Topic Introduction:

For many years, students, administrators and school officials have engaged in a heated debate regarding the use of standardized test scores, specifically the SAT and ACT, in admissions decisions at colleges and universities. Colleges and universities across the nation have decided to weight the value of the test score differently, establishing no set criteria- often saying that it does not receive as much weight in the decision as it once had.

In 1996, the National Collegiate Athletic Association created Proposition 48, which later became a part of Proposition 16, requiring college-bound student-athletes to have a specific SAT score in order to become academically eligible their freshman year. For student-athletes with a 2.0 GPA, a score of 1010 was required and for those with a 3.2 or higher, an 820 was acceptable.

Some have claimed that these requirements are discriminatory against African-American student-athletes and other minority groups who may or may not have equal access to educational assistance as others.

Debates regarding school equity have taken place for years- does everyone really receive the same education? Should standardized test weigh heavily on college admissions decisions?

Several minority student-athletes have engaged in lawsuits against the NCAA claiming that their use of standardized test scores to meet eligibility requirements is discriminatory. Some courts have ruled in favor of the use, saying that the practice is not discriminatory against minority students, others have ruled against.

Several minority student-athletes have engaged in lawsuits against the NCAA claiming that their use of standardized test scores to meet eligibility requirements is discriminatory. Some courts have ruled in favor of the use, saying that the practice is not discriminatory against minority students, others have ruled against.

So the question remains- is the use of standardized test scores in NCAA freshman eligibility requirements discriminatory against African-American student-athletes?

Web Sources Available:

Guide for the College-Bound Student-Athlete

Brief Description:
This website includes essential for all student-athletes who are intending to enter into college athletics. The links that are available give visitors access to pertinent information including clearinghouse policies, SAT/ACT policies, financial aid, and the recruiting guidelines for the different divisions of colleges and universities.
Source of Website: National Collegiate Athletic Association

Memorandum from Cedric Dempsey

Brief Description:
The content of this website is a memorandum regarding the Cureton vs. NCAA legal suit in which the plaintiffs alleged that the minimum SAT score requirement was discriminatory against African-American student-athletes. The court ruled that the policy, which was outlined in Proposition 16, was still in effect- maintaining the status quo and allowing the NCAA to use a minimum SAT/ACT score to become academically eligible at the college level. It was intended to keep NCAA employees and coaches in touch with proceedings as they occurred.
Source of Website: National Collegiate Athletic Association

What's Wrong With the NCAA's Test Score Requirements?

Brief Description:
This website was created by an outside company, known as FairTest, and it outlines the pitfalls of the NCAA's Proposition 16 which requires that student-athletes have a minimum SAT score of 1010 and a GPA of 2.0 to be declared eligible. Numerous allegations have been brought forth in the past stating that the requirements discriminated against black student athletes. This site offers statistical information about the impact of Proposition 16 on NCAA athletes.
Source of Website: FairTest: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing

ISAR- Point of View: Weaker NCAA Standards Won't Help Black Athletes

Brief Description:
This website contains an article that was published in The Chronicle for Higher Education in 1999. Proposition 16 was challenged earlier in the year and was said not to be discriminatory- the plaintiff appealed. It was later ruled that the proposition was discriminatory against minority student-athletes and that the NCAA could no longer use a minimum score. This article is one man's opinion stating that the Proposition 16 has increased the results on tests of black athletes and that would and will be reversed if it is removed permanently. He believes that the removal of Proposition 16 will not be beneficial to African-American student athletes.
Source of Web site: Institute for the Study of Academic Racism

News: Court Rejects Test Scores as NCAA Eligibility Criteria

Brief Description:
This page is another article by educators reacting to the court's 1999 ruling prohibiting the NCAA from using test scores for eligibility requirements. It details the case studies of two African American athletes who failed to meet the testing requirements, but was eligible on all other accounts. It makes a strong statement saying that the African American community has been effected the most- emphasizing the inequality among schools in the United States.
Source of Web site: Editorial Projects in Education

Return to Top

Non-Internet Sources Available in UNC Libraries:

Althouse, Ronald, and Dana Brooks, eds. Racism in College Athletics: the African American
Athlete's Experience. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2000.
UNC-CH Call Number: GV706.32 .R33 2000

Funk, Gary. Major Violation: the Unbalanced Priorities in Athletics and Academics.
Champaign: Leisure Press, 1991.
UNC-CH Call Number: GV351 .F86 1991

Knight Foundation. A Call to Action: Reconnecting College Sports and Higher Education.
Miami: John S. and James L. Knight, 2001.
UNC-CH Call Number: GV351.K554 2001

Yaeger, Don. Undue Process: The NCAA's Injustice for All. Champaign: Sagamore Publisher,
1991.
UNC-CH Call Number: GV351 .Y34 1991

Friendly, Fred. Athletics and Academics: An Uneasy Alliance. Dir. by Joseph Camp. 88 min.
PBS Video, 1989. Videocassette.

Return to Top

Internet Mini-Essay: Can AOL/Time Warner Recover?

When the dotcom boom of the late 1990s occurred, people everywhere began buying stock in every Internet company possible. Companies that provided Internet service, like America Online (AOL), grew exponentially. Everyone knew that the technology boom would subside, but no one could have guessed that companies that became corporate strongholds would fall so hard.

Still riding high on the rise of Internet popularity, America Online and Time Warner announced their multi-billion dollar merger in January 2000. Steve Case and Ted Turner came together at the very height of Internet growth to create a company that many would have deemed indestructible. All good things come to an end- including the AOL/Time Warner merger.

In late January 2003, both Steve Case and Ted Turner stepped down from their positions within the company after citing a $98.7 billion loss for the 2002 fiscal year (1). The economic downturn has been blamed on the declining value of other AOL holdings and the decrease in Internet advertising.

While at the time AOL was first available in mass to everyone, few companies existed for them to truly compete for business. Since that time, several other Internet Service Providers have emerged that mimic much of what was once exclusive to AOL's service. The prices of AOL's service have remained relatively elevated in comparison to the competition, thus accounting for the decline in newly registered members.

Although the loss sustained by AOL/Time Warner was substantial, industry analysts are confident that the company will be able to respond positively. 2003 will be another difficult year for AOL/Time Warner (and all companies for that matter) with military issues facing the United States in various parts of the world (2).

Though broken and battered now, AOL/Time Warner will continue to stay a part of the Internet industry for some time to come.

NOTES:
(1) "What A Fall!" The Economic Times of India. 1 February 2003. Database online. Available from LexisNexis Academic. <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>. [2 February 2003].

(2) Sanders, Edmund. "AOL Posts Record $99 Billion Loss." The Los Angeles Times. 30 January 2003. Section 3 Page 1. Database online. Available from
LexisNexis Academic. < http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>. [2 February 2003].

Web Sources:
AOL Time Warner
AOL Time Warner Reports $100bn Loss
AOL Time Warner Merger A Media Watch Special Report

Return to Top