Where is the outrage?

Why should athletes get special admissions treatment?

A quarter of a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared a path to elite colleges for minority students when it ruled that an applicant's race could be a factor in university admissions.

Now the high court is revisiting the landmark University of Californa vs. Bakke decision by hearing two cases involving disappointed applicants who are challenging the minority admissions policy at the University of Michigan.

President George W. Bush has entered the emotional fray himself, careful to offer support for "racial diversity" while at the same time questioning the constitutionality of the point-based Michigan system.

The system awards extra points to minority applicants -- but also to other underrepresented groups, such as poor people of all races, men studying to be nurses and scholarship athletes. A preferential bonus is also granted the sons and daughters of alumni. None of these other preferences has been challenged by the two lawsuits, which contend white applicants were denied admissions in favor of minority candidates who were no better qualified.

OK, you probably figure this has nothing to do with sports. But it does, and it should (although don't expect the court or President Bush to go down that road). If academic purists and disappointed applicants want to argue that affirmative action has eroded standards and dumbed down elite institutions, where is the outrage over athletes taking classroom slots from more qualified applicants?

Let's be real -- few college athletes are invited on campus because of their brains. Even at selective institutions engaged in big-time sports, athlete SATs and GPAs aren't judged as critically as those of non-athletes. Those with athletic skills magically find themselves eligible for special exemptions.

So why is it somehow fair to admit athletes with lower test scores and grades? Is it because at the highest level they’re players in sports that produce billions? This is preferential treatment for jocks, no question.

Jerry Lucido, vice president and provost for admissions at North Carolina, defends the practice, provided, of course, that institutions are serious about educating said athletes. Like everyone else, UNC takes its share of chances. This is partly to craft an exciting and multi-talented freshman class, says Lucido, along with an understanding that the university values a nationally prominent athletic program.

But conscientious admissions officers acknowledge there’s something of a double standard in the broader, national debate, which has focused on race while making little noise about preferences given athletes.

“I find it ironic that the only sort of favored group that comes up is race," Lucido says. “It’s an unfortunate commentary that the issue of race comes up in an attack in the courtrooms, as opposed to those other [preferences]."

Just look at the point scale used by Michigan to rate prospective students. The school's awarding minorities an extra 20 points has stirred protest -- but it’s identical to the numerical break granted every scholarship athlete. An outstanding essay, meanwhile, brings only 3 points, a perfect SAT score just 12.

But Michigan is not alone. Each year, big-time programs admit about 30 football and basketball players, a good number of whom wouldn’t make the cut under normal admissions standards. And instead of outrage, you find alumni and fans fretting whether teenage gladiators will find their university worthy come National Signing Day.

“Division I schools that are highly competitive and successful, their athletic department exerts control over the awarding of athletic scholarships, which gives them a direct route to the admissions process," contends Linda Bensel-Meyers, head of the Drake Group, an organization of educators aimed at reforming college sports. “To a certain extent, they get a quota of scholarships to award. And they get to designate who gets them, whether or not they qualify for admissions."

She might know. An English professor and whistleblower at Tennessee, Meyers claims to have uncovered academic records of 39 football players that she says reveal only one who had a placement score that would have qualified for acceptance at UT.

So where does the Supreme Court fit into this academic mess? And should it weigh in on preferences for athletes?

William Friday favors a broadened review to include admissions preferences granted to athletes. After the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics he co-chaired spent a decade pushing for academic reform, Friday remains discouraged by the lack of progress.

“If [the justices] eliminate the special categories for athletics, I don’t know of a program -- including the very best -- that does not have that kind of arrangement," says Friday, a former University of North Carolina president. “They would have to regroup."

And what’s wrong with that? If the Supreme Court opts to strike down affirmative action in college admissions, you might wonder why scholarship athletes should exist as a privileged class.

Mike Fish is a senior writer for CNNSI.com.

Comments? To e-mail Fish, click here.

 

Related information

Stories

Previous Mike Fish Columns

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video