NCAA culture of impunity a threat to university life

In March 2010, LaMichael James was charged with menacing, strangulation, and assault of his ex-girlfriend. In February 2011, Darrell Williams was charged with rape and sexual battery. In December 2012, Michael Carter-Williams was charged with shoplifting. What do all of these cases have in common? Every one of these men is or was an NCAA athlete. Of these three cases, only one resulted in any significant punitive action (suspension for more than one regular season game) against the player by their athletics department. There is something seriously wrong with that.

As anyone glued to March Madness can attest, athletics are an integral part of the college experience. They are capable of bringing together the most disparate of groups, improving morale, and, as many of us felt post-Philadelphia, sending campuses into the deepest of despairs. In placing athletes on this pedestal, we demand that they achieve greatness. We demand championship trophies and Final Four appearances; otherwise we begin to question why we invested both our money and our emotions.

Due to this pressure, athletics departments seem willing to overlook their players’ legal transgressions. Both LaMichael James of University of Oregon, who was suspended for one game, and Michael Carter-Williams of Syracuse University, who paid the store’s required $500 fine, were not punished arguably because both were key players on their respective teams.

The above cases are not isolated incidents. According to investigative reporting done by John Benedict for Sports Illustrated in 2010, 7 percent of male college football players were found to be in trouble with the law either before or after they entered university. Most alarmingly, it was found that 40 percent were involved in violent crimes. The study also found that the number of incidents in college football and basketball were double the number of incidents in the NFL and NBA respectively.

The issue of NCAA athletes committing crimes is not new. In 1988-89, University of Oklahoma players were found guilty of a shooting, a gang rape, a robbery, and selling illegal drugs. As Nigel Clay, an OU player charged with gang rape said, “speaking for myself and a lot of other people, we felt like we were above the law, like OU would protect us from anything.” The school was slapped with a three-year probation by the NCAA, including a two-year ban on TV and bowl appearances and a reduction in scholarships by 30 percent.

In 2003, a Baylor University basketball player was found guilty of murdering his fellow teammate, and the program was found to have committed numerous NCAA violations. The coach was also caught on tape stating that he knew that the dead player had been threatened by his teammates. The NCAA responded by putting the university on probation until 2010, barring them from playing nonconference games for the ‘05 and ‘06 seasons, and reducing paid recruiting visits and scholarships.

These harsh but necessary sanctions justifiably caused a complete change in the culture at each of these schools. However, the fact that incidents like these still occur calls into question whether or not they serve to combat the larger culture of the NCAA. To be fair, the Steubenville rape trial demonstrates that cover-ups by athletics departments and coaches, as well as the unfounded sense of legal impunity, begin early on in sports. Players may enter into an NCAA program already feeling entitled.

Entering college only exacerbates the situation. College athletes receive a lot of special dispensation–they often have lower academic requirements for entrance, they get the first pick of classes, they are the first chosen for scholarships, and they often have a whole slew of tutors to help them academically. However, this sense of impunity doesn’t diminish when players are allowed to continue play even when charged with crimes, as was the case with LaMichael James; it is heightened. Setting this kind of example means that athletes think that they can get away with whatever they want.

At most universities, a student that has committed a crime also receives some form of punishment at the school, such as probation. Athletics departments are part of universities; as such they need to abide by university policy. Allowing players off scot-free when they’ve been charged with a crime is insulting to both the other students who are not athletes and to the institution as a whole.

Athletes are the ambassadors of our schools–they represent us on both the national and international stage. Thus, when they behave badly, it reflects poorly on both the individual and the institution. It is thus in the institution’s interest to ensure that each and every student-athlete adheres to the law. Because of this role, we should demand more, not less, of our student-athletes. If we as a nation are going to continue to idolize athletes, then we need to make sure that they are worth idolizing.

Fundamentally, creating an environment of impunity for college athletes carries over into their lives after college, whether they end up playing professional sports or not. When schools are found covering up crimes, the whole program is punished, which affects the school and the student body in general. Establishing ethical standards for players makes them better human beings and better members of the unviersity community.