NCAA Rules' Hidden Costs

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Crimson is to be congratulated for its analysis of the issues surrounding the adoption of the new NCAA regulations. It has provided a broader analysis of the issues than the recent editorials which have run in the New York Times and other national publications. Several critical issues, however, remain mysteriously missing forom the public dialogue surrounding the adopton of the NCAA regulations and its anticipated impact on Black athletes. This letter attempts to focus on those issues.

It has apparently come to public attention once too often that young scholar-athletes, after four years of athletic eligibility, are leaving campuses with reading levels below those of the average high school graduate. Clearly, some modification of current practice is in order. The NCAA recently adopted new policies which will require reasonable academic progress of all eligible athletes. The Association also required that the academic progress include a core curriculum to include math, science and English. These developments are to be applauded and were supported by Presidents of Black Colleges. The Presidents of the Black Colleges did not oppose strengthening academic requirements. They too deplore the educational and economic exploitation of Black athletes.

The presidents of Black colleges and universities have, however, objected to the requirement that freshmen athletes have a combined score of 700 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. They are right in their outrage and objection. The use of the combined SAT cutoff point will in no way address itself to the reason Black and Hispanic students take these tests less well than the students who come from families with higher incomes. It simply narrows the major escape route available to athletically talented Black youngsters. At its very best, the policy is a misguided effort to reach a laudable end. At its very worst, the new policy was intended to have the effect that will logically follow from its implementation.

The Massachusetts State Board of Regents has recently proposed the use of SAT's to limit access to the state university system. Standardization examinations when used with insensitivity only reinforce racial and income inequities in our society. The standardized exam is a measure of academic achievement, not academic ability. A student who ranks in the top 20 percent of his class has a 95 percent chance of attending college within five years--if his family is in the top income quartile. A student whose family income ranks in the lowest quartile has a 50 percent chance. A combination of race, income and educational level of the mother can predict academic persistence at least as well as SAT's.

We should not do away with achievement tests. They have their uses. But we should accept the racial discrepancy in achievement scores for what they are--an indictment of the political and social system generally and the educational system in particular. It is likely that the poor performance on standard examinations is a more accurate reflection of the efficiency of our school systems than the academic potential of minority and low income children.

When the NCAA adopted a SAT cutoff score of 700, it was known that the new policy would fall disproportionately on Black athletes. The mean SAT score for Black high school graduates is 694 for Black students and 925 for white students. If this policy had been in effect in 1981, 51 percent of the Black athletes currently competing in Division I of the NCAA would be ineligible for competition. Grambling, Jackson State and Florida A&M could not effectively compete with nearby white universities for revenues in lucrative cable TV markets. It is either a profound irony or a travesty that SAT sores will be used to exclude Black males from collegiate athletic competition. They are that segment of the population for which the SAT's predict academic performance least efficiently.

But the hue and cry have obscured another issue. Many universities have demonstrated through past recruitment practices that they place greater value on athletic prowess than academic prowess. Special dormitories, high paying summer jobs and full scholarships are available at some universities which provide few extra incentives for intellectual achievement--either for students or faculty. In more than one instance athletic directors and coaches have received contracts which pay ten times the salary of the chairman of the Chemistry department.

It is not only the athletic programs at the predominantly Black institutions which will be affected by the adoption of the new NCAA regulations. It is also very clear that Black participation in athletic programs at predominantly white institutions will be seriously reduced. At some national athletic powers such as the University of Alabama, the University of Houston and the University of Southern California, Black athletes make up 90 percent of the teams which generate the most income for the university. These teams are usually the track, football and basketball teams. Some university coaches, like the coaches in the National Basketball Association, have begun to wonder if the color of the teams has begun to affect attendance and put an undue strain on the loyalty of alumni. Many coaches would not mind ending the "overrepresentation" of Black athletes in intercollegiate athletics--provided of course that other coaches would not be tempted to recruit and use them.

The public dialogue up to this point has suggested that Black colleges will carry the brunt of the new NCAA regulations. The representatives of Black colleges and universities are right to object to the adoption of these rules because the implementation of these rules will assure that they cannot participate in NCAA competition in a meaningful way. Their exclusion, however, may have been incidental to those whose objective it was to reduce Black athletic participation in athletics generally, but most specifically at predominantly white colleges and universities. Meldon Hellis '77