DOCUMENT RESUME ED 132 968 HE 008 685 AUTHOR Hanford, George H. TITLE The Need for a National Study of Intercollegiate Athletics. A Report to the American Council on Education. Volume 2. Appendices. INSTITUTION American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY Carnegie Corp. of New York, N.Y.; Ford Foundation, New York, N.Y. PUB DATE 22 Mar 74 NOTE 420p.; For related document, see HE 008 5114 EDRS PRICE .MF-$0.83 HC-$22.09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Athletes; *Athletic Programs; *Athletics; Court Litigation; Females; Financial Problems; Football; *Higher Education; *Intercollegiate Programs; *Needs Assessment; Negroes; Policy Formation; Politics ABSTRACT The nine appendixes of the Ifeasibilkty study include: (1) current litigation involving intercollegiate athletics: analysis and implications (Carlos Alvarez);(2) financial problems of intercollegiate athletics (Robert H. Atwell); (3)the state politics (Jerry Beasley) ; (4) report of the task force on the black athlete (Roscoe C. Brown, Jr.);(5) sports and the postsecondary sector (Joseph Froomkin);(6) new and changing circumstances influencing the conduct of intercollegiate athletic programs since 1930 (Bernard P. Ireland);(7) campus, society, and the place of amateur sport (Theodore J. Levi);(8) women in intercollegiate athletics (Mary McKeown); and (9)the experience of senior colleges that have discontinued football (Felix Springer) (Author/MSE) Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * of the microfiche and-hardcopy- reproductions ERIC makes available * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions * * supplied by MIS are the best that can be made from the original. ********************************************************************* VOLUME II A report to the AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION on THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL STUDY OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS APPENDICES HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF U S WELFARE EDUCATIONINSTITUTE & OF NATIONAL EDUCATION REPRO- HAS BEEN FROM 11-uS DOCUMENT RECEIVED EXACTLY AS ORIGiN- DUCED ORORGANIZATION THE PERSON viEW OROPINIONS POINTS OF REPRE- ATINO IT NOTNECESSARILYINSTITUTE OF STATED CIO NATIONAL SENT OFFICIALPOSITION ORPOLICY EDUCATION 2 ATPENDIX A CURRENT LITIGATION INVOLVING INTERCOLLEGIATEATHLETICS: ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS FORINTERCOLLEGIATE SPORTS Carlos. Alvarez Second Year Law Student Duke Law School The place of college athletics in American life has rapidly expanded -ince its quiet beginning in the mid 19th century. With this gro-th, it has acquired many of the prob- lems which a b siness of Its magn tude and influence is bound to encounter. Not surprisingly, in recent yea s several areas within intercollegiate athletics have had_o rely on the legal system to resolve conflicts which internal institutions have been unable to ameliorate. This article attempts to acquaint the -eader with these areas and the problems involved. In addition, it present- one section which this w_iter believes t_ be the next major source of litigation. The paper is divided thto four sections: First Amend- ment litigation; suits Involving student-athlete and member institutions against the National Collegiate Athletic Associa- tion (NCAA); cases dealing with injuries in intercollegiate athletics; finally, the area of sex discrimination in pmateur athletics--perhaps the next subject matter in intercollegiate athletic litigation. FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION The rise in the mood of protest on American college campuses throughout the 1960's is well documented. Less clear is the extent to which the athletic programs of these institu- tions must attempt to accommodate this Movement and the impact which it will have o the disciplinary authority of the offi- cials in these programs. The need for athletic provrams to 4 2 adjust to these dee1opments arises from theFirst Amend ent to the United States Constitution which,interalla, guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and association. While it is judicially well established that these frecdo are not absolutes, and their protection willvary under the circum- stances, t_ey nevertheie s are given the lighest judicialpro- te tion f om govern entaJ Interfernee. To the extent that college athletes indulge in freedom of expression andassocia- tion, any restraint by college officials on their actions must be consiste t with the judicial guidelines which_protect these First Amendment rights in an educational setting. til 1971, there had been no legal actions brought by student-athletes participating in college athletics based on Fi ot Ame d ent grounds. The cause of such a scarcity of litigation can be attributed to a number of reasons,none of whl h seem sati facto y in and of them elves 1 At t e.nresent there is only one case, illIamsv. Eaton, ealing directly with the area of First Amendment rights to student-athietes at the university leVel. Nevertheless, since only as recently as 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Dist the Supreme Court e United States took a definitive posi- tion on the application of First .Amendment rights to students, it seems probable that this area will soon see further lltigaLion. As noted, the leading case on First Amendments rights to student- thletes to date 1- Williams v. Eaton, an action in which fourteen University of Wyoming football players claimed a violation of their freedom of speech. In Eton, 5 tle fourteen players sought to wear black arm -ands during their game wIth Bri ham Young Univer,ity soa,, to d rate their disfavor with Brigham Young's ties with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (commonly knownas the M-rmon Church). Their protest was directed at theo ficl_l policy of the Mormon Church of restricti g to the lower offi- cial ranks black participation in the church community. The demand to wear black arm ba-ds was initially brought to head football coach Floyd Eaton. At the time they we_e informed by Coach Eaton of their dismissal from any fur- ti-wr athletic participation since they had violated a foot- ball coachl-g rule prohibiting all demonstrations and protect. An appeal from this ruling was brought before President William D. Carlson of the University of Wyoming who subSequently re- fer ed the matter to the Board of Trustees. After a hearing at which all interested parties took part, the Board of Trus- tees, following the refusal of the athletes t- refrain from their intention to wear black arm bands at the Brigham Young ne, ordered the dismissal of all fourteen players from the football squad. Their scholarships, however, were not revoked and remained In full effect subject to later review_ The udent-athlete- relied on Tinker y. Des Molnes 4 Independent School District- for their freedom of speeTh aim. Tinker was the first case by the Supreme Court of Unite_ States dealing with student's free speech rightS slnce the 1943 compulsory flag salutecase,5and it upheld the righ 6 of public school students towear black arm bands during school hours to protest the VietnamWar. The Court described the student's actionsas "a silent, pas,live, expressionof opinion, unaccompanied bya disorder or disturbanceon the part of petitioners" constituting"pure speech" involving 6 "direct, primary FirstAmehdment rights." In order to pro- vide some future guidance inthis area, the Court articulated the basic standard to be u-ed: A'ti ent's rIghts do notembrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria or on the playing field, oron the campus during the authorized hours hemay express his opinion, even on controversial subjects likethe conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without'materially and substantially interfer[ing] withthe require- ments of appropriate disciplinein the operation of the school' and without collidingwith the ri hts of others . We read [the right to free speech]to permit reasonable regulation ofspeech-connected activities in carefully restrictedcircumstances. But we do not confine the permissibleexercise of First Amendment rights toa telephone booth, or to supervised and ordained discussion ina classroom.7 Given that their action constituted speech,the student- athletes argued their activity fell within theparameters of Tinker since their action would not affectthe orderly process of the educational system nor interferewi h the rights of others. State officials, however, saw thequestion not in terms of Tinker but rather that thestudent-athlete's p otest constituted action by the -tate and subjectto the First Amend- ment Establishment of Religion Clause. Since one of the Con- stitutional mandates of this clause reuiresactions by the 7 state to be neutral in matters cOncerningreligion, the act of the athletes showing disfavor ofthe Mormon Church would constitute a violation. Ttfollowed therefore, that preemptive measures by state officials tostop the acts were proper in light of their Constitutional obligation. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals didnot agree with either position in their pure form, ultimately-extracting portions -f both while holding for the stateofficials. Al- though it agreed with the student-athletesthat Tinker was determinative, it took the postulate of state offIcIalsof a violation of the establishmeiit clause and applied it to the Tinker standard. In essence, the Court determined that Tinker did not