The NCAA News - News and Features

May 18, 1998

Notice on program cuts voted down by House

The U.S. House of Representatives voted May 6 to strike a provision from the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998, H.R. 6, that would have required all colleges and universities to predict on an annual basis changes that may occur in a collegiate sports program over the next four years.

The provision also would have required institutions to provide the reasons for decisions to eliminate sports programs.

Members voted, 292-129, to delete the provision added by the House Education and the Workforce Committee, chaired by Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pennsylvania.

Specifically, the provision would have required colleges and universities to provide a statement of any reduction that may occur or is likely to occur during the ensuing four academic years in the number of athletes that will be permitted to participate in any collegiate sport, or in the financial resources that the institution will make available to any such sport and the reasons for any such reduction.

Failure to provide the information could have resulted in the loss of eligibility for federal student grant and loan financial assistance.

The provision was adopted by the House Committee at the request of Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, a former collegiate wrestler who is interested in preserving men's nonrevenue-producing sports such as wrestling from elimination. Hastert also believes student-athletes should be informed, before entering a college or university, of whether their sport will be eliminated or experience significant reductions during their eligibility period. On the House floor, he characterized the notification requirement as "a matter of honesty and simple fairness."

Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Indiana, along with Rep. Frank Riggs, R-California, offered the amendment to strike the Hastert provision from H.R. 6. In support of his amendment, Roemer said: "We've heard constantly through the last couple of years that Washington, D.C., does not know best. Why is there language in this bill telling colleges and universities throughout the country the Washington way to run their sports programs?"

Roemer also noted that when an industrial plant is closed, federal law requires that employees be notified 30 days in advance. He added that Hastert's amendment would have required notification of a possible reduction in a sports team's squad size four years in advance.

NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey sent letters to every member of the House of Representatives urging Congress to support efforts to remove the provision from federal legislation. In the letter, Dempsey said: "It is important to clarify that the NCAA does not favor dropping men's sports as part of an institution's efforts to achieve gender equity, and the Association believes the goals of the (Hastert) provision are laudable. However, NCAA member institutions make decisions on all campus programs based on what is best for that institution. It is highly inappropriate for Congress to restrict in any way an institution's ability to design its programs or formulate its budget. To ask an institution to justify this decision is unprecedented in higher education federal policy."

Hastert referred in his floor statement, as well as in a letter sent to every member of the House, to the stories of two students whose respective teams were eliminated. Hastert said that the teams were eliminated without notice and that team members learned of the decision from the media. However, the NCAA received a different account when it contacted the two institutions' athletics departments. One of the athletic directors indicated that "the decision to eliminate the team was the most difficult professional decision of his life." Further, in both cases, officials said the teams were informed of the decision before any public announcement was made. Both institutions agreed to honor the students' grants-in-aid through graduation.

Amendment advocates

On the House floor, many representatives spoke in support of the Roemer-Riggs amendment. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California, whose district includes Stanford University, said: "The Roemer amendment would ensure that Stanford University and the rest of the nation's colleges and universities have the necessary flexibility to continue to develop such strong athletics and academic programs free of federal mandates."

Rep. Constance A. Morella, R-Maryland, speaking against the Hastert proposal, said: "Under the provision....schools could lose their eligibility to receive Pell Grants and higher education loans if they fail to predict and justify their decisions. This provision is intrusive and goes way beyond the limits of the federal role in the development of higher education policy."

Rep. David E. Price, D-North Carolina, said the Hastert proposal actually could have an effect that was opposite of what was intended. "This provision might actually lead colleges to make hard and fast long-term decisions that would have the opposite effect of the intent of the bill," he said. "A requirement to announce decisions four years in advance could actually lead a college to signal the termination of a sports program, undermining its ability to recruit athletes, when in fact the program might be salvageable if circumstances change. It is hard to see any benefit in that for student-athletes or anybody else."

The American Council on Education also sent a letter on behalf of the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges supporting the Roemer-Riggs amendment.

ACE involvement

Before the House vote, the NCAA and the American Council on Education tried to reach an agreement with Hastert by offering to take voluntary actions to address his concerns. Hastert did not respond to the letter.

However, Doris Dixon, NCAA director of federal relations, said the NCAA remains committed to ensuring that the welfare of the student-athlete is given top priority when a decision to eliminate sports teams is made. She said the NCAA plans to continue to work with Hastert and other members of Congress in hopes of finding a way to ensure that student-athletes' needs are adequately addressed in cases where college sports programs are eliminated.

A similar provision sponsored by Sen. Dan Coats, R-Indiana, is contained in the Senate version of the Higher Education Act Amendments (S. 1882), which is expected to be considered on the Senate floor during the week of May 18. Dixon said the NCAA will work to have that provision removed and will oppose a proposed amendment that may be offered by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minnesota. Wellstone is considering an amendment to S. 1882 that would require institutions to provide student-athletes whose teams are eliminated with a copy of the institution's athletics budget, broken down by sport. Institutions also would be required to establish an appeals process for overturning the decision.