Academics and Athletics: The College Battle Is Growing

A jury’s decision that a University of Georgia instructor was fired because she protested alleged preferential treatment of athletes came on the same day the NCAA’s new higher academic standards became a factor in recruiting.

Dr. Jan Kemp’s $2.5 million judgment was seen by some as a blow for academics in the war against special treatment for athletes. But changes were already on the way before the six-member federal jury had its say.

College football recruiters went into action Feb. 12, hoping to sign more prospects with a chance to succeed in the classroom as well as on the field.

Those signings were the first under the NCAA’s recently adopted “Bylaw 5-1-(j),” which requires athletes who will be incoming freshmen next fall to meet new high school grade-plus-entrance test requirements.

With slight modifications the next two years to allow, according to Indiana University president John Ryan, “a phasing-in process,” the by-law basically requires that in order to be eligible to play college football next fall, an incoming-freshman must have had a 2.0 (low-C) high school grade average and make either 700 on the SAT test or 15 on the ACT.

These minimums are still far below those required at most colleges for non-athletes, but tough enough to raise an outcry in the athletic community, which fears they will bar large numbers of outstanding athletes from college competition.

The fears appear justified. A study circulated at the January NCAA convention in New Orleans showed that if the 2.0-70015 rule had been in effect for 1982 freshmen, half of the black males who signed that year would have been ineligible.

Ryan, outgoing chairman of the NCAA’s Presidents Commission--which has been the leader in demanding tougher academic standards for athletes, says it is recognized that “socio-economic differences” will create a problem for the immediate future.

“But, we are sending a message to the nation’s high schools to better prepare their students for college,” said Ryan. “Our demands for a core curriculum will dramatically improve those test scores. What may appear a hardship now won’t be nearly as much a one in a few more years.”

NCAA executive director Walter Byers says the problem of unprepared students entering college is not limited to athletics.

“What happened . . . was a matter of national policy,” said Byers. “Minority groups and disadvantaged groups were going to be given access to higher education . . . a policy . . . designed to encourage institutions of higher education to open doors and run remedial programs, if necessary, to give access not only to those who were disadvantaged financially, but disadvantaged from the standpoint of academic preparation.”

It was the remedial program at the University of Georgia, and the way she perceived the handling of athletes in that program, that prompted Kemp to sue the university.

During six weeks of testimony, the jury was told that some athletes admitted to Georgia were unable to read or write and had scored just 400 on the SAT--a score automatically granted any student who successfully signs his name.

The panel awarded the $2.5 million judgment, agreeing with Kemp’s contention that she had been fired for protesting perferential treatment for those athletes.

U.S. District Judge Horace Ward told the jury its only task was to determine whether Kemp had been fired for her position on how the athletes were treated. They were instructed to disregard the question of whether the athletes were indeed granted preferential treatment.

Georgia athletic director-football coach Vince Dooley insisted the NCAA, not the university, was to blame for the low academic standards.

Dooley said if Georgia raised its standards above the NCAA minimum, “The athletic program at the University of Georgia would not be able to compete at any level and the chances are I would not be the football coach or the athletic director.”