Where are the Voices of University Presidents?

Here’s the simple truth: there are numerous problems with collegiate athletics.  

The current issues differ in scope and depth but here is a sampling: student-athletes are not succeeding academically and there have been efforts to “get them through” via unscrupulous means (think UNC).  Student-athletes are suffering from physical injuries (think Illinois) and these are not being handled with enough seriousness across the board, especially concussions.  Student-athletes are involved in incidents of violence, including against women; whether propelled by drugs or alcohol, the results are harmful and unlawful.  Then there are a host of NCAA rules and regulations that are problematic, not having kept up with the times (like crowd funding) or not being applied consistently or administered fairly.  Add to that that the actual organization of the NCAA makes it appear as if it is run by college and university presidents but the truth does not support that observation; the NCAA seems to self-perpetuate with huge costs, large salaries and rather paltry real, meaningful participation by presidents in my experience.

Then, we have the Knight Commission, founded now decades ago, to “ensure that intercollegiate athletics programs operate within the educational mission of their colleges and universities.”  The last report from the Commission was in 2010; according to the website, the last Op-Ed published was over a year ago in late March, 2014.  The website still lists Brit Kirwan as co-chair of the Commission, although he has retired.  In perusing white papers and research, nothing very recent appears on the website.

There is a more recent memorandum, dated March 2015 titled “Collaborative Efforts to Strengthen Educational Opportunities through College Sports” and it focuses on Division I athletics.  It is an effort to identify key previous recommendations that deserve more attention within the new NCAA Division-I governance structure.  The seven recommendations boil down to this: we need to insure academics are a key priority and Division-I athletics generates big money and allocation of dollars matters.  On its heels was a May 2015 meeting that encouraged a student-centered approach to collegiate athletics.

So, for starters, how many college and university presidents have read any of these materials within the last 24 months, forgetting for a moment their lack of specificity?  By the by, they are recommendations, not actions.

Second, when he left his most recent academic position as Chancellor of the University of Maryland system, Brit Kirwan participated in an interview with Inside Higher Education on athletics. He was deeply critical.  He went so far as to say, “It [collegiate athletics] has in a number of ways begun to compromise the integrity of higher education.” I agree with much of what he critiques, and former Chancellor Kirwan suggests that the only pathway for change is through an “external” disruption.  He suggests two: a legal decision mandating payment to athletes or Congressional issuance of a partial antitrust exemption to the NCAA, the result of which would be to empower the NCAA as I understand it to have greater control over salaries.

Yipes. Expanding the NCAA’s power seems all wrong to me. The NCAA is supposed to be run by college and university presidents. In truth, the organization has such a remarkably deep administrative structure and extraordinary budget that many (most?) presidents can and do basically just go along with the flow.

Talk about disruption: here’s an idea: radically alter the NCAA. Change its leadership structure; change its staffing; change its rules (many of which make zero sense and are poorly written); change its approach to problem solving; change its power structure and power club (women at the top are far and few between); rethink sanctions; rethink expenditures; rethink philosophy. Move its location from its Taj in Indiana; eliminate the over-indulgences at meetings. Think through the divisions — intra and inter division. Ponder sanctions and investigations (or those pursued and those ignored or scuttled.)

You want disruption a la Clayton Christensen? Try the NCAA as the starting point.

But, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with Brit Kirwan, here is what bothers me – a lot. Why do we have to wait for smart voices to retire before they are heard? Why can’t and shouldn’t college and university presidents and chancellors speak out while they are still employed? Perhaps one reason they don’t speak or write on these topics is that they want to remain employed. But, if they will not speak, who will?

Ask yourselves this: of whom are college and university presidents and chancellors afraid? Their boards or other governing associations? Their athletics’ departments? Their students? Their alums? Their athletic donors? The NCAA? The media, social media in particular? Perhaps so and rightly.

“I was so busy working keeping my job that I forgot to do my job.”

But if fear of losing one’s job is the risk, I am reminded of the line from the 1995 movie The American President: “I was so busy working keeping my job that I forgot to do my job.” Wise words.

One more point. It would be massively hypocritical to write this plea for action if I had not spoken up and out when I was a college president (albeit in a Division-III school but with a son who, in his day, was a Division-I athlete). While I will not provide a full litany of my criticism of college athletics and the NCAA, here are a couple examples of things I said and did and wrote while in office.  And, for proof, feel free to call the outstanding NCAA lawyer I used; I am sure she would confirm that I was not shy about voicing concerns about collegiate athletics. Or, call me.



I emailed Mark Emmert when he was early in his tenure at the NCAA to ask why he had so few women presidents and women staff in his cabinet.  He responded and let’s just say his response was defensive. I challenged the NCAA on its understanding of crowdfunding and its implications on Division-III athletes; I even offered to meet with them to help them understand and explore new options like 13th Avenue and SoFi.  No response to my offer.  Actually, dead silence.  I reached out to our athletic conference to complain that in a time of fiscal distress (2007 — 2009), the NCAA was expending buckets of money at its conferences; this made no sense when schools were struggling to support their programs (athletic and academic).  If memory serves, I even reached out to the NCAA staff. The die-cut program (which landed in most folks’ waste baskets at the hotel) was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.  The NCAA did respond by allocating more money to Division-III conferences or lowering dues as I recall.  I wrote – when still President – about Ray Rice and the need for other presidents to speak up and out.  

I could have done more.  I wish I had.  I continue to speak out with the hope of improving collegiate athletics.  But, we need more voices.  And, we need the voices of those still in positions of power in the academy.  Any volunteers out there?

UPDATE 9/29/15, 9:47 am CT: On the same day this article was published, apiece appeared in the Wall Street Journal identifying a new approach to collegiate athletics that was being tried on an experimental basis at Michigan State. That president is speaking up and out. Brava. Regardless of whether I think the suggested changes are optimal and will work,  it is high time to explore different approaches for improving college sports.