 and 1996, 31 schools axed men's golf teams. In the same period, 24 universities and colleges eliminated men's wrestling teams. "A study by the NCAA in 1997 found that an average of 3.6 male athletes were dropped for every female athlete added since 1992. "There is no doubt that for too long women were given short shrift in collegiate athletics, and where discrimination exists, it should be rooted out. "But rather than expanding opportunities, the federal government's blind drive for a numerically defined 'justice' often is destroying opportunity."
|
We live in a complex society, and perhaps no portion of our society is more complex than a college or university campus. In a five-minute stroll across campus, a casual observer can find students who are undergoing a rite of passage into adulthood, some others who are doggedly hanging on to prerogatives of adolescence, and still others who are well along in developing the key life skills of good judgment, self-discipline, and mature, responsible decision-making. The good news is the vast majority of students fall into this last category.