The Faculty Role in the Reform of Intercollegiate Athletics: Principles and Recommended Practices  

This report was approved for publication by the Association’s Committee on Teaching, Research, and Publication in October 2002.


Introduction

Athletics first appeared on American college campuses as an intramural activity, a much­need­ed recreational complement to academic life. During the past century this form of athletics, usually organized by students and overseen by faculty, was gradually transformed on many campuses into a highly commercial, increasingly professional enterprise whose control, audi­ence, and venues became ever more divorced from campus life. The subsequent record of excesses, exploitation, and abuses in intercollegiate athletics proved impervious to repeated efforts at substantive reform.

A decade ago, concerned about these abuses and their increasingly corrosive impact on the core academic mission of American institutions of higher education, the AAUP published two reports on the subject: The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics: A Report of the Special Committee on Athletics and the Statement on Intercollegiate Athletics.1 Both reports described the major problems in intercollegiate sports that were judged to require substantive reform and offered recommendations to improve the educational experiences of college ath­letes. The reports argued that Association­supported standards of governance in colleges and universities, and the need to protect and preserve traditional educational values and academic standards, demanded more active faculty engagement with and oversight of intercollegiate athletics programs than had previously been the case. The reports went on to call for reforms in admissions and financial aid practices, closer faculty monitoring of college athletes’ educa­tional experiences and academic progress, and better management of the financial operations of the athletics program.

In the decade that has passed since those reports were written, a large and growing body of literature has continued to detail the baleful influence of intercollegiate athletics on high­er education.2 Many of the same academic and financial improprieties—and lack of account­ability—that occasioned the earlier AAUP reports are still present, some in more extreme forms. The Association has been especially concerned about the continuing preferential treatment of athletes with regard to admissions and scholarship aid, disappointing gradua­tion records for athletes, and ethical breaches of academic standards by coaches, students, administrators, and faculty. The problems associated with intercollegiate athletics have involved not only the quality of education offered to athletes but also the effects of bad prac­tices on the academic well­being of the student body at large. They have also included exploitation and abuses of students by coaches, practice and contest schedules incompatible with commitments to academic priorities, improper intervention in academic matters by athletics administrators and staff, undue reliance on sports programs for institutional status, subordination of the academic progress of college athletes to the demands of athletics, and outside interference by overzealous alumni and boosters in college and university gover­nance. For many years such issues were thought to be problems only at major institutions with big­time sports programs—in particular, institutions with Division I­A football and

basketball teams. Recently, however, as some smaller institutions have coveted the potential revenues and public notice associated with high­profile sports programs, the temptation for these institutions to promote athletics has been intense and at times irresistible. The problems noted above exist, to a greater or lesser extent, at most institutions that engage in competitive intercollegiate athletics.

Across the spectrum of higher education, budgetary allocations made to intercollegiate sports have continued to rise exponentially, often at the expense of academic programs. Moreover, the allocation of spending within athletics programs may unfairly disadvantage some college athletes, with programs for women and non­revenue­producing sports in gen­eral suffering. The escalating commercialization of intercollegiate athletics and the lack of transparency in policies and their implementation have contributed to the erosion of the role of the athlete as a student.

The abuses and scandals in intercollegiate athletics programs that continue to beset the aca­demic community have prompted the Association to examine this subject again and to offer this report. Though addressed primarily to the faculty, the report seeks to provide guidance to all campus constituents on the principles that should inform sound institutional policy gov­erning intercollegiate athletics. The report also recommends practices that can strengthen the particular role of the faculty in institutional governance, provide an agenda for faculty action, and significantly improve the educational climate not only for the college athletes most imme­diately affected but also for the entire academic community. Some of the recommendations involve the development of greater consensus among the faculty as well as between the fac­ulty and other campus constituents about the importance of ensuring that athletics programs are conducted with integrity and that students who are athletes receive a solid education and fair treatment. These proposals are offered to temper, if not entirely to cure, the excesses of intercollegiate athletics. Absent better practices, we believe, the stature of higher education is diminished and athletically gifted students are done a singular disservice.

 

Efforts at Reform

The best­known efforts at reform of intercollegiate athletics have been initiated by organiza­tions beyond our college and university campuses. The most notable of these external groups is the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. The commission, which includes leaders from higher education, business, and athletics, issued its first report on sports reform in 1991. That report, Keeping the Faith with the Student­-Athlete, focused on the primary responsibility of college and university presidents to ensure the appropriate educa­tional and ethical operation of their institutions’ athletics programs. Although there have been isolated cases of presidentially led institutional reform, the general situation has, if any­thing, deteriorated rather than improved, prompting the Knight Commission to issue in 2001 a second report on athletics reform, A Call to Action: Reconnecting College Sports and Higher Education. It argues that academic values and competitive athletics may be in irreconcilable conflict and concludes that “if it proves impossible to create a system of intercollegiate ath­letics that can live honorably within the American college and university, then responsible citizens must join with academic and public leaders to insist that the nation’s colleges and universities get out of the business of big­time sports.” Whereas the commission’s 1991 report focused primarily on the role of the president in athletics reform, the latest report emphasizes the role of the institution’s trustees: “Presidents cannot act on an issue as emotional and high­ly visible as athletics without the unwavering public support of their boards.”

Notably missing from these and most other reform efforts, at least until recently, has been the collective voice of the faculty. The situation has begun to change.3 The AAUP, in its earlier statements, urged faculty participation in the cause of reform. On most campuses, however, advocacy of significant change in college athletics has been mostly limited to individual facul­ty members; the faculty as a whole has been largely disengaged or indifferent.

We have been heartened by the actions that some faculty members have taken recently to raise their voices and assert their governance responsibilities as they relate to intercollegiate ath­letics. The Drake Group, a national alliance of more than one hundred faculty members from across the country, was established in 1999 with the stated aim of “closing the ever­widening

gap between athletics and education” and “working to restore and defend academic integrity in college sports.” The alliance has issued a series of position statements and attracted consid­erable media attention to the cause of faculty­initiated reform. More recently, a number of fac­ulty senates at institutions in the Pacific­10 Conference have adopted resolutions decrying the commercialization of college athletics and condemning the use of scarce resources to fund lav­ish sports facilities as well as the intensified competition for recruiting and retaining athletes. Similar efforts have also been undertaken by faculty governance leaders at universities in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), a group comprising Big Ten Conference institu­tions and the University of Chicago, which in November 2001 endorsed a resolution on inter­collegiate athletics that they agreed to propose to their respective faculty senates. The resolu­tion calls on “the faculties of CIC institutions [to] join with colleagues in the Pac­10 conference in urging the presidents, faculty athletics committees, and faculty conference representatives of Big­Ten conference schools and of other institutions engaged in intercollegiate athletics, to join in a concerted effort” to deal with the problems that have been identified. Several of the CIC campus senates have already responded positively to this call.

The increasing prominence of faculty senates as vehicles for faculty engagement in sports reform is a particularly promising development. As one commentator has observed, “The size and legitimacy of a senate offers a much stronger voice for faculty.”4

Despite the serious problems we have identified, the AAUP, recognizing that intercollegiate sports can benefit both students and institutions, continues to believe that meaningful and con­structive reform can and should be pursued. The Association appreciates that not all campuses will be prepared to endorse every one of the principles set forth in this report or to implement all of the recommended standards and procedures described below. We hope, however, that fac­ulty members will evaluate their own campus practices and, where appropriate, work toward implementation of these recommendations.

 

Principles and Recommendations

Under generally accepted principles of academic government, the “faculty has primary respon­sibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, . . . and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.”5 The faculty, it fol­lows, is properly involved in all matters with significant educational implications and has an obligation to ensure academic primacy in an institution’s athletics programs. It further follows that “the faculty has primary responsibility for those aspects of an athlete’s experience that involve education. Thus, it is the faculty’s duty to ensure that the athlete has a full opportuni­ty to participate in the educational process, and that a proper balance is achieved between the athletic and educational experiences.” Indeed, the preservation of integrity in the college ath­lete’s academic life is directly dependent upon the faculty’s ability to assert its primacy in “defining and monitoring the educational experiences of athletes,” while reducing “the pres­sures in college sports that would subvert the athlete’s educational effort.” This goal “can be achieved only by removing all decision making that relates to academic matters from the com­mercial incentives that otherwise affect the daily functioning of the athletics department.” In short, colleges and universities must make certain that college athletes remain students first, and that they have available, and are able to take full advantage of, the same opportunities for intellectual development and personal growth as other students. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the institution to have the decisions that affect their lives as students made by those who know them as students—the faculty.6

If principles are to have their desired effect, they must culminate in practice. We recognize that the internal functioning of an institution’s athletics program is subject to a range of external rules and standards promulgated by athletics conferences and by regulatory bodies such as the Nation­al Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, and the National Junior College Athletic Association. In some cases, however, these rules repre­sent minimum standards, and we believe that it is the responsibility of members of the faculty to work to strengthen these standards, consistent with the mission of their particular institution. We focus on the overall faculty role in governance as it relates to intercollegiate athletics, with par­ticular emphasis on the areas of admissions and financial aid, academic standards and support services, and finances.

 

Faculty Governance and Athletics

As noted above, generally accepted principles of shared (or collaborative) governance call for the faculty to play a substantial role in determining educational policy and in resolving educa­tional problems within the academic institution. The nature and degree of the faculty’s involve­ment will vary depending on the particular issues or area of concern. Given the seriousness of the concerns that have been raised about intercollegiate athletics programs, we believe that mechanisms should be established to enable the faculty to participate meaningfully in the for­mulation of an institution’s overall athletics policy and that the faculty, through its senate (or a similar institution­wide, elected representative faculty body) ought to place the oversight of athletics programs squarely within its purview and be prepared to devote the time and energy necessary to accomplish what needs doing. We also believe, following the Association’s 1989 report titled The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics, that “the athletics depart­ment should not be allowed to function as a separate entity,” and that “the goal of structural reform in the governance of college sports should be to integrate athletics more fully into the educational mission of the institution.7 To this end, we urge consideration of the following rec­ommendations.

The Association’s 1991 Statement on Intercollegiate Athletics recommends that 

a committee elected by the faculty should monitor the compliance with policies relating to admission, the progress toward graduation, and the integrity of the course of study of stu­dents who engage in intercollegiate athletics. This committee should report annually to the faculty on admissions, on progress toward graduation, and on graduation rates of athletes by sport. Further, the committee should be charged with seeking appropriate review of cases in which it appears that faculty members or administrators have abused academic integrity in order to promote athletic programs.8

We agree, and we recommend that this duly constituted faculty body have a direct and for­mal relationship with the senate. We further recommend the following:

  1. Reports presented to the senate should include financial information relating to the ath­letics program. The senate may need to appoint ad hoc faculty committees to examine data and determine whether or not the institution is realizing its goals and maintaining academic standards consonant with the institution’s educational mission.
  2. Reports should provide academic profiles of college athletes in comparison to the rest of the student body.
  3. In addition to receiving regular informational reports on the institution’s athletics pro­gram, the senate should make recommendations where appropriate, and legislate when possible, on athletics policies affecting academic standards. Legislative actions should be taken by the senate to ensure that academic standards for college athletes are compara­ble to those for the rest of the student body.
  4. The faculty member designated to serve as the institution’s representative to external agencies like the athletics conference or the NCAA should enjoy the general support of the faculty. Accordingly, the senate should have a significant advisory role in the presi­dential appointment of the individual who serves in that capacity.
  5. The athletics representative should be kept fully informed about all aspects of the insti­tution’s athletics program. The representative should, in turn, provide regular reports to the administration and the senate on his or her activities.
  6. The senate should adopt legislation prohibiting the faculty athletics representative and any other faculty members involved in oversight responsibilities for athletics from accepting special benefits, such as paid trips to games.9
  7. The senate should have a direct and formal relationship with a committee charged with oversight responsibility for the institution’s athletics program. This committee should be composed of a majority of faculty and academic administrators, and its chair should be a faculty member who is elected by the faculty senate. The committee should include the athletics director and other university administrators with applicable governance authority (for example, the director of admissions) and the faculty athletics representa­tive as ex officio members.
  8. The athletics director should serve as a resource for the senate and respond to inquiries from the faculty. He or she should prepare periodic reports on the operation of the ath­letics program.
  9. The athletics department should be required to submit a report on compliance with Title IX to the faculty senate for review, comment, and possible approval on an annual basis.

 

Admissions and Financial Aid

“With regard to student admissions,” according to a recently adopted footnote to the Associa­tion’s Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, “the faculty should have a meaning­ful role in establishing institutional policies, including the setting of standards for admission, and should be afforded opportunity for oversight of the entire admissions process.” The facul­ty’s central role in establishing policies on admissions as well as on financial aid entails facul­ty responsibility for ensuring adherence to these policies with regard to college athletes. To this end we make the following recommendations:

  1. Faculty should exercise their principal responsibility for formulation of admissions requirements for educational programs, ensuring that the academic integrity of the admissions process is not compromised by pressure to produce winning teams.
  2. Faculty should ensure that applicants for admission are treated fairly, and that those admitted have the preparation deemed necessary for academic success. In particular, admissions standards for athletes should be comparable to and consistent with those for other students.
  3. Faculty should ensure that financial­aid standards for athletes are comparable to those for other students, and that the aid is administered by the institution’s financial­aid office. In accordance with existing AAUP policy, faculty should also ensure that continu­ation of need­based aid to students who drop out of athletic competition or complete their athletic eligibility will be conditioned only on their remaining academically and financially qualified.10 Other financial aid to athletes should be continued so long as they are students in good academic standing and are meeting the obligations consistent with accepting the aid.
  4. Faculty should ensure that athletes on financial aid receive adequate support to cover their living expenses as well as their educational expenses.
  5. Faculty, working through the senate and with members of the athletics committee, should monitor compliance with policies relating to admissions, insisting on full disclo­sure of information necessary to discharge this function.
  6. Faculty should work within their own institutions and assist in lobbying the NCAA to change regulations in order to ensure that scholarship recipients enjoy the same financial opportunities as other students.

 

Academic Standards and Support Services

Colleges and universities have an obligation to create appropriate opportunities and conditions for students—athletes and nonathletes alike—to pursue their educational goals. Primary responsibility for creating and maintaining those opportunities and conditions should rest with the faculty, which sets general academic policy, oversees the curriculum, teaches the courses, assesses student academic performance, and recommends the conferral of degrees. Athletics programs should carry out their activities in a manner that is respectful of the faculty’s right to teach as well as the student’s right to learn. Achievement of these aims, we believe, will require adherence to the recommendations that follow.

  1. Consistent with principles of academic freedom, control over how courses are taught and how students are evaluated, including the assignment of grades, should rest exclusively with the faculty and not be delegated to noninstructional staff.11
  2. Athletics programs should structure their activities so that participants have the same opportunities as other students to pursue a recognized degree program, as determined by the faculty, and to choose courses and schedules that are consistent with their making normal progress toward fulfilling degree requirements and completing those require­ments within a reasonable period of time. The faculty should guard against courses or degrees whose main purpose is to keep athletes academically eligible to participate in intercollegiate sports.
  3. Athletics programs should schedule their activities so as to conform with the academic calendar and to minimize intrusions on the classroom and pressures on athletes’ aca­demic obligations. In particular, athletic events and team travel should be arranged to permit participants to meet the academic standards set by the faculty for all students in their courses, including attendance, completion of assignments, and evaluations. Athlet­ics schedules should also respect campus­wide study and examination periods.
  4. Policies governing class absences for athletes involved in intercollegiate sports should be approved by the faculty. The athletics program should be required to provide statistics on such absences to the faculty senate and its relevant committees through regular year­ly reports to those bodies.
  5. Faculty have a responsibility to ensure that athletes obtain appropriate advising and other assistance in meeting their academic obligations. Whatever the special needs of athletes, the support programs for tutoring and instruction in study skills available to them should be the same as those offered to nonathletes. Athletes should be accorded no favoritism or special treatment in the affordance of counseling or academic support services.
  6. Faculty should ensure that any academic support unit that is charged with advising ath­letes should be established and overseen by the faculty and report to an academic officer.

 

Finances

Intercollegiate athletics, especially on campuses that have “high-­profile” programs, with their ever­mounting costs of new facilities and coaches’ salaries, requires a major allocation of finan­cial resources. Examples of skewed or misplaced fiscal priorities abound. The faculty is prop­erly concerned about decisions respecting the allocation of institutional resources in the context of more general institutional needs and goals, and it has a vital role to play in assessing the bud­getary implications of decisions concerning the overall size and scope of the athletics program. Institutions of higher education, with their sundry programs and auxiliary enterprises, have as their principal mission the discovery, transmission, and preservation of knowledge in the ser­vice of the larger society. In furtherance of their mission, most colleges and universities are sup­ported by public funds, whether through grants, tax exemptions, or direct government appro­priations, and they are expected, in turn, to exercise proper stewardship of this public trust. Faculty members have an important role to play in advising administrators and trustees on the integrity of athletics programs, thereby helping to ensure the public’s trust and its continuing support. The faculty is but one voice in the budgetary process, but that voice is a vital one. Col­leges and universities must handle accounting matters in a manner that does not raise ques­tions about the institution’s fundamental mission and purpose. Therefore, members of the fac­ulty must acquire the information they need to monitor the educational and financial aspects of their institution’s athletics programs.

Meaningful accountability in the financing of college athletics requires full disclosure of financial information and openness of debate. Since a great deal of money is involved—either on the credit or the debit side of college and university budgets—the issues of finance are criti­cal. Resources invested in athletics enterprises should be justified by the general purposes of the educational institution and not by measures of (potential or actual) financial return or profit. In carrying out their legitimate functions, institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that resources are used judiciously and appropriately in the public trust and in compliance with legal and ethical obligations of nondiscrimination. Transparency in reporting revenues and expendi­tures, including the compensation of coaches and athletics directors, is essential. The athletics program should therefore be required to submit its annual budget to the faculty senate for review and comment.

The need for sound handling of financial matters related to sports leads us to urge consid­eration of the following recommended standards and procedures:

  1. Athletics programs and enterprises within the athletics department should be fully inte­grated into the control and governance structures of the institution, and those responsi­ble for these areas should be held accountable for their budgetary actions in accordance with the institution’s educational mission.
  2. Cost­cutting measures should be considered along with revenue­enhancing strategies in balancing the athletics budget line in a manner consonant with the institution’s educa­tional priorities. Athletics personnel and programs should not be exempt from institu­tional retrenchment plans. The assets and operational costs of the athletics program should be included in determining whether a state of financial exigency exists in an insti­tution and in implementing the remedies necessary to alleviate such a fiscal emergency. Consistent with Association­supported standards, which require meaningful faculty involvement in decisions relating to retrenchment, recommendations made by the facul­ty should incorporate revenues and expenditures of the athletics program.12
  3. Commercial activities sponsored by the athletics program must be consistent with the institution’s educational mission.
  4. The choice of athletes’ uniforms, shoes, or other equipment should not be based on any financial arrangements or contracts between vendors and the institution, the athletics department, or individual coaches. College athletes should not be employed for purpos­es of commercial advertisement or marketing.
  5. Institutions should refuse to sign contracts with apparel or equipment manufacturers, or allow coaches or other members of the athletics program to sign contracts, that contain “nondisparagement” clauses. Such clauses, which typically prohibit college or universi­ty personnel from making any critical remarks about the company, its policies, or its products, are inconsistent with principles of academic freedom.13
  6. The athletics program should follow accepted accounting and auditing procedures implemented by the institution that accurately record internal and external sources of income (including general­fund appropriations), reflect operational and deferred expens­es, and identify indebtedness.
  7. The athletics program should bear the same share of indirect costs as other programs and departments, and these costs should be recorded in its budget.
  8. Gifts for the purpose of endowing positions on athletics teams or staff positions in the athletics program should be received and managed through the institution’s central financial office and disbursed with the purpose of supporting the academic progress of students and the educational mission of the institution.
  9. Athletics program personnel, including coaches, should not use campus facilities for per­sonal gain, and they should eschew endorsements and other personal contracts with third parties that would compromise or conflict with their responsibilities to college ath­letes or the institution. Athletics personnel who seek outside employment while they are under contract with the institution should be governed by the same provisions that apply to the institution’s academic and support staff. The terms of any internal or external con­tracts should be fully disclosed.
  10. Financial arrangements with booster clubs should be open to scrutiny by the campus community.
  11. Allocation of financial resources among men’s and women’s athletics programs should reflect: (a) the recognized educational benefits of these programs common to each gen­der; and (b) the intent of federal legislation addressing gender equity. In particular, reduction of the size of men’s teams in revenue­producing sports should be considered as an alternative to the abolition of teams in non­revenue-­producing sports.
  12. The faculty senate should review and comment on contracts between the athletics pro­gram and commercial enterprises when such contracts have a potential impact on the academic life or educational experiences of college athletes.

 

Conclusions

“Universities must be judged by their achievements as academic institutions, not as sports fran­chises,” observed Indiana University president Myles Brand, recently appointed president of the NCAA, nearly two years ago. We need, he added, “to make certain that athletics programs enhance and support the larger academic mission of the university.”14

Given the principles and the recommended practices set forth above to implement change, what can be done to ensure that they are enacted and enforced? As the recent Knight Commis­sion report states, “Change will come, sanity will be restored, only when the higher education community comes together to meet collectively the challenges its members face.” As for the fac­ulty’s role in this process, on some campuses a fundamental reordering of the structures and practices of institutional governance may be needed before the faculty can begin to assume its appropriate responsibility for the oversight of the institution’s athletics program. However, in those institutions with a strong tradition and practice of shared governance, campus­wide recognition of and dedication to these principles as part of institutional governance should make it much easier for the faculty, if it is willing to become engaged, to assume its appropri­ate role in athletics reform. We hasten to add that, as was observed in The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics, “It is doubtful that faculty efforts alone will be sufficient to refocus the priorities of major athletics programs. On the other hand, faculties are in a unique position to advocate adherence to meaningful academic standards.”15

Enactment and enforcement of the requisite reforms to establish a proper balance between sports and education will require members of the faculty—working as much as possible with supportive, or at least sympathetic, administrators, trustees, and athletics program staff, including coaches—to invest time and energy in this project. We urge the adoption by faculty senates of resolutions embodying the principles set forth here, and we call upon administra­tions to work with the faculty to implement policies consistent with the practices recommend­ed in this report. We also encourage individual faculty members to continue to speak out with independence and candor about the issues we have addressed. At the same time, we want to emphasize the need for institutions to ensure that faculty members who do bring public atten­tion to these matters and who actively work for reform are afforded protections against retali­ation for exercising their academic freedom.

As with the efforts being undertaken by the Drake Group and by a number of faculty sen­ates at Pac­10 and Big Ten universities, faculty members at one institution may find it useful to form coalitions with members of senates at other institutions and with other external groups who share the same principles and goals in order to promote these recommended practices and assist in advancing the reform of intercollegiate athletics programs. But ultimately faculty must take responsibility at their own institutions for the proper functioning of athletics programs and the appropriate treatment of college athletes as students.

 

Notes

1. AAUP, “The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics,” Policy Documents and Reports, 9th ed. (Washington, D.C., 2001), 242–47; “Statement on Intercollegiate Athletics,” Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed. (Washington, D.C., 2006), 157–58.

2. Among the most important recent books on the subject, see James L. Duderstadt, Intercollegiate Athlet­ics and the American University: A University President’s Perspective (Ann Arbor: University of  Michigan Press, 2000); Allen L. Sack, Ellen J. Staurowsky, and Kent Waldrep, College Athletes for Hire: The Evolution and Lega­cy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth (New York: Praeger, 1998); James L. Shulman and William G. Bowen, The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001); Murray Sperber, Beer and Circus: How Big­Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2000); Rick Telander, Richard Warch, and Murray Sperber, The Hundred Yard Lie: The Corrup­tion of College Football and What We Can Do to Stop It (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1996); and John R. Thelin, Games Colleges Play: Scandal and Reform in Intercollegiate Athletics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994).

3. In its 2001 report, in a section titled “The Need to Act Together,” the Knight Commission notes that “Faculty, too, have a critical role to play. Above all, they must defend the academic value of their institu­tions.” John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, A Call to Action, 25.

4. John R. Gerdy, “Athletic Victories, Educational Defeats,” Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP (January– February 2002): 35.

5. “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,” Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed., 139.

6. The quoted passages are from “The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics,” Policy Documents and Reports, 9th ed., 243–45.

7. Policy Documents and Reports, 9th ed., 242, 243.

8. Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed., 157.

9. In the section headed “Conflicts of Interest,” the “Statement on Intercollegiate Athletics” provides that “Paid­for trips to games, and other special benefits for faculty, administrators, or members of governing boards involved in the oversight of athletics, whether offered by the university or by outside groups, cre­ate conflicts of interest and should be eliminated.” Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed., 158.

10. Ibid.

11. See “The Assignment of Course Grades and Student Appeals,” Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed., 127–28.

12. See Regulation 4c of the “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed., 24–25, and “On Institutional Problems Resulting from Financial Exi­gency: Some Operating Guidelines,” ibid., 147–48.

13. See, for example, W. Lee Hansen, ed., Academic Freedom on Trial: 100 Years of Sifting and Winnowing at the University of Wisconsin­Madison (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 11.

14. “Presidents Have Cause, Means to Reduce Arms,” NCAA News, February 12, 2001.

15. Policy Documents and Reports, 9th ed., 242–47.