My experience as a college athlete reinforces what I observe and what I’m reading in the literature.
As a student-athlete, I continually balance athletic and academic commitments. Athletically, I am responsible for attending all 20 hours a week of football meetings, lifts, and practices. Academically, I am responsible for keeping my GPA above 2.3, the standard set by the NCAA. According to their guidelines, a student-athlete must initially meet the sliding scale requirement, meaning a 2.3 high school GPA would need a 980 SAT, a 2.0 GPA would need an 1100 SAT, etc. Then, once a student-athlete is enrolled, they must take at least 12 credits a semester and maintain above a 2.3 GPA (Summary of NCAA Regulations).
By examining the history and impact of these guidelines, one can see that while they may achieve the intended purpose of creating an academic standard and displaying that the NCAA is committed to “academic excellence,” they also serve as a source of discrimination because black-student athletes are disproportionately deemed ineligible.
The history of the NCAA’s policy on academic eligibility highlights many racist practices. First, college athletics did not see many black athletes until the 1960s (Martin, 1999). It is also interesting to note that the NCAA did not institute a minimum GPA requirement until 1965; first-year college students and current athletes needed at least a 1.6 GPA to be considered eligible. Then, in 1983, when black athletes’ involvement in college sports was considered “dominant,” the NCAA instituted Proposition 48, which created a minimum SAT requirement of 700 or an ACT requirement of 15 for incoming first-year students.
Courtesy Marquette Sports Law Review
The new rule was devastating to college athletes. It would take years for black college athletes to adjust to the changes and for college athletics to return to the level of black involvement they saw before 1983. While many people were upset over the NCAA’s new proposition’s disproportionate effect on black athletes, those concerns were not addressed for 13 years–and it was done with a twist. Rather than decreasing academic standards or working to make their academic requirements less discriminatory, in 1996, the NCAA raised its requirements to a GPA of 2.5 with a 700 SAT or 15 ACT score.
That decision drew significant backlash and eventually resulted in court cases. Finally, in 2000, a legal judgment was rendered that the NCAA discriminated against black athletes, and the response was to compel the NCAA to make eligibility rules more accepting. In 2003, the NCAA created the “2.3 or take a knee” policy, setting the required GPA to 2.3, and the academic requirements have remained that way since.
While the discriminatory effects of NCAA academic requirements on black athletes are undeniable, some still believe they are necessary to maintain and ensure their intellectual rigor and success. But, again, the response has been underwhelming. For example, in a study where black college athletes from different institutions were interviewed, many black athletes responded similarly: African American college athletes are encouraged more than their white counterparts to enroll in courses that are “more conducive to their athletic responsibilities,” which means intellectually less rigorous and not always connected to personal and career interests.”
The SAT and ACT, both main components in determining a student athlete’s initial eligibility, are yet another aspect of the NCAA academic eligibility guidelines that lead to discrimination against black athletes. Both are standardized tests, meaning every student across the country answers the same questions. But, despite the apparent equality of the SAT score, on average, 178 points lower than white students. Exam costs, private tutors, and academic support all play a vital role in students’ standardized test scores and explain the disparity in the average SAT scores between black and white students.
The disproportionate adverse effects black athletes face in college today illustrate the racism in American society. [beaNCAA’squote align=”full” cite=””]The NCAA’s academic requirements serve a purpose, and in a perfect world, they would affect every student-athlete equally. But that perfect world does not exist. [/beautifulquote]An alternative is for the NCAA to take a leadership role in addressing systemic racism. How? Hiring more black coaches and academic advisors and providing black student-athletes opportunities to challenge themselves intellectually are three ways.
By tracking the path of discrimination, a foundation of racist ideals and policNCAA’sat transcends the NCAA can be found. Fixing the NCAA’s academic eligibility“requirements starts with fixing America.
_____________
Mark Chapman recently completed his first season on the Columbia University football team. He is an offensive lineman.
“Academic Standards for Initial-Eligibility.” NCAA.org, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/25/academic-standards-for-initial-eligibility.aspx.
Donnor, Jamel. “Looking Underneath the Helmet: Learning How African American Football College Athletes Navigate Sports, Education, and Expectations” College Athletes’ Rights and Well-Being: Critical Perspectives on Policy and Practice. John Hopkins University Press, 2017.
Martin, Charles H. “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow in Southern College Sports: The Case of the Atlantic Coast Conference.” The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 76, no. 3, 1999, pp. 253–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23522657. Accessed 17 Nov. 2022.
Nwadike, Akuoma C, et al. “Institutional Racism in the NCAA and the Racial Implications of the ‘2.3 or Take a Knee’ Legislation.” Marquette Law Scholarly Commons, 2016, https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol26/iss2/13/.
Oriard, Michael. “NCAA Academic Reform: History, Context, and Challenges.” Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, vol. 5, 2012.
Samuels, Christina A. “Who’s to Blame for the Black-White Achievement Gap?” Education Week, Education Week, 15 Sept. 2021,
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/whos-to-blame-for-the-black-white-achievement-gap/2020/01.
“SAT Scores.” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S Department of Education, 28 Nov. 2022, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171.
“Summary of NCAA Regulations NCAA Division I.” NCAA.org http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/compliance_forms/DI/DI%20Summary%20of%20NCAA%
20Regulations.pdf
After reviewing the article above titled: NCAA Academic Eligibility Requirements Are Racist, Here’s Why. I agree with the viewpoints presented by student-athlete Mr. Mark Chapman. For example, when you have many high schools in the country who’re willing to allow student-athletes to participate in various sporting events with a “minimum of a D- GPA!” How for God’s sake can you expect such athletes to be able maintain the requirements of Prop 48? As a transplanted New Yorker and author of: A Career Guide for Black Male Student Athletes: An Alternative to the Pros now residing in the state of South Carolina. I was both amazed and saddened when I discovered that “selected” student-athletes in my new home state was able to participate with a D- G.P.A. My astonishment led me to contact the South Carolina Department of Education to obtain clarity and/or confirmation of this discovery. I am still waiting for a response two years later! Finally, although some student-athletes may receive a sub-par high school education, who’s to say that those student athletes who received a below standard high school education after being exposed to a “rich academic environment” could not thrive in spite of previous deficiencies?