Monday, October 27, 1997

Athlete-Criminals: Each school should punish

By SAMUEL H. SMITH

For Scripps Howard News Service

Should the NCAA become involved when a student-athlete commits an act of violence or engages in illegal activity away from the playing field?

NCAA involvement is inappropriate in this area because the situation does not relate to the mission of the association. NCAA regulations exist primarily for three reasons. The first is to assure athletic competition takes place in an educational environment.

Second is to assure competitive equity. The association has a substantial body of legislation on such topics as amateurism, extra benefits, recruiting and financial aid. These rules were created to establish an environment in which institutions and individuals may know they are competing against one another with a common understanding of what is permissible.

A third standard relates to ensuring the integrity of competition. The association's most visible actions in this area have related to battling the proliferation of sports wagering.

Does the NCAA care if athletes act violently? Of course, it does.

In recent years, the association has moved to severely punish those who come to blows on the field of play, in keeping with the NCAA's mission to protect the integrity of competition.

At some point, however, it must be acknowledged that the NCAA's authority ends and institutional responsibility begins.

It has been argued that rogue student-athletes can be dealt with only through the actions of a national body. The thought is that a single institution would be disadvantaged if it did "the right thing" and suspended or expelled a student-athlete convicted of committing a violent crime. The regrettable reality, the belief goes, is that off-field violence is so pervasive that one school acting alone would only disadvantage itself competitively.

Problems with athlete violence are real, although it is probably fair to say the public's perception of the frequency of incidents is distorted by the celebrity of those who are involved. But does that mean the NCAA should regulate in this area? No.

Institutions do not automatically cede all power to the NCAA in all areas relating to athletics. Instead, it is clear the member schools of the NCAA prefer to exercise autonomy in certain areas. Cynics would say that with regard to this particular issue, autonomy will always serve to make sure the team has its star player suited up in time for the big game, no matter what that athlete has done in his personal life.

But institutions frequently do punish irresponsible actions. Further, colleges and universities do not exist in a vacuum; they must consider what sort of image they are creating for themselves if they permit thugs to compete under their flag.

The NCAA is not the answer to all problems. Institutional authority is a legitimate means of dealing with issues such as this one.

Samuel H. Smith is president of Washington State University.