The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- February 1, 1999

'This is who we really are'

Former Management Council Chair Lynn Dorn says Division II is carving out a special NCAA niche

There is no questioning the affection that Division II has for Lynn Dorn, who recently concluded her tenure as chair of the Division II Management Council.

At the 1999 NCAA Convention in San Antonio, she was recognized in virtually every Division II forum. The Management Council honored her upon on the adjournment of its pre-Convention meeting. She was praised by the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee during the Division II Issues Forum. Presidents Council Chair Arend D. Lubbers called her the "Division II person of the year" during the Convention business session, and delegates honored her with a standing ovation after hearing a congratulatory resolution from incoming Management Council Chair Clint Bryant.

Indeed, Dorn's rare combination of intellect, energy, integrity, determination, eloquence and humor made her a highly effective leader during the difficult restructuring period.

The NCAA News interviewed Dorn during the Convention to get her views on a variety of Division II issues:

What makes Division II special?

There's a lot of diversity among the institutions in Division II. There's a sharing of a common philosophy of the role of intercollegiate athletics in higher education. I also think that many times, we're the middle child among Divisions I, II and III. And I think we kind of have the temperament of a middle child. In many ways, we're very compromising. Perhaps we take the best of Division I and Division III and kind of meld them into our own philosophy.

Is Division II evolving in any way?

Yes, without question. The reason I say that is that through restructuring, there is a greater opportunity to frame our own identity. So I think the evolution is a very deliberate, thorough process of evaluating the purpose and direction of Division II and growing more independent of Divisions I and III -- enough to say, "This is who we really are."

Is restructuring aiding that process?

Yes, I think it has really accelerated it. We have so much more access to our own control and destiny. As a whole, we're becoming much stronger.

Restructuring has permitted us to have more input and more interaction. So I think we're becoming more of a whole rather than simply part of an organization. We're very clearly responsible for our own behaviors.

The new structure has been in place now for almost two years. Does it need to be modified in any way?

I think we have seen that of late, particularly with the baseball bat issue. What we see is that the Association still has the overarching responsibility to assure a certain level of continuity among its overall membership. How do we do that? How do we make sure that the process is not going to put us out of order, if you will.

I think that's one of the negative byproducts that we have seen so far with restructuring.

With autonomy, you have a sense of self-control. But in Division II, we don't really embrace complete self-control. We really do need a principled Association that can make decisions together, as it should with the baseball bat issue.

What would help?

I think we need more interaction among the leadership of the three divisions -- especially the chairs and vice-chairs of the Management Councils. I think they need an opportunity to talk about strategies and direction. Division I is so fast right now -- although it is not necessarily our concern or responsibility -- that it's hard to get a feel for what's happening. And we're so sensitive to what happens in Division I.

Would Division I be amenable to meeting with the chairs of the other divisions? I think so from a shared leadership standpoint. It's just those common issues that need to be discussed so we are better prepared. We ought to be functioning independently of one another, but there's always the fact that you are affected by other people's decisions.

Certainly, the NCAA's governance staff compares issues among the three divisions for good collective dialogue, so it seems that a similar process might benefit the leadership of the three Management Councils as well.

I really do value the Association. I value it for its mission. I would hate for it to be fragmented. Because of who we are in Division II, we have high reliance on the Association. Membership services is a must for us. So is catastrophic insurance. NCAA communication is our lifeline.

The federated structure has such a potential to be so different for Division I than for Divisions II and III because our needs are so different. Division I may not need the Association. Quite frankly, we do.

Does the Division II membership understand the new structure?

I think they really understand it. There was such a tremendous job done with the educational component of restructuring, much to Mike Racy's (assistant chief of staff for Division II) credit. I think we're comfortable with restructuring.

And part of it is that we didn't change much.

Chief executive officer control was one of the primary objectives of membership restructuring. Do you think it has been achieved?

I really believe that the system can achieve the best of both worlds. It can only be achieved if the leadership of the Management Council and the Presidents Council continue to embrace the principles of the Association and the philosophy of Division II.

I believe in presidential control and presidential authority. But I also believe we have very specific sets of responsibility. The micromanaging of those responsibilities will unravel the success of this model.

How is the Association affected by the constant threat of litigation?

It is really placing the membership at a crossroads in terms of being able to hold true to doing the right thing.

Division II wants to do what's right with the baseball bats. And we know what's right. But we also understand the cost of litigation. So where does that balance? What is the fine line between keeping the integrity of the profession, with great commitment to the student-athlete's welfare, and being prudent?

It's phenomenal to me the amount of attention litigation is receiving, how it is driving, unfortunately, a sense of what we need to do.

I see an unrest with the membership, a need to just get it done with, just solve it, just get out of the litigation. But I would hate for us to react in a hurried fashion, knowing that the deepest pockets always belong to the NCAA and that's where the threat is always going to be.

In contrast, I really believe that (NCAA President) Ced Dempsey and his staff have the best interests of the membership at heart, and I think we need to give them a vote of confidence.

What is Division II doing to assure student-athlete welfare?

This is something we're very, very proud of. The main thing is the Student-Athlete Summit -- getting student-athletes together to hear the issues and for the administrators to listen to their concerns. We have done a tremendous job -- to the credit of the presidents, especially Marvalene Hughes (president of California State University, Stanislaus) -- in building that bridge. We have a very different model. It turns out to be a very strong model.

You see that Division II is very committed to student-athlete welfare on an institutional level. The fact that we have legislation that requires an institutional SAAC, a conference SAAC -- those are really important components. With the deregulation summit, student-athletes were involved with selected committees.

They are a voice that we respect, a voice that we want to listen to. They really are a source of energy.

What can be done to improve ethnic minority hiring in Division II?

I think we need to look at the continuation of NCAA grants for enhancement in this area. We have to have a basic commitment, and the Division II Management Council is very focused on this issue. We have in fact rejected slates of candidates because they were not balanced with ethnic representation. It's a level of consciousness that needs to continue to escalate but that I think we agree is one of our important goals in Division II.

It's hard. It's hard to mandate an opportunity based on ethnic and gender diversity. But it's not wrong. It's right.

What steps are being taken to make the Division II Manual more useful?

It's primarily the deregulation process. The thing that's so important about that is those involved are evaluating the priorities of a number of different constituents. I think they have done an excellent job. The work they have put out so far has been very, very good.

Also, the technical gains that will be made with the move to Indianapolis will be tremendous. That's where I think the next step will come, as people use their computer systems more in the compliance area.

Will the day come when we have a paperless Manual?

No. I wish I could say this will happen, but there's something secure about having a book.

How is the division coping with its rapidly expanding membership?

There are a couple of answers to this.

I don't know that we've done a very good job in contemplating their impact. What impact will they have, both financially and at championships? Is there a saturation that will occur that will affect the current experiences that we can enjoy?

But what we have done is to make certain any institution that is desiring active membership is thoroughly prepared and educated through the educational-assessment component. That is a very good piece that was put together by both the Presidents Council and the Management Council.

There is going to be some fallout, through the educational assessment program, of institutions that don't meet the expectations of being a good member, a compliant member. So while I think there is the anticipation of a lot of new members, there is the possibility that not all of the provisional members that we have now will meet the standards that are required to become an active member.

Is amateurism an important issue for Division II?

Amateurism is a very, very critical issue for us.

We are a very diversified group of institutions, and we embrace many nontraditional students. I think we're very committed to that.

But the student-athlete who comes to an institution who has had a significant advantage in terms of competitive opportunities, that really is an issue for us. Perhaps we are beginning to skew some recruiting philosophies, to skew the makeup of the teams.

Now, I think diversity is wonderful. I think it is educationally sound. But it must all be in the context of an amateur athlete competing with an amateur athlete. The matter of an intercollegiate athlete who competes against an older-than-average athlete -- that's not an issue. But the intercollegiate athlete who competes against a non-amateur athlete, that troubles me. I have seen athletes who have skills that cannot be taught by a college coach over four years.

It's absolutely right to have diversity on your team, but make sure that the elements of diversity don't include not being an amateur.