Search News


Browse Archives

News

Diversifying Through Football

January 11, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

You'd be hard pressed to find a college or university now that has not made the ethnic and socioeconomic diversification of its student body a high priority. Institutions have stepped up their recruitment efforts, reaching out more aggressively to students from underrepresented racial and other groups, expanding their financial aid offerings to low-income students, and bolstering as well their strategies for retaining academically underprepared students. Gone, presumably, are the days when the primary way an African American male could catch the eye of a college was with a sweet jump shot or throwing a football 60 yards.

Right? Not so fast.

Data drawn from the National Collegiate Athletic Association's annual survey of graduation rates, analyzed by Inside Higher Ed, show that scholarship athletes make up at least 20 percent of the full-time black male undergraduates at 96 of the nearly 330 colleges that play sports in Division I, the NCAA's top competitive level. At 46 of those colleges, according to the data, which are from 2005-6, at least a third of the black male population play a sport. And at 31 one of them, football players alone make up at least a quarter of the black undergraduate men.

All told, male athletes make up about 3 percent of full-time male students at Division I institutions.

The trend is most evident at two types of institutions. The first is public universities in states with relatively small black populations, where the institutions recruit more or less locally or regionally for their general student bodies, but participate in the national recruitment system that has grown up around big-time sports over decades. So state universities like Boise State University (where 34 of the 92 full-time black male undergraduates in 2005-6 were athletes), Montana State University (35 of 40), and Western Carolina University (77 of 211) jump out. Yet the proportions can also be surprisingly high at major public universities in states with sizable black populations, such as the University of Georgia, (21 percent), and the University of Colorado at Boulder (28 percent).

The other category of colleges where the proportions of black athletes are highest is private institutions, mostly those that have selective admission standards and are small compared to other sports powers, yet still try to compete with the big boys. This includes institutions like Northwestern University (where 43 of the 163 full-time black male undergraduates are athletes), Lehigh (31 of 78), Rice (47 of 99) and Wake Forest (69 of 128) Universities, and the University of Tulsa (68 of 95), among others. (One other group of selective private institutions that competes in Division I -- those in the Ivy League -- are excluded from the data below because the NCAA collects information only about scholarship athletes, and the Ivies do not award sports scholarships. The same is true of the U.S. military academies.)

The question of what it means for these colleges (and for their students) if their ratios of black male athletes to black male students are high is a complex and contested one. Officials at many of the institutions where the proportions are high said almost to a one that they would like their proportions (of athletes to students) to be lower and that they were working hard to step up their recruitment and retention of black (and other minority) students generally -- in some cases mirroring strategies athletics departments have perfected.

Some argue that their institutions should be judged not on the relative number of black athletes and other students they are bringing to their campuses, but on how successfully they are educating and graduating those students -- and most, not surprisingly, said they are doing a good job.

But some advocates for minority students are troubled when they look at the numbers, which they say suggest that some colleges are more interested in recruiting black men with exceptional athletic talent than they are mere hard-working students. "It's absolutely shameful that these institutions obviously could do such a great job of expending the effort to recruit black male athletes but can't seem to get their arms around the recruitment of other black male students," says Shaun R. Harper, an assistant professor in the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education.

"At a lot of institutions," he says, "there's a very limited expenditure of effort" toward recruiting black students generally, there's no strategy, there are no real goals that are written down. Yet when it comes to the recruitment of black male athletes, all those things are in place. It's hard not to think that that's because they're interested in winning, so they're going to put forth the effort to recruit students who will enable them to win."

Adds Kevin Carey, research and policy manager at Education Sector, an education think tank: "If a very large percentage of your students of color are athletes, what that suggests is that you’re using your athletics program as a proxy for achieving your diversity goals. That's different from an institution that both pursues its athletics goals and also tries to recruit and retain significant numbers of students of color who are aren’t athletes."

*****

Data showing low enrollments of black male students are unlikely to shock anyone who's been paying attention in higher education; the most recent national data, from 2004, show African Americans making up 11.7 percent of all undergraduates in American colleges and about 9.5 percent of undergraduate men, slightly less than their representation in the U.S. population generally. Black students are disproportionately overrepresented, as well, at historically black universities and community colleges. So given that context, the fact that the latest NCAA statistics show that 9.4 percent of male students at Division I campuses are black is not surprising.

But when the data are unpacked by individual college, and contrasted to the number and proportion of black athletes on those campuses, the results can be eye-popping and raise some interesting issues, for athletics departments, for specific colleges, and for higher education as a whole. Some of the issues differ depending on the type of institutions. At public universities where the numbers are starkest -- where many or even most of the black male students are athletes -- the situation arises in part because the institutions recruit nationally for athletes, but draw students generally almost entirely from their states, which may have relatively few minority citizens.

At the University of Nevada at Reno, for example, 63 of the 99 full-time black male undergraduates on the campus in 2005-6 were athletes, and 57 of them were football players. Officials there note that the undergraduate student body is representative of the black population in the northern Nevada region that the university serves. The local county high school district from which Reno draws 50 percent of its enrollment graduated all of 70 black students (of a total of 2,800 graduates) in 2005, says Melisa Choroszy, associate vice president for enrollment services at Nevada. And only 35-40 percent of them meet the university's admissions standards, she says.

Between half and two-thirds of the university's scholarship athletes, on the other hand, are from out of state, says Sandie Niedergall, director of compliance services in Nevada's athletics department.

"One of the great things that athletics is able to do is to seek out talent in a geographic way across the country that we don't have as much of an option to do because of financial constraints," says Choroszy. "Athletics is able to help us with the greater diversity picture we strive for."

The University of Oregon faces a similar situation. The state's African American population hovers in the 2 percent range, as does the black proportion of the undergraduate student body at the university. Of the 137 black undergrads on the campus in 2005-6, 48 (or 35 percent) were scholarship athletes and 38 played football on Oregon's team, which this year ranked among the nation's best.

"From the data, it seems obvious that lots of African-American male students see athletics as a major pathway to college," says Charles Martinez, vice provost for institutional equity and diversity at Oregon. The challenge, he says, "is not to have a reliance on a single pathway" for first generation, low-income, or minority students. "Higher education is just coming around to the realization that for effective outreach [to underrepresented students], we can’t start in high school. That's something that athletics [departments] figured out a long time ago."

The Picture at Private Colleges

At the selective private universities that try to compete in football and basketball in the stratosphere of Division I, the issues are slightly different. Most of them have significantly smaller student bodies than their public university peers, so if they sponsor football teams, and recruit meaningful numbers of black athletes to populate them, the black players will tend to skew their overall black enrollment numbers more than would be true at a larger institution.

In addition, the admission standards at many of the selective private institutions are such that the pools of African American students who qualify academically are relatively small, especially if the institutions lean significantly on standardized test scores. Most selective colleges and universities tend to bend their admissions standards more (proportionally) for athletes than they do for other categories of students, though officials at the colleges steadfastly reject the notion that they are doing a disservice to the athletes, or to their institutions, by opening their doors to them -- far from it.

"In our case, black male student athletes graduate at a higher rate than our black male students," said David Shi, president of Furman University, where 46 of the 77 full-time black male undergraduates in 2005-6 were athletes, and fully half played football. "We have never had a problem with the academic performance of our football players in general, much less our African-American football players. We've had the good fortune of being able to recruit some very high performing student athletes and not feel worried that somehow we’re compromising the integrity of the institution."

Shi bristles at the assertion that athletes make up a large proportion of Furman's black male students creates equity or other issues, not only because they succeed academically but because they are so well incorporated into the campus. "We do not have distinctively different cultures, there is no separate athletic dorm, so the fact that an African American student is here on a football scholarship does not in any way diminish their contribution to the institution. They are terrific role models not only as athletes but as students and as citizens."

Other college officials and most experts on campus diversity agree that one important part of the equation in assessing the relative representation of black athletes and other students is how well they fare academically and otherwise. "I would want to look at this as an opportunity -- these students have excelled at something that gave them an opportunity to go to college," says Ross Wiener, who heads the policy team at Education Trust, which promotes educational equity for low-income and minority students.

"The key question is whether that promise is kept -- whether they are just supported as athletes, or whether they also get supported as students. That probably varies from place to place. If the athletic achievement has opened up doors to these whole other world for these students, that's great. But if not, if the universities use them as athletes or ignore them as students, that's a different story."

That picture will vary by institution, but the NCAA's aggregate data show that black male athletes in Division I graduate at a higher rate than do all black male students at Division I colleges (48 percent to 37 percent in the association's most recent report). "At the end of the day, the goal of higher education is to provide a degree to as many students as possible," says Charlotte Westerhaus, vice president for diversity and inclusion at the NCAA. "The reason I am not troubled by these numbers is that these student athletes are graduating at a very high rate."

(Comparisons of graduation rates for scholarship athletes and for all other students, regardless of race, must take into account two facts: that athletes are generally shielded from the financial difficulties that force many normal students -- especially those from underrepresented groups -- off track for graduation, and that athletes tend to benefit from exceptional levels of academic support from their athletics departments.)

Some campus administrators say they recognize the possibility that having a large number of their black male students be athletes can diminish the experience for black students, especially if the athletes aren't integrated into campus life. At Nevada, "we make tremendous efforts to make sure that the student athletes are part and parcel of the population on campus," says Reginald Chhen Stewart, director of the Center for Student Cultural Diversity there. "The coaches gave them release time from [team meetings] to attend the [Black Student Organization] meetings so that they were integrated," for example.

Stewart acknowledges, though, that having many or most of an institution's black men be athletes can add to a stereotype that has long plagued black men on college campuses. "It's just one of the ills of higher education that people assume if you're a black man on campus that you're an athlete," he says.

He and other campus officials say that, ironically, colleges may begin to break down that perception by borrowing some of the tactics that athletics departments have long embraced and using them to bolster their recruitment of black and other minority students who aren't athletes.

"Coaches have been doing it a long time, and we might learn from them," says Paul Orehovec, vice president for enrollment management and continuing studies at the University of Miami, where athletes make up 26 percent of the university's black male undergrads. "I see my role and my staff's role as beating the bushes in any way we can to recruit good black students, and we've begun walking the halls of some of the predominantly black schools" like coaches have been doing for years.

The university has begun working with the principal and other top officials at Miami's inner-city Northwestern High School -- whose football team was ranked among the nation's best by USA Today -- to recruit students, not athletes. Miami hosts a dinner on its campus for the school's top-ranked students, and has been driving home the message that "if they meet the academic qualifications, there will be financial aid available to them."

Harper, the Penn professor who last year studied the state of black male students at public flagship universities for the Dellums Commission, agrees that there are possibilities for university admissions officers to learn from sports recruiters. "They should be saying, Wow, you guys seem to be particularly good at recruiting this particular population that is otherwise missing from the campus. Is there something we can learn from your approach." Coaches "go to a kid's house, sit in his living room with his parents, and the parents get excited and the kids get excited." He wonders if campus recruiters couldn't do the same, though he acknowledges that such an approach would only work if the black male non-athletes had "advocates" with as much sway in the admissions office as top coaches tend to have.

But Harper believes that colleges and universities need to do much more to prove that they are as willing and able to recruit, enroll and graduate black male students who can't dunk a basketball. More aggressive outreach, recruitment and financial aid efforts aimed at black male students are a must, but he would go further.

In his paper last year, he wrote that the the "NCAA should consider a policy requiring that racial representation on any sports team should minimally correspond to a certain percentage of undergraduate student enrollments at the institution. For example, if black males comprise four percent of the undergraduate students on a campus, their representation on an intercollegiate sports team should not be permitted to exceed a certain percentage (e.g., 20 percent, which would be five times more than black men in the general student population). The introduction of this policy will surely compel university admissions officers to more aggressively recruit black male students who are not brought to the institution to play sports."

While such a policy is a long shot, even some campus officials who say they're doing everything they can to bolster their minority enrollments admit that data like the ones below can prove a useful stimulant.

"Numbers like this just keep us honest," says Stewart of at Nevada-Reno. "It's all part of the business of education. Sometimes the numbers look really outstanding, and sometimes they show you what you need to work on."

Numbers and Proportions of Black Male Students and Athletes at Division I Colleges, 2005-6

Institution Number of Male Students Number of Black Male Students % of Male Students Who are Black Number of Black Male Athletes % of Black Male Students Who Are Athletes Number of Black Male Football Players Number of Male Athletes
Alabama A&M U 1,984 1,904 96% 122 6% 72 139
Alabama State U 1,598 1,556 97% 129 8% 64 144
Alcorn State U 1,029 951 92% 121 13% 71 144
American U 2,114 102 5% 8 8% 0 72
Appalachian State U 6,131 219 4% 63 29% 36 200
Arizona State U 23,007 827 4% 49 6% 38 190
Arkansas State U 2,971 444 15% 75 17% 56 163
Auburn U 8,975 669 7% 78 12% 58 213
Austin Peay State U 2,327 365 16% 13 4% 0 67
Ball State U 7,389 340 5% 49 14% 38 170
Baylor U 4,878 321 7% 68 21% 49 163
Belmont U 1,414 45 3% 7 16% 0 97
Bethune-Cookman C 1,228 1,115 91% 131 12% 81 191
Birmingham-Southern C 564 26 5% 10 38% 0 95
Boise State U 5,005 92 2% 34 37% 25 165
Boston College 4,506 261 6% 44 17% 33 146
Boston U 7,097 167 2% 6 4% 0 99
Bowling Green State U 6,676 493 7% 58 12% 49 179
Bradley U 2,391 91 4% 11 12% 0 73
Brigham Young U 13,837 73 1% 20 27% 16 256
Brown U 2,737 166 6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bucknell U 1,728 54 3% 17 31% 11 93
Butler U 1,351 31 2% 2 6% 0 103
California Poly State U San Luis Obispo 9,362 118 1% 37 31% 25 216
California State U Long Beach 11,310 536 5% 23 4% 0 108
California State U Fresno 7,268 399 5% 68 17% 45 201
California State U Fullerton 8,932 335 4% 17 5% 0 109
California State U Northridge 8,444 666 8% 30 5% 2 140
California State U Sacramento 7,529 472 6% 40 8% 24 161
Campbell U 1,172 87 7% 14 16% 0 110
Canisius C 1,431 65 5% 5 8% 0 99
Centenary C* 341 22 6% 8 36% 0 75
Central Connecticut State U 3,648 313 9% 23 7% 15 97
Central Michigan U 7,525 353 5% 62 18% 47 180
Charleston Southern U 851 211 25% 52 25% 30 150
Chicago State U 1,019 818 80% 24 3% 0 59
Citadel 1,979 133 7% 61 46% 43 106
Clemson U 7,596 474 6% 69 15% 48 233
Cleveland State U 2,597 441 17% 20 5% 0 120
Coastal Carolina U 2,937 352 12% 67 19% 50 206
Colgate U 1,345 66 5% 31 47% 17 138
C of Charleston 3,177 169 5% 8 5% 0 89
C of the Holy Cross 1,267 53 4% 23 43% 18 90
C of William and Mary 2,522 130 5% 32 25% 26 157
Colorado State U 9,109 190 2% 51 27% 38 143
Columbia U-Barnard C 3,641 193 5% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Coppin State C 791 765 97% 43 6% 0 55
Cornell U 6,762 236 3% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Creighton U 1,500 42 3% 13 31% 0 115
Dartmouth C 2,002 131 7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Davidson C 840 47 6% 1 2% 98 0
Delaware State U 1,208 993 82% 100 10% 59 146
DePaul U 4,884 305 6% 16 5% 0 82
Drake U 1,255 44 4% 12 27% 0 77
Drexel U 6,130 289 5% 12 4% 0 134
Duke U 3,267 244 7% 53 22% 46 179
Duquesne U 2,163 92 4% 11 12% 0 113
East Carolina U 6,434 792 12% 77 10% 58 198
East Tennessee State U 3,458 120 3% 19 16% 3 84
Eastern Illinois U 4,029 277 7% 57 21% 35 211
Eastern Kentucky U 4,249 203 5% 49 24% 37 141
Eastern Michigan U 5,252 906 17% 60 7% 52 207
Eastern Washington U 3,431 137 4% 25 18% 18 136
Elon U 1,801 126 7% 50 40% 38 171
Fairfield U 1,431 19 1% 7 37% 0 63
Fairleigh Dickinson U Metro* 836 143 17% 17 12% 0 78
Florida A&M U 3,922 3,689 94% 96 3% 53 104
Florida Atlantic U 4,960 715 14% 61 9% 46 163
Florida International U 7,686 981 13% 69 7% 50 159
Florida State U 11,626 1,080 9% 85 8% 64 201
Fordham U 2,854 141 5% 50 35% 34 170
Furman U 1,172 77 7% 46 60% 38 168
Gardner-Webb U 1,198 142 12% 45 32% 34 86
George Mason U 6,434 392 6% 14 4% 0 99
George Washington U 3,915 163 4% 12 7% 0 100
Georgetown U 3,007 188 6% 35 19% 21 158
Georgia Inst of Technology 7,860 500 6% 97 19% 68 227
Georgia Southern U 6,609 1,349 20% 70 5% 51 167
Georgia State U 5,327 1,178 22% 19 2% 0 100
Gonzaga U 1,923 27 1% 4 15% 0 69
Grambling State U 1,938 1,811 93% 122 7% 72 135
Hampton U 1,922 1,781 93% 93 5% 60 99
Harvard U 3,389 229 7% n/a n/a n/a  
High Point U 943 146 15% 20 14% 0 35
Hofstra U 3,675 315 9% 45 14% 35 200
Howard U 2,539 2,186 86% 144 7% 86 154
Idaho State U 2,985 65 2% 37 57% 30 128
Illinois State U 7,015 341 5% 46 13% 33 170
Indiana State U 3,440 367 11% 50 14% 36 141
Indiana U Bloomington 13,371 536 4% 63 12% 41 240
Indiana U.-Purdue U 3,027 124 4% 9 7% 0 93
Indiana U-Purdue U-Indianapolis 5,084 398 8% 12 3% 0 83
Iona C 1,420 102 7% 9 9% 0 91
Iowa State U 10,895 310 3% 54 17% 41 159
Jackson State U 2,148 2,047 95% 142 7% 76 150
Jacksonville State U 2,537 609 24% 65 11% 50 153
Jacksonville U 973 151 16% 8 5% 0 83
James Madison U 5,780 204 4% 70 34% 58 154
Kansas State U 11,350 370 3% 50 14% 35 172
Kent State U 6,181 407 7% 66 16% 46 191
La Salle U 1,486 112 8% 11 10% 0 110
Lafayette C 1,198 71 6% 30 42% 26 94
Lamar U 2,848 571 20% 16 3% 0 71
Lehigh U 2,724 78 3% 31 40% 26 124
Liberty U 4,802 492 10% 44 9% 31 164
Lipscomb U 899 38 4% 10 26% 0 91
Long Island U Brooklyn 1,268 410 32% 22 5% 0 80
Louisiana State U 11,359 791 7% 76 10% 56 195
Louisiana Tech U 3,931 539 14% 94 17% 64 172
Loyola College (Md) 1,472 55 4% 9 16% 0 72
Loyola Marymount U 2,206 128 6% 9 7% 0 78
Loyola U (Ill) 2,790 104 4% 15 14% 0 72
Manhattan C 1,381 25 2% 14 56% 0 110
Marist C 1,843 66 4% 10 15% 0 110
Marquette U 3,365 125 4% 8 6% 0 70
Marshall U 3,581 224 6% 58 26% 47 164
McNeese State U 2,636 469 18% 62 13% 45 161
Mercer U 1,217 183 15% 8 4% 0 83
Miami U 6,522 204 3% 38 19% 28 244
Michigan State U 14,755 1,005 7% 66 7% 45 254
Middle Tennessee State U 8,217 889 11% 87 10% 64 177
Mississippi State U 5,840 899 15% 91 10% 65 193
Mississippi Valley State U 800 735 92% 106 14% 71 128
Missouri State U 5,595 154 3% 44 29% 35 221
Monmouth U (NJ) 1,769 86 5% 23 27% 9 138
Montana State U Bozeman 4,995 40 1% 35 88% 28 133
Morehead State U 2,123 94 4% 10 11% 0 78
Morgan State U 2,205 2,043 93% 85 4% 54 92
Mount St. Mary's U 611 41 7% 19 46% 0 111
Murray State U 3,081 182 6% 52 29% 41 132
New Mexico
State U
4,573 156 3% 50 32% 37 142
Niagara U 1,123 43 4% 9 21% 0 96
Nicholls State U 1,981 327 17% 51 16% 43 128
Norfolk State U 1,681 1,518 90% 97 6% 60 134
North Carolina
A&T State U
4,210 3,876 92% 112 3% 65 122
North Carolina
State U
10,901 854 8% 78 9% 56 217
Northeastern U 7,209 343 5% 31 9% 23 165
Northern Arizona U 4,465 104 2% 27 26% 19 107
Northern Illinois U 7,950 763 10% 48 6% 37 198
Northwestern
State U
2,077 614 30% 75 12% 50 147
Northwestern U 4,787 163 3% 43 26% 38 197
Oakland U 3,681 248 7% 3 1% 0 45
Ohio State U 17,596 1,002 6% 63 6% 41 339
Ohio U 7,671 252 3% 44 17% 34 198
Oklahoma State U 8,645 299 3% 75 25% 61 202
Old Dominion U 4,501 792 18% 12 2% 0 98
Oral Roberts U 976 150 15% 16 11% 0 80
Oregon State U 7,260 122 2% 46 38% 35 191
Pennsylvania State U 18,013 590 3% 60 10% 44 290
Pepperdine U 1,128 70 6% 5 7% 0 68
Portland State U 5,025 193 4% 24 12% 18 86
Prairie View A&M U 2,615 2,408 92% 103 4% 65 121
Princeton U 2,548 175 7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Providence C 1,693 25 1% 7 28% 0 78
Purdue U 17,790 548 3% 66 12% 47 222
Quinnipiac C 2,039 44 2% 4 9% 0 116
Radford U 3,344 187 6% 23 12% 0 94
Rice U 1,539 99 6% 47 47% 35 161
Rider U 1,493 124 8% 18 15% 0 135
Robert Morris U 1,759 134 8% 27 20% 11 139
Rutgers U 11,920 846 7% 89 11% 60 267
Sacred Heart U 1,478 72 5% 4 6% 4 37
Saint Francis C (Pa) 494 57 12% 28 49% 13 29
Saint Joseph's U (Pa) 1,988 64 3% 13 20% 0 130
Saint Louis U 3,193 131 4% 7 5% 0 82
Sam Houston State U 4,470 658 15% 59 9% 43 171
Samford U 976 61 6% 35 57% 30 148
San Diego State U 8,896 337 4% 49 15% 38 168
San Diego, U. of 1,888 50 3% 6 12% 0 69
San Jose State U. 8,424 428 5% 56 13% 46 161
Santa Clara U 1,995 52 3% 14 27% 0 101
Savannah State U 1,017 964 95% 66 7% 34 79
Seton Hall U 2,235 169 8% 16 9% 0 94
Siena C 1,322 25 2% 8 32% 0 106
South Carolina State U 1,582 1,545 98% 97 6% 74 107
Southeast Missouri
State U
3,662 312 9% 59 19% 39 156
Southeastern Louisiana U 4,548 661 15% 72 11% 48 170
Southern Illinois U Carbondale 8,355 1,237 15% 67 5% 48 184
Southern Methodist U 3,328 190 6% 61 32% 52 150
Southern U Baton Rouge 3,121 2,926 94% 144 5% 61 161
Southern Utah U 2,916 39 1% 17 44% 10 117
St. Bonaventure U 1,033 34 3% 4 12% 0 92
St. Francis College (NY) 1,078 163 15% 15 9% 0 74
St. John's U. (NY) 4,868 660 14% 15 2% 0 103
St. Mary's C
of California
899 61 7% 11 18% 2 100
St. Peter's C 911 202 22% 22 11% 0 83
Stanford U 3,436 335 10% 65 19% 39 366
State U of New York Albany 5,570 374 7% 19 5% 3 94
State U of New York Binghamton 5,551 192 3% 11 6% 0 125
State U of New York Buffalo 9,116 519 6% 63 12% 44 206
State U of New York Stony Brook 6,648 481 7% 19 4% 10 139
Stephen F. Austin State U 3,951 610 15% 62 10% 41 156
Stetson U 895 30 3% 9 30% 0 77
Syracuse U 5,294 277 5% 64 23% 52 172
Temple U 9,584 1,165 12% 72 6% 54 187
Tennessee State U 2,098 1,827 87% 75 4% 51 85
Tennessee Technological U 3,499 172 5% 45 26% 36 144
Texas A&M U College Station 18,402 443 2% 79 18% 59 237
Texas A&M U Corpus Christi 3,174 92 3% 16 17% 0 66
Texas Christian U 3,621 194 5% 59 30% 40 196
Texas Southern U 411 391 95% 126 32% 61 144
Texas State U
San Marcos
8,315 389 5% 67 17% 50 189
Texas Tech U 11,396 390 3% 68 17% 46 191
Towson U 4,791 410 9% 48 12% 37 173
Troy U 5,121 1,321 26% 82 6% 60 177
Tulane U**              
U of Akron 5,646 635 11% 56 9% 43 181
U of Alabama Birmingham 3,094 717 23% 82 11% 64 175
U of Alabama Tuscaloosa 7,421 667 9% 76 11% 56 198
U of Arizona 11,491 354 3% 56 16% 46 190
U of Arkansas Fayetteville 5,812 282 5% 76 27% 57 188
U of Arkansas Little Rock 2,242 537 24% 6 1% 0 17
U of Arkansas Pine Bluff 1,260 1,198 95% 86 7% 57 97
U of California Berkeley 10,816 292 3% 61 21% 41 267
U of California Los Angeles 10,794 311 3% 66 21% 44 257
U of California Riverside 6,496 297 5% 19 6% 0 102
U of California
Santa Barbara
8,080 177 2% 14 8% 0 171
U of California Irvine 9,507 184 2% 14 8% 0 154
U of Central Florida 12,819 893 7% 58 6% 46 188
U of Cincinnati 7,479 578 8% 67 12% 42 215
U of Colorado Boulder 12,433 228 2% 63 28% 49 160
U of Connecticut 7,131 367 5% 77 21% 53 182
U of Dayton 3,476 137 4% 11 8% 0 79
U of Delaware 6,259 320 5% 49 15% 38 239
U of Denver 2,081 27 1% 6 22% 0 119
U of Detroit Mercy 798 147 18% 19 13% 0 67
U of Evansville 869 18 2% 3 17% 0 77
U of Florida 14,615 1,075 7% 86 8% 59 236
U of Georgia 9,725 429 4% 88 21% 67 210
U of Hartford 2,345 205 9% 7 3% 0 59
U of Hawaii At Manoa 5,255 86 2% 24 28% 20 174
U of Houston 9,075 1,146 13% 79 7% 49 173
U of Idaho 4,562 61 1% 30 49% 26 125
U of Illinois Chicago 6,344 371 6% 22 6% 0 129
U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 15,903 765 5% 63 8% 41 196
U of Iowa 8,441 187 2% 48 26% 39 244
U of Kansas 9,250 312 3% 64 21% 48 174
U of Kentucky 8,197 372 5% 64 17% 47 228
U of Louisiana Lafayette 5,282 815 15% 78 10% 54 188
U of Louisiana Monroe 2,368 559 24% 61 11% 45 163
U of Louisville 5,253 562 11% 74 13% 61 193
U of Maine Orono 3,849 56 1% 37 66% 30 159
U of Maryland College Park 11,738 1,230 10% 87 7% 64 270
U of Maryland Baltimore County 4,297 494 11% 20 4% 0 117
U of Maryland Eastern Shore 362 314 87% 4 1% 0 6
U of Massachusetts Amherst 9,079 387 4% 51 13% 39 212
U of Memphis 4,552 1,235 27% 85 7% 62 190
U of Miami 4,166 294 7% 76 26% 62 137
U of Michigan 12,028 716 6% 77 11% 55 268
U of Minnesota Twin Cities 12,277 553 5% 60 11% 37 279
U of Mississippi 5,138 498 10% 97 19% 64 185
U of Missouri Columbia 9,613 486 5% 73 15% 58 246
U of Missouri Kansas City 434 53 12% 14 26% 0 84
U of Montana 3,964 35 1% 19 54% 13 133
U of Nebraska Lincoln 8,339 184 2% 54 29% 34 231
U of Nevada Reno 4,600 99 2% 63 64% 57 192
U of Nevada Las Vegas 9,755 714 7% 58 8% 44 202
U of New Hampshire 4,533 83 2% 30 36% 24 74
U of New Mexico 6,277 217 3% 58 27% 39 193
U of New Orleans**              
U of North Carolina Asheville 1,311 29 2% 9 31% 0 75
U of North
Carolina Greensboro
3,367 453 13% 14 3% 0 98
U of North
Carolina Wilmington
4,025 166 4% 15 9% 0 126
U of North
Carolina Chapel Hill
6,582 540 8% 79 15% 60 269
U of North
Carolina Charlotte
6,440 637 10% 22 3% 0 100
U of North Texas 8,668 958 11% 65 7% 44 124
U of Northern Iowa 4,173 156 4% 45 29% 34 174
U of Notre Dame 4,393 158 4% 50 32% 41 241
U of Oklahoma 8,931 417 5% 83 20% 58 218
U of Oregon 7,063 137 2% 48 35% 38 155
U of Pennsylvania 1,257 66 5% n/a n/a n/a n/a
U of Pittsburgh 7,302 535 7% 76 14% 54 203
U of Portland 1,076 25 2% 9 36% 0 83
U of Rhode Island 4,251 210 5% 52 25% 35 160
U of Richmond 1,506 64 4% 23 36% 20 127
U of San Francisco 1,782 83 5% 13 16% 0 101
U of South Alabama 2,938 366 12% 17 5% 0 80
U of South Carolina Columbia 7,389 775 10% 81 10% 59 208
U of South Florida 9,728 982 10% 74 8% 56 176
U of Southern
California
7,788 384 5% 65 17% 47 213
U of Southern
Mississippi
4,248 1,010 24% 88 9% 66 168
U of Tennessee Chattanooga 2,771 494 18% 66 13% 54 151
U of Tennessee Martin 2,203 290 13% 53 18% 41 142
U of Tennessee Knoxville 9,444 678 7% 76 11% 53 196
U of Texas Arlington 6,457 666 10% 23 3% 0 100
U of Texas Austin 15,689 541 3% 65 12% 51 216
U of Texas El Paso 4,999 166 3% 50 30% 40 117
U of Texas San Antonio 8,448 578 7% 18 3% 0 87
U of Texas Pan American 6,953 30 0% 5 17% 0 60
U of the Pacific              
U of Toledo 6,314 661 10% 50 8% 39 154
U of Tulsa 1,332 95 7% 68 72% 49 160
U of Utah 8,601 66 1% 5 8% 4 26
U of Vermont 3,832 38 1% 4 11% 0 110
U of Virginia 6,029 461 8% 66 14% 47 241
U of Washington 11,163 328 3% 49 15% 39 217
U of Wisconsin
Green Bay
1,572 20 1% 8 40% 0 94
U of Wisconsin
Madison
12,609 324 3% 63 19% 48 234
U of Wisconsin
Milwaukee
8,719 419 5% 10 2% 0 105
U of Wyoming 3,853 55 1% 34 62% 24 172
US Air Force Academy 3,612 139 4% n/a n/a n/a n/a
US Military Academy 3,601 186 5% n/a n/a n/a n/a
US Naval Academy 3,646 223 6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Utah State U 5,418 53 1% 31 58% 23 107
Valparaiso U 1,369 54 4% 4 7% 0 80
Vanderbilt U 3,016 201 7% 61 30% 49 154
Villanova U 3,159 115 4% 50 43% 32 143
Virginia Commonwealth U 6,436 957 15% 20 2% 0 68
Virginia Military Inst 1,265 66 5% 45 68% 29 151
Virginia Tech 12,276 590 5% 69 12% 56 200
Wagner C 692 64 9% 24 38% 15 115
Wake Forest U 2,021 128 6% 69 54% 53 186
Washington State U 8,213 238 3% 58 24% 41 190
Weber State U 4,626 68 1% 33 49% 26 164
West Virginia U 9,985 366 4% 53 14% 47 176
Western
Carolina U
2,960 211 7% 77 36% 54 175
Western
Illinois U
5,327 322 6% 48 15% 38 189
Western
Kentucky U
5,581 393 7% 49 12% 33 188
Western
Michigan U
9,240 421 5% 37 9% 31 175
Wichita State U 3,082 155 5% 13 8% 0 110
Winthrop U 1,423 353 25% 22 6% 0 112
Wofford C 177 12 7% 4 33% 4 36
Wright State U 5,365 511 10% 11 2% 0 91
Xavier U 1,475 102 7% 11 11% 0 95
Yale U 2,720 193 7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Youngstown State U 4,227 392 9% 39 10% 29 144

*These institutions provided incomplete data on undergraduate enrollment to the NCAA.

**These institutions did not report information in most categories because of damage from Hurricane Katrina.

The eight Ivy League colleges and the U.S. service academies did not report data for athletes because they do not offer athletics scholarships.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Diversifying Through Football

  • What's Fair?
  • Posted by Cranky Old Prof on January 11, 2008 at 8:45am EST
  • For almost every African-American man admitted to a top-tier university because of his athletic prowess, there is another African-American man who is a better student and is not getting the chance to go to that university. Let's give the best students into the best universities first, then we'll worry about which ones are good athletes.

  • Recruiting
  • Posted by Mark on January 11, 2008 at 9:20am EST
  • Athletics departments have very sophisticated recruiting efforts, as the official at Nevada points out. I wonder how many schools put as much money and energy into general minority recruitment as they do into recruiting athletes. Are there faculty or staff flying to the middle of nowhere to sweet-talk the parents of that kid with the high SAT scores or the killer leadership skills? Why not?

  • Got data?
  • Posted by L.L. on January 11, 2008 at 9:40am EST
  • " .. For almost every African-American man admitted to a top-tier university because of his athletic prowess, there is another African-American man who is a better student and is not getting the chance .."

    Excuse me --

    IMHO, that data-less statement directly contradicts research by Jay Greene (PhD Harvard) now of the University of Arkansas.

    http://coehp.uark.edu/2474.htm

    Briefly, his thesis was that every student capable of college-level work, is or has been, in college.

    Got data?

  • ‘Diversifying Through Football’
  • Posted by hj on January 11, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • Cranky Old Prof has it exactly right!

    I am a strong advocate of the concept of student athletes - not to be confused with athletes who might go to class.

    While the information presented by the NCAA in this report is interesting, I would much rather see how many of the Division I athletes reviewed in this study actually met the minimum admissions standards at their respective institutions. That type information would be far more meaningful to me.

  • Posted by Sk on January 11, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • "You’d be hard pressed to find a college or university now that has not made the ethnic and socioeconomic diversification of its student body a high priority. Institutions have stepped up their recruitment efforts, reaching out more aggressively to students from underrepresented racial and other groups,..."

    Not really. One vast underrepresented group in colleges is males (of any color). I think you'd be hard pressed to find institutions that are stepping up their recruiting efforts from this underrepresented group, though...

    Sk

  • Diff. in Recruitment
  • Posted by JC on January 11, 2008 at 12:00pm EST
  • When it comes to academics, the subject of recruiting students based on their color/face/minority status is controversial because universities want to give all applicants a fair, balanced chance in spite of what race they may be (that being said, of course some schools have plans to up their minority students). But the subject is still controversial.

    When it comes to athletics, it is not as controversial to seek athletes from certain races because it is not a matter of their race but a matter of their talent, which is less controversial, more reasonable and understandable.

  • Let's be honest
  • Posted by Christopher Newman , Graduate Student at UCLA on January 11, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • I have a policy. For every dollar you spend recruiting black athletes you have to spend a dollar recruiting black non-athletes? Violators would be excluded from post season activity like bowl games and march madness.

  • Posted by ACF on January 11, 2008 at 9:10pm EST
  • Athletes are recruited for their athletic ability.

    -If that results in lots of black athletes, oh well. If more whites want those slots maybe they should go lift some weights or something.

    Students are recruited for their academic ability.

    -If that results in lots of white students, oh well. If more blacks want those slots, maybe they should go read more books or something.

    Christopher Newman, assigning funding or slots according to skin color is racist.

  • Posted by Happy old Professor on January 12, 2008 at 1:35pm EST
  • Do we have data on four and six year graduation rates that covers all athletes and those black males the article focuses on?

  • The point is..
  • Posted by Mayo Thompson , African American Grad Student at UNR on January 16, 2008 at 4:30pm EST
  • Is that minorities, especially African-americans, are underrepresented at colleges and universities. These student-athletes, which is an oxy-moron in most if not all cases, are reported in the numbers that these schools give for their African-american population. And if these "students" are not graduating, then they are not helping. If they are not integrated in the student body, then they are not helping. The student-athletes should have to do some outreach which would help in the long run.

  • Response to ACF
  • Posted by Christopher Newman , Graduate Student at UCLA on January 18, 2008 at 1:35pm EST
  • Hello ACF,
    How courageous of you to use an acronym when addressing someone who uses their full name. Please do not over simplify the situation by calling me racist. The point of my comment was to emphasize the fact that you can tell a lot about an organization by looking at their budget. Clearly, if universities and colleges care as much about winning in sports as they did about things that they espouse in their mission statements then they would seriously try to attack the situation instead of being passive like..."if black would study harder they would get more slots" like an above comment. Oh, So I guess 400 years of slavery and 100 additional years of second class status have no bearing on this conversation, which has created thing like the poverty cycle. Since you seemed uninformed let me explain. Poor children tend to go to "poor schools" with poor resources and receive poor training. They tend to be disqualified from institutions because their schools do not offer AP courses or they were tracked along time ago out of those course. Then they get poor jobs and have poor children and it starts all over. Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule like all black are not poor and some poor blacks tend to survive the system. Revisionist like yourself do not need to call anyone racist. True power in this country comes from education (Please read Karabel's The Chosen...if you disagree) not from the small percentage of rich athletes. The fact that you are content with maintaining the power hierarchy (read caste system...please read Walter R. Allen et al's Knocking on Freedom's door) in this country hints at some unconcious racism on your part. IF...I repeat IF...blacks were not psychologically abused for 500 years then maybe I would agree with you. However, considering that it is much harder to build up a community than to destroy a community, I will leave with this comment. Serious actions are needed to undo what has been done. My suggestion will most likely not happen, but I wanted to spark a discussion so thank you for your response ACF.