When the Association dedicated itself to membership restructuring in the mid-'90s, one of the major issues was how to achieve acceptable ethnic and gender diversity in the leadership bodies, especially the Management Councils and presidential boards.

After much discussion, the hurdle was cleared, and the new membership structure was implemented in August 1997.

Now, two years later, it is apparent that the challenge of maintaining diverse leadership is at least as great as what was involved in creating it.

The NCAA's means of achieving diversity vary widely from division to division -- and even within the divisions.

Division I, for example, requires that at least 20 percent of its Management Council and cabinets be minorities and that at least 35 percent be women. The Division I Board of Directors must have one minority member and one female member; they cannot be the same person.

Division II has no requirements, beyond a mandate that diversity be addressed in the election of members.

Division III requires that its 15-member Presidents Council contain at least two ethnic minorities and three women. The 19-member Management Council must contain at least three ethnic minorities and at least eight women.

In discussing diversity in the leadership structure, two questions rush to the front. The first is whether minimum standards are an appropriate way of achieving diversity. The second is whether such quotas act as ceilings, thus actually limiting diversity.

Although only two years have passed, it is nonetheless interesting to note that the division without requirements is the one that has achieved the greatest diversity at the top.

The Division II Presidents Council currently has 46.2 percent minority representation, almost doubling the rate of Division III and more than quadrupling the Division I percentage.

Clint Bryant, director of athletics at Augusta State University and chair of the Division II Management Council, said the division's leadership should be proud of its ongoing commitment to diversity. He added, however, that observers could be fooled by the image projected by the Presidents Council.

"We know we have a problem in Division II," he said. "This is the only division in which the percentage of minority administrators has actually gone backward in recent years.

"I know people can look at pictures of Division II leaders and be misled. They see people like Adam Herbert and Gladys Styles Johnston and me. They might look at us and become complacent."

In fact, diverse leadership alone is not a complete goal, but it would seem to be an important part of building an Association in which equity at all levels is the norm.

The maintenance of diverse NCAA leadership is difficult because of the factor cited by Bryant: The candidate pool of minority athletics administrators from non-historically black institutions is small throughout the Association. Minority faculty athletics representatives and senior woman administrators are in especially short supply. The lack of African-American FARs is especially frustrating because the positions are filled by appointment and therefore may be addressed at will by institutional chief executive officers.

The NCAA constitution explicitly states that all of the Management Councils are to contain faculty representatives and senior woman administrators. But the NCAA's most recent racial demographic study showed that of the 782 reporting non-historically black institutions in all three divisions, only 16 (2 percent) had minority faculty athletics representatives.

"I find those figures shocking," said Robert A. Bowlsby, director of athletics at the University of Iowa and the original chair of the Division I Management Council. "If you had asked me to guess, I would have said that number would have been about 10 percent."

The implications of those percentages can be illustrated in Division I. Excluding historically black institutions, only 11 of 277 (4 percent) reporting institutions had minority faculty athletics representatives. Two of those -- Percy Bates of the University of Michigan and Charles Whitcomb of San Jose State University -- already have or have had seats on the Division I Management Council. When their terms are up -- Whitcomb's expired in October -- the pool of possible minority candidates will be even smaller than before unless changes are made.

Whitcomb, who chairs the Association-wide Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, believes that the dwindling pool of experienced minority representatives is a major NCAA problem.

"We continue to recycle the same people," he said. "You know how it is. Once people are in the system and perform, they are used again and again. But we aren't getting enough new minority administrators into the system, and those who are involved may be doing so much that they experience burnout."

Compounding the problem, Bowlsby noted that care must be taken to make certain that diversity is the responsibility of every conference. A conference should not have to bear the burden for maintaining the racial and gender balance for the Division I Management Council when it is time to replace a minority simply because it appointed a minority or a woman in the first place.

But the mathematical reality is that if a conference replaces a minority with a non-minority, that means some other conference will have to appoint a minority simply to maintain the status quo. And the status quo must be maintained because the Division I Management Council contains the minimum number of minority and female representatives, just as it did when it was created in 1997.

Indeed, there appears to be a consensus that minimum requirements have tended to act as a ceiling. The bigger question is whether they are necessary.

When the details of restructuring were being worked out, both women and minority constituencies supported creating minimum standards. Both groups were, however, apprehensive about the outcome that might result.

"Women's fears of the minimums becoming the maximum have been demonstrated," Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, said recently in response to a question about the leadership role of women within the NCAA.

Bryant, an African American, believes that Division II took the correct path in not identifying any minimum standards. He said that not only has the division done at least as well as any other in terms of gender and ethnic diversity in leadership positions, it also has done well in diversifying the "valued role" positions.

"I know that faculty reps were concerned that they would not be represented adequately on the Management Council," he said when legislation was adopted that set aside only four guaranteed slots. "But seven of the 24 members of the Division II Management Council are faculty reps."

Bowlsby, however, believes that Division I was justified in creating minimum standards, even though he agrees that the solution was not necessarily perfect from any single perspective.

"It was a long and arduous process," Bowlsby said, "and we finally reached a decision through a series of compromises. Yes, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the minimums do tend to become the maximums, or vice versa, but there was a strong sentiment -- expressed by people of good will -- that there was a need to put something in writing to assure diverse representation."

The ultimate goal of diversity is to get many different perspectives to the table in order to make the decision-making process as effective as it can be. Bryant very much supports the concept, but he also acknowledges that solving the current problem could lead to another concern: new appointments who are lacking in experience.

In fact, a Management Council representative at any level is expected to have a significant amount of experience in the NCAA committee structure. If 100 new faculty representatives -- minority or otherwise -- were appointed throughout the membership tomorrow, almost all would be missing that committee background and thus seemingly would be ill-prepared for service at the head of the organization.

Whitcomb, however, said the problem is not as daunting as it appears and cites his own experience as an example.

"I had served five years as a university ombudsman, reporting directly to the president," he said. "Then, in 1983, the faculty athletics representative left, and the president came to me and asked if I would be interested in filling that role. I had not had any direct experience in athletics."

Asked whether others could follow the same path, Whitcomb said, "There is no doubt in my mind. It is not a difficult process."

In fact, Whitcomb said the primary role of the FAR is just what the name implies: a representative of the faculty. The nuts and bolts of NCAA knowledge can be learned after the appointment is made, he said.

Bryant added that NCAA leadership bodies also might consider whether they might benefit from different kinds of experience than they have traditionally sought. "I know that Lisa Colvin (who is white) from the University of Southern Arkansas had only sports committee experience when she joined the Division II Management Council," Bryant said, "but she has brought a fresh perspective to the table, and I think she is going to be an outstanding representative."

The fact that the NCAA is struggling with this issue may indicate a bigger problem on the institutional and conference levels.

"What is the plan?" asked Whitcomb. "What have we put in the works to make sure that we have minorities and women to serve on committees and in leadership positions?"

As an example, Whitcomb said that the Division I athletics certification process focuses more on gender and minority equity for student-athletes, coaches and athletics administrators and less on the makeup of institutional athletics councils. Yet, those councils are where presidents turn when it is time to replace FARs.

"The faculty athletics representative situation is a challenge for the presidents," Bryant said. "Neither I nor anybody else wants to displace somebody who is doing a good job, but plenty of opportunities arise to address this problem through attrition."

All divisions are taking some steps to create administrative opportunities for minorities and women. Intern programs and the NCAA fellows program have been in place for some time now. Division II has created the Strategic Alliance Matching Grant Education Program, which will assist institutions and conferences in building opportunities through a matching-funds program administered by the NCAA. Division III is looking to enhance a database of minority candidates, both to aid the governance structure directly and to provide opportunities at the institutional level.

The recent NCAA diversity audit also identified a number of initiatives that could help solve the problem. The audit noted that:

Divisions I, II and III governance groups should evaluate each division's appointment process annually over the next five years.

The Division III Nominating Committee will report annually to the Management Council and Presidents Council on the status of gender and diversity representation within the governance structure.

Division III will address diversity issues as a formal discussion topic during the Division III business session at the 2000 NCAA Convention.

Chief executive officers are encouraged to hire women and minorities for athletics directors positions and appoint them to faculty athletics representative positions.

Female and minority representation should be enhanced at the conference commissioner level.

Meanwhile, Bowlsby said he is not surprised at the ongoing difficulties that the Association faces in seeking to achieve diverse representation at the top.

"Everyone knew that diversity issues would be more difficult the second time around," he said.