The following article was written by chief executive officers from eight Division III institutions in response to 2004 Convention Proposal No. 65.

The Division III Presidents Council recently wrote to all Division III presidents outlining its agenda for the NCAA Convention in January. The Council's letter devoted considerable space to Proposal No. 65, legislation that would repeal a bylaw dating back to 1983 that allows our eight institutions to award athletics grants-in-aid in the Division I sports in which we compete.

Unfortunately, the Presidents Council letter presented only one side of the issue and ignored many strong arguments on behalf of retaining this bylaw. There is another side of the story -- a story about protecting fairness, diversity and flexibility in college sports. It is a story we believe is compelling and will prevail in Nashville in January.

The exemption in the current NCAA bylaws was created 20 years ago and remains as important to our eight schools as it did at its inception for several key reasons.

* History and tradition. Each of our institutions is deeply committed to the Division III philosophy. But each also operates one or two sports teams in Division I for reasons particular to the histories and rich traditions of our institutions. Our involvement at the highest competitive level in those sports pre-dates the NCAA's current divisional structure. Over the decades, these teams -- in some cases among the nation's most successful programs in their sports -- have become embedded in the very identities of our institutions. In some respects, the sense of community experienced by our students, our faculty and staff, our alumni and our neighbors would be greatly diminished if these programs were lost.

* Diversity. We believe deeply in the principle that our student-athletes, regardless of the division of competition, should be representative of the student body as a whole in academic ability and high-school performance, and in academic and co-curricular performance and participation on our campuses. We use our grants-in-aid to increase the socioeconomic, geographic, gender, ethnic and racial diversity of our campuses -- each in our own way, for we are a diverse set of institutions. Eliminating our ability to award grants-in-aid will be a step backward with regard to critical Division III goals that we all support.

* No harm, no foul. The exemption causes no harm to Division III as a whole or to other Division III institutions. NCAA rules prohibit our student-athletes from receiving a Division I grant-in-aid for playing on a Division III team. There is no evidence that our limited participation at the Division I level results in a competitive advantage in our Division III sports. In fact, a look at the NACDA Directors' Cup standings over the years provides considerable evidence that no such advantage exists. Most of our conference opponents support us on this issue. Continuation of the exemption causes no harm to them, to other Division III institutions or to the Division III reform agenda.

* A promise is a promise. The Presidents Council letter asserts that the waiver enacted in 1983 was "not adopted as a 'permanent' accommodation." But the waiver is written into the NCAA bylaws. It has no sunset provision. We are not aware of any expressed or implicit intention on the part of the membership in 1983 that it be temporary. Each of us in different ways has relied on the existence of the exemption in the NCAA bylaws to make important institutional commitments with long-term implications. Continuing the exemption does no harm to other Division III institutions, but revoking it causes harm to us, and in some cases to the communities in which our institutions live.

As we have talked with presidents and athletics administrators across the country, we have learned that many harbor misconceptions about the waiver. It is important to understand, for instance, that, as Division III members, our eight institutions receive none of the financial benefits that go routinely to universities with full Division I status.

Specifically, we do not receive any Division I championship monetary disbursement. We do not receive the annual academic enhancement payout of $51,000 that Division I institutions receive. Our Division I student-athletes do not have access to the Special Assistance Fund. We do not receive Division I funding for sport sponsorship. We do not receive any Division I funding in support of the grants-in-aid we offer. In short, we finance our Division I intercollegiate athletics programs in the same way that we finance our Division III programs.

Our institutions have submitted a proposed amendment to Proposal No. 65. What would Proposal No. 65-1 do? Essentially, it would freeze the situation as it stands today. It would continue the waiver granted in 1983, but only for the current Division I teams at our eight schools and, if necessary for Title IX compliance, one team of the opposite sex.

We cannot say this strongly enough: We believe in Division III. We offer our student-athletes model Division III programs. But we do not believe that the Division III philosophy is a straitjacket. We do not believe that it demands total conformity in the name of reform. We do believe that it leaves room for reasonable, justifiable diversity in the operation of our athletics programs.

In fact, in the Division III philosophy statement, the NCAA itself pledges to "minimize infringement on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs."

We have gained support from many individuals beyond our eight schools. We are grateful to the many presidents and athletics directors from our own conferences and from Division III institutions across the country who already have pledged their support to Proposal No. 65-1. We are especially indebted to the Faculty Athletic Representatives Association and the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, both of which voted overwhelmingly to support our position.

They recognize, as the NCAA recognized in 1983, that it is reasonable and justifiable to avoid forcing us to leave the highest level of competition in our traditional sports -- and that forcing us to compete only at the Division III level would cause unnecessary harm to our institutions. Justification for the waiver is as strong today as it was then. We urge all Division III presidents and athletics directors to consider this issue on the merits and join with us and our allies in support of alternative Proposal No. 65-1.

The preceding article was provided by President William R. Brody of Johns Hopkins University; President Richard F. Celeste of Colorado College; President Anthony G. Collins of Clarkson University; Provost Stephen Diner of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark; President Alan Donovan of State University College at Oneonta; President Shirley Ann Jackson of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; President Richard P. Miller of Hartwick College; and President Daniel Sullivan of St. Lawrence University.