By Michael A. Ross, MS
On December 10th, 2020 “a group of Black student-athletes attending various Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) filed a class action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) alleging the organization’s Academic Performance Program (APP) is intentionally discriminatory toward and punishes Black student-athletes at HBCUs”.
Background
The aforementioned student-athletes in affiliation with FeganScott Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA on the basis that the APP implemented by the NCAA would knowingly act as a detrimental factor towards HBCUs’ ability to effectively serve their demographic, including their student-athletes. Elizabeth Fegan, founding partner and managing member of FeganScott, stated that “HBCUs largely enroll low-income, first-generation Black students who have been historically disadvantaged, and the NCAA has access to plenty of academic data that indicates a program like the APP would have detrimental effects on Black student-athletes” (Student Athletes at Black Colleges and Universities Sue NCAA Claiming “Intentional Discrimination” in Academic Performance Program According to FeganScott Law Firm 2020, para 2). Fegan would continue to address this issue by inferring the implementation of such a mandated policy would create an even greater divide between HBCUs and their predominantly white counterparts from a racial and equality perspective.
The APP or Academic Performance Rate (APR) being referenced was established in the mid-2000s with the intention of placing a greater level of accountability on programs to ensure their athletes’ academic success (Meyers, 2020). The APR is calculated through the following criteria:
“Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one point for staying in school and one point for being academically eligible. A team’s total points are divided by points possible then multiplied by 1,000 to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate. In addition to a team’s current-year APR, its rolling four-year APR is also used to determine accountability. Teams must earn a four-year average APR of 930 to compete in championships” (Meyers, 2020, para 3).
For those found not in accordance of the aforementioned criteria, first level penalties are administered which surround the concept of reducing the amount of allowed days and hours that can be utilized for athletics. The hours lost that would typically be utilized within athletics are essentially transferred and made mandatory academic hours until the criteria are met by the given team. First level offending programs would see a normal six-day, 20-hour allotment towards athletic activities be restricted to a five-day, 16-hour restriction with the lost four hours being devoted to study halls or other academic centered activities. Post season bans also accompany those programs and teams that do not meet the academic standards established by the NCAA through their APR. It is noted that post season bans are not necessarily referenced as a punishment for those programs which do not meet the established criteria from an academic standpoint but more of a minimum requirement to participate in such events and post season play (Davis, 2006).
The plaintiff and various other stakeholders in agreement state that the NCAA’s policies serve as a form of systematic racism towards HBCUs and the student-athletes in which they serve based on data which suggested there were racial disparities identified within the system’s metrics. The complaint issued by FeganScott and constituents highlighted a 20-30 percentage point difference found between Black student-athletes and white student-athletes. Because of the format and penalty system which exists through the formation of the APR guidelines, many accounts from former and current HBCU student-athletes are on record stating how these restrictions negatively affected their collegiate experience, athletic opportunities and to some extent, their life experience post college. Je Yon Jung, senior attorney at May Lightfoot Law and co-counsel on this case, stated “these policies aren’t mere shortcomings – when more than 80 percent of post season bans are meted out to HBCUs, and when an HBCU is 43 times more likely to be banned than a predominantly white institution, we cannot ignore the data that is actively harming Black student-athletes” (Student Athletes at Black Colleges and Universities Sue NCAA Claiming “Intentional Discrimination” in Academic Performance Program According to FeganScott Law Firm, 2020, para 12).
The suit aims to hold the NCAA accountable for the racially discriminatory policies enacted based on the understanding that said policies restricted student-athletes from fair competition opportunities with their peers and the denial of potential media coverage that could have a negative effect on their career opportunities and other post-college benefits. Also, within the suit a focal point exists which states that because of the restrictive and racially based nature of the APR guidelines that the agreement and contract that exists between a given institution and their student-athletes cannot be fully upheld because the maximum benefits cannot be achieved. This notion is furthered by expressing how being denied participation in post-season and other national events is accompanied by increased publicity and revenue (Collier et al., 2020).
The suit aims to receive compensation and punitive damages for all Black student-athletes who competed in NCAA Division I athletics at a HBCU between 2010 to the present and to those athletes who could be considered injured through the implementation of the APP program and its restrictions. FeganScott’s claim concludes by stating that it is evident the implementation of such a policy is a direct attack upon both Black student-athletes and the entire mission in which HBCUs’ attempt to serve their stakeholders to the utmost degree. Furthermore, the systematic racism evident through such policies should call for reparations, and the NCAA as a governmental entity should be held accountable for their actions.
Conclusion
Considering the current climate and focus on racial and gender inequality within the United States, especially found within the sports realm, this issue could potentially gain enough traction to reach the higher levels of legislative decision making. With the recent HBCU educational reform success awarded by the Maryland Senate and the implementation of bill HB1260, addressing issues tied back into educational opportunities has become more pertinent for those identified as underserved. One of the most evident obstacles facing HBCUs who identify with receiving various hardships from the APP program is that this program applies to all institutions within that realm as a benchmark for participation, thus making an outward and evident direct connection towards discrimination somewhat vague. This statement is made with the acknowledgement that all schools vary when considering available resources, enrollment and funding among numerous other variables. With increased information and data combined with existing statistics and findings, a discrimination claim could be established on behalf of the HBCUs and their stakeholders.
One must also consider the academic component in this debate from the perspective of both parties. Removing the academic requirement set in place by the NCAA could essentially remove the incentive for coaches, student-athletes and institutions to ensure all student-athletes are acquiring a solid foundation regarding their education, thus negatively influencing their future occupational opportunities if they do not enter the professional sports realm. With the aforementioned statistics displaying a clear inequality of HBCUs being denied post season play and other competition-based opportunities, it is evident a closer look into the APP program is warranted. This also suggests a closer look at all institutions who do not meet the established criteria and eligibility status set by the NCAA is warranted in regard to their curriculum and various other areas identified as potential issues in achieving said benchmark. Offering and attaining a sound education is the foundation and basis of the student-athlete concept, in which the student component theoretically comes first. In today’s culture and sports realm, a heightened focus has been placed on revenue deriving from sport performance and notoriety which in turn better serves the institution these student-athletes decide to attend (Smith & Willingham, 2019). To say one end of this proverbial spectrum outweighs the other is to have missed the big picture and to have misunderstood the intertwined nature in which these components exist.
References
Collier, T., Haskell, N., Rotthoff, K. W., & Baker, A. (2020). The “Cinderella Effect”: The value of unexpected March Madness runs as advertising for the schools. Journal of Sports Economics, 21(8), 783-807.
Davis, K. (2006). In the penalty box: The push for academic reform leaves some schools lagging. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(4), 24.
Evelyn, K. (2020). Maryland HBCUs awarded half a billion in racial discrimination compensation. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/26/maryland-hbcus-racial-discrimination-compensation.
Meyers, S. (2020). Academic Progress Rate Explained. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/academic-progress-rate-explained.
Smith, J. M., & Willingham, M. (2019). Cheated: The UNC scandal, the education of athletes, and the future of big-time college sports. Potomac Books.
Student Athletes at Black Colleges and Universities Sue NCAA Claiming “Intentional Discrimination” in Academic Performance Program According to FeganScott Law Firm. (2020). https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201210006075/en/Student-Athletes-at-Black-Colleges-and-Universities-Sue-NCAA-Claiming-%E2%80%9CIntentional-Discrimination%E2%80%9D-in-Academic-Performance-Program-According-to-FeganScott-Law-Firm.
Michael A. Ross is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Shorter University and a PhD student at Troy University specializing in research related to youth sport studies, leadership, social media policies and procedures within athletics and participation motivations in sport and recreation.
