For Immediate Release: October 9, 1998

For More Information Contact: TLPJ, 202-797-8600
TLPJ Motion
Previous Press Release

NCAA Admits Its Test Score Requirement Discriminates Against African-Americans and Less Discriminatory Alternatives Available

TLPJ Moves for Summary Judgment In Race Discrimination Suit Citing NCAA's Own Documents

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has admitted in a memo distributed to all of its Division I members that the test score requirement of its freshman eligibility rule discriminates against African American student-athletes and that less discriminatory alternatives are available -- including an alternative the NCAA's research group says is the most accurate method of selecting student-athletes who are academically successful. Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) moved for summary judgment in its national race discrimination class action against the NCAA this week, relying solely on the NCAA's admissions.

"Our lawsuit charges that the NCAA's fixed cut-off score has a discriminatory impact on African American student-athletes and that better, less discriminatory alternatives are available," said TLPJ lead counsel André Dennis of Philadelphia's Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP. "The NCAA, in its documents, has now admitted both charges. It's time for the NCAA to jettison its current rule and adopt one that's fair to African-Americans and all student-athletes."

The NCAA, which governs intercollegiate athletics, requires all potential student-athletes at major schools to achieve a particular score on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT) -- regardless of their academic records or scholastic achievements. In January 1997, TLPJ filed a race discrimination suit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia challenging the rule on behalf of two Philadelphia student-athletes who graduated in the top of their high school class. Both were originally recruited for track by numerous Division I schools. Despite their high school academic success, however, the recruiting abruptly changed -- and they were barred from competing as freshmen at Division I schools -- when they did not achieve the required SAT score.

The national class action lawsuit, Cureton v. NCAA, charges that the NCAA's minimum test score requirement violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, which prohibit race discrimination by educational institutions receiving federal funds. The suit seeks an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from using a cut-off score requirement and allowing all affected student-athletes to regain their lost year of athletic eligibility. A trial is currently scheduled to begin in May 1999, but, in a motion filed this week, TLPJ contended that no trial is needed because the NCAA has admitted the central charges in the case.

The current freshman eligibility rule, which went into effect on August 1, 1996, is known as "Proposition 16." On July 28, 1998, the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Initial Eligibility Rules circulated a memorandum on Proposition 16 to the Chief Executive Officers, Faculty Athletic Representatives, Directors of Athletics, Senior Women Administrators, and Compliance Coordinators of all NCAA Division I institutions (over 300 major colleges and universities) for comment. The memo summarized the NCAA's research on Proposition 16 and proposed three alternatives that would have both satisfied the NCAA's goal of increasing student-athlete graduation rates and reduced the racially discriminatory effects of Proposition 16.

The memo plainly states that "African-American and low income student-athletes have been disproportionately impacted by Proposition 16 standards," and that "the single largest reason for not meeting Proposition 16 standards was failure to meet the minimum standardized test score." The memo notes that Proposition 16 gives "twice" as much weight to student's test scores as to their grade point average. And it reports that, as a result, the "[p]reliminary enrollment data...show a drop in the proportion of African-Americans among first-year scholarship athletes in Division I from 23.6 percent to 20.3 percent (accompanied by a 2.0 percent increase in white student-athletes...)."

The memo also reports that "partial qualifiers" -- student-athletes who fail to achieve the minimum test score, but satisfy a less restrictive scale combining high school grades and test scores – academically performed as well as, or even better than, certain groups of student-athletes who were full qualifiers under Proposition 16. It says that "partial qualifiers look very similar in performance to several groups of student-athletes who are full qualifiers" and confirms that "[t]here is a two-to-one ratio of African American student-athletes to white student-athletes in the partial qualifier category." Under the NCAA's rules, "partial qualifiers" are barred from competing during their freshman year.

The memo proposed three alternatives to Proposition 16, all of which would reduce the discriminatory effect on African American student-athletes and still make the projected student-athlete graduation rate two to three percentage points "higher than the current student-athlete graduation rate." One of the proposed alternatives -- which has been recommended by the NCAA's independent research group -- would base eligibility on a full sliding scale of test scores and grades, without any cutoffs, so that higher performance in one area could compensate for lower performance on another. The head of that independent research group, Dr. John J. McArdle, concluded that this alternative rule would result in more accurate standards.

"We have said all along that the NCAA's minimum test score requirement is completely unjustified," said TLPJ staff attorney Adele Kimmel, co-counsel in the case. "Now that the NCAA itself admits that there are effective alternatives which reduce the discriminatory impact on African Americans, the only real question should be which alternative to adopt."

TLPJ's motion and the NCAA documents discussed above may be available later this afternoon on TLPJ's web site at: http://www.tlpj.org/briefs.

In addition to Dennis and Kimmel, TLPJ's legal team in Cureton v. NCAA includes Danielle Banks and Elizabeth R. Leong of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP., and J. Richard Cohen, Legal Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center.