National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- April 12, 1999

Stay reinstates Proposition 16 standards

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the NCAA's motion to stay the ruling in Cureton v. NCAA until the appeal is heard.

The March 30 decision reestablishes the provisions of legislation commonly known as Proposition 16, which uses minimum SAT and ACT score cutoffs to determine initial eligibility for incoming college freshmen student-athletes in Division I.

On March 8, U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter ruled that Proposition 16 had an unjustified disparate impact on African-Americans. Buckwalter also denied the NCAA's initial request for a stay as well as the NCAA's request that the ruling apply only to the named plaintiffs in the case.

Because the judge's ruling was effective immediately, the NCAA on March 18 sought a stay from the appeals court to stabilize what it believed to be a potentially chaotic state of initial-eligibility standards.

"We asked for a stay in part so that the orderly process of discussion and deliberation about initial-eligibility standards -- properly conducted within the framework of higher education -- could continue," said Graham B. Spanier, chair of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and president of Pennsylvania State University. "We are grateful that with this stay we do not have to unreasonably compress our deliberations on this important matter."

Spanier said the Board, which already has a process underway to study the effects of Proposition 16, will review the the issue further during its regularly scheduled meeting April 20 in Washington, D.C., as well as during its next meeting in August.

Among the Board's review will be a continued study of alternative initial-eligibility models that have been submitted from various membership groups, including three models from the Initial-Eligibility Subcommittee of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, and other alternative models from the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee and the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

Those alternative models include (but are not limited to):

  • A single minimum grade-point average in a specified number of core courses;

  • An extended sliding scale with a minimum grade-point average;

  • A full sliding scale;

  • A combination of sliding scale and grade-point average above which a test score is not considered; and

  • Freshman ineligibility.

    Spanier said that as is the case with any NCAA policies that are data-based, the effects of Proposition 16 have been carefully evaluated since implementation of the legislation in 1996. The ongoing review, Spanier said, likely would have led to some changes in the current standards regardless of the litigation.

    "There are passionate voices within the Association and elsewhere that point to the impact of the current legislation on African-American prospects," he said. "Those voices have not gone unheard or unheeded. Almost everyone, however, believes that academic integrity is extremely important and that some uniform standard for initial eligibility is necessary. In the normal course of events, had we completed our deliberations, we would be shooting for September 1 as an implementation date for any changes to Proposition 16."

    Spanier said the Board's review of alternative models would continue to focus on the correct balance of test scores, high-school grade-point average and performance in core courses.

    "The question is the appropriate weighting," he said.

    Appeal to be determined

    The NCAA has appealed the ruling in the Cureton case on the basis of two primary factors. The NCAA claims that courts have historically deferred to the academic expertise of colleges and universities to set academic standards. The lower court in the Cureton case ruled that any academic eligibility criterion that affects the population disproportionately must be validated by independent research and study. The NCAA's position is that it has produced sufficient evidence linking graduation rates to the use of minimum test-score cutoffs. The NCAA believes the court should adhere to the historical recognition that the setting of academic standards is best left to the informed judgment of educators.

    The appeal also challenges whether the NCAA is to be regarded as a recipient of federal funding and is therefore subject to the provisions of Title VI because of the administrative services the NCAA provides to the National Youth Sports Program Fund and the court's belief that member colleges and universities have ceded their authority to the NCAA.

    Spanier said most college and university presidents would dispute that by joining the NCAA, which is a membership organization, that they have turned over responsibility to the NCAA for institutional decisions such as admissions policies and entrance standards.

    "That kind of connection would make most any university president very nervous," he said.

    The 3rd Circuit Court's order granting the stay did not set a schedule for briefing of merits of the appeal. Spanier said should the court put itself on an accelerated track and should the NCAA receive an adverse ruling before September 1, the Board would have the authority to adopt emergency legislation to put some interim standards in place before that time.

    "But we think we're on a schedule right now that coincides fairly well with the appeals court schedule," Spanier said. "And we think we have some strong arguments that would enable us to prevail on the appeal."