Two important things happened last week in the college sports world that should concern anyone who cares about violence against women by athletes.
First, the NCAA announced it will convene another committee to study athlete violence, brought on by a petition signed by 157,000 people about not allowing violent athletes to play. Specifically, they will “consider developing legislation to address college athletes involved in reported incidents of sexual violence.”
On Saturday, a female student at the University of Florida decided she would not participate in a Title IX hearing adjudicating her report of rape by two star football players because the person presiding over the hearing is a wealthy and powerful booster of the University of Florida’s Athletic Department, a former University of Florida athlete, and also graduated law school from the University of Florida.
Not only that, but the University of Florida deemed it appropriate that this attorney, Jake Schickel, could determine to use the victim’s sexual history as a point of the hearing. This is prohibited under Title IX.
Does it seem like the two stories have an obvious connection and somehow miss alignment? That maybe one could affect the other?
Yes, it does. It is glaringly obvious that the booster represents a beyond obvious conflict of interest and the NCAA represents a glaringly obvious hole in their stated desire to end sexual assault by athletes.
The NCAA, whose revenue currently sits at $912 million, is the governing body of sports whose Board of Governors is comprised of college presidents and chancellors who most likely understand, from an economic and self-preservation perspective, Florida’s actions. The Board of Governors also make the rules and sanction institutions.
While the NCAA convenes yet another committee, will they now approve rules and sanctions for schools who use boosters and law enforcement to involve themselves in the investigatory process? That is a Title IX violation and yet numerous schools in conferences represented by the Governing Board operate under this model with NCAA impunity.
No NCAA investigation, no NCAA sanctions.
When I met with the NCAA six years ago in 2010, it was in reaction to a policy I proposed which mirrored Title IX. This policy was written two months prior to the OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter and sent to every member of the NCAA Board of Governors.
I was told the NCAA could not be state actors, adhering to due process and other rights under the Bill of Rights.
They rejected the proposal outright. Yet, I see some of the tenets of this proposal listed as discussion points for the new committee.
After the proposal was rejected, I was asked to participate in the Violence Prevention Summit in 2011. The focus of the summit turned to alcohol and its sponsorship in stadiums causing the widespread prevalence of sexual assault.
Will yet another committee of experts and administrators conclude that alcohol, not athlete perpetrators or athletic department intervention in the investigation, is the issue? Or that bystander intervention among teams is the best approach even as coach doles out punishments for such action against a teammate in violation of “team rules”?
To prevent violence, this new committee must address the university as enablers, the athletes as perpetrators and the athletic department as the powerful entity with the heavy hand of protection over its most celebrated resource ― football and basketball. This is within the NCAA’s purview. No state actor. No criminal investigation.
Currently, athletic departments provide pro bono attorneys for athletes in legal trouble. They provide them with public relations practitioners. They provide athletes with law enforcement intervention. They provide them and their families with money (NCAA rules violation). They even provide athletes with women (NCAA rules prohibit that, too).
In some cases, the male athletes have abused female athletes. By the way, the NCAA is charged to represent female athletes as well.
The Title IX Dear Colleague Letter says athletics must let athletes go through the normal process. So, the NCAA’s new committee will apparently review whether they will agree to enforce the points under this federal law.
At Baylor, football players did not go through the normal process. Not this week at Florida, either. In fact, I am challenged to recall when athletes of status and power went through the normal process required of college students’ non-athlete counterparts.
Athletic departments and member institutions can and should be investigated and sanctioned for their involvement in the investigation and adjudication of violence by athletes. We see the power of NCAA rules and sanctions all the time ― when a person buys a hungry athlete a cheeseburger, for example.
Apparently, providing attorneys, boosters, money and law enforcement intervention to circumvent criminal prosecution and/or Title IX is much less serious.