Having just completed a 20-year tenure as the faculty representative at the University of Iowa, I have had the luxury of time to reflect about the changes that have occurred in the athletics programs on our campuses. These changes have shifted the emphasis from the educational mission of higher education toward the commercial or corporate enterprise. Within this highly commercialized venture, FRs have a more critical role than ever.

In 1989, NCAA member institutions mandated that the FR be a member of the institution's faculty and not the athletics department. Before that time, it was possible for athletics department members to serve as the FR. This change at the very least separated the FR from close ties to athletics and allowed an independent oversight of athletics programs.

I always have believed that the FR's role is to be the "conscience" of the institution regarding the relationship of the athletics program to the institution's mission. For that reason, I have resisted the title of "faculty athletics representative" (FAR). "FAR" seems to indicate that faculty are representing athletics interests rather than the interests of the faculty in how athletics programs are conducted.

Lost in structure

It is the faculty representative who provides the link among the athletics department, the faculty as a whole and the president of the university. To be effective, therefore, the FR must have direct access to the president and to the faculty governing bodies on campus and must, at all times, be "in the loop" on all athletics issues.

Providing leadership to local athletics governing boards is yet another responsibility of the FR since faculty on that board must understand and be able to articulate the issues affecting athletics, whether they are academic, financial or student-welfare concerns. One of their critical responsibilities is to inform and educate their own constituencies and, where necessary, to push the institution to seriously consider significant changes (for example, to prohibit the scheduling of contests on weeknights in order to enhance television revenues).

Having served as a member of the Division I Committee on Infractions for nine years, I gained new insight into the relative effectiveness, or lack thereof, of faculty representatives. One major discovery was that FRs frequently are not "in the loop" on major decisions about athletics on their campuses, which may explain why the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and others interested in reforming collegiate athletics have stated that the FRs seem to be the weakest link in the governance of intercollegiate athletics. They are ineffective either in a benign way (out of the loop) or in a much more troublesome way of perhaps having been co-opted by the athletics enterprise.

At meetings as recently as fall 2002, FRs were frustrated about the lack of clarity in their responsibilities on their own campuses. They also were frustrated about key personnel, both inside and outside of the athletics department, also not clearly understanding those responsibilities. The president of the institution should clarify the role of the FR to all relevant parties. While administrative structures among our campuses differ, the principle of institutional control and the NCAA certification process mandate that the FR be centrally involved with matters related to athletics on all of our campuses.

But the new Division I governance structure makes it increasingly difficult for FR voices to be heard. Over the past couple of years, Division I-A FRs have met with Division I-A athletics directors to discuss ways in which both groups can have more significant input within the structure. One of the outcomes of that alliance has been the restoration of one legislative cycle and a continuing discussion of the merits of returning to a one-institution/one-vote system.

There are many specific issues about which FRs should be concerned, but space allows me to mention only a few. There is no question that commercial interests have had a negative effect on the lives of student-athletes, particularly in the area of the time demands that are placed upon them in playing and practice schedules. Although the pressures brought to bear on coaches and athletics directors to maximize profits are enormous, faculty must strenuously and vigorously resist the proliferation of contests and the increased demands on the student-athlete; in fact, serious cutbacks on these demands must be considered.Because of these demands, most campuses have established Student Support Services within athletics departments where services such as tutoring and counseling are provided. In recent years, special centers have been built to accommodate this enterprise and, in fact, a part of the current arms race is the building of multimillion-dollar "learning centers" or "student development centers."

Faculty oversight of records

Faculty should argue for the placement of this enterprise under the provost or the chief academic officer on campus rather than under the auspices of the athletics department. This is more than a symbolic gesture. It removes tutors and counselors from the direct supervision of athletics department members and places them under the same academic oversight as all undergraduate services. Practical issues, such as knowledge of eligibility rules, should become a part of the training program for all personnel who work with student-athletes. Funding for this program should be provided by the athletics department through a transfer of funds into the general fund.

The academic pursuits and progress of student-athletes should always demand the full vigilance of the FR. Many faculty groups have strongly argued that general academic records of student-athletes should be made public to reveal not only graduation rates but also progress toward degrees and selected majors. David Goldfield made this point very effectively in a recent NCAA News commentary (January 6, 2003, issue). FRs, working closely with the provost office and/or academic deans, should monitor the academic records to see if student-athletes fit the overall profile of undergraduates at the institution or if they are over-represented in a few areas. It should be noted that if courses or majors lacking academic integrity exist on our campuses it is the fault of the faculty, not the athletics department. It is often the case that through the process of checking the patterns of student-athlete enrollment, faculty make changes to the curriculum that strengthen the overall integrity of program offerings. This is a positive from many perspectives.

Faculty representatives must be a strong voice in support of gender equity in our athletics programs and must not allow recent assaults on Title IX to be successful. In the face of enormous budget pressures, some in athletics argue that programs must be dropped in order to attain gender equity. In reality, it is the excesses in a few high-profile sports in Division I that are resulting in budget crises. Female student-athletes and men's nonrevenue sports have few advocates. The athletics board and the FR have major responsibilities in this area. The AAUP's new report (2003) on the faculty role in the reform of intercollegiate athletics provides an excellent concluding comment: "Ultimately, faculty must take responsibility at their own institutions for the proper functioning of athletics programs and the appropriate treatment of college athletes as students." The FR should be front and center on these issues.

Bonnie Slatton recently retired as the faculty representative at the University of Iowa after serving in that role for 20 years. Though she is no longer the faculty representative, she continues to teach classes in health and sport studies.