Who's entitled?

Athletes don't deserve preferential admissions treatment

It is generally accepted that when it comes to affirmative action in college admission, the group that receives the most favored treatment is the children of faculty. Then comes athletes. Then legacies -- children of alumni. Then minorities. Oh, it may not be in exactly that order at all colleges, but that seems to be the pattern. Athletes, however, probably profit most overall, not only because they are given special admissions preference, but because so many of them also receive scholarships -- even if their parents can afford full tuition.

This is worth our being reminded, because, of course, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the 1978 Bakke decision, which upheld the right of universities to consider race as a factor in making admissions decisions.

Let us, then, jump ahead to next June when the new decision may be handed down. If the high court rules that applicants are discriminated against because of race, could we not expect someone to contest the similar favoritism that is applied to athletes at state universities? Why should an A student with high SAT scores be denied admission when a football player with low class standing and abysmal SATs is accepted? Is this not unfair? Is this not the stuff of a civil suit?

Colleges have always maintained -- and I certainly agree -- that grades should never be the single factor in selecting a class. If a school has the chance to enroll, say, the finest young violinist in the nation, surely that talent should count for more than a few SAT points. As admissions officers are fond of saying, they are not looking for a well-rounded person, but a well-rounded class.

But isn't it difficult to justify turning down a devoted A student while accepting a D student just because he's 7-foot and can rebound? At what point does a singular athletic talent trump indisputable academic superiority?

Now, at the same time the Supreme Court is revisiting the matter of affirmative action as it applies to the college admission process, a challenge is being mounted before the Department of Education to reconsider Title IX, the law which has given such benefit to women's athletics. Male critics of Title IX, however, always refuse to see the elephant in the room: athletic scholarships. If so-called student-athletes, were not granted scholarships ipso facto, huge sums of money could be freed up, so that more sports -- for men and women -- could be funded.

Is the point of college athletics to provide a paid job -- that's what an athletic scholarship amounts to -- for a few students or to provide a greater opportunity for sports, for exercise, for competition? That great violin player isn't going to get a free ride just because they have an extracurricular talent. Why should a great hockey player?

For decades now, we have simply accepted the premise that an athlete deserves special consideration in the admissions process, and, moreover, that an athlete is due a financial bonus that other students with special talents don't receive. Even if there is no lawsuit that challenges this accepted wisdom, isn't it perhaps time that we at least agree to debate the proposition?

Are athletes deserving of extreme affirmative action? Can across-the-board athletic scholarships be justified when the costs thereof mean that fewer sports will field fewer teams with fewer students participating?

The issue is not Title IX. It is athletic entitlement.

Sports Illustrated senior contributing writer Frank Deford is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com and appears each Wednesday on National Public Radio's Morning Edition. He is a longtime correspondent for HBO's Real Sports and his new novel, An American Summer (Sourcebooks Trade), is available now at bookstores everywhere.

 

Related information

Stories

Previous Frank Deford Columns

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video