University of Iowa
Tuesday, December 11, 2001
Northwestern Room, Iowa Memorial Union (#345)
Members Present: Joyce
Berg, Rebecca Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, David Manderscheid, Kim Marra, Ann Marie
McCarthy, Paul Muhly, Gene Parkin, Craig Porter, Margaret Raymond, Hazel Seaba,
Lisa Troyer, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Patrick
Lloyd, John Moyer
Members Excused: Lois
Geist, Vicki Grassian, Chuck Lynch
Officers in Attendance: Amitava Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice
President; Erin Irish, Secretary; Carolyn Colvin, Past President
Bonnie Slatton (Faculty Representative to NCAA), Charles Drum (University
Relations), Bob Engel (Emeritus Faculty Council), Betsy Altmaier (Faculty
Representative), Nicholas Colangelo (Belin-Blank Int’l Center), Michael
O’Hara (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences), Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen),
Joe Coulter (Office of the Provost), Mark Schantz (General Counsel), Jon
Whitmore (Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost)
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at
A. Meeting Agenda
Prof. Colvin moved and Prof.
Westefeld seconded the following:
To approve the meeting agenda. The
The November 13, 2001 Faculty Council minutes were approved by consensus.
Report of the Board in Control of Athletics (N. Colangelo)
President Bhattacharjee learned
when he took office that issues of intercollegiate athletics have been an
ongoing concern for faculty. At
that time, he judged the issue as too vast for the University of Iowa to
undertake; however, the issue arose at the November CIC meeting on faculty
leadership. At that meeting it was
clear that the members approved of the Knight Commission’s report on
intercollegiate athletics, but felt that the report did not provide enough depth
in addressing the issues. The CIC
faculty leaders drafted a resolution on Intercollegiate Athletics.
The CIC faculty are currently taking up the resolution at their home
Bhattacharjee added that if we adopt this resolution, it would not be an
admission that we had been previously operating inappropriately.
The resolution passed unanimously save one abstention at the CIC meeting.
Since then, the faculty at Indiana University and the University of
Minnesota has passed it. There are
some items on the resolution (below the line on the resolution draft) not passed
at the CIC November meeting. The
resolution will go back to the CIC after individual universities have acted on
Prof. Colangelo began his report
by distributing handouts that listed the athletics board membership and a flow
chart of the UI athletics organization. The
board is comprised of eleven members, consisting of all Senate-appointed
faculty, two staff members, two students, two alumni, and some ex
officio members, including Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), who provides
ties to academics. Mark Schantz is
the liaison to central administration, and the Director of Athletics is an ex officio member. The
board also includes two other faculty members, plus Mary Jane Beach who is
concerned with budget issues and Jennifer Modestou who addressed issues of
Prof. Colangelo explained
that we are a big time, division I athletics program.
Being on television, filling the arena stands, etc. means that our
athletics program is “under the microscope” and any problems will gain media
attention. The benefit of the
standing of our athletics programs is that we make the national news.
The goal of the Board in Control of Athletics (BCA) is to make sure
athletics program fits with the principles of the university.
The BCA wants to ensure that the horror stories we have all heard from
other university athletic programs will not occur here by creating proactive
safeguards and procedures. As a
faculty member, Prof. Colangelo is impressed by how we enhance the positive
aspects of our program while avoiding negatives.
The procedures ensure that we enroll students who are athletes and not
the reverse. The BCA monitors
students’ grades and overall courses of study.
There is a committee (comprised entirely of faculty) that concentrates on
academic issues such as the amount of time spent on the road and avoiding travel
during demanding academic times such as finals.
This is not an easy job, when there are attractive opportunities and
tournaments for student athletes.
The Athletics Programs at the
University of Iowa are undergoing many changes with the merging of men and
women’s athletics. Prof.
Colangelo complemented Christine Grant for her success as the Director of
Women’s Athletics, and added that one of the current concerns is that
women’s athletics does not become invisible with the merge.
The BCA is proud that the university did not have to forego a men’s
sport in order to attain equity. The
budget and hiring issues remain important, so a member of the BCA serves on each
search committee to ensure that new coach shares the values of the university,
with less emphasis on the win/loss record.
Affirmative action plays an important role in bringing in the kind of
people the faculty would want. Prof.
Colangelo thinks the Knight Commission report is right on the mark, and he wants
to move on some of the issues brought forth in the Knight report, but not in a
way the university could be hurt. Prof.
Colangelo admitted to being embarrassed that we have coaches who are paid more
than the university president, yet he understands why this is.
President Bhattacharjee asked
about admissions policies and standards and how talent is balanced against
scholarly potential. Prof.
Colangelo replied that he would like to see that any student who is admitted
without typical academic credentials sit out a year, to let him/her prepare for
scholastic success before competing. Student
athletes should be graduating at the same rate as the rest of the student body,
and the BCA monitors this process.
Prof. Cox pointed out the high
moral ground the University of Iowa takes about drinking.
However, when we watch athletic events on television, there are ads for
beer, while the ICPD arrests students for drinking at three times the rate of
Story County. He was concerned with the inconsistency of taking money that
encourages people to drink, and then punishing them for drinking.
He was told that the University of Iowa does not sell ads for alcohol.
The Big 10 controls advertising for national broadcast games. Prof. Westefeld asked whether the conference supersedes the
university and was told that it does. General
Counsel Schantz confirmed this, but added that if there was enough leverage,
perhaps this could be changed. Prof. Colvin inquired about commercialism such as apparel
endorsement and the amount of control the university maintains or if
endorsements are negotiated with coaches at the time of hiring. General Counsel
Schantz answered that it is some of both. He
pointed out that when there are apparel contracts, they benefit both the coach
and the program in reduced cost of apparel.
Also, there are already limits on ads in the arena.
Report of the Faculty
Representative to the Big-10 Conference and NCAA (B. Slatton and E. Altmaier)
Prof. Slatton began by reporting
that every university has to have a faculty in a tenured position who serves to
represent the university at NCAA. This
requirement is fairly recent; until the 1990’s a coach could be the
representative. Now, there has to
be an independent faculty representative. In
the early 1980’s, women came into NCAA, and as a result, there were two
faculty representatives. Some
universities still have two faculty representatives, but most have just one now,
who serves as liaison between ncaa
and the universities. The first and
second Knight Commission reports were very discouraging, and the faculty
representatives were most unhappy. At
the University of Iowa we have a history of strong oversight boards.
Many faculty are not that interested in athletics.
Most commonly, faculty complain that our student athletes who represent
us do not have strong scholastics. A
concern is whether we have programs that athletes gravitate toward.
If so, that is a problem of academics, not athletics.
Some universities shunt athletes toward such programs.
That does not happen here, but that is because our faculty pay attention.
President Bhattacharjee answered
Prof. Colvin’s question about commercialization, stating that tournaments and
conference games garner the most profits for the conference, sometimes at the
expense of students’ abilities to prepare for exams. Prof. Slatton added that in the past, Big 10 conference
championships conflicted with the academic calendar. Faculty were able to enforce a change, which was a major
victory. Women’s athletics has done a better job of scheduling around the
school year. At the top of the
agenda are academic issues, which means turning down some network contracts.
Games used to be played only on weekends. If presidents stand firm, they
can shift from an emphasis on commercialization.
Prof. Muhly asked whether the academic board sets the play schedule. Prof. Colangelo answered that they do and had made an
exception for the upcoming basketball game that was on a school night a week
before finals. We should not expect
to see this kind of scheduling again. Prof.
Slatton added that finals week is protected, except maybe in the case of
in-state travel. Nonetheless, we
retain some control. Prof.
Colangelo agreed that there are more games than there used to be, and this is a
tough issue, which is difficult to deal with unilaterally. He was hopeful that
this kind of discussion would take place all over the country, which may result
in a collective change.
Prof. Seaba asked how a student
athlete is admitted to university and whether our admission process differs from
the rest. Prof. Colangelo assured
her that athletes are still admitted by the admissions office, not by the coach.
The same procedures are used as in the admission of any other student.
Prof. Slatton added that the Provost’s Office is considering
establishing a committee to consider student athletes and others who do not meet
minimum academic requirements. We should be assured that these standards are not different
for athletes. Prof. Altmaier added
that there are ways for substandard admission, but the doorways are limited and
closely monitored. President Bhattacharjee pointed out that competition for
athletes is intense, and wondered whether there might be “back door”
entrance means. Prof. Slatton
answered that coaches cannot admit without the approval from the Admissions
Office: a coach cannot make the offer first.
There may be times when an admissions decision is close, but coaches are
not in the loop. Prof. Colangelo
added that no faculty member should be contacted by a coach about a student.
If this has happened, it’s wrong.
Prof. Hegeman asked when admitted
through substandard admission, whether it is known that person is an athlete.
Prof. Altmaier answered in the affirmative.
Prof. Colvin added that Prof. Altmaier had made a good point, that we
admit students in a number of fields who are not quite ready for college
success. Prof. Slatton was glad to see CIC concern about
under-prepared students. She was
curious to know how our university sets the line that would allow them to
participate in extracurricular activities.
Prof. Raymond inquired about how progress is monitored, such as by rate
of graduation, or grades each year. Prof.
Slatton replied that it is graduation rate, which unfortunately can hide a lot.
She would prefer semester-by-semester checks with clear markers.
The Big 10 demands a minimum GPA of 1.65.
Student athletes of the Big 10 responded that they would rather have no
standard than one of 1.65 that is embarrassingly low.
The Big 10 has higher standards than does the NCAA.
Furthermore, individual institutions can set higher standards independent
of their conference. A lot of discussion on this topic is going on, and there are
enough presidents in major conferences who will act independently of NCAA.
President Bhattacharjee asked General Counsel Schantz to speak on this
too. But first, he asked whether Profs. Slatton, Altmaier, Colangelo and General
Counsel Schantz have concerns about the CIC resolution.
He added that President Coleman feels strongly that there should be
sunshine rules, and wants to see a strong resolution passed.
General Counsel Schantz said that
generally, he and President Coleman applaud the resolution and increased faculty
oversight of athletics. He expects
to find athletics problems at universities with weak faculty governance.
He was in favor of the resolution, except for the last sentence of the
third principle, which states, “athletics should not be subsidized by the
academic side of the institution…” which had not been articulated by the
Knight Commission report. He
addressed this by explaining that this sentence contradicts the concerns about
excessive commercialization and stopping the arms race.
These started when a lot of revenue was generated and the problems in
sports are related to that issue. If
an athletics program is self-supported, it will be less accountable.
If the university provides it with funds, the university can control
expenditures. If self-supporting, a
program cannot make it on ticket sales alone (and even that is
commercialization). If we were to
take away the modest amount of General Fund’s contributions to the athletics
program, we would increase pressure to go elsewhere.
Furthermore, being self-supporting is not necessarily noble: for example,
orchestra is not self-supporting. Of
the $35 million athletics budget last year, $1.9 million came from General
Funds. Men’s athletics had been
self-supporting, but only in football and basketball.
If we cut General Funds support of athletics, we will hurt the “Olympic
sports”, not the revenue sports. This
comes back to question about graduation rates: the problems are almost
exclusively in football and men’s basketball and a little in women’s
basketball, yet these programs are not dependent on the General Funds. With the exception of students in those programs, our
athletes are impressive. For
example, some of our rowers go on to medical school, while Arizona football has
a 0% graduation rate. General Counsel Schantz’s final point was that the BCA
does a great job; but would like Liberal Arts faculty to become more involved,
as most athletes are enrolled in this college.
President Bhattacharjee echoed the
problem that many faculty abrogate responsibility for students outside the
classroom. Prof. Porter, admitting
to be ignorant of athletics, wanted to know where commercial support fits into
the $35 million budget. General Counsel Schantz replied that it is included.
Growth in additional revenue comes from networks willing to pay
increasing rates for bowl games. Prof.
Porter then asked about coach endorsements, to which General Counsel Schantz
replied that this is recent, and it worries him.
Part of coaches’ salaries comes from radio, television, and summer
camps. Prof. Cox asked how much of
the $35 million comes from television. General Counsel Schantz answered that it
is probably around $10 million, mostly from football and basketball.
Prof. Troyer voiced her love/hate
relationship with athletics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
She thought that if all majors could have standards, we wouldn’t see
gravitation to certain programs. She
was also concerned about advising, as some athletes could have as many as four
advisors, who may give conflicting advice.
She would like to see full integration as recommended by the CIC
resolution. She is not sympathetic to students claiming allegiance to
their team ahead of coming to class. Prof.
Slatton was glad to hear advising brought up.
She pointed out that athletics advisors cannot sign drop/add slips.
Prof. Troyer added that the progress evaluation forms for varsity
athletes are absurd and seemed like bureaucratic paper pushing rather than
actually addressing academic issues. Prof.
Slatton stated the need for more participation from liberal arts faculty on the
President Bhattacharjee addressed
General Counsel Schantz’s point about not subsidizing athletics. In the past
five years it went up from $500,000 to a couple million dollars.
This is worrisome during times of budget crises, especially if internal
grants are being cut. President Coleman made this budgetary decision in response to
Title IX; nevertheless we are losing 80 faculty lines, many in Liberal Arts,
where most athletes are taught. Prof.
Colangelo commented that most Division I athletics programs, unlike ours,
operate in the red. It is in our
self-interest to keep the financial strings for control over athletics
operations. He urged the Council to
push for wording requiring strong faculty input on athletics budget
President Bhattacharjee asked why the budget is going up. General Counsel Schantz replied that in order to comply with Title IX without pure proportionality, a university must demonstrate that it is moving toward equity. We went as far as we could with scholarship support, and then added two more sports, soccer and rowing, which was a substantial expenditure. Growth since then covered increasing scholarships and salaries. Prof. Slatton confirmed that the General Fund increases support gender equity.
She also felt that it is
contradictory to say we will not support athletics with the General Fund and
then tell athletics not to be so commercial.
Prof. Altmaier added that there are a lot of opportunities for women with
these two sports. General Counsel Schantz, wanting to be fair, brought up that
the budgets are merged now. President
Bhattacharjee reminded the Council that last year, when merging came up, Faculty
Senate was against it. He had hoped that some of the men’s scholarship funds could
help support women’s scholarships. Prof.
Slatton added that having one budget was supposed to be a great reason for
merging; however, there is separate fund raising for men that the women do not
have. General Counsel Schantz reported that there had been a nontrivial
redistribution last year as a result of that.
Prof. Colvin thought that as a
university community we benefit from partial support by the General Fund.
We are able to monitor some activities that otherwise we could not.
Secondly, moves like the resolution’s demand to not support athletics
from the academic side of the institution, push us toward greater
commercialization. She favored
removing this line. Prof. McCarthy
asked whether the General Fund supports other extracurricular activities, and
was told that it is. Prof.
Westefeld felt that an important thing is the process, and asked whether we
should have an oversight committee. Prof.
Colangelo felt that if programs are hurting, we should have some university
support, but he would like to see it done on a year-to-year basis.
Prof. Cox was in favor of using the General Fund to comply with Title IX,
explaining that if you have soccer and rowing, either you spend more or you get
rid of something, and it probably wouldn’t be a revenue sport.
He would also like to have the flexibility to support athletics or not.
Prof. Muhly felt that he had not
heard a compelling argument for supporting athletics, and wanted to hear more
arguments. He would have liked to
see a grandfather [sic] clause to keep the $500,000 funding level.
Prof. Irish explained that, as she understood it, the funding went up
because it had started out too low. Prof.
LeBlond found it an interesting assumption that athletics makes money, as a
sinecure, yet that money does not flow the other way.
He also thought that repartitioning of resources between men and women
needs to be monitored. Without
support from the General Fund we have no way to protect second-class members.
We need to monitor the interface.
Prof. Porter asked whether there
are other enterprises that are not supported by the General Fund.
General Counsel Schantz listed residence halls, Cambus, and parking as
examples. He thought that the arms
race is the central issue, with spiraling costs of salaries, but that it is hard
to disarm unilaterally. Prof.
LeBlond asked whether there are explicit discussions when hiring coaches about
expected graduation rates. Prof.
Altmaier answered that there are. General
Counsel Schantz added that there are incentive payments for meeting graduation
rates. Prof. Cox added that there are also incentives for getting
into play-offs, and this could be damaging to students. Prof. Slatton assured him that this is a current concern.
Prof. Colangelo thought that the Knight Commission is right on.
If everyone comes on board, it will be good for us because we play a lot
of teams that are nowhere as compliant as we are.
But, we can do better. He
liked the tone of the resolution. President
Bhattacharjee concluded the discussion by explaining that if we vote for this,
we will not be unilaterally disarming UI. The changes will not occur unless the
whole CIC passes it.
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 5:25.
Erin Irish, Secretary