Without “affirmative action” for athletes, fewer football stars on the field
What do you call a Division I school that doesn’t lower its admission standards to admit star athletes?
Probably 0-12.
While many people condemn any consideration of race in college admissions, few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.
In an investigation three years ago of admission standards for athletes, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates — and men’s basketball players average seven points less than football players.
At the University of Georgia, the average football SAT was 949, which was 239 points behind the average for an undergraduate student at Georgia at the time. The Bulldogs’ average high school GPA was 2.77, or 45th out of 53 big-time college teams for which football GPAs were available.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week to revisit the issue of race-conscience admissions policies is sparking new discussions of admission standards and deviations.
The court last addressed race in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision. In a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, saying that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
In Fisher v. Texas, a far more conservative court will now take up the claim of a white student who said she lost a spot at the University of Texas Austin because of her race.
Under the “talented 10” policy, students in the top 10 percent of any Texas high school are assured admittance to any state institution of higher learning.
Abigail Fisher was not among the top 10 percent of her class, but contends that she would have merited admission in the general applicant pool had it not been for racial preferences.
“Teaching students that their skin color is what defines them should not be part of the curriculum at public universities,” said Joshua P. Thompson, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief urging the court to take the Fisher case.
“A policy of race-based preferences and discrimination in admissions is not just unfair, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said.
But are college admissions ever fair, given how many exceptions are made, including the lower bar for top athletes and the little-discussed benefits accrued to “legacy” students whose parents and grandparents attended the school or to children of a celebrity or potential donor?
Could it be that Abigail Fisher lost her spot in Austin to the daughter of a Texas legislator, the son of a country-western star or a placekicker with a 50-yard range?
In a study of legacy admissions at prestigious Duke University, researchers Nathan D. Martin and Kenneth I. Spenner found that these students trail their peers in academic credentials: “The average SAT score for legacies is about 40 points lower than students with professional degree parents, and about 12 points lower than students with other degree parents.”
An editorial earlier this month in the independent Duke student newspaper, the Chronicle, attacked legacy admissions, noting that children of alumni made up 20.4 percent of students in 2008, and 13 percent of the graduating class of 2015.
The editorial said, “Duke’s legacy admissions policy is not only unfair but unjustified. Because Duke cannot rationalize its legacy policy on the grounds of financial necessity or community enrichment, the admissions process should no longer grant any consideration whatsoever to legacy status.”
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
142 comments Add your comment
Lee
February 24th, 2012
7:33 pm
@Nat, re: “But Lee, you keep failing to mention what Maureen has pointed out more than once. It is not just the black athletes that are inferior, it is across the board. But don’t let facts stand in your way. Keep on assuming that the white players on the team are also academic scholars.
Go back and read my first post where I said any attributes that do not pertain to a student’s ability to complete a degree program should not be considered in public college admissions.
When Maureen said that “few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted”, I pointed out the NCAA has tried to implement student/athlete academic reforms, and the most vocal arguments against such reforms were from the so-called “black civil rights” groups.
I never once said that all white players performed well academically. That’s your misinterpretation.
If you’re a stud athlete who missed out on an opportunity to go to college because of your grades, tough luck, IMHO. This will be only one of many disappointments in your life.
Lee
February 24th, 2012
7:36 pm
@Truth Today, your February 24th, 2012 6:49 pm post should be Exhibit A of the politically correct pathology that has ruined this once great nation.
RAMZAD
February 24th, 2012
7:39 pm
America is a country of isms, and the sooner we get with that reality and let go of the outrageous righteous indignation the sooner we get something done around here. Racism, sexism, nepotism, cronyism, ageism, Balkanism, and the great line of other isms we use to discriminate, saturate, terminate and deviate are as American as apple pie. Here we come now looking askance at our
own natural national odor.
Truth Today
February 24th, 2012
8:09 pm
Lee, your response to Truth is confusing. You apparently did not analyze the comments. If so, you would have responded more thoughtfully and specifically. You are invited to enter into a more thoughtful, content specific, and provocative discourse. I welcome the conversation.
bu2
February 24th, 2012
9:06 pm
@Truth
Texas already does deal with those issues. They admit the top 10% (they’ve since reduced it to 8% because 73% of the class was admitted automatically) from ALL high schools in Texas. So weaker high schools, lower socio-economic schools and rural schools get people in. On top of that they want racial preferences so they can get that 20th-30th percentile minority from a top high school and skip over the 11th percentile student who isn’t minority.
bu2
February 24th, 2012
9:13 pm
@Maureen;
So you are saying its ok to discriminate on the basis of skin color but wrong to discriminate on the basis of ability? I guess that is the general liberal philosophy. Of course, you can only discriminate if it is the right group being discriminated against.
Its beyond me how you fail to grasp the difference. Schools give benefits for artistic and musical ability in addition to athletic. Whether they should give so much credit to athletic ability is a different issue.
BTW, the University of Texas athletic department sends about $10 million a year back to the academic areas and doesn’t give students any credit for being legacies. Neither does UGA (Now if someone is willing to write a big enough check, they can get into Harvard or anywhere else).
Maureen Downey
February 24th, 2012
9:19 pm
@bu2, I doubt too many artists or musicians admitted to competitive colleges score on average 220 points lower on than their classmates, as is the case with football players. (In fact, I would bet that music majors have pretty good test scores.)
That is a significant gap. I would be surprised if artists or musicians were cut very much slack with their scores.
Do schools make exceptions for exceptional talents in the arts? Sure, but I doubt they make 220-point exceptions.
Maureen
bu2
February 24th, 2012
9:25 pm
Rice (one of the best schools in the country) bragged about admitting a student with a 900 SAT (on the 1600 point scale). He happened to be a butterfly collector and communicated with people around the world. That was probably about a 400 point variation from the average SAT score at Rice. Rice likes having people with a lot of different talents.
Again, Marueen, the issue of how much of an exception you make for athletics is different from the issue of making an exception. And the issue of making an exception for a special ability is different tha making an exceptioni based on the color of one’s skin or one’s last name.
The One
February 24th, 2012
9:55 pm
The reality is that regardless of whether an minority gets in on merit or otherwise, you will still have a group of individuals who will believe that person is inferior. It i an unfortunate and sad reality. Those who argue for a merit based admissions policy in institutions of higher learning are being somewhat disingenuous. Most often, the merit based argument focuses on race, but seldom does it focus on legacy. It is undisputed that many individuals who are descendants of former graduates get preferential treatment in the admissions process. Therefore, if the merit based argument is to carry any weigh it must include legacy admissions. Additionally, the merit based argument must call for the abolishment of purely athletic admissions. Many scholarship athletes at premier universities are not admitted based on scholarly merit. Instead, the are admitted because of their athletic achievement. Legacy and athletic admissions are excluded from the merit based admissions argument due to MONEY. The institutions of higher learning are businesses and need money to operate. Yes, they get money from tuition. But many schools get a tremendous influx of cash from wealthy and distinguished alumni and sports. This extra revenue allows those institutions to hire better teachers, create better programs, and build better facilities, which all impact the scholastic status of those universities. Therefore , it begs the question, if certain universities, lot alumni donation because legacies were not guaranteed admission and lot major revenue because their sporting teams were noncompetitive, would individuals still decry the admissions policies at those universities? PROBABLY NOT. My point is that the argument should be logically consistent. If the use of race in the admissions process i wrong, then the use of every criteria other than scholarly merit is also wrong. I AM A PROPONENT FOR ELIMINATING ALL PREFERENCES IN THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. Please keep in mind athletes are put into FLUFF majors.
hryder
February 24th, 2012
11:21 pm
Almost all Division III institutions of higher education require ALL entering students to meet the identical entrance requirements. Due to exteme emphasis on political correctness, the known genetic advantages that a specific racial group holds in certain sports activities, is rarely acknowledged.Many people just reject the reviewable research as just an excuse. But in other sports activities where these genetic advantages are a disadvantage, social factors or discrimination are cited for lack of performance at a high level. To be political correct, the academic pursuits of excellence will not be mentioned.
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Georgians for Educational Excellence
February 25th, 2012
5:29 am
Athletic scholarships? Student-athletes? In the words of that Immortal 1950s-60s TV philosopher Maynard G. Krebbs, “Surely, you jest.”
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Georgians for Educational Excellence
February 25th, 2012
5:33 am
Maureen, please don’t waste your time and energy reasoning at an athletics FANatic.
GB
February 25th, 2012
6:45 am
You ask this question:
“But are college admissions ever fair, given how many exceptions are made, including the lower bar for top athletes and the little-discussed benefits accrued to “legacy” students whose parents and grandparents attended the school or to children of a celebrity or potential donor?”
The answer is: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race. The law does not prohibit discrimination based on athletic ability or legacy status.
You and I may think that a certain policy is fair or unfair, good public policy or bad, but the relevant thing is not your personal view or mine. What counts is the law enacted by Congress and signed by the president.
bob
February 25th, 2012
7:33 am
if black georgia politicians want standards lowered so more minority students can get HOPE, georgia colleges should be required to give more scholarships to less qualified white athletes.
Don Abernethy
February 25th, 2012
8:47 am
Because Blacks as a general rule are better athletes than Whites I think schools should be required to have a Black league and a White league so Whites have a chance to play. However, all players should be required to have the SAT scores required for everyone else at that school. You could also establish a sports school where no grades are required and no classes are held. Let the NBA and NFL pay for it.
Professor Fate
February 25th, 2012
10:25 am
So, we can state that blacks are more athletic than whites, and no one bats an eye. However, we can’t suggest that perhaps, just maybe, whites are more intelligent, in general, than blacks without starting a large scale kerfuffle. Curious, I tells ya.
Interesting Observation
February 25th, 2012
10:42 am
I bet you if gifted black atheletes opted to attend HCBUs as a way of protesting UGA, Clemson, TN, Auburn, Bama and the rest will gladly tout affirmative action.
Anonmom
February 25th, 2012
11:38 am
I think affirmative action actually backfires on the qualified minority it seeks to help. When you run into enough unqualified minorities at schools or in positions, who are there solely based on their ‘appearance’ rather than their underlying ‘qualifications’ it impacts all of the qualified candidates who appear the same… there’s a “carry over” effect. It harms those who get “lumped” together as part of human nature. I don’t think that eliminating race and gender from the discussion is wise, as there is something to be said for campuses which are “varied” and “multi-faceted” but at the same time I think that the it needs to be more of a “tie-breaker” rather than used to give preference to “under” qualified folks. I think that we’ve reached a point where “under” qualified has been put into place too often and we’ve gotten to “reverse” discrimination and that is wrong. Merit should count for something. For all the comments about “unequal” — please reference all of the discussions on the role of parents and need for “self-starting” and need for resources to be directed into the classroom instead of administration — the resources are there– they are being misused.
bu2
February 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
@The One
Your facts are wrong. It is not undisputed that legacy is considered. In fact there is a lot of controversy at places because legacy is no longer considered. There is a strong movement away from considering legacies in higher education.
@Dr. Spinks
If you really are a doctor you should understand how Maureen is mixing totally different issues. Discrimination based on the color of one’s skin is different than discriminating based on one’s abilities. And how much you allow lower academic scores in favor of athletic skill is a different issue as well. Different schools give different allowances.
bu2
February 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
There’s a serious argument to be made that the disproportionate number of African American football and basketball players contributes to the lower average scores of African Americans.
Mitch
February 25th, 2012
6:49 pm
The Georgia University System spends over a quarter billion dollars each year on athletics. It may be only entertainment but is certainly expected by the public. A college athlete has about the same chance of landing a career in professional whatever as a math whiz does in landing a math oriented career.
@Don
February 25th, 2012
9:05 pm
Don says “Because Blacks as a general rule are better athletes than Whites I think schools should be required to have a Black league and a White league so Whites have a chance to play.”
This is not true. Why are blacks proficient at athletics and Asians aren’t? It’s just a matter of where you spend your time. If you value athletics, you encourage your children to play by going outside and playing with them in the sport you value. Asians, generally, value academis, violin and piano. Asians excel at these arts because they spend an enormous amount of time practicing the piano and the violin and practicing math and science.
Blacks, generally, value athletic abilities. They spend a great deal of time playing basketball and football.
Why are white girls good at gymnastics? Gymnastics is a very athletic sport. White girls generally don’t play basketball as black girls do. White girls do gymnastics and black girls play basketball.
Whites swim. Blacks play football.
Whites excel at swimming. Blacks excel at football.
No one race has the corner on athletic ability. No one race has the corner on academics. It’s all cultural. Whay you value and what you practice is what you excel in.
Good Mother
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:47 am
Affirmative action is unconstitutional. I would assert that colleges should have an athletic performance degree. The genuine problem is that the athletes under the current system SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. One reason why most colleges now compete with Notre Dame & Army – they let in kids who can’t really succeed in College, exploit them for revenue, then jettison them. College athletes should AT LEAST receive the revenue generated from sales of shirts with their name or number on them. But, at least in the realm of college athletics, the NCAA is a plantation.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:48 am
Mitch – I doubt that flippant assertion would prove out.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:51 am
another serious problem – if an athlete is offered a scholarship, he should be allowed to take only 1 or 2 classes while his sport eligibility exists – once that eligiblity is over, then the college would be mandated to continue the scholarship until that individual graduates (or flunks out).
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:53 am
The One – you are the disengenuous post here. You are also advocating for do nothingism; ie, the status quo.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
2:57 am
Maureen – the answer is obvious – college Presidents are evaluated in some fashion on the ability to raise $$ and school stature – which frequently is connected to sports excellence. How many pianists have 100,000 watch one of their performances? Let alone pay to watch it. The key is money, which is also why the legacy folks get in. Does legacy apply in public schools?
@Paddy O and Pianists
February 26th, 2012
7:10 am
You asked a good question “How many pianists have 100,000 watch one of their performances? Let alone pay to watch it.”
There are several who have millions of people watching them and they earn more money than every athlete. Two people are obviously well over that 100,000 mark and make millions: BIlly Joel and Elton John…
Good Mother
Dr. Proud Black Man
February 26th, 2012
11:13 am
@GM
Paddy Os analogy went right over your head.
RS
February 26th, 2012
2:24 pm
All, College Admission should be totally color/ethnic blind. Please take note of California’s Prop 209 (1996) which eliminated almost totally the criteria of looking a race/ethnicity. Both minorities black & Latino dropped from 8-9% to 1-2%. With Asian population soaring from 20-25% to higher than 33%-45% of the entering freshmen class depending on which university one is looking at.
bilbo799
February 26th, 2012
6:00 pm
Maureen,
The premise of this article is just plain silly — you’re usually better. NO ONE is saying that all applicants should be treated completely equally. The distinction between disparate treatment based on race and disparate treatment based on something else (legacy status, athletic status) is clear. There is a long history of discrimination in this country based on race — our laws and values recognize this (that’s why government distinctions based on race are subject to higher scrutiny under the US Constitution than other distinctions). We have no corresponding history / legal frameworks for the distinctions you’re talking about.
bilbo799
February 26th, 2012
6:15 pm
There’s really no hypocrisy for accepting favorable treatment for athletes / legacy and rejecting favorable treatment for blacks (for the reasons stated above) — they’re just completely different things. There’s REAL hypocrisy in demanding affirmative action where blacks have been under-represented (higher education, corporate world) but not where blacks have been over-represented (major athletics, some parts of entertainment industry). WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF WE DEMANDED THAT EACH NBA REFLECT THE US POPULATION BY RACE???????????
Prof
February 26th, 2012
6:16 pm
@RS. 1-2% Hispanic and black students in California state universities and 33-45% Asian, and thus 66-53% white—indeed.
I just want to note that the original 2003 Supreme Court decision was based on the benefits that come to the SCHOOL from a diverse student body, not those who may have experienced past discrimination. The Court emphasized the educational value of diversity: it makes students aware of other perspectives than their own so they can “think outside the box”; and it prepares students for today’s reality of a society that is global in outlook, and a multiracial work environment.
Admissions officials have very good reasons for seeking a good representation of all races in their student body; and it has little to do with redressing past injustices. It makes for a better education for the students.
There’s a lot more to Education than book-learnin’.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
9:01 pm
Prof – the problem is that by determining diversity is defined by the race of the applicant, the Supreme Court is practicing benign racism. There is little diversity as defined by race, otherwise Japan would be an inept country. Diversity is taking folks from different geographical areas and different walks of life and allowing them to mingle. Defining diversity by skin color is ivory tower/liberal racism – which most newspapers & professors at university/college are blind to.
Paddy O
February 26th, 2012
9:01 pm
make that little benefit to diversity.
Prof
February 26th, 2012
9:44 pm
@ Paddy O. Race/ethnicity is one of many diversities considered by college admissions, besides grades and test scores. You’re right–diversity includes rural and urban folks, and folks from different socioeconomic classes, as well as those from different states, different countries, different religions.
But it isn’t the “skin color” that creates the diversity; it’s the culture of those sharing that skin color; it’s their common experience of not being in the majority. And it is quite educational for students in the majority to find out what it’s like for the others….good for them when they’re out there in a multicultural workplace after they get their degree, too. For this country, it is a-changin.
Lee
February 26th, 2012
10:32 pm
“But it isn’t the “skin color” that creates the diversity…”
Tell you what, when you get to be a manager, hire a poor white guy, a white guy from a rural area, a white guy from the city, a white guy from Finland, a rich white guy, etc, etc, and let me know how long it takes for the Human Resources “Diversity Officer” to start complaining to your boss.
2/27: Debating charter school amendment | Atlanta Forward
February 27th, 2012
10:09 am
[...] Nor have they been paying attention to the passionate discussion sparked by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to consider again whether race should be a factor in college admissions, which I tackle. To comment on this essay, visit my Get Schooled blog at this link. [...]
Prof
February 27th, 2012
11:41 am
@ Lee. You’re switching the ground of the argument, also known as equivocation. The original subject was the use of race/ethnicity in college admissions and how diversity benefits students educationally; and you’ve now changed it to the use of race/ethnicity in a business situation and how diversity benefits underrepresented workers according to Affirmative Action law. Also, you’ve quoted me selectively, ignoring the rest of my sentence.
I strongly recommend that you read the “Harbrace College Handbook,” Chapter 31 on “Logical Thinking,” a text required in most college Freshman Composition classes; for again and again in your posts you reveal basic logical fallacies.
Lee
February 27th, 2012
10:06 pm
Sorry Prof, the same principles apply. I’ve heard the “it’s not skin color” argument for diversity so many times until I’m sick of it. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about a business hiring decision, or college acceptance, or government contracting, at the end of the day, there’s some guy sitting at a computer crunching numbers on a spreadsheet and guess what? He’s measuring diversity in terms of race/ethnicity.
BTW, don’t try to obfuscate the discussion with snide recommendations to “read the Harbrace College Handbook”. That crap might work on your freshman coeds, but it doesn’t fly here…
Prof
February 28th, 2012
12:32 pm
@ Lee. OK for businessmen/women and spreadsheets, but not for college admissions people…for whom diversity is race/ethnicity AND ALSO many other types of diversity, including “legacies,” to return to the topic. Race/ethnicity is only one of many factors, and the reason, I still would argue, is not just “skin color.” I’m sick of hearing that canard too. It’s experiencing the hatred, contempt, and false racial “facts” that go along with having the “skin color”…which many bloggers here illustrate very nicely when they argue that for genetic reasons blacks have lower IQs than do whites.
Affirmative action: “A bitter, but necessary pill.” Diverse campuses are more interesting campuses. | Get Schooled
February 29th, 2012
11:50 am
[...] We had a rollicking debate over whether race should be a factor in college admissions, tied to the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue this year. [...]