COLUMN: Who is discriminating?

From Kent Malmros', "Everything Old Is New Again," Fall '99 From Kent Malmros', "Everything Old Is New Again," Fall '99Morton Greenberg, Walter Stapleton and Samuel Alito are three very important Philadelphians right now. On October 1, the three Circuit Court judges heard 90 minutes worth of arguments from National Collegiate Athletic Association lawyers urging the reversal of a lower court decision that invalidated the organization's academic eligibility standards for Division I and II athletes. Last March, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter found that the standards were racially discriminatory because a disproportionate number of freshmen failing to meet eligibility requirements were black. And now, it is in the hands of these three judges to determine if the NCAA standards are appropriate. It is a decision with far reaching implications and one that will most likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But for the sake of education, while this case is in Philadelphia, one must hope that the judges rule to maintain the academic requirements of the NCAA. The NCAA's attorney, David Burton, argued on two platforms. First, he stated that the federal civil rights law did not apply to to this case because the NCAA does not receive federal funding. More importantly, Burton maintained that the NCAA's adoption of Proposition 16 was legitimate because it was prompted by a legitimate "educational goal." The goal was to raise the graduation rate of student athletes by requiring that students score at least an 820 on the SAT and achieve at least a 2.5 grade point average in 13 "core" courses in high school. In addition, it added a sliding scale, previously unused under its predecessor, Proposition 48. Under Proposition 16, a student with a GPA as low as 2.0 could qualify if she scored at least 1010 on the SAT. So far, Proposition 16 has not caused a significant increase in college graduation rates. But the requirements have only been in place since 1996. And by using a sliding scale, the policy inherently incorporates those that may be at a disadvantage because of their education, but are innately intelligent. There are those who argue that some students are discriminated against because they don't understand the English that is used on the tests. But Proposition 16 doesn't prevent schools from granting scholarships to student-athletes -- it simply says that they must sit out a year and raise their academic levels before competing. It makes sense. If someone does not have a grasp of the language or other basic skills, they will not survive the rigors of a college education. Granted, there are exceptions. There are cases where students have scored 1300 on their SATs and graduated first in their high school class but do not meet freshman eligibility standards because of failure to meet the "core" class requirement. These cases, however, are a rarity. And just as the NCAA provided a sliding scale for test scores, they too are kinks that can be worked out. More importantly, if Buckwalter's decision is upheld, we won't be forced to examine the other extremes -- the cases that brought this issue to national light in the first place. After all, the number of black students prevented from competing on the collegiate level their freshman year may in fact be caused by discrimination. But the educational system may be discriminatory, not the NCAA. Shouldn't we be forced to ask why Tae Kwan Cureton and Leatrice Shaw -- the original plaintiffs -- were honors students at Simon Gratz High School in Philadelphia, but could not score 820 on their SATs? For example, if the NCAA were to adopt the standards of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics -- a governing body for smaller colleges -- students-athletes would only need to meet two of the following requirements: 860 on the SAT, 2.0 GPA or a ranking in top half of their graduating class. But again, if a student has a 2.0 GPA and is the top half of their graduating class, but cannot score an 860 on the SAT, then we must question the value of his or her high school education. Greenberg, Stapleton and Alito have a responsibility to uphold the sanctity of education. Even if the NCAA requirements apply only to athletes, they are still symbolic of standards that we need to employ to our whole educational system. Whenever a large group of African-American, Latino-American or white American students fail to meet these standards, we need to question the reasons, not change the standards.