Most of us are familiar with the Robert Frost poem "Mending Wall," even if we do not know it by name. After all, who hasn't heard or recited its famous last words: "Good fences make good neighbors"?

There is an irony associated with this work since the concluding phrase has become a motto for those who want to distance themselves from unwanted outsiders. In the poem, however, the writer and a neighbor purposefully meet once a year to repair the fence they share.

"I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;

"And on a day we meet to walk the line

"And set the wall between us once again."

The leap from Frost to NCAA division membership requirements is large, but his image of a dividing line among friends can help us understand how we all benefit from carefully constructed boundaries.

When we meet at the 2002 NCAA Convention in Indianapolis next month, the Division II membership will consider a package of 13 proposals that, if approved, will alter membership standards involving sports sponsorship and financial aid.

These changes are absolutely essential if we are to continue building a Division II in which the members share a common philosophy.

If we fail to approve these changes, we run the risk of returning to the days when we were a catch-all classification. In the four years of a federated NCAA governance system, Division II -- more than any other division -- has sharpened its reason for being. We are excited about our vibrant philosophy that seeks, among other things, a balance between competitive excellence and the value of participation. But we cannot count on an adherence to the status quo to maintain our increasingly desirable environment. As we reassess our relationships with Division I, Division III and the NAIA, we must do so in the belief that the time has come "to walk the line and set the wall between us once again."

"Setting the wall" does not mean that Division II should be transformed into a

fortress. In fact, these proposed changes are designed to promote division stability and to provide membership access to deserving provisional institutions and conferences that have demonstrated a meaningful commitment.

Prospective members will be able to show such a commitment in two new ways.

First, they will be required to complete a one-year exploratory period before becoming eligible to apply for the four-year provisional classification period (Proposal No. 8). This requirement will give the institution time to investigate and confirm that Division II is an appropriate affiliation.

Second, once an institution has completed the exploratory period, it can apply for Division II membership only if it complies with Division II sports-sponsorship requirements and with a proposed financial aid requirement (Proposal No. 11). The ultimate test of commitment -- the four-year provisional membership period -- remains in place.

The more the Division II Presidents Council analyzed this complicated issue, the more we realized that we could not strengthen provisional requirements and manage future growth without also modifying requirements for active membership. At the same time, we did not want the changes to adversely affect current Division II members.

With that in mind, the Division II membership should understand that proposals involving changes in sports-sponsorship and financial aid requirements have been crafted so that they match the current practices of the vast majority of Division II members.

The new sports-sponsorship requirement, Proposal No. 17, calls for a Division II member to sponsor at least 10 sports (at least five men's and women's sports or four men's and six women's sports). Almost all current Division II members already meet this standard, but the few that don't will have until August 2005 to comply. Members should note that indoor and outdoor track, currently counted as one sport for membership-requirement purposes, would be counted separately. Also, sports sponsored at the Division I level would count toward satisfying the membership requirement (they currently may not be counted).

The current Division II sponsorship average is 6.45 men's sports and 6.13 women's sports. Only 27 Division II members, including provisionals, sponsor the minimum of just four men's and four women's sports. The Presidents Council is aware that some institutions are in the process of adding varsity sports, even without these new legislative requirements.

The second primary proposed change involves the establishment of a minimum financial aid requirement for Division II membership (Proposal No. 16). The proposal involving a financial aid minimum has been developed in a way so that an institution can comply by choosing from among three options:

* A minimum of 50 percent of the maximum allowable equivalencies in four sports, at least two of which must be women's sports;

* A minimum total expenditure of $250,000 in athletically related financial aid with at least $125,000 in women's sports; or

* A minimum of 20 total full equivalency grants with at least 10 total full equivalency grants in women's sports.

A recent survey of 239 active and provisional members showed that only seven institutions would not meet one of the three options for compliance. As with sports sponsorship, any institution needing to change its financial aid practices would have until August 1, 2005, to comply.

Some members are concerned that we would change our philosophy statement to conform with the proposed financial aid changes. In fact, in a perfect world, the best approach would have been to change the philosophy statement one year, followed by legislation the next. However, we did not have the luxury of time on this matter. By the time our project team had concluded its review of this difficult issue, we were nearing the end of the membership moratorium. In addition, the change in the philosophy statement is a clarification, not a philosophical departure that alters the expected behavior of our member schools. The philosophy change recommended in Proposal No. 14 is consistent with the fact that almost all of our existing membership already offers athletically related financial aid and this fact is something that continues to distinguish Division II membership from Division III.

This package is about the future. At the moment, Division II is the smallest of the three divisions. Over the last decade, we have grown much more rapidly than Division I, but not as quickly as Division III. However, if we do not act, we can envision scenarios in which our membership increases by 50 percent or more almost overnight. The potential strain on provisional membership education, access to championships and other resources under such conditions would be enormous. Neither the existing membership nor new members would be winners under such chaotic conditions.

Sitting still is a poor option indeed. The better choice by far is for us to build the membership fence high enough to matter but low enough to remain neighborly.

Kay Schallenkamp is president of Emporia State University and a member of the Division II Presidents Council.