COLUMN: Sacificing academic ideals

From Eric Goldstein's, "Upon Further Review," Fall '97 From Eric Goldstein's, "Upon Further Review," Fall '97It all started with a virus. The events that followed Marrow's illness have forced the University community to address a question that speaks to the gravest concern of all Ivy League universities: Did Penn sacrifice its academic ideals for the sake of athletic success? There is no "yes" or "no" answer, and the debate will no doubt extend well beyond the 10 days of internal investigation that the University is conducting. In September, Marrow became so stricken with mononucleosis that he had to drop two of his four courses. By doing so, the fifth-year senior inadvertently became a part-time student and was no longer eligible to compete in NCAA athletics. Once the violation came to the attention of Athletic Department officials -- with about two weeks of class remaining in the semester -- they tried to help Marrow regain his eligibility by registering him for a late independent study. The attempt was later vetoed by College Dean Robert Rescorla. The result of the Marrow case has been a campus-wide debate over the proper role of athletics in a university's academic mission. The argument has pitted the Athletic Department against the History Department in this soap opera saga of rules violations, alleged cover-ups and charges of anti-Semitism and anti-athlete bias. The details of the case will soon be forgotten, as the four-year institutional memory of the student body withers away. Mitch Marrow will find a spot on some NFL roster next year. The football team will move forward after possibly forfeiting some games, lowering its number of recruiting trips or shortening its spring practice schedule. People will recognize the controversy for what it is -- an isolated incident in an otherwise clean athletic program, one that was just validated by an 18-month-long NCAA recertification process. But it is clear that no one involved on either side of the issue was motivated entirely -- or at all -- by concerns for Penn's academic ideals. Marrow had no intention of seeking an extra class until he learned he would have to sit out Penn's November 22 season finale against Cornell. His motivation was not intellectual curiosity or even the fulfillment of graduation requirements. He just wanted to play -- because of his competitive spirit, because of his responsibility to his team and because the pro scouts were watching. The Athletic Department's motivation in pushing for the approval of Marrow's late registration request was not based on an interest in Marrow's academic health. He could easily complete his degree requirements next semester. They wanted him on the field -- because it would help the team's chances of victory and because it would help Marrow's NFL prospects. It is also clear that Marrow had no prior interest in the research he would be working on with Legal Studies Professor Kenneth Shropshire. In fact, he readily admits that he never even met Shropshire before he made his independent study request. Marrow would have probably accepted any course he could arrange. So why did Shropshire approve an independent study for a student who apparently had little interest in the class other than as a means to play football? Isn't an independent study intended to provide an opportunity for an interested student to examine a specific area of study in more detail than regular coursework would allow? The motives of History professors Bruce Kuklick, Lynn Lees and Beth Wenger must also be questioned. Although they have tried to portray themselves as crusaders against academic injustice, their decision to speak publicly about the issue to The Philadelphia Inquirer before voicing their concerns to the University administration is curious. According to Athletic Department officials, the professors never approached Rescorla, School of Arts & Sciences Interim Dean Walter Wales, Provost Stanley Chodorow or University President Judith Rodin with their concerns. They never even asked Athletic Director Steve Bilsky for his side of the story. Instead, they spilled their tale to the Inquirer. It is irrelevant whether they contacted the Inquirer or the Inquirer contacted them. The fact is they circumvented the proper channels by going public. Given Kuklick's prior criticisms of intercollegiate athletics, many people in the Athletic Department have begun to wonder about his true interest He has gone on record in the past with his belief that college sports encourage cheating in the classroom. And, in the fall of 1995, Kuklick accused Marrow of plagiarism in his class, which led to a one-semester suspension for Marrow that spring. With that history in mind, Marrow and others in the Athletic Department have claimed that Kuklick finally saw his chance to take down the Athletic Department and seized it. Although such conspiracy theories are pure speculation, one must wonder why Kuklick never approached an academic administrator. Why was his first move to tattle to the media? There are no heroes in this case -- only losers. Marrow was only interested in playing. The Athletic Department was only interested in helping him achieve that goal. And the History Department could not have been entirely motivated by academic ideals or else they would have immediately gone to the administration and not talked to the Inquirer. No matter what the internal investigation discovers, the University will come out with a black eye. Its place in academia has been doubted. If not for that single virus?