Greg Keraghosian

Two wrongs don't make a right in NCAA lawsuit

ere's a perfectly sane SAT analogy for you.
The NCAA is to hypocrisy as:
a) Albert Belle is to good manners.
b) The `96 Olympics were to male viewers.
c) Michael Irvin is to unclean living.
d) None of the above.
The answer, if you're keen on your analogies, would be C--at least in this answer book. But according to Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, the test from which this mock question is derived gives minorities the short end of the stick, and the NCAA is getting a hard time as a result.
Coincidentally (or maybe not), at this Saturday's annual NCAA convention in Nashville, Tenn., a major issue of concern was the class-action lawsuit filed against the 90-year-old institution. Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, based in the nation's capital, is representing two track athletes who claim that the SAT and ACT, which are used to determine athletic eligibility in Division I, are culturally biased.
The plaintiffs are demanding an injunction against the NCAA that would prevent it from using SAT scores as a criterion in admitting student athletes. Ultimately, the plaintiffs hope the court will find use of the test in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The two athletes, who are mostly lost in this mix, are Philadelphia high school stars Tai Kwan Cureton and Leatrice Shaw. The former's failure to meet the NCAA's minimum SATrequirement kept her from accepting Division I offers and forced her to attend Wheaton College. The latter is sitting out her first year of college under Proposition 48 rules.
In deciding just who is in the right on this matter, one can't help but think of the old Iran-Iraq war--neither is the good guy. One group is victimizing itself, which is shameful. But the other routinely victimizes that same group, which is no better.
Cureton and Shaw dispute their SAT scores, pointing out that they both placed among the top 30 students in their high school classes. However, under Prop. 48, which was most recently revised last spring, a lower SAT score can be compensated for by a high grade point average. Some athletes who have been rather inept academically--white and black--have passed that barrier. And in a time when the roots of discrimination are so heatedly disputed, probably the greatest resource to overcome discrimination is one's own brain, which has propelled so many disadvantaged people to fruitful lives.
On the other hand, the NCAA is an organization that shamefully exploits student athletes for the sake of the almighty dollar in exchange for Orwellian levels of personal freedom and little monetary compensation, while the very coaches who cry racial injustice about the SAT, such as Georgetown's John Thompson, reel in the money their players earn for them.
Of course, the NCAA likes to pat itself on the back, as it has done by issuing a new report to combat the current litigation. It quotes figures saying that since Prop. 48 and its tougher academic standards were imposed, despite a brief initial dip in the enrollment and graduation rate of black Division I athletes, the rates have improved. But those stats don't specifically refer to the major revenue sports--football and basketball--where black athletes are most exploited. And when a minority group--namely, blacks--represents 59 percent of those affected by NCAA regulations, something must be wrong.
Quite simply, there is no right answer to this question. It's possible that left alone, the matter will take care of itself. Or it's possible that abolishing the NCAA altogether--a sentiment shared by more people than the organization would like--is the way.
But as long as it does exist, sticking with the three R's represented in the SAT still seems to be a solid way of evaluating prospective college students of all races.