National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Turning up the faculty voice
WASHINGTON, D.C. — During the final panel discussion of a Knight Commission summit on the faculty perception of college sports, Indiana Law School Dean Gary Roberts said 95 percent of the conversation is focused on two sports at 60 institutions, and the problem is that those programs are not in the education business anymore.
“They are in the entertainment realm,” Roberts said, “and the values that permeate that culture are quite different than those in the educational culture.”
Then Roberts added salt to the scenario by saying the faculty — the constituency under scrutiny at the summit — wasn’t likely to effect change. “Faculty can’t stop football games on Wednesday and Thursday nights,” he said. “They have full-time jobs, and it’s not to run the athletics department. There’s a feeling of ‘why bother?’ — if they step in front of the train they’ll just get run over.”
While the audience of about 150 was taking that in, fellow panelist and University of Oregon professor Nathan Tublitz disagreed.
“With all due respect,” Tublitz said, “my colleague is completely wrong.”
“Completely?” Roberts retorted.
“Yes, completely,” said Tublitz, who co-chairs the faculty-senate-based Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. “There’s no reason for us to be here if we share your point of view. Every decision at our institutions has to made on behalf of academic integrity and student well-being. We’re lost otherwise. Unless we draw the line and say this is our value system and we’re going to maintain it, we’re finished.”
Roberts and Tublitz served on the fifth and final session during the October 15 summit designed not only to encourage more faculty to be involved in athletics oversight, but also to provide a more meaningful experience when they do.
As that exchange pointed out, faculty members feel differently — and passionately — about the subject. Though some of the day-long discussion cited big-time athletics as being too commercialized to rein in, other speakers appealed to faculty to “eat the elephant one bite at a time.”
Any culture change, however, may hinge on the momentum from within the faculty family. Roberts wasn’t the only one to mention faculty disengagement — the summit itself was prompted by a study that seconds the sentiment.
Research by University of Michigan associate professor Janet Lawrence indicated “a striking number” of faculty members who feel disenfranchised from intercollegiate athletics, and a divide among the more-engaged remainder about the integrity of their athletics programs.
The Knight Commission asked for the study after a summit last year on the college athlete experience led to the desire to examine the faculty role in athletics more closely. More than 13,000 faculty members from 23 Division I Football Bowl Subdivision schools were queried, prompting about 2,000 usable responses.
“I don’t know” was a popular answer. At least 25 percent of faculty members said so in 35 questions relating to governance, academic and financial aspects of athletics. “I don’t know” in fact was the highest or second-highest response in 42 of the 64 questions in those categories. That sent warning flags to summit participants.
“I am stunned by the results,” said Dallas Morning News sportswriter Kevin Blackistone, who served on a panel reacting to the survey. “I thought faculty were hands-on and very concerned when it comes to athletics, but this study suggests the exact opposite.”
Lawrence attributed the disengagement to three possible explanations:
Lawrence did say, though, that the “why bother” attitude came through during some of the interviews she conducted with faculty as part of the survey. She said in fact her biggest surprise was that there didn’t seem to be a tipping point for faculty to become engaged. “Our interviews indicated that the problem would have to be so egregious,” she said, and that even then, most faculty would feel too daunted to try and make a difference individually.
Other findings from the survey included:
For example, respondents who are more satisfied with general campus practices are more satisfied with the extent to which faculty input informs administrative decisions about athletics, including the decision to subsidize athletics. In other words, if respondents’ departments are fiscally sound, they don’t mind athletics being subsidized. If their departments are competing for resources, they struggle with athletics borrowing from academic coffers.
But the research also points out that even when faculty are engaged, athletics is a low priority. Faculty ranked athletics next to last in importance — just above “Greek life” in a list of 13 categories. Not surprisingly — and appropriately so, some say — undergraduate and graduate curricula and resources for research head the list.
With athletics near the bottom, some people believe that even faculty who are dissatisfied with many facets of college sports may not be inclined to become involved at a level likely to cause change. When asked in fact whether they would join a campus group aimed at ameliorating concerns, 50 percent said they would, but few thought it would lead to significant change.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, FAR Jo Potuto called it “the futility of the few who are interested expecting to convince the rest to be interested.”
With faculty involvement hanging in the balance, Tublitz challenged the survey review panel if faculty disengagement equated to college sports being problem-free.
“Is there a problem in intercollegiate athletics?” he said. “The survey points out there are too many issues. So if there is a problem, what is it and how do we solve it?”
Responses ranged from too little faculty input on important athletics decisions to the “academic message” not being conveyed through athletics.
Duke University professor Paul Haagen said athletics has to prove itself as a component of education. “Can we articulate and measure the value of athletics within education?” he said. “If we can’t, it’s hard to justify the enterprise.”
Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair for Sports and Society at Pennsylvania State University, said athletics needs to be more transparent. “How can an enterprise that generates so much discussion have so little information?” he said. “Everybody needs to know more — those who do feel better about the enterprise. If the athletes are going to help brand the university, universities can’t turn their backs the other six days of the week.”
75 — Student-athletes face more stringent time demands than other students.
73 — Faculty do not stereotype student-athletes.
62 — Athletics operates in a silo and is accountable to administrators, not faculty.
61 — Student-athletes in their department are motivated to earn degrees.
61 — Student-athletes do not use their status to influence their professors.
61 — The work lives of athletics and academic personnel rarely intersect.
60 — Academic advising for athletes is separate from advising for students.
50 — Athletics decisions are driven by the entertainment industry.
50 — Their institution operates a “clean” athletics program.
Several panelists thought they were, including Howard University professor Doris Corbett, who called for academic disclosure to “enable universities to more effectively monitor grade inflation and the overall quality of education.”
However, Appalachian State University FAR Alan Hauser called it a specious argument. “If an institution offers a program, it should be academically rigorous. If not, that school has far more problems to address,” he said.
Similarly, Phil Hughes, president of the National Association of Academic Advising for Athletics, cited no inherent evil in clustering unless the institution feels it is inappropriate for all students. He also said institutions could conduct the disclosure some people have called for, though it would be done from within rather than by an independent third party.
University of New Haven professor Allen Sack, who is affiliated with the reform-minded Drake Group, said disclosure would be ideal if the concept could gain a consensus among faculty members.
“We are responsible for the grade inflation, for the soft courses. The problem is us — it is a family feud among the faculty,” he said.
Knight Commission member Len Elmore put the onus on student-athletes to “take charge of their education.”
“We’ve got to start encouraging these young people to take control of their academic lives,” Elmore said. “They take charge of their athletics career; those skills should allow them to do the same with their academic career — we just don’t encourage it enough.”
“You don’t need to be liked; just respected.”
The comment from University of Northern Kentucky Athletics Director Jane Meier came during a Division II FAR Fellows Institute panel discussion of the FAR role, particularly as it relates to advocating the Division II athletics model. Meier, who has been the AD at Northern Kentucky for two-thirds of her 30-year stay there, said because of their objective — and tenured — status, FARs are better positioned to stand up for the integrity of college sports than anyone else on the campus. While that watchdog stance may complicate some people’s tasks, FARs in the end will build stronger relationships with campus constituents by toeing the academic-integrity line.
“FARs should never minimize the value they bring to the table. You are the eyes and voice back to the president as to what is really going on in the athletics department,” Meier told participants. “You must ensure the highest standards for student-athletes. Many coaches will do whatever they can to convince you that a student-athlete belongs at the institution whether he or she can succeed academically or not. Make sure you do all you can to understand the coach’s perspective, but above all else ensure the fit between the student-athlete and the school.”
Meier was among five panelists discussing the role of the FAR, both from a procedural perspective (such as certifying eligibility) and an aspirational one (such as effecting change as an intermediary between athletics and academics). Other panelists were Pfeiffer University President Charles Ambrose, chair of the Division II Presidents Council; Peach Belt Conference Commissioner Dave Brunk; Damon Arnold, director of academic services at Grand Valley State University; and Emporia State University Associate AD Carmen Leeds.
Ambrose pointed out how the FAR role has changed over the years, particularly in Division II. He said what used to be a “prescriptive and regulated” role has become more of an active engagement in leadership.
“Let’s think differently,” he said. “Take what Division II is providing with its strategic-positioning platform and make the integration of athletics and academics come alive. The FAR role is of the utmost utility in that effort. Yes, you are the academic backstop as it relates to the regulatory side of your job, but at the same time, you have an opportunity to change the way relationships within the Division II community are formed.”
The third annual institute is for FARs nominated by their institution or conference who participate in leadership-development sessions and learn how to effectively fulfill their role on campus. Each member develops an “action plan” to implement on his or her campus, similar to what student-athletes do annually at the NCAA national and regional leadership conferences. The primary goal for the faculty participants this year was to understand the Division II strategic-positioning platform and advance faculty involvement in the Division II athletics model.
In the question-and-answer period after the panel presentation, one of the concerns from the group was whether FARs should be advocates for athletics to academics or vice versa. Ambrose said the right answer was neither.
“The ideal outcome is to be both by advocating for student-athletes in the educational experience,” he said.
Among ways panelists urged FARs to do that were:
“It’s one of the many tools we have for FARs to help everyone on their campuses understand what Division II is about,” he said. “So often in athletics matters you hear what coaches, administrators and student-athletes think, but less frequently is the faculty opinion sought.
“The attribute of ‘balance’ is right there in the Division II strategic-positioning platform. Who better to advocate balance than FARs, who see firsthand the results of student participation in athletics within an academic experience.”
Division II is the only division to conduct a fellows institute of this type, though Racy said the model may expand as an Association-wide effort in the future.
“The Presidential Task Force and other groups have called for greater faculty involvement in overseeing athletics,” he said. “The institute is an appropriate way to teach FARs to be the kind of change agent those groups are after.”
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
Knight Commission summit questions faculty involvement in big-time sports
WASHINGTON, D.C. — During the final panel discussion of a Knight Commission summit on the faculty perception of college sports, Indiana Law School Dean Gary Roberts said 95 percent of the conversation is focused on two sports at 60 institutions, and the problem is that those programs are not in the education business anymore.
“They are in the entertainment realm,” Roberts said, “and the values that permeate that culture are quite different than those in the educational culture.”Then Roberts added salt to the scenario by saying the faculty — the constituency under scrutiny at the summit — wasn’t likely to effect change. “Faculty can’t stop football games on Wednesday and Thursday nights,” he said. “They have full-time jobs, and it’s not to run the athletics department. There’s a feeling of ‘why bother?’ — if they step in front of the train they’ll just get run over.”
While the audience of about 150 was taking that in, fellow panelist and University of Oregon professor Nathan Tublitz disagreed.
“With all due respect,” Tublitz said, “my colleague is completely wrong.”
“Completely?” Roberts retorted.
“Yes, completely,” said Tublitz, who co-chairs the faculty-senate-based Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. “There’s no reason for us to be here if we share your point of view. Every decision at our institutions has to made on behalf of academic integrity and student well-being. We’re lost otherwise. Unless we draw the line and say this is our value system and we’re going to maintain it, we’re finished.”Roberts and Tublitz served on the fifth and final session during the October 15 summit designed not only to encourage more faculty to be involved in athletics oversight, but also to provide a more meaningful experience when they do.
As that exchange pointed out, faculty members feel differently — and passionately — about the subject. Though some of the day-long discussion cited big-time athletics as being too commercialized to rein in, other speakers appealed to faculty to “eat the elephant one bite at a time.”
Any culture change, however, may hinge on the momentum from within the faculty family. Roberts wasn’t the only one to mention faculty disengagement — the summit itself was prompted by a study that seconds the sentiment.
Research by University of Michigan associate professor Janet Lawrence indicated “a striking number” of faculty members who feel disenfranchised from intercollegiate athletics, and a divide among the more-engaged remainder about the integrity of their athletics programs.
The Knight Commission asked for the study after a summit last year on the college athlete experience led to the desire to examine the faculty role in athletics more closely. More than 13,000 faculty members from 23 Division I Football Bowl Subdivision schools were queried, prompting about 2,000 usable responses.
“I don’t know” was a popular answer. At least 25 percent of faculty members said so in 35 questions relating to governance, academic and financial aspects of athletics. “I don’t know” in fact was the highest or second-highest response in 42 of the 64 questions in those categories. That sent warning flags to summit participants.
“I am stunned by the results,” said Dallas Morning News sportswriter Kevin Blackistone, who served on a panel reacting to the survey. “I thought faculty were hands-on and very concerned when it comes to athletics, but this study suggests the exact opposite.”
Lawrence attributed the disengagement to three possible explanations:
- Faculty don’t know about athletics issues because they don’t know about university policies in athletics. For example, about twice as many respondents (45 percent) said they didn’t know about faculty participation in the athletics budgeting process as those who said “I don’t know” to questions about faculty involvement in the university budget.
- Faculty in general lack direct experience with athletics policies and practices.
- “I don’t know” may correlate with “I don’t care.” Only 39 percent regard themselves as at least casual spectators or sports fans.
- “It’s probably a combination of transparency, time demands and, to some degree, the level of personal interest,” Lawrence said. “It may not be disengagement as much as it is the time faculty members have to devote to athletics issues among their other priorities.”
Lawrence did say, though, that the “why bother” attitude came through during some of the interviews she conducted with faculty as part of the survey. She said in fact her biggest surprise was that there didn’t seem to be a tipping point for faculty to become engaged. “Our interviews indicated that the problem would have to be so egregious,” she said, and that even then, most faculty would feel too daunted to try and make a difference individually.
Other findings from the survey included:
- Faculty members are generally dissatisfied with their current campus athletics governance roles, although they are more satisfied than not with their president’s oversight of athletics.
- Coaches are overpaid and athletics financial needs are prioritized over academic needs. However, half of those surveyed also think athletics success results in financial gains to campus initiatives outside of athletics.
- With the exception of football and basketball players, athletes perform as well academically as non-athletes, despite having less discretionary time as a result of their participation.
- Faculty who are involved in athletics governance are more likely to be positive about all aspects of athletics than those who are not involved.
For example, respondents who are more satisfied with general campus practices are more satisfied with the extent to which faculty input informs administrative decisions about athletics, including the decision to subsidize athletics. In other words, if respondents’ departments are fiscally sound, they don’t mind athletics being subsidized. If their departments are competing for resources, they struggle with athletics borrowing from academic coffers.
But the research also points out that even when faculty are engaged, athletics is a low priority. Faculty ranked athletics next to last in importance — just above “Greek life” in a list of 13 categories. Not surprisingly — and appropriately so, some say — undergraduate and graduate curricula and resources for research head the list.
With athletics near the bottom, some people believe that even faculty who are dissatisfied with many facets of college sports may not be inclined to become involved at a level likely to cause change. When asked in fact whether they would join a campus group aimed at ameliorating concerns, 50 percent said they would, but few thought it would lead to significant change.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, FAR Jo Potuto called it “the futility of the few who are interested expecting to convince the rest to be interested.”
With faculty involvement hanging in the balance, Tublitz challenged the survey review panel if faculty disengagement equated to college sports being problem-free.
“Is there a problem in intercollegiate athletics?” he said. “The survey points out there are too many issues. So if there is a problem, what is it and how do we solve it?”
Responses ranged from too little faculty input on important athletics decisions to the “academic message” not being conveyed through athletics.
Duke University professor Paul Haagen said athletics has to prove itself as a component of education. “Can we articulate and measure the value of athletics within education?” he said. “If we can’t, it’s hard to justify the enterprise.”
Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair for Sports and Society at Pennsylvania State University, said athletics needs to be more transparent. “How can an enterprise that generates so much discussion have so little information?” he said. “Everybody needs to know more — those who do feel better about the enterprise. If the athletes are going to help brand the university, universities can’t turn their backs the other six days of the week.”
By the numbers
The percentage of respondents from the Michigan study about faculty involvement with college sports who believe the following statements:75 — Student-athletes face more stringent time demands than other students.
73 — Faculty do not stereotype student-athletes.
62 — Athletics operates in a silo and is accountable to administrators, not faculty.
61 — Student-athletes in their department are motivated to earn degrees.
61 — Student-athletes do not use their status to influence their professors.
61 — The work lives of athletics and academic personnel rarely intersect.
60 — Academic advising for athletes is separate from advising for students.
50 — Athletics decisions are driven by the entertainment industry.
50 — Their institution operates a “clean” athletics program.
‘Clustering’ issue is an open-ended question
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Georgetown University President Jack DeGioia moderated a session at the Knight Commission summit on academic integrity that addressed whether athletes are clustered in “soft” majors.Several panelists thought they were, including Howard University professor Doris Corbett, who called for academic disclosure to “enable universities to more effectively monitor grade inflation and the overall quality of education.”
However, Appalachian State University FAR Alan Hauser called it a specious argument. “If an institution offers a program, it should be academically rigorous. If not, that school has far more problems to address,” he said.
Similarly, Phil Hughes, president of the National Association of Academic Advising for Athletics, cited no inherent evil in clustering unless the institution feels it is inappropriate for all students. He also said institutions could conduct the disclosure some people have called for, though it would be done from within rather than by an independent third party.
University of New Haven professor Allen Sack, who is affiliated with the reform-minded Drake Group, said disclosure would be ideal if the concept could gain a consensus among faculty members.
“We are responsible for the grade inflation, for the soft courses. The problem is us — it is a family feud among the faculty,” he said.
Knight Commission member Len Elmore put the onus on student-athletes to “take charge of their education.”
“We’ve got to start encouraging these young people to take control of their academic lives,” Elmore said. “They take charge of their athletics career; those skills should allow them to do the same with their academic career — we just don’t encourage it enough.”
Division II faculty representatives look to strengthen oversight at local levels
In addition to the Knight Commission faculty summit, about two dozen Division II faculty athletics representatives met October 5-7 in Indianapolis where they heard a short sentence with a long message:“You don’t need to be liked; just respected.”
The comment from University of Northern Kentucky Athletics Director Jane Meier came during a Division II FAR Fellows Institute panel discussion of the FAR role, particularly as it relates to advocating the Division II athletics model. Meier, who has been the AD at Northern Kentucky for two-thirds of her 30-year stay there, said because of their objective — and tenured — status, FARs are better positioned to stand up for the integrity of college sports than anyone else on the campus. While that watchdog stance may complicate some people’s tasks, FARs in the end will build stronger relationships with campus constituents by toeing the academic-integrity line.
“FARs should never minimize the value they bring to the table. You are the eyes and voice back to the president as to what is really going on in the athletics department,” Meier told participants. “You must ensure the highest standards for student-athletes. Many coaches will do whatever they can to convince you that a student-athlete belongs at the institution whether he or she can succeed academically or not. Make sure you do all you can to understand the coach’s perspective, but above all else ensure the fit between the student-athlete and the school.”
Meier was among five panelists discussing the role of the FAR, both from a procedural perspective (such as certifying eligibility) and an aspirational one (such as effecting change as an intermediary between athletics and academics). Other panelists were Pfeiffer University President Charles Ambrose, chair of the Division II Presidents Council; Peach Belt Conference Commissioner Dave Brunk; Damon Arnold, director of academic services at Grand Valley State University; and Emporia State University Associate AD Carmen Leeds.
Ambrose pointed out how the FAR role has changed over the years, particularly in Division II. He said what used to be a “prescriptive and regulated” role has become more of an active engagement in leadership.
“Let’s think differently,” he said. “Take what Division II is providing with its strategic-positioning platform and make the integration of athletics and academics come alive. The FAR role is of the utmost utility in that effort. Yes, you are the academic backstop as it relates to the regulatory side of your job, but at the same time, you have an opportunity to change the way relationships within the Division II community are formed.”
The third annual institute is for FARs nominated by their institution or conference who participate in leadership-development sessions and learn how to effectively fulfill their role on campus. Each member develops an “action plan” to implement on his or her campus, similar to what student-athletes do annually at the NCAA national and regional leadership conferences. The primary goal for the faculty participants this year was to understand the Division II strategic-positioning platform and advance faculty involvement in the Division II athletics model.
In the question-and-answer period after the panel presentation, one of the concerns from the group was whether FARs should be advocates for athletics to academics or vice versa. Ambrose said the right answer was neither.
“The ideal outcome is to be both by advocating for student-athletes in the educational experience,” he said.
Among ways panelists urged FARs to do that were:
- Enhance the life/school balance for student-athletes.
- Actively define the role of co-curricular involvement so that student-athletes get the most of their educational experience.
- Be a viable member of search committees, not just a “rubber stamper.”
- Conduct exit interviews with seniors; students are more inclined to be candid with the FAR than with even a coach.
- Nominate student-athletes for NCAA postgraduate scholarships.
- Be a sounding board for athletics staff.
- Use conference grants to establish conference FAR councils and to attend the FARA Fall Forum and the NCAA Convention.
“It’s one of the many tools we have for FARs to help everyone on their campuses understand what Division II is about,” he said. “So often in athletics matters you hear what coaches, administrators and student-athletes think, but less frequently is the faculty opinion sought.
“The attribute of ‘balance’ is right there in the Division II strategic-positioning platform. Who better to advocate balance than FARs, who see firsthand the results of student participation in athletics within an academic experience.”
Division II is the only division to conduct a fellows institute of this type, though Racy said the model may expand as an Association-wide effort in the future.
“The Presidential Task Force and other groups have called for greater faculty involvement in overseeing athletics,” he said. “The institute is an appropriate way to teach FARs to be the kind of change agent those groups are after.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy