Submitted by Paul Fain on October 1, 2015 - 3:00am
The University of Chicago announced Wednesday that it would receive $100 million to create a research institute to study global conflicts. The gift from the Thomas L. Pearson and the Pearson Family Members Foundation is the second largest in the university's history.
The donation is "transformative," said Robert Zimmer, the university's president. "Importantly, the study of global conflicts is a field ripe for groundbreaking research approaches, and the Pearson Institute will seek to inform more effective policy solutions for resolving violent conflicts to make a lasting impact around the world," he said in a written statement.
Submitted by Paul Fain on October 1, 2015 - 3:00am
Senator Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, and Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, this week introduced a bill that would create a new "outcomes-based" accreditation system. The proposed legislation, which builds on previous ideas from the two senators, would allow alternative education providers -- as well as traditional colleges and universities -- to access federal financial aid programs if they can meet a bar for high student outcomes. Those measures would include student learning, completion and return on investment.
"We need a new system that encourages, rather than hinders, innovation, promotes higher quality and shifts the focus to student success," Bennet said in a written statement. "The alternative outcomes-based process in this bill will help colleges, new models like competency-based education and innovative providers, and is an important step in shifting the current incentives and creating the 21st-century system of higher education we need."
Rubio, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, has hammered on the current higher education accreditation system while speaking on the campaign trail, calling it a "cartel." The alternative system he and Bennet proposed, Rubio said, would be based on higher quality standards.
The bill would allow colleges and providers to bypass a wait to receive federal-aid eligibility while they seek accreditation, instead enabling them to enter into contracts with the U.S. Department of Education, but only if the institutions "are generating positive student outcomes."
Submitted by Jake New on September 30, 2015 - 10:34am
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday upheld a lower court's decision that National Collegiate Athletic Association rules that limit what college athletes can be paid violate antitrust laws. But the appeals court tossed out the original judge's recommendation that athletes receive deferred compensation of up to $5,000 per year.
“The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman [Antitrust] Act's rules,” the three-judge panel wrote in its decision. “In this case, the NCAA's rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”
Calvin College, which has been fighting to stabilize its budget, is cutting a number of humanities programs, saying that they are not attracting enough students, MLive reported. Among the programs being ended: theater, art history and the languages of German, Greek and Latin.
One of higher education’s most influential organizations has tapped veteran public university president Mary Sue Coleman as its next leader.
Coleman will begin leading the Association of American Universities -- a group of 60 U.S. and two Canadian selective public and private research universities -- in June. She was previously president of the University of Michigan for 12 years, retiring in 2014, and president of the University of Iowa.
Coleman will replace Hunter R. Rawlings III, who has led the AAU since 2011. While president at Michigan, Coleman served as chair of the AAU for the 2011 academic year.
She co-chairs the Lincoln Project, an initiative of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences to support public research universities, and serves on the board of trustees of the Society for Science & the Public. She’s also a member of the Johnson & Johnson Board of Directors.
“Hunter Rawlings has done an exceptional job as AAU president in advancing our collective impact as research institutions,” Coleman said in a written statement. “I am eager to continue the work of elevating the American research university as essential to our nation’s prosperity, security and well-being.”
Submitted by Jake New on September 29, 2015 - 3:00am
Three former University of Minnesota at Duluth coaches are suing the Minnesota Board of Regents alleging gender, sexual orientation, national origin and age discrimination by university administrators. All three women are openly gay, including Shannon Miller, the successful women's hockey coach whose contract was not renewed last year amid much controversy after university officials said they could no longer afford to pay her salary. The other two coaches -- Jen Banford and Annette Wiles -- coached softball and women's basketball. Banford's contract was also not renewed, and Wiles said she was "forced to resign" due to a "hostile and discriminatory environment."
At a news conference on Monday, Miller said "sexism and homophobia are alive and well" at the university. In a statement, the university said that it "continues to refute the allegations and claims of discrimination and will aggressively defend ourselves in the lawsuit."
In a rare unanimous opinion in August, the National Labor Relations Board overturned its Chicago regional director’s controversial decision that Northwestern University football players are employees -- and therefore are entitled to unionize and to bargain over the terms and conditions of their employment. But the NLRB ruling avoided the case’s substantive issues, resting instead on a discretionary refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
For the Northwestern football players who brought the case, the issue is over. There is no right of appeal from the NLRB’s ruling. The impounded union election ballots that the 76 eligible players cast were never counted, and they now will be destroyed with no one knowing the outcome.
Yet we would argue that the real and continuing importance of this case lies in what it has contributed to the long overdue, and now increasingly intense, national conversation about the treatment of athletes in college sports -- especially how athletes can influence the rules that control their competitive and academic lives and the level of financial aid and other benefits they receive.
The College Athletes Players Association (led by former athletes, including a Northwestern football player) and other union advocates argue that the door is still open to reform college sports through unionization, a means that most in the college athletics establishment disfavor. The NLRB ruling painstakingly repeats (seven times) that the board reached no decision whether college football players ever might be allowed to unionize.
Yet the rationale for the NLRB’s decision not to rule -- that team sports require common rules with leaguewide applicability, but the vast majority of colleges and universities with major football and other sports programs are public institutions not covered by the National Labor Relations Act -- makes it hard to envision that the NLRB would reconsider this issue anytime soon.
The board’s refusal to decide the merits averted what undoubtedly would have been an abrupt and enormous transformation of college sports. Athletic and other leaders at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame and Stanford University already had hinted at withdrawing from big-time athletics had their players been allowed to organize as employees. But the decision still leaves open at least two major and related issues at the center of current discussions of college sports reform:
How to give college players a direct voice in determining how they are treated. The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s member colleges and universities develop both institutional and national policies that govern what they think is the right experience for their athletes. But as former athlete Ramogi Huma, president of the College Athletes Players Association, observed, “How do they know? They haven’t asked the players.” If not through unionization, then some other regularized means must be developed, besides litigation, whereby college athletes can participate directly in the conversation about the rules that apply to their sports.
The existing campus model would be something akin to academic and staff councils, created to give official voice through elected representation to the concerns of constituents, and allow for formal recommendations to be made to the governance structure on their behalf. Some argue that this type of input is not enough.
In January, the NCAA began experimenting with actual student seats with full voting rights on bodies that determine policy. How well that will work and whether it will be considered enough remains to be seen. The College Athletes Players Association will not likely be satisfied with anything less than fully equal representation.
How to fairly shape the college athlete’s total experience. We emphasized “besides litigation” above because what we see as the second major issue -- how to allocate the skyrocketing revenue that players help produce in big-time college athletics and determine what players’ educational, health and financial aid experiences should be at all NCAA levels -- has already found its way into the courts in multiple ways. It is now a race to see if voluntary reforms can outpace litigated results.
In 2014, a California federal judge ruled in a class action brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon that NCAA regulations limiting players’ commercial rights to their own names and likenesses violated antitrust laws. The Ninth Circuit recently issued a stay on that decision until the full appeal can be heard. In the meantime, the Pac-12 conference proposed that the NCAA vote in January on a proposal that would allow athletes to use their names, images and likenesses to promote their own nonathletic business ventures. Two other antitrust claims addressing NCAA rules limiting athletic “grants in aid” are also making their way through the courts. The NLRB ruling cited the beginning of some scholarship reform within the NCAA as additional support for declining jurisdiction in the unionization fight.
The stakes are not small -- for athletes or their institutions. Northwestern’s program generated $30 million in the 2012-13 academic year from ticket sales, broadcast contracts, stadium rights and merchandise sales (not including football-inspired donations from alumni and others). And those numbers are at the lower end for institutions in the five most powerful football conferences or other conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision, all of whose revenues will continue to increase from their unprecedented long-term media rights contracts.
As those revenues have grown, colleges and universities have made ever greater demands on their athletes for more effort -- sometimes up to 40 or 50 hours per week in addition to their studies. And, in response, athletes are increasingly questioning whether athletic obligations are impeding their academic opportunities.
The Northwestern players had the chance to graduate debt-free -- an opportunity that many of their fellow students would envy. They were awarded scholarships estimated at $61,000 per year, covering their tuition, fees, books, and room and board -- but limited by the NCAA rules until recently to these items alone. For the first time this year NCAA rules permit athletic scholarships to cover the higher “full cost of attendance” at an institution, which is the value of a full need-based or academic scholarship.
In these circumstances it is not surprising that the NLRB regional director questioned the contention of NCAA and college and university officials that Northwestern football players are really students and not employees.
What may surprise is that the Northwestern athletes who brought the unionization petition did not ask for the opportunity to bargain for additional compensation or direct funding -- even though athletes throughout Division I have watched their institution’s additional revenues handsomely enhance coaches’ salaries, create new staff positions and support significant overhead across athletic departments. Rather, the Northwestern athletes sought an expansion of other benefits and protections related to the traditional view that college sports are as part of the athletes’ educational experiences (and consistent with their institutions’ tax-exempt purposes). They called for enhanced academic support, broader medical coverage for all sport-related injuries before and after graduation, measures to minimize and compensate for traumatic injuries, and guaranteed four-year scholarships to protect against involuntary ineligibility.
This concern with their overall college experience, and how it affects preparation for their future lives, resonates with athletes throughout the NCAA membership, not just those at the high-revenue institutions. But, to concerned athletes, the only avenues to pursue these issues seem to have been to ask to be declared employees -- rather than students competing as athletes -- or to bring other adversarial lawsuits under laws designed to regulate commercial economic activity. Whatever one thinks of collective bargaining as a process, that avenue now appears closed. But these issues will not soon go away.
The colleges and universities that make up the NCAA have little time to come to terms with the twin challenges we’ve raised; the search for meaningful solutions to the right treatment of athletes is now part of the terrain of college sports. And unless the college sports establishment can find the correct balance quickly, and provide athletes with a meaningful and continuing voice, these issues will most likely be decided outside of the academy -- with the potential to totally and suddenly upend the world of college sports in ways that may not well suit the college and university environment.
Christine Helwick is former general counsel for the California State University system and now advises college and university clients at Hirschfeld Kraemer. Jeffrey Orleans is former executive director of the Ivy League, which competes in the NCAA’s Division I, and now advises college and university clients at Hirschfeld Kraemer.
Submitted by Jake New on September 28, 2015 - 3:30am
Arizona State University has apologized and offered to cover the medical expenses of local councilman after the university's mascot, Sparky, injured the man by jumping on his back. The councilman, David Schapira, was still recovering from back surgery during last week's football game when Sparky playfully jumped on Schapira's back, resulting in a torn muscle. "ASU sincerely apologizes for Sparky's excessive exuberance at Friday night's game," the university told the local ABC affiliate.
Schapira recounted the incident on Twitter:
Finally home from the hospital! Here's what happened Friday that put me back in hospital 2 months after back surgery: pic.twitter.com/FGdpVli3x9