Section 504 of the Rehabiliation Act and "Disabled" Student-Athletes

by Paul Artale

CRA Vice Chair for Communications 

Coordinator of Leadership Education, Michigan State University

Keynote Speaker (www.paulartale.com)

Last January, the U.S. Department of Educations’ office of Civil Rights created a “dear colleague” letter in which it declared that public institutions needed to offer equal athletic opportunities for disabled athletes under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  The move marked a significant shift in how we view access to athletics and recreation within an educational context.  Equal access was no longer just a gender issue.  In my opinion, the circle of inclusivity has grown and is a win for the disabled community.

With all this in mind little is known about how this rule is going to be enforced or what exactly this will look like for the average school.    Many of the implications are a little cloudy right now.  There is one aspect, however, that is not murky: the right to try out.  All students now have the right to try out for a team and receive a reasonable accommodation regardless of disability. A simple example is the student who is hearing impaired now has the right to request an interpreter to translate instructions during try outs and games.   

Schools also have the option of creating their own leagues for students with disabilities as well.

This true impact of this legislation will likely be felt at the K-12 level in its initial phases.  That being said, there is a trickle up effect into higher education.  As more students with disabilities gain athletic experience and opportunity (particularly in Varsity sports) the more they will gain the talent and confidence to try out at the collegiate level.  The demand for students who wish to play at the recreational or club level will also increase in the coming years.  The demand will increase and higher education administrators must be ready to meet that challenge- especially when it comes to competing in integrated leagues.

The law itself is not the main reason for the increase in demand.  The law definitely has the potential to force the hand of some schools or “less enlightened” coaches to give athletes with disabilities a fair opportunity to try out.  The internet and the growth of fantastic community organizations, however, are what will fuel this long term growth.  

Let me explain.

For the longest time as a kid, I did not have any athletes who were disabled as role models.  There were no communities that promoted athletics beyond the Special Olympics model.  I wanted and was able to compete with everyone else but found myself fighting uphill battles.  Luckily I grew up just as Jim Abbott was making headlines (and winning baseball games).  Jim inspired me.  If Jim could do it, I could do it.  That being said, competing collegiately was a double edged sword.   On one hand I was there and making my dreams come true which was (and still is) totally awesome.  On the other hand I was the only the only player with a limb difference and I didn’t know anybody who could share my experience.

The landscape has improved considerably since I was a child.  Today there are an increasing amount of organizations out there committed to helping athletes with disabilities compete at the highest level possible.  Organizations such as Nubability Athletics whose purpose is to ”to encourage, inspire, and instruct congenital and traumatic amputee kids who want to get out of the stands, off the bench and into the game. “  Every summer Nubability hosts camps where all the coaches themselves are limb different athletes who have competed at high levels.  They are inspiring belief, providing mentorship, and setting an example from a very young age.  The result: a host of future college students who want to get in the game because they know that they can.  They know this because by the time they apply they will have been exposed to countless success stories.

Change is at the doorstep and a new wave of student-athlete is knocking.   As student affairs administrators let us make sure that the door is opened whether are students are asking for a tryout with the football team or the chance to play ultimate frisbee.  The day when athletes such as Anthony Robles, Joe Rogers, or Jim Abbott will become more commonplace is a lot closer than we think.

___

Paul Artale is a keynote speaker, trainer, and student affairs administrator at Michigan State University.  He can be contacted at artalepa@msu.edu or by visitng his website at www.paulartale.com

For more information on NubAbility please visit www.nubability.org

Making sense out of NCAA policy: How Student Affairs Professionals Can Serve in a Time of Change

Scott Hirko, 

Central Michigan University

 Today, there is a deafening buzz about change and hypocrisy in major college sports.  I’ve recently had discussions with some who work in college athletics, others who study college sports, several leaders in higher education, as well as other stakeholders.  Most are disenchanted about the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and how it represents colleges and college sports.

            The NCAA’s Executive Committee and its Board of Directors met in early August - the meetings resulted in much hand-wringing about money, but likely little focus on the 95 percent of the 400,000-plus NCAA athletes that are NOT involved with raising 95 percent of the money.  The lack of focus on athlete’s well-being is decades in the making, including allowing freshman to participate in game day action instead of focusing on transition to college life, allowing for a redshirt fifth year to enhance expertise in a particular sport, and even coining the term “student-athlete” in order to avoid worker’s compensation claims (Branch, 2012). These NCAA policies were all created to earn more money for the athletics system.

            Some recent NCAA policies were created in response to issues relating to a few but impacting the majority of athletes. ACPA Commission for Recreation Athletics (CRA) created a thought paper about the campus-wide impact of NCAA legislation limiting schools’ ability to rent out campus facilities for basketball and football camps (Hirko et al, 2010).  The current research project by CRA is aimed at measuring this impact on individuals and divisons of campus from a student development perspective.

            Another example of the unforseen consequences of NCAA policies is embedded in the Academic Progress Rates (APR) at the NCAA’s most competitive level, Division 1.  Recent scholarship has noted concerns about the impact of APR on the learning of athletes (McLaughlin, 2012), even with respect to the size (Butterworth & Rich, 2013) or type (Kirkpatrick, 2013)  of the institution.  To be fair, the benefit of APR is requiring Division 1 athletes to remain on track to graduate – a primary mission of colleges and universities. And, student affairs professionals work daily to help athletes navigate their complicated schedules and continue toward graduation. Schools have incentives to help teams meet APR benchmarks because failure can result in penalties for an athletic team including a loss of scholarships or a loss of participating in post-season tournaments. 

            However, Division 1 APR is not a panacea to academic needs of athletes as students. Because of the demands by coaches for athletes to practice at certain times, and because many athletes (particularly at-risk football and basketball players) rely on their athletic scholarship to attain an education, athletes are often forced into a choice: either, (1) choose a major that impacts practice time (and risk of losing a scholarship), or (2) choose a generalized major with coursework that does not impact practice time (and reduce the risk of losing a scholarship) (Gurney and Southall, 2012; Hirko, 2011).  And, there are both successes and concerns about the impact of APR affecting athletes who have a learning disaibility, or when there is a coaching change (Johnson et al, 2013).  Student affairs professionals who advise athletes and who work with athletes’ academic advisors are often handcuffed.  At the Division 1 level, advice is typically based on school policy and athletic need, rather that what is in the student’s best interest.  In other words, one may consider the current NCAA policy as leading institutions toward: “Let’s make sure the athlete is passing a class (or is in an easy major) to remain academically eligible to play, and keep their scholarship to at least earn a degree.”  But, it may be better for the NCAA and its member institutions to lead with policy better in line with institutional mission, such as: “What does the student want to learn or be exposed to learn and how can we work with coaches to make that learning occur and succeed?”

            Student affairs professionals can become involved in leading and directing the above complex policies to benefit the well-being of athletes at their institution.  For instance, several Division 1 institutions have their football (and other sport) practices in the morning in order to allow athletes the opportunity to access course labs and other educational activities that would not be possible with afternoon athletic practices.  Other schools have faculty appointed as academic liaisons to athletic teams ro improve direct communication between instructors and players. The collaboration inherent in creating these policies is student-centered and reflects educational needs as an institutional priority (Hirko, 2011; Zimmerman &  Wickersham, 2013).

            Furthermore, the recent memorandum from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (in full disclosure, I serve as a consultant to the Knight Commission) to the NCAA shares a thought reflecting the fact that not all athletes are the same, even though they may be treated the same. The Commission asked NCAA leaders to investigate a “differentiated model” with different rules for different sports.  In otherwords, football and men’s basketball players are the primary revenue generators, and are significant contributors to an institution’s image at all levels, including Divisions 1, 2 and 3; yet, the expectations of football and basketball players are different than athletes in field hockey, soccer, or all other varsity sports.  Social norms, institutional climate, and community environment create significant expectations on, and perceived by, football and basketball players in comparison to the expectations of players of most other sports.  Student affairs professionals are in the position to share their knowledge and experience of student identity development when considering rules for a new type of “differentiated” system. Rules for athletes that impact their academic and social engagement should take current realities into consideration, and should ensure  athletes’ well-being is adequately protected.

            Current litigation by former athletes against the NCAA, particularly the EddieO’Bannon and SamKeller cases and their potential impact on the definition of “amateurism” may force NCAA membership to change its policies as they relate to the compensation of certain college athletes.  Yet, student affairs professionals will be around before and after this and other similar cases.  To meet the needs of athletes in this and future environments, ACPA and its membership are well placed to use their knowledge and understanding of student development to serve the education and goals of college athletes.

References

Branch, T. (2012, October). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic.

Butterworth, J., & Rich, J. (2013). Examing academic-athletic support and academic success of student athletes. Unpublished Undergraduate Student Research, University of New Hampshire.

Gurney, G. S., & Southall, R. M. (2012, August 9). College sports' bait and switch. ESPN.com.

Hirko, S. (2011). Using sanctioned athletics programs to understand stakeholders' perceived influence in decisions at major research universities. Unpublished dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Hirko, S., Clark, K., Fulford, M., Byrne, D., Harmon, N., & Hill, K. (2010). A campus student affairs perspective on NCAA Proposal 2009-100: American College Personnel Association.

Johnson, J., Blom, L., Judge, L., Lee, D., Pierce, D., & Ridley, M. (2013). The impact of Football Bowl Subdivision head coaching changes on NCAA Academic Progress Rate. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 6, 131-154.

Kirkpatrick, W. (2012). The impact of the academic progress rate (APR) on low resource or non-bcs institutions as it relates to football and/or men’s basketball programs. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

McLaughlin, J. (2012). An examination of the influence of institutional context on Academic Progress Rates at Division I institutions: A multilevel approach. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Zimmerman, W., & Wickersham, L. (2013). Examining the support of modern athletic reform proposals developed by the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics in response to higher education athletic reform: A case study. Current Issues in Education, 16(1).