As a faculty member, I am no stranger to committee service. Typically, when one's term on a committee is over, the event is met either with ambivalence or a sense of relief. However, since going off the Division II Academic Requirements Committee (ARC) in September, I have experienced withdrawal symptoms.

This rather unusual reaction was accentuated when I moved to a new office on campus shortly after completing my term. As I sorted through boxes and file cabinet drawers full of ARC materials one final time, I was reminded of the amount of work and time I had devoted to this committee. This only added to my disappointment about the NCAA policy of committee term limits.

I joined the ARC before restructuring when it still was an Association-wide committee. At the first meeting I attended, I remember being overwhelmed by the range of issues being discussed and the level of knowledge demonstrated by the other committee members. Even though I had been serving as a faculty athletics representative for several years by that time, I quickly realized that I was facing a steep learning curve that would involve not only boning up on the bylaws and interpretations (for all three divisions), but also reviewing statistical analysis and learning about survey methodology, national educational trends and a variety of federal regulations.

By the end of the meeting two days later, my head was buzzing with unfamiliar details about cohorts, sliding scales, using standardized tests as predictors, and a Knight Commission report (still committee lingo six years later). As intimidating as that first meeting was, I was fascinated by the committee's charge. Little did I know how interesting, challenging and controversial the next several years would be.

Variety of issues

During my first year with ARC, issues arose from NCAA member institutions being frustrated with the then relatively new Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. The relationship between the Clearinghouse and the universities had just begun to improve when new controversy arose. Several different groups began protesting the expanded role of the NCAA and the Clearinghouse (often viewed as synonymous entities) in evaluating core courses and determination of initial eligibility of prospective student-athletes.

While the ARC and the membership tried to carefully adjust and strengthen initial-eligibility rules in order to enhance academic integrity and the graduation rates of student-athletes (in response to the original Knight Commission reports and mounting public pressure of the late 1980s and early 1990s), the bylaw changes began to be viewed as undesirable meddling. Criticism in a variety of forms came from parents, student-athletes, high-school constituents (coaches, guidance counselors, principals, superintendents, state boards of education and various national teachers groups), the media, and even the U.S. Justice Department and Office of Civil Rights.

Also early on in my term, partly as a result of some of the criticism about the role of the Clearinghouse in determining initial eligibility, I became involved in the earliest appeals process relating to core-course requirements. Imagine my surprise when six cases of books, videos and other instructional resources appeared at my office a few days after I agreed to look at the course material in question. This informal review process evolved into the Core-Course Review Committee, composed of a variety of discipline-specific subcommittees, and eventually led to a major reconsideration by the membership of the legislation regarding core-course requirements.

The ARC also spent almost two years working with the U.S. Justice Department considering the impact of the eligibility rules on the learning-disabled community. Those negotiations resulted in modifications of the rules allowing reasonable accommodations for learning-disabled student athletes while still maintaining academic standards.

The committee also had the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Department of Education (reporting of graduation rates) and the Office of Civil Rights (on the issue of English as a Second Language).

You may be wondering why anyone would want to work so hard and deal with such controversial issues -- especially faculty, whose jobs are not directly related to intercollegiate athletics (as is the case for most FARs). But I believe the following are reasons why FARs (as well as other individuals) should be involved in the NCAA at the national level:

* As educators, it is obvious that academic integrity and performance should be important to us. We also should be interested in the broad issues associated with education -- including those facing high schools. In reviewing core courses, I was fascinated by the innovation I saw -- in integrating concepts and applications, the inclusion of technology, the move toward interdisciplinary courses and curricula, and so on. This was encouraging to me since we routinely hear so much negative press about the state of education in this country. However, the reality of how difficult it will be to "fix education" also became much more obvious after reviewing reams of research data that clearly indicate that economics, geography, demographics and politics are complicating factors influencing what goes on in the classroom.

* I think it is valuable for faculty to move outside their narrow discipline and research area. While we all always "have too much to do," I found that stepping outside of the routine on campus to be refreshing and invigorating. I typically returned to campus after a two- or three-day meeting both exhausted and better able to face the typical routine and problems waiting for me. Perhaps dealing with big issues put the minor annoyances and problems at home into perspective.

* While campus committee work is expected, but often annoying and unexciting, NCAA committees from my perspective offer a variety of experiences and a chance to develop leadership skills. And, unlike the typical campus faculty meetings, NCAA committee meetings are never run inefficiently.

* The most valuable reward associated with NCAA committee service is the opportunity to work with truly dedicated and wonderful people who quickly become good friends. "Free time" (albeit minimal for the ARC) is spent chatting about hot issues on our respective campuses, state-by-state politics, educational philosophies and ideas on how to do our jobs better back home. I was constantly amazed at the caliber of individual committee members and the expertise and dedication of the NCAA staff.

So, if you are a new FAR or one who has not yet become active beyond the campus level, I urge you to start thinking about NCAA committee service. I have only described one committee to you, but I know from talking with colleagues that there are many rewarding opportunities on other committees as well. I personally am scanning the committee vacancies right now to help alleviate my withdrawal from ARC!

Diane W. Husic is the faculty athletics representative at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania.