NCAA CONVENTION : Black Educators Are Frustrated

Eddie M. Jones, faculty representative of Grambling State University, was debating whether to attend the NCAA’s annual convention this week in Anaheim.

Then, President Harold Lundy insisted he go to argue the plight of historically black schools in light of proposed legislation for stricter entrance requirements that many black educators believe is discriminatory.

Jones, an English professor, has been down this route before, and it has been a frustrating ride. He has been opposing NCAA legislation that imposes stricter entrance requirements for freshman student athletes since 1983.

“It’s a vicious circle,” Jones said. “We spend an inordinate amount of money to go out there and have people ramrod things down our throats. For what?”

After Wednesday’s overwhelming support of adopting more stringent requirements in the areas of grade-point averages, entrance test scores and core curriculum high school courses, Jones and educators from other predominantly black schools found little solace on the first day of voting at the 86th NCAA Convention.

Still, the day was not a wash. Among the 72 dissenters in this year’s most controversial legislation were the names of major sports schools--Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Ohio State and Louisiana State.

Jones said he believed most of the predominantly white schools “didn’t seem to have a conscience” in past years.

Today, his views have changed.

“You now have white schools joining the bandwagon saying it’s wrong,” he said. “They are starting to see the light, that this legislation impacts their students, too.”

The Rev. E. William Beauchamp, executive vice president of Notre Dame, said he does not foresee strict entrance standards affecting his school. “But I’m talking in terms of what’s good for the membership,” he said in explaining a dissenting vote.

The movement to reform began in the early 1980s, gaining foothold in 1983 with passage of Proposition 48, which set the NCAA’s academic standards for freshmen. With the advent of the Presidents Commission in 1984, reform became an NCAA motto.

“The road to academic reform will be covered with the bodies of a lot of socioeconomically-deprived individuals,” said Frank Rienzo, Georgetown’s athletic director.

Oregon State President John V. Byrne supported Wednesday’s vote, as did all members schools of the Pacific 10 Conference. But Byrne is not totally comfortable with the NCAA’s rationale in legislating areas traditionally handled by faculty.

Furthermore, Byrne believes that it is difficult for the NCAA to mandate a national agenda when its individual members have different missions.

“Schools are getting caught in the same net because of athletic programs that may create some problems for them that are unrelated to intercollegiate athletics,” he said.

William Sangster, faculty representative at Georgia Tech, said the NCAA should consider graduation rates instead of high school performance in evaluating how to improve the system. Georgia Tech officials endorse a system in which schools set standards and scholarships are awarded based on the number of athletes that have graduated in the past.

Ohio State administrators objected to the NCAA’s message to high school educators. “There’s no way we can sit out here in Anaheim, Calif., and tell high schools what to do,” said Bill Myles, associate athletic director at Ohio State.

Myles, once a football coach, said increasing grade-point average minimums, which will take effect in 1995, is not the answer because grades can be manipulated. “They’ll have their 2.5 students, but (those students) won’t be any better prepared to attend colleges,” he said.

William DeLauder, president of Delaware State College, said the biggest losers will be those black athletes who use scholarships as a means to gain an education.

“If we deny them that mechanism, that’s a loss,” he said.