Copyright DENNIE RUTH
KELLEY, PH.D.
This document may be too large for your printer buffer to handle. We suggest downloading this document to a disk if printing difficulties are encountered or e-mailing the author for a hard copy by clicking on his/her name.
Introduction
Academic integrity in college sports programs has been the center of national
reform efforts (Knight Foundation, 1991, 1992, 1993 and Presidents
Commission, 1991). The focus of these efforts has been to reestablish
institutional control of intercollegiate athletics in order to restore their
academic legitimacy. University presidents have been identified in the reports
as the targeted individuals who should assume responsibility for the
operation of their respective athletics programs. Later, the Knight
Foundation (1992) commended many university presidents for assuming
control in the governance of their intercollegiate sports programs (Kuga,
1996).
However, presidential control is but one step in reestablishing institutional
academic integrity and legitimacy in collegiate athletics. Presidents are
vulnerable to many external political and economic forces which impact
internal decisions within the institution. This may be particularly true when
university presidents are expected to concentrate a considerate portion of
their time and energy on fund-raising activities. It is unreasonable that
intercollegiate athletics can be transformed by university presidents alone.
The responsibility for university governance falls mainly on the faculty,
typically through an elected body called the senate. The faculty senate at most
institutions of higher education has authority over all academic standards
including the standards for intercollegiate athletic participation. " The
Statement of Guiding Principles of the Big Ten Conference' suggest that the
faculty shall hold primary responsibility for intercollegiate athletics and shall
exercise its oversight and veto power over all athletic-related
actions/decisions, including the areas of academic standards, students life,
and equity issues" (Kuga, 1996, p. 150). The faculty has the duty to ensure that
all athletes have a proper balance of athletic and educational experiences.
In a Harris poll conducted in 1989, over three-fourths of the respondents
(77%) felt that sport scandals and the pursuit of money through sport caused
the traditional role of the university as a model of ethics and integrity to be
questioned. This same survey "... found that 75% of the public, 68% of college
and university trustees, 81% of the faculty , 72% of alumni, and 48% of college
presidents believed intercollegiate athletics are out of control' " (Frey, 1994,
p.111). Branvold (1994) has proposed a five-prong model to determine
program quality in the evaluation of intercollegiate athletics. These
parameters include academic performance, balance & equity, financial
sufficiency, size & scope, and winning. He devotes considerable time in the
development of the model to the interrelationships of financial sufficiency and
winning as criteria for quality. Two other parameters, academic performance
and equity or balance, have been identified as integrity issues. The NCAA has
an involved and detailed process for its member institutions to undergo in
order to achieve certification by that governing body.
In his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social responsibilities of the Modern
University, Derek Bok, past president of Harvard, as quoted in Gerdy (1993)
encouraged university leaders to increase their emphasis on moral and ethical
education:
Individual members of the academic and athletic communities must come
together and work for the mutual benefit of the athletes and for the
institution. An example of this type of effort is in the form of this panel
discussion. Although the panelists have UTK connections, the discussions will
be from a broad perspective. Each panel member will give a brief statement
regarding the moral and ethical issues in collegiate sports programs from his
or her vantage point. Members of the panel will discuss from various
perspectives the moral dimensions and institutional ethics involved in the
administration and governance of intercollegiate athletics. Members of the
panel are:
Dr. Carl Asp, UTK Faculty Representative to NCAA/SEC & Chair of the
Athletics Board Professor, Audiology
Mr. Doug Dickey, Director Men's
Athletics, UTK
Dr. Dennie Ruth Kelley, Chair, UTK Senate Athletics
Committee Associate Professor and Unit Leader, Sport and Physical Activity
Dr. David Lee, Chair Chancellor's Academic-Athletics Integrity Review
Committee Associate Professor and Head, Germanic and Slavic Languages
Ms. Donna Thomas, Associate Director Women's Athletics, UTK
The university academic and athletics communities must approach the moral
and ethical dilemmas of intercollegiate sport with candor. The issues that will
be raised are not to be critical of athletics, of faculty governance, or of
university administrators. The purpose is to openly discuss the institutional
ethics and the moral dimensions of university policy toward the governance of
athletics on our university campuses.
Conclusion
At the close of today's discussion, a simple model will be proposed that can be
used to assist in the institutional governance of intercollegiate athletics. The
model is inclusive of students, faculty members, athletics directors, and
administrators.
References
Frey, J.H. (1994) Deviance of organizational subunits: The case of college
athletic departments. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 2, 110-122.
Gerdy, J. R.(1993). What is an ethics convention' about? The NCAA
NEWS Nov.22.
Kuga, D.J. (1996). Governance of intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions of faculty members.
Journal of Sport Management, 10, 149-168.
Branvold, S. E. (1994) Beyond winning: An expanded model for evaluating athletic program
quality. In P.J. Graham (Ed.),
Sport business operational and theoretical aspects (pp. 204-210).
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Faculty involvement in the governance of intercollegiate athletics has been
minimal. The problem has been identified as one of separation and isolation.
Frey wrote that athletics have been separated operationally and
programmatically from normal academic review or responsibility. The
faculty have rejected athletics as an unworthy educational activity and, as a
result, have avoided asserting themselves in any control measures... While
retaining an organizational link to the institution, athletics have become
isolated from academic life and therefore from control measures (Kuga,
1996, p.151).
A university that refuses to take ethical dilemmas seriously violates
its basic obligations to society. And a university that fails to engage its
members in debate on these issues and to communicate with care the reasons
for its policies gives an impression of moral indifference that is profoundly
dispiriting to large numbers of students and professors who share a concern
for social issues and a desire to have their institutions behave responsibly.
Moreover, any administration that fails to discuss such questions openly and
in detail will allow the campus debate on serious moral problems to
degenerate into slogans and oversimplifications unworthy of an institution
dedicated to the rigorous exploration of ideas. Even if only a fraction of the
community is aware of the efforts being made by the institution and
understands more fully all the arguments involved, the efforts by university
leaders will be eminently worthwhile.
Copyright DENNIE RUTH
KELLEY, PH.D.
| Talk to the Conference Participants |
|---|
Questions and comments may be directed to the Conference Convenor, Alvin G. Burstein or individual authors by clicking on his/her name.
This page has been accessed times.
Last updated: July 22, 1997
List of Proceedings