Black Students Unfairly Affected, Suit says

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been hit with a lawsuit that charges that the association discriminates against Blacks by using freshman academic standards that are racially and culturally biased.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) filed the class action suit against the NCAA in a Philadelphia federal court alleging that the use of the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT) violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination by educational institutions receiving federal funds.

The suit was filed on behalf of two 1996 graduates of Philadelphia's Simon Gratz High School. Tai Kwan Cureton and Leatrice Shaw claim they were recruited for track teams at numerous NCAA Division I institutions, but the recruiting stopped after they received low test scores.

Under NCAA regulations, in order to compete as freshmen, student athletes must meet a sliding scale of SAT or ACT scores and grade-point average. The minimum acceptable SAT combined math and verbal score is 820. Athletes who fall short of the standards cannot compete as freshmen. The NCAA adopted the rules, known as Proposition 48, ten years ago because of dismal graduation rates by student athletes, particularly Blacks.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing the minimum test score requirement and forcing it to allow affected student athletes to regain their lost years of athletic eligibility. The NCAA responded to the suit by saying that the standards are in place to prevent the exploitation of student athletes.

"Before the eligibility standards, some student athletes, including minority student athletes, were brought to campus solely for their athletic ability, with little chance for them to graduate," said Dan Boggan, chief operating officer of the association. "The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, with its lawsuit, is advocating a return to the bad old days when student athletes could spend four years representing an NCAA member institution in athletics and leaving not only with no diploma but without any real education at all."

TLPJ attorney Adele Kimmel responded by saying, "The NCAA's goal of ensuring academic integrity in college sports is admirable, but that desirable end doesn't justify the means. Using these test scores to reach that goal is like using a butter knife to perform surgery. The minimum test score requirement violates federal civil rights law."

The NCAA focused its response to the allegations of racial discrimination by noting that the controversial academic standards are for the protection of student athletes.

"The standards were put in place because of our concern about graduation rates for student athletes, including minority student athletes," said Charles Whitcomb, a professor at San Jose State University as well as a member of the NCAA Academic Requirements Committee and chair of the NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee. "And, in fact, as a result of the standards, more African American student athletes graduate each year than did before the standards."

According to an NCAA report released the same day the lawsuit was announced, graduation rates for Black student athletes have improved dramatically and are higher than their non-athlete counterparts. Graduation rates rose seven percentage points, from 34 percent to 41 percent for Black male student athletes in the year just after the standards went into effect. In contrast, Black male students that same year had a 30 percent graduation rate.

The NCAA said Blacks made up 27.3 percent of all student athletes entering college in 1985, a rate that dropped to 23.6 percent by 1986. By 1989, Blacks comprised 25 percent of student athletes.

"We had a diminution of numbers of African American student athletes when we went from pre-Proposition 48 to Prop 48," said Ursula Walsh, NCAA director of research. "But we predicted the numbers would come back, and they have."

The NCAA says its research proves that a combination of grade-point average and test scores is the best predictor of graduation, explaining that the use of grade-point average alone is unreliable because of possible grade inflation.

Cureton, who now attends Wheaton College, a Division III institution, said, "The NCAA emphasis is wrong, and it is hurting hundreds of athletes like myself." Cureton, who had a 3.78 GPA in high school and finished 27th in his class, said he decided to sue "because I don't want others to go through what I've been through. "

Wheaton doesn't offer athletic scholarships and Cureton says the academic standards cheated him out of competing in Division I, the top competitive division.

Shaw, who finished fifth in her class, enrolled at the University of Miami, but cannot compete as a freshman. She will have only three years athletic eligibility, as opposed to the four years other student athletes get.

The uses of standardized test scores has long been opposed by numerous organizations, including the Educational Testing Service (ETS), which designed the SAT. ETS criticized the NCAA's use of a fixed cutoff score to determine eligibility, warning that it would have a disproportionate impact on Black student athletes.

Despite ETS's objection, in 1986 the NCAA adopted the rules, including the test scores.

A study by the NCAA proved ETS correct in its prediction. The association's study showed the 47 percent of Black student athletes who started college before the rules were adopted -- and who graduated from college -- would have been ineligible to receive athletic scholarships and compete as freshmen because they didn't meet the minimum test score requirement. Only 8 percent of white athletes would have been ineligible because of the test scores.

The McIntosh Commission for Fair Play in Student-Athlete Admissions, a group of independent scholars formed to study NCAA research, concluded in 1994 that the rules are biased against Blacks and students from poor socio-economic backgrounds and unfairly denied education opportunities for thousands, including those likely to graduate.

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest), an organization which argues against what it calls the unfair use of standardized tests, also has criticized the use of those tests, especially the cut-off score. Charles Rooney, a FairTest spokesman, said the cut-off scores are "completely arbitrary, supported only by such cynical public relations justifications as the assertion that the public would not accept a lower score."

The Black Coaches Association (BCA) has also lobbied long and hard against use of the standardized test scores. Rudy Washington, executive director of the BCA, saw the lawsuit as a positive step in promoting educational opportunities for Blacks. "We were the genesis of this action, so it is good people are seeing the same thing we are," he said. "All we've ever been about is opportunity."

Temple University basketball coach and BCA member John Chaney has also been outspoken in opposition to the initial eligibility requirements and applauded the lawsuit. "We were just beaten down," he said. "So many educators have reached the arrogant stage. It's difficult to get them to move to help the young people."

NCAA Executive Director Cedric Dempsey said that the academic standards "do not affect whether a student athlete can be admitted to any institution or study there. They only affect whether or not a student athlete can compete on an intercollegiate level during their freshman year in Division I or II. In fact, both plaintiffs in this lawsuit are attending college now despite not meeting the standards."

The NCAA has 20 days from the day it is served to respond to the lawsuit. Under Title VI and its implementing regulations, the courts apply a three-part test to determine the legality of the suit.

First, plaintiffs Cureton and Shaw must demonstrate that the test score requirement has a racially biased impact. If that can be determined, the NCAA must then show that the test scores fill an educational need.

If the NCAA meets that burden, the plaintiff could still win by showing that there are other equally effective requirements that don't have a disproportionate racial impact. The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice claim there are several alternatives to the test scores that are better and do not discriminate.

The TLPJ are best known for successfully representing women in Title IX cases, including a precedent-setting one against Brown University.

RELATED ARTICLE: Who are the Plaintiffs?

The plaintiffs in the suit against the NCAA are described in the lawsuit as follows:

Plaintiff TAI KWAN CURETON is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He is an African American who graduated from Simon Gratz High School in June of 1996 and ranked twenty-seventh in a class of 305. He earned academic honors and athletic honors in his sport, track. Cureton exceeded the NCAA's minimum GPA requirement in the core curriculum courses he took at Simon Gratz High School. He took the SAT, but did not attain the minimum score required by Proposition 16 [the academic standards rule formerly known as Proposition 48]. Cureton was recruited by several Division I schools prior to obtaining his non-qualifying SAT score. Because of Proposition 16, he was recruited less by Division I schools and/or not admitted to or offered athletic financial aid by any Division I schools. Cureton is now a freshman at Wheaton College, a Division III school, where he is competing on the track team. Because of Proposition 16, Cureton has lost the opportunity to compete as a freshman in intercollegiate athletics at a Division I school.

Plaintiff Leatrice Shaw is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania She is an African American who graduated from Simon Gratz High School in June of 1996 and ranked fifth in a class of 305. She was a member of the National Honor Society, and earned academic honors and athletic honors in her sport, track. She took the SAT, but did not attain the minimum score required by Proposition 16. Shaw was recruited by many Division I schools while she was in high school. However, because of Proposition 16's test score requirement, she was offered athletic financial aid by only one Division I school, the University of Miami, which she now attends, but is not permitted to compete on the track team during her freshman year. Because of the minimum test score requirement of Proposition 16, Shaw has lost a year of eligibility to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

Charles S. Farrell, a frequent contributor to Black Issues In Higher Education, is director of the Rainbow Coalition's Fairness in Athletics.