Nothing drives public opinion in college sports like the NCAA taking a stand, especially on issues people see as being outside the Association's purview. Never mind the debates that ensue after an infractions case or Selection Sunday -- those matters at least are in the family. But just as families have a hard time discussing politics and religion at the dinner table, so, too, does the Association have trouble digesting social fare.

Case in point: In April 2000, the NCAA Executive Committee passed a resolution that said if South Carolina did not remove the Confederate battle flag that flew atop its statehouse, the Association would cancel all its future championships and meetings in that state.

Reaction was swift from both sides. Supporters applauded the NCAA's chutzpah for protecting student-athlete well-being and backing one of its core principles of diversity and inclusion. Critics, though, said it was a state matter in which the NCAA was not a welcome guest. Even some student-athletes accused the NCAA of inappropriately forwarding a political agenda. Two University of Toledo baseball players in fact wrote in an NCAA News editorial that "to create an apparatus within the NCAA that involves it in the political arena and ultimately allows it to take political stands is detrimental to the Association's foremost objectives as a group dedicated to the well-being of student-athletes."

But flak from the flag issue was mild compared to the firestorm the NCAA fueled with its decision in August regarding Native American mascots and imagery. Public reaction was predictably negative, but this time there were some in the NCAA membership who grumbled, too. Perhaps that was to be expected since the decision to preclude mascots and imagery deemed "hostile or abusive" from NCAA championships directly affected a handful of NCAA institutions, but it further brought to the forefront the question of whether the NCAA should act as the "social conscience" of intercollegiate athletics.

Some leaders in the enterprise have no trouble saying it should. "Not to make
a comment in these areas would in fact be making a comment," said St. Thomas Aquinas College President Margaret Mary Fitzpatrick. "No organization is value-free, even if it purports to be."

Others, though, think the NCAA should tread lightly into the social realm. "We generally ought to limitourselves to an expression of concern for our values and not involve ourselves in any sort of coercion or compulsory policy," said Division III Presidents Council Chair Phil Stone.

Few disagree that the NCAA ought to at least blow the awareness whistle when controversial issues touch intercollegiate athletics. Homophobia, hazing, Title IX, the lack of diversity among head football coaches, eating disorders, alcohol and substance abuse -- the NCAA has been loud and clear as an advocate in all of those "social" areas.

Even the general public supports the NCAA as a social advocate to a degree. Recent research from TNS Sport says that "ethics and morals," including such areas as ethnic and gender issues, is one of the three most frequently cited concerns the NCAA should address (the others being athletics administration and higher education).

But some people -- including University of Utah Athletics Director Chris Hill -- felt the NCAA crossed a line in the mascot issue when it set policy.

Hill's school was one of 18 the Executive Committee identified as not passing the "hostile or abusive" test. Hill and Utah President Michael Young, however, filed for and received an exemption based on the institution's relationship with the Northern Ute Indian tribe.

Hill remained bothered, though, by what he called an assumption on the NCAA's part that Utah had notstudied the issue well enough before. As an NCAA member, and as an institution of higher learning, Hill said Utah abides by the same ethical standards the NCAA espouses. Even if the NCAA did not exist, Hill said, it would be presumptuous to think Utah would not have done its due diligence.

"All of us in higher education -- including the collective NCAA -- have a responsibility to be leaders and speak out on social issues," Hill said. "However, the context of those social issues must be thoroughly explored before one takes a public stand. The NCAA has a structure in place that allows it to make sound decisions on advancing social issues. It just needs to follow it, which it did not do in the case of university nicknames and mascots.

"A little bit of research would have revealed that the University of Utah did not wait for an NCAA mandate to be sensitive to the people our nickname represents. Our long, established relationship with the Ute tribe is ongoing, and we use our nickname with the Utes' approval. After reviewing our appeal, the NCAA recognized that we were acting in good faith."

But Alcorn State University President Clinton Bristow believes the NCAA Executive Committee acted correctly and within its purview. That resonates for two reasons: Not only does Bristow chair the Executive Committee's subcommittee on gender and diversity issues, he also presides at an institution that uses the "Braves" nickname and for now remains subject to the very postseason restrictions his subcommittee supported.

"When you make decisions about social-consciousness issues, you don't get into taking polls," Bristow said. "If you had taken polls about social consciousness at various times in our country's history, there wouldn't have been much change. The reason they're major social issues is because they go against the grain of what the majority wants.

"A lot of people in the public don't want this to go very well."

Bristow isn't one of them. He said he placed the issue squarely in front of his institution even before the internal reporting process began. The school already has removed its Indian mascot that previously roamed the sidelines during football games. The university also now uses what Bristow calls "a sophisticated generic athletics logo" and will have institutional personnel determine the permanent future course with reference to the nickname "Braves."

"Here we are, a historically black university," he said, "and we've been very sensitive over the years as to how we've been regarded and addressed as a people, as an institution. To have this issue put before us and to act as if we're oblivious to it would be hypocritical and duplicitous."

Bristow said the NCAA is right to act as the social conscience for college sports because of intercollegiate athletics' role in protecting and enhancing not only the physical but also the educational well-being of student-athletes.

"Our business as institutions is the teaching business at all points in time -- taking people to a higher level of thinking in everything we do within the institution, including athletics," he said. "Athletics is not separate from the institution -- it is a component. As the institution emerges and changes its focus on how it wants to deal with societal issues, athletics has to follow suit."

But Stone, the president at Division III Bridgewater College (Virginia), cautions that whatever the issue in question, it ought to be relevant. He, for one, distinguishes between the Confederate battle flag and Native American mascot issues when it comes to NCAA intervention.

Stone said the former created a potentially unsafe environment for student-athletes. In addition, the National Association of Basketball Coaches -- on behalf of its members -- had asked for the NCAA Executive Committee's assistance in the flag matter. He said whereas the flag contributed to a threatening or hostile environment in which to conduct athletics events, the mascot issue may not rise to that level of student-athlete well-being.

"It's more of a broader, social issue about how members of Indian tribes feel, or about how others who are sympathetic to their feelings feel. That certainly is a legitimate concern but perhaps not one that deserves the focus of the NCAA," he said.

As a member of the Executive Committee, though, Stone supported the recommendations. The vote in fact was unanimous, save for an abstention from Atlantic Coast Conference representative Wayne Clough, president at Georgia Institute of Technology.

"The rationale that I accepted for my own voting at the time of the Executive Committee meeting was that it simply seems to be the next step," Stone said. "If we believe certain things to be wrong -- and we already said we believed they were -- then how could we in good conscience accept them in our own championships?"

Others, though, think that simply raising awareness is enough. They point to such discussion in fact as having been influential in institutional decisions to change Indian mascots and nicknames over the past several years.

Wichita State University President Don Beggs said that approach should continue in the future.

"Our advocacy as a membership organization in these issues should rise to the level of awareness campaigns, but going beyond that places the NCAA in a position of doing things it is not intended to do," he said. "Once we go beyond the well-being of the students and fans, the rest should become a campus issue."

Beggs, who rotated off the Executive Committee last year and preceded Alcorn State President Bristow as chair of the gender and diversity issues subcommittee, said when the NCAA chooses to become involved in social issues, "the Association assumes the responsibility of attempting to judge the merits of the multiple social concerns that are frequently debated on our respective campuses -- differing opinions are always present."

Evidence to that effect is demonstrated by the public backlash against the NCAA's perceived "meddling," as well as criticism from some Native American constituents who say the NCAA didn't go far enough.

"The NCAA was established to ensure fairness in competition and was not originally intended to be the social conscience for any group," Beggs said. "It has a responsibility to keep the issues in the forefront of discussion and study, but the NCAA -- when it went to the sanction level in the mascot matter -- elevated this social issue to another level for the Association."

Presidents such as Fitzpatrick from St. Thomas Aquinas, though, believe the NCAA as the parent organization "has to understand the value system of the majority of the colleges and universities involved and speak out when we see a possibly perceived injustice."

"The mascot issue went through the appropriate process," said the Division II Presidents Council member. "The NCAA raised the concern, a dialogue ensued over several years, and it was overwhelmingly felt that we needed to say that we as an institution -- the NCAA -- stand for these types of values."

"The NCAA is a social conscience for a number of reasons," Bristow echoed. "Our society is constantly changing. The NCAA Constitution talks about diversity across the board in our governing structure. We can't duck those issues as they begin to emerge. We've got to step up and address them."

Even if it interrupts the meal.