College Professors Say They Have Little Influence on Athletics

WASHINGTON — At universities with big-time football and basketball programs, professors know better than to step in front of the freight train of commercialized sports, a law school dean told the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics on Monday.

"They know they're going to get run over" if they try to push athletic reforms, said Gary Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law and a former faculty athletics representative at Tulane University. "So why bother?"

"At the end of the day, this is the entertainment industry and not the education business, and the faculty doesn't have much to say about it," Roberts declared at a Faculty Summit on Intercollegiate Athletics.

Indeed, a survey of faculty members at Division I-A universities found that 62 percent see intercollegiate athletics as "structurally separate" from the academic part of their university. Half believe decisions in the athletic department are made "with minimal regard for their university's academic mission," but rather "are driven by the entertainment industry."

The findings were presented at an all-day meeting of the Knight Commission. The commission is made up of college presidents, conference officials, former athletes and coaches and other members of the intercollegiate sports community, and has pushed through reforms in major college sports.

While these reformers are pushing for more faculty help, many professors want no part in attempting to oversee athletic departments, the poll indicated. Professors ranked intercollegiate athletics low among their priorities for faculty governance on campus. On a list topped with resources for research, intercollegiate athletics ranked 12th — above only "Greek Life (e.g. initiation activities, town-gown relationships)."

Much of the faculty "is afraid this is a completely corrupt process and, if you get involved, you're going to get dirty," said Paul Haagen, a Duke University law professor and co-director of the school's Center for Sports Law and Policy.

Faculty members argue "the reality is that it just sucks time away from what I get paid to do — research and teaching," said Scott Adler, an associate professor of political science at the University of Colorado.

Other professors argued that faculty representatives can't abdicate responsibility to fight the commercialization of college sports.

"The reality is that we're institutions of higher education," said Nathan Tublitz, a biology professor at the University of Oregon and co-chair of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, a organization of faculty members from many universities. He challenged university presidents to show where the word "sport" appears on their institution's mission statement.

But others described faculty as impotent in the face of the multimillion-dollar athletic departments — unable, for instance, to stop administrators from canceling classes to facilitate a nationally televised Thursday night football game. Faculties can't even prevent college sports championships from being held in middle of exams, some participants pointed out. Television coverage, not academics, sets the schedule.

"At the upper levels (of major college sport), it's spinning out of control of the university, administration and faculty," warned Adler.

University of Georgia President Michael Adams, a member of the Knight Commission, said he did not believe that is the situation at his school. Faculty members are involved in campus governance, including athletics, he said. And as long as he is president, Adams said, the Georgia Bulldogs will not play Thursday night football games.

Roberts said the controversy really only involves two revenue-producing sports at the Division 1-A level.

"This is a subculture of football and basketball," he said. "There's really not a whit of difference between somebody on the debate team and somebody on the golf team."

Although the vast majority of these "student athletes" will never play professional sports, most view college as a step toward that goal. They look at education as a concession of failure — seeking a degree "to have something to fall back on" should their athletic ambitions fall short, said Haagen.

A faculty member in the audience read a basketball recruit's goal: "I want a school that I can get in and get out" on the way to the NBA.

While professorial opinions were mixed, the survey found that "faculty members do tend to agree on several key points":

— Athletics decisions on their campus are driven by demands of the entertainment industry rather than academics.

— Financial needs of athletics get higher priority than academic needs.

— Salaries paid to head football and basketball coaches are excessive.

— Giving scholarships to students based on athletic ability is warranted, and these scholarships "may not compensate them fairly for their services."

— Faculty members think athletes on their campus are more burdened than other students with demands on their out-of-class time.

The majority of faculty members believe their universities put more emphasis and money toward building "state-of-the-art athletic facilities" than for academic departments. However, half conceded that the success of their sports programs foster alumni and corporate contributions to campus projects outside of athletics.

The survey indicated that faculty members may not care enough about athletics on their campus to get involved in reforms.

"Although faculty members are dissatisfied with many facets of college sports, their dissatisfaction may not be strong enough to motivate action given the low priority they give intercollegiate athletics when compared to other campus issues," the report said.

The survey was designed by Janet Lawrence, an associate professor at the University of Michigan's Center for Postsecondary and Higher Education, and questioned facility members of universities in the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision. Formerly called Division I-A schools, they were described as "universities with the country's most visible athletic programs."

The survey was sent to 13,604 faculty members at 23 institutions. Two institutions were randomly selected from each of the 11 Football Bowl Subdivision conferences, and one was chosen from among universities not affiliated with any conference.

Although 3,005 responses were received, the findings were based on 2,071 surveys after others were discarded for various errors. The survey was not a random sampling, but rather focused on faculty members involved with governance on their campuses. Thus, there is no statistical margin of error.

FACULTY PRIORITIES ON CAMPUS

1. Resources for research

2. Graduate programs

3. Undergraduate majors

4. Faculty salaries and benefits

5. Financial health of institution

6. Faculty personnel policies

7. Access to and affordability of undergraduate education

8. Undergraduate educational policies

9. Racial equity

10. Gender equity

11. Commercialization of research

12. Intercollegiate athletics

13. Greek life

Source: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics