Critical Race Theory - Black Athletic Sporting Experiences in The Us

CRITICAL
BLACK ATHLETIC SPORTING EXPERIENCES
RACE
IN THE UNITED STATES
THEORY
Edited by
Billy J. Hawkins
Akilah R. Carter-Francique
Joseph N. Cooper
Black Athletic Sporting Experiences in the
United States
Billy J. Hawkins • Akilah R. Carter-Francique • Joseph N. Cooper
Editors
Black Athletic
Sporting Experiences
in the United States
Critical Race Theory
Editors
Billy J. Hawkins Joseph N. Cooper
Department of Health and Human University of Connecticut
Performance Storrs, Connecticut, USA
University of Houston
Houston, Texas, USA
Akilah R. Carter-Francique
Prairie View A&M University
Prairie View, Texas, USA
ISBN 978-1-137-60037-0 ISBN 978-1-137-60038-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60038-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016958843
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover illustration: © Aurora Photos / Alamy Stock Photo
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Nature America Inc.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
Foreword
Critical Race Theory and American Sport

This collection of papers by critical race scholars in the United States
emphasizes the potential of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in revealing and
dismantling the negative racial dynamics embedded in society. Sport is a
paradox of a phenomenon that at the same time as being trivial and seem-
ingly benign, its place in reproducing and resisting social relations makes
it incredibly serious and important. As the editors state, ‘race matters’;
hence where philosophies of merit and equity are sacrosanct in sport, its
radicalized dysfunctions retain grave implications for the rest of society.
Where these radicalized fractures exist in sport, they are likely to be worse
elsewhere, revealing a house of cards. A house that cannot be dismantled
by the ‘master’s tools’1 but by tools like CRT that can fashion something
that we all believe in and can live with. For many, CRT offers a pragmatic
intellectual standpoint on ‘race’ and racism reflective of the lived realities
of racialised actors and their allies in society.
There are few institutions in any society like college sport where racial
micro-aggressions play out in such a public fashion and are perpetuated
relatively unfettered. Myths of racial superiority and inferiority are con-
structed, defended and resisted by the proliferation of Black athletes and
those that do not reflect this burgeoning group in administrative and lead-
ership roles. Stereotypes prevail about the propensity of Black and ‘minori-
tised’ ethnic athletes’ physical abilities (strengths) and their intellectual/
leadership (weaknesses). Such is the public abhorrence of racism and the
significance of ‘race’ in society that it is often discrete and institutionalised
v
vi FOREWORD
behaviours that reinforce these practices rather than overt speech acts.
Sport, and collegiate sport at that, can therefore be viewed as a racial
formation, the result of racial processes that subjugate, subordinate and
exclude some while simultaneously empowering and privileging others.
This collection demonstrates that racial processes are complex, dynamic,
hegemonic, gendered and classed, the salience of each shifting in ambigu-
ous and variegated ways. Yet one thing that remains consistent and cen-
tral in these complex problematics is the centrality of ‘race’. As readers
explore this volume, they will see the local, national and international rel-
evance of this collection by Hawkins, Carter-Francique and Cooper. CRT
is reaching a new generation of activist scholars requiring of all of us to
rethink how we see sport in its many social contexts. The dissemination
of this work facilitates critical stories of ‘race’, racism and under-theorised
counter- stories that require serious consideration. Regardless of one’s
status, if readers are in positions to effect changes in their approach to
racialised sporting problematics, as advocated in Critical Race Theory and
American Sport, they should embrace the opportunity.
Critical Race Theory and American Sport is especially important at the
end of the second term of the first Black President of the United States.
Despite various claims in his first term, few really believe that we have a post-
racial, colourblind America/world because though change begins with one,
others must follow. In this edited collection, it is clear that vested interests,
personal and institutional politics lead to changes being much less straight-
forward and predictable than some might suggest. There are many in sport
and society who require more than a single symbolic shift to transform igno-
rance or bigotry. ‘Race’ and sport matter, and Critical Race Theory and
American Sport are likely to persuade readers that in the morass of ‘race’ and
racism in sport activist scholars are working terrifically hard to articulate and
finesse the challenges to understand and transform their impact.
Kevin Hylton
Carnegie Faculty
Leeds Beckett University,
Leeds, UK
FOREWORD vii
Note
1. Audre Lorde, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s
house,” In Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings.
Charles Lemert (Ed), 484–487 (Boulder, CO., Westview Press,
1979).
Bibliography
Lorde, Audre. 1979. The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.
In Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings. ed. Charles Lemert,
484–487. Boulder: Westview Press.
Contents
1 Introduction1
Billy Hawkins, Akilah Carter-Francique, and Joseph Cooper
Part I Theoretical Practices, Reform, and Advocacy9
2 Fraternal Twins: Critical Race Theory and Systemic

Racism Theory as Analytic and Activist Tools for
College Sport Reform11
John N. Singer, Anthony J. Weems, and Justin R. Garner
3 Interest Convergence: A Revolutionary Theory for

Athletic Reform57
Billy Hawkins
4 Converging Interest: Black Scholar-Advocacy

and the Black College Athlete85
Akilah Carter-Francique, Emmett Gill, and Algerian Hart
Part II Academic Experiences, Challenges, and Legislation121
ix
x Contents
5 Sports and Hip-Hop, the “Winning at All Costs”

Mentality: The Intersection of Academic Fraud
and Snitching on Black College Athletes123
Courtney Flowers and Jafus Kenyatta Cavil
6 Race and Racism: The Black Male Experience in Sports153

Wardell Johnson and Vanessa Prier Jackson
7 The Presence and Absence of Race: Ross v. Creighton

University171
Sarah K. Fields
8 NCAA Bylaw 12: The Double Standard of Promotion

and Suppression of Black Athlete Enterprise
and Entrepreneurship193
Markesha McWilliams Henderson
9 The Portrayal of Black Masculinity in the NFL: Critical

Race Theory and the Images of Black Males217
Drew D. Brown
10 Critical Race Theory and Intercollegiate Athletics at

Historically Black Colleges and Universities247
Joseph N. Cooper, Geremy Cheeks, and Jafus Kenyatta Cavil
11 Social Responsibility/Accountability Addressing

Constructs of Critical Race Theory279
Fritz G. Polite and Jeremai E. Santiago
Part III Athletic Representation and Leadership 295
12 Black Male Intercollegiate Athletic Administrators:

Ascending the Career Ladder297
Keith Michael Champagne
Contents xi
Part IV Best practices and leadership 315
13 Conclusion317
Billy Hawkins
Index321
Notes on Contributors
Drew D. Brown, Ph.D. is a scholar of race, gender and sport. He is currently an

African American Studies Visiting Scholar at the University of Houston. Prior to
that, he taught at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Brown studies a wide
range of topics surrounding the culture and existence of African people, both con-
tinental and diaspora. His current academic foci are Race and Sports and Black
masculinity. Here, he examines the construction of gender and identity through
contemporary social practices. Dr. Brown conceptualized the nation’s first annual
race and sports conference called ‘Passing the Ball.’ He has also been a professional
football player, university football coach and student-athlete academic adviser.
Akilah R. Carter-Francique, Ph.D. (Ph.D., University of Georgia) is an assistant
professor in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Prairie View A&M
University. To date, her research interests seek to explicate the intersections of
race/ethnicity and women in the contexts of sport & physical activity, education,
and health. Having a specific emphasis on Black girls and women, Carter-Francique
employs a critical interpretivist standpoint (e.g., Black feminist thought, Critical
Race Theory) to illuminate experiential marginalizations and promote social jus-
tice strategies to redress inequalities. Carter-Francique is the co-founder (with Dr.
Deniece Dortch) and director of Sista to Sista, a co-curricular leadership develop-
ment program designed to foster a sense of connectedness amongst Black female
college athletes. She is the co-editor of the Athletic Experience at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities: Past, Present, and Persistence.
Kenyatta Cavil, Ph.D. is currently an assistant professor and the Coordinator of
the Sport Management Program in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at
Texas Southern University, lecturing courses in test and measures statistics, sport
marketing and promotions, sport management and entertainment, administration
of sports and organization leadership and the history of HBCU (Historically Black
xiii
xiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
College and University) athletics and Africana Diaspora in Sports. He is one of the
preeminent voices on Historically Black College and University sport business
analysis and one of the preeminent scholars on HBCU sports culture theory,
HBCU Sports History, the HBCU Diaspora, sport business and leadership. He
has published research articles such as the Impact of Demographic Variables on
African-American Student athletes’ Academic Performance, completed commis-
sion studies such as HBCU (A Minimum of Nine, A Maximum of 12) Football
Reclassification & New HBCU FBS Conference Formation Study, and presenta-
tions such as Athletic Director’s Leadership Perception of Variable Determining
the Effectiveness of Administering HBCU Athletic Programs.
Keith Michael Champagne, Ph.D. serves as the Associate Dean for Student
Development at Central Washington University. He is responsible for providing
leadership, management and administrative oversight for several units and pro-
grams. He has spent the past 24 years working in student affairs, university athlet-
ics, and academic and student lives. He is a graduate of the prestigious Sports
Management Institute and he is a member of the Sports Lawyers Association. He
has completed the NACDA-NCAA Sports Management Institute. He has a bach-
elor of arts degree in Communications and Public Relations from Loyola
University, New Orleans, a master of science degree in Communications and
Media Management from Clarion University of Pennsylvania, and a doctorate in
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies with an emphasis in Intercollegiate
Athletic and Sports Management from the University of Washington.
Geremy Cheeks, Ph.D. is currently an assistant professor at Alabama A&M University
in the Department of Health & Physical Education. He obtained his baccalaureate
and master’s degrees in Business Administration from Florida A&M University in
Tallahassee, FL. His research and scholarship focuses on HBCU Athletics and reve-
nue generation disparities between HBCUs and historically White institutions of
higher education, predominantly based on his experience as a former intercollegiate
athletics administrator.
Joseph N. Cooper, Ph.D. is currently an assistant professor in the Department of
Educational Leadership (Sport Management Program) at the University of
Connecticut (UConn). Cooper’s research interests focus on the intersection
between race, sport and education. His current research agenda focuses on identi-
fying the key influences that facilitate positive educational and holistic develop-
ment outcomes for Black college athletes who attend HBCUs and historically
White colleges and universities (HWCUs). His research has been published in
interdisciplinary journals such as Race, Ethnicity and Education, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport, and Journal of Sport and Social Issues.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xv
Sarah K. Fields, J.D., Ph.D. is the Acting Associate Dean for Student Success and
an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver. Her research and
teaching focus largely on the intersection of sport and American culture, specifi-
cally examining issues of law, identity as well as injury. She is the author of Game
Faces: Sport Celebrity and the Laws of Reputation and Female Gladiators: Gender,
Law, and Contact Sport in America. She is the co-editor of Sport and the Law:
Historical and Cultural Intersections, and she has published over 50 articles in
journals as varied as JAMA Pediatrics, the Journal of Sport History, and the
International Journal of Sport Communication.
Courtney L. Flowers, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of Sport Management at
Texas Southern University. Her scholarship is grounded in exploring the sport
experiences of African American women from a sociocultural perspective focusing
on legal aspects, HBCUs, and online teaching and learning strategies. Additionally,
Dr. Flowers has held positions with the United States Golf Association, The First
Tee, the former National Minority Golf Foundation, and numerous junior golf
programmes. She has also served as an NCAA Division I senior academic advisor,
NCAA Life Skills/ CHAMPS coordinator, Athletic Tutor and Mentor manager
and a Student-Athlete Advisory Committee facilitator. Dr. Flowers holds member-
ships with the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, North American
Society for Sport Management and SHAPE America.
Justin R. Garner is a doctoral student in the Division of Sport Management at
Texas A&M University. His research interests are in the area of talent management
and social development in the context of the sport and entertainment industry
while employing the critical lens of anti-colonial thought. He received his M.S. in
Sport Management at Florida State University, where he also worked for Student-
Athlete Academic Services as a mentor, mainly working with high-profile Black
college athletes. Much of his work involves, but is not limited to, examining the
role of race and racism on the lived experiences of Black athletes and is concerned
with the development and management of primary stakeholders of popular sport
and entertainment.
Emmett Gill, Ph.D. currently serves as an assistant professor at the University of
Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) Department of Social Work. Prior to arriving at
UTSA, Dr. Gill worked at North Carolina Central University (NCCU), Rutgers
University, and the US Military Academy Center for Enhanced Performance,
where he supervised men’s and women’s basketball student-athletes with academic
and athletic performance enhancement. Dr. Gill is also the founder of the Student-
Athlete’s Human Rights Project (SAHRP)—a 501©4 organization dedicated to
social justice for student-athletes. Dr. Gill’s scholarship focuses on the intersection
between social work and athletics.
xvi NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Algerian Hart, Ph.D. is the Sport Management Graduate Coordinator in the

Kinesiology Department at Western Illinois University. Dr. Hart is the current
DCCC Interim Chair for the North American Association for the Sociology of
Sport. He serves on the National Board of Directors Education Foundation for
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. and was selected as the recipient for the 2014
College of Education and Human Services award for Internationalizing the
Campus at WIU. His research interests include leadership development designed
to empower marginalized populations across higher education and the plight of
NCAA-governed student-athlete matriculation.
Dr. Billy Hawkins, Ph.D. is a professor at the University of Houston in the
Department of Health and Human Performance. His teaching contributions are in
the areas of sociology of sport and cultural studies, sport management, and sport for
development at the undergraduate and graduate levels. His research focus is on racial
issues in the context of sport and physical activity. His recent book, The New Plantation:
Black Athletes and College Athletics, which received the Choice Award, examines the
experiences of Black male athletes in intercollegiate athletics. He has also co-authored
the book Sport, Race, Activism and Social Change: The Impact of Dr. Harry Edwards’
Scholarship and Service, which presents the research and service of scholars who have
been influenced by the scholarship, service and activism of Dr. Harry Edwards.
Markesha McWilliams Henderson, Ed.D. is Program Coordinator and Assistant
Professor of Sport Management at the University of West Georgia. In that role,
she contributes to the discovery, application and delivery of knowledge with spe-
cific expertise in college student development and intercollegiate athletics. Dr.
Henderson presents a unique combination of experiences to inform her work,
including experience as a former Division I All-American Track and Field Athlete
and National Champion and over ten years of professional experience in the sport
industry. She earned a Doctor of Education in Higher Education Administration
from The George Washington University. Her dissertation research examined the
career development experiences of Division I female student-athletes, and she con-
tinues to build a research agenda around student-athlete career development, role
conflict and post-competition transition.
Kevin Hylton, Ph.D. is Professor of Equality and Diversity in Sport, Leisure and
Education, Carnegie Faculty, Leeds Beckett University, UK. Kevin is the first Black
professor to hold this title. He was heavily involved in community sport develop-
ment in the 1980s–1990s and has worked with marginalised groups and represen-
tative equality bodies ever since. His research focuses on race equality in local
government and the nature and extent of ‘race’ and racism in sport, leisure and
education. Kevin has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and high-
profile book projects. He authored the first book internationally on critical race
theory ‘Race’ and Sport: Critical Race Theory (Routledge 2009) and is currently
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xvii
writing Contesting ‘Race’ and Sport: Shaming the Colour Line for Routledge. Kevin
is Board Member for the International Review for the Sociology of Sport (IRSS) and
the new Journal of Global Sport Management. He is Patron of the Equality
Challenge Unit’s Race Equality Charter and Chair of the Leeds Beckett University
Race Equality and Diversity Forum.
Vanessa P. Jackson, Ph.D. is chair of the department of Retailing and Tourism
Management at the University of Kentucky. She has served as chair for two years
and is a member of the faculty of records committee for the Honors program at
the university. Dr. Jackson also serves as the editor of the International Textile and
Apparel Association newsletter. Her research interests are athlete preparation and
success in college and soft skills identification for student success. The results of
her research would help academicians and industry leaders create strategies to
enhance students’ productivity in the world of work regardless of their chosen
disciplines. Dr. Jackson received her master’s and Ph.D. from Michigan State
University in Human Environment: Design and Management in 1998.
Wardell Johnson, Ph.D. is an associate professor of sport management at Eastern
Kentucky University. His research interest centres on his dissertation of the plight
of Black male student athletes, particularly those attending predominately White
institutions of higher education. Having graduated from an HBCU, he has wit-
nessed firsthand this plight and how it has negatively influenced the Black male
student athlete and HBCUs.
Fritz G. Polite, Ph.D. is the Chair of the Management Science Division and
Director of the Sport Management Program, at The Harry F. Byrd Jr., School of
Business at Shenandoah University (VA). He has over 30 years of experience in
business, sports, management, coaching and teaching to include 19 years of inter-
national experience. His primary research focus is in the area of sociocultural
aspects of sport, including leadership, hiring practices, race, gender and diversity.
His secondary line of research is in the area of brand and vertical extension. He has
published in respected journal outlets, including The Marketing and Management
Journal, Sport Marketing Quarterly, The Spanish Marketing Journal, Public
Administration Review, Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, and The
Harvard University W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African American Research. Dr.
Polite earned his Ph.D. in Sport Administration from The Florida State University,
his master’s degree in Public Administration from Troy State University (Alabama)
and bachelor’s degree in Management from Simpson College (Iowa).
Jeremai ‘J’ Santiago Sr. is the Assistant Director of Learning Resources and
Services and Learning Enrichment Coach, in the Division of Enrollment
Management and Student Success, at Shenandoah University (VA). Santiago is
working towards earning his Ed.D. in Organizational Leadership from Shenandoah
University. He has graduated with a master of science degree in Organizational
xviii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Leadership from Shenandoah University (VA) and a bachelor’s degree in Media

Arts from Wesley College (DE).
John N. Singer, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Sport Management in the
Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University. His research has
focused broadly on diversity and social justice in society and sport, and more spe-
cifically, on the applications of race-based epistemologies to the study of Black
males in college sport organizations. His interdisciplinary research seeks to address
some of the following questions: How does race and racism fit into and inform
discussions of diversity (management)? How are societal race relations reproduced
in the academy and in sport organizations? How do organizational dynamics con-
tribute to the maintenance of racial privilege and subordination? How do race,
racial identity and racism affect the organizational experiences of marginalized
groups? He received his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University.
Anthony Weems is a doctoral student in the Division of Sport Management at
Texas A&M University. He studies issues of race, gender, class, power and politics
in sport and sport organizations in the United States and beyond. With a primary
theoretical emphasis in systemic racism, his studies generally interrogate the White
male power structure, particularly through the lens of the theoretical concept of
the White racial frame. Focused on critiquing institutionalized White masculinity,
much of his research is based on deconstructing the current sporting world and its
dominant framing while also contributing to new conceptualizations of sport and
sport management.
List of Figure
Fig. 2.1 CRT and SRT Comparison 28
xix
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Student protests 63

Table 3.2 Media revenue as of 2012 69
Table 4.1 Percentage of full-time faculty based on race, sex, and rank 89
Table 13.1 Racial demographics percentages at NCAA Division
I: revenue-generating vs non-revenue-generating
sports (2014–2015) 319
Table 13.2 Power Five conferences racial demographics percentages
in revenue-generating sports 319
xxi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Billy Hawkins, Akilah Carter-Francique,
and Joseph Cooper
Although elated from the symbolic empowerment that two-term elected

President Barack Obama provided, substantive changes in improving racial
relations and equality lack considerably. Upon his initial election, the expec-
tation was hopeful, yet at the close of a chapter in US history in 2016 during
the sunset of this nation’s first Black president, many Blacks are left wanting.
The celebratory outlook we had during his first election lingered until his
second term, till the increased racial tension and violence against Black spe-
cifically in the USA caused us to question the significance of having a Black
face in high place, according to the late Manning Marable. At a time when
B. Hawkins ( )
Department of Health and Human Performance, University of Houston,
Houston, TX, 77004, USA
e-mail: hjbilly@uh.edu
A. Carter-Francique
Health and Kinesiology, Prairie View A&M University,
Prairie View, TX, 77446, USA
J. Cooper
Department of Educational Leadership, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT, 06269, USA
© The Author(s) 2017 1

B.J. Hawkins et al. (eds.), Black Athletic Sporting Experiences in the
United States, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60038-7_1
2 B. HAWKINS ET AL.
this country could have embraced the hope of racial inclusion and prog-
ress toward a postracial society, we have witnessed a rise in racial crimes and
lenient or no punishment to the perpetrators of these violent crimes.
Clearly, the increase in racial tension and violence is not solely a US
phenomenon. In 2006, a United Nations expert noted that racial discrim-
ination is on the rise around the world.1 Whether they are immigration
issues, generalizations and misdiagnosis of all Muslims as terrorists or the
acts of genocide that have touched most major continents in the world,
they all denote the prevalence of race as a determining factor in social
interaction throughout the global community.
Within the context of the USA, the following list of victims and the dates
that they were murdered on denote the significance of race in this country:
• Keith Lamont Scot—Charlotte, North Carolina (September 20, 2016)

• Terrence Crutcher—Tulsa, Oklahoma (September 17, 2016)
• Charleston 9—Charleston, South Carolina (June 17, 2015)
• Walter Scott—North Charleston, South Carolina (April 4, 2015)
• Eric Courtney Harris—Tulsa, Oklahoma (April 2, 2015)
• Antonio Martin—Berkeley, Missouri (December 23, 2014)
• Jordan Baker—Houston, Texas (December 15, 2014)
• Rumain Brisbon—Phoenix, Arizona (December 2, 2014)
• Tamir Rice—Cleveland, Ohio (November 22, 2014)
• Tanisha Anderson—Cleveland, Ohio (November 12, 2014)
• Dante Parker—Victorville, California (August 12, 2014)
• Ezell Ford—Los Angeles, California (August 11, 2014)
• Michael Brown—Ferguson, Missouri (August 9, 2014)
• John Crawford—Beavercreek, Ohio (August 5, 2014)
• Eric Garner—Staten Island, New York (July 17, 2014)
• Ronald Singleton—New York City (July 13, 2014)
• D’Andre Berghardt, Jr.—Las Vegas, Nevada (February 14, 2014)
• Renisha McBride—Dearborn Heights, Michigan (November 2, 2013)
• Jordan Davis—Jacksonville, Florida (November 23, 2012)
• Trayvon Martin—Stanford Florida (February 26, 2012)
This abbreviated list is a reminder that race still matters in this country.
It is hard to prove that race was the single motivating factor that ultimately
ended the lives of these victims, but it is also hard to deny that racial condi-
tioning was not a prerequisite to these murders. These are just a few of the
recent racially charged assassinations that captured this nation’s attention,
INTRODUCTION 3
some fostering peaceful protests, while others provoking disorderly behav-

ior, due to the justice system’s inability to bring to justice the perpetrators
of the offenses (e.g. Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown).
One of the tenets that undergird critical race theory (CRT) is the notion
that race matters and is an enduring reality in American life, especially in the
lives of Blacks. It is ordinary and is almost consistently prevalent in the daily
experiences of many people of color. The social structuring of race and the
psychic conditioning it induces often culminate in lives lost at the hands of
perpetrators, infected by the strain of racism; knowingly and unknowingly.
As mentioned previously, despite reaching a point in our history where we
have a “Black” president serving two terms, this nation is still racially polar-
ized and plagued by strains of racism, thus warranting it a necessary subject
of inquiry.
Within the context of sport, despite the presence and predominance of
Blacks in sport, dominant racial ideologies are reflected and reinforced. For
example, when one examines intercollegiate athletics, especially among
the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conferences, one can easily conclude
that this multibillion-dollar commercial enterprise occupies a certain space
within American culture. What is often overlooked is that football and
men’s basketball generate revenues on the scale of major corporations at
predominantly White National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA),
Division I Institutions (PWIs),2 and the athletic labor force is predomi-
nantly Black males. Yet, the conference commissioners, athletic directors,
and coaches, who command salaries similar to those of CEOs of Fortune
500 companies, are predominantly White males.
Recently, the economic motives of intercollegiate athletic programs
and academic indiscretions have unveiled behaviors that stand to tarnish
the images of institutions of higher education (e.g. University of North
Carolina, Ohio State, University of Miami, University of Tennessee, etc.)
and reinforce racial stereotypes about the intellectual inabilities of Black
males, who were the subjects at the core of these indiscretions. These acts
of imprudence have elicited reform from several fronts, such as faculty,
university presidents, external stakeholders and so on. Amidst these heated
debates of reform and amateurism being contested in the US courts, inter-
collegiate athletics itself remains a contested terrain where race and racism
are critical issues often absent in the public discourse.
This volume will provide a manifesto for examining race and racism in
sport using CRT. It specifically intends to use CRT to examine sporting
practices in the USA. The ultimate goal is to examine the crucial role race
4 B. HAWKINS ET AL.
occupies in sporting practices and how sport has been and continue to be
a platform that reflect and reinforce ideas about race, as well as a platform
where resistance is forged against dominant racial ideologies.
The chapters in this volume predominantly address issues related to
intercollegiate athletics and PWIs in the USA. However, the application
of CRT has also been useful in examining professional sports, specifically
the National Football League (NFL) and Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) experience. Moreover, the chapters of this book are
organized into four distinct yet interrelated themes.
The first theme of the book highlights “Theoretical Practices, Reform,
and Advocacy” in Chaps. 2, 3, and 4. In Chap. 2, Singer, Garner, and
Weems discuss the similarities and differences between CRT and systemic
racism theory (SRT) with a keen focus on how the intersection of these
two theories provides important insights into reform efforts for the cur-
rent structure of big-time college sports in the USA. Using both theories,
the authors present historical and contemporary evidence of racism in col-
lege sport as well as outline activist agendas informed by each theory.
In Chap. 3, Hawkins explores the viability of the interest convergence
tenet of CRT as a revolutionary tool for college sport reform. Within
this chapter, Hawkins offers a historical overview of college sport reform
efforts and draws attention to the effectiveness of various grassroots strat-
egies employed by students engaged in sociopolitical activism beyond
athletic-related issues. Interest convergence is presented as bargaining
mechanism whereby Black college athletes can leverage their power to
alter the conditions imposed upon them by the NCAA and its member
institutions.
In Chap. 4, Carter-Francique, Gill, and Hart shift the focus of CRT and
athletic reform to Black sport scholars’ advocacy of Black college athletes
at predominantly White institutions of higher education (PWIHE). Black
sport scholars at PWIHE who engage in activism are in a precarious situation
where their aspirations to generate positive change for Black college athletes
conflict with the dominant status quo at their respective employer institu-
tions. The authors use CRT to explore the complex relationship between
the institutional priorities at PWIHE, Black college athletes, and Black sport
scholars. Within this analysis, the authors offer practical strategies for Black
sport scholars to consider when pursuing their activist agendas.
The second theme of the book addresses “Academic Experiences,
Challenges, and Legislation” in Chaps. 5, 6 and 7. In Chap. 5, Flowers
and Cavil dissect the academic fraud scandal at the University of North
INTRODUCTION 5
Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) using CRT and explore the role of
race and racism in how Black college athletes were implicated, disad-
vantaged, and exploited. Within their analysis, the authors incorporate
sociocultural perspectives to highlight the problematic nature of the mass
media’s portrayal of the Black college athletes involved versus the insti-
tutional leaders (coaches, faculty, staff, and athletic administrators) who
were responsible for creating a fraudulent academic culture.
In Chap. 6, Johnson and Jackson examine the impact of the pervasive
myth of innate Black athletic superiority in US society. In particular, the
authors utilize CRT to juxtapose the enrollment and athletic success of
Black athletes at PWIs and HBCUs with concurrent lower graduation
rates among this same subgroup compared to their athlete peers.
In Chap. 7, Fields explores the legal implications of the Kevin Ross v.
Creighton University lawsuit. Kevin Ross, a former Creighton basketball
player, sued the university for educational malpractice, arguing that they
failed to provide him with quality education during his college tenure.
After four years at Creighton, it was determined that Ross’s reading level
was equivalent to a seventh grader and his language skills were at a fourth-
grade level. Fields employs CRT to debunk the myth of colorblindness
and racial equity within the US judicial system. More specifically, Fields
explains how the explicit omission of race in the case proceedings reflects
the perpetuation of racial stratification in the USA.
The third theme of the book focuses on “Athletic Representation and
Imagery,” as it pertains to Black athletes, control of their images, and mass
media (Chaps. 8 and 9). In Chap. 8, McWilliams-Henderson explores
the impact of NCAA’s amateurism policies, which limit college athletes’
ability to earn financial profits from their images during their collegiate eli-
gibility. McWilliams-Henderson utilizes CRT to argue how these policies
have a disparate impact on Black college athletes and serve as a detriment
to their career development, entrepreneurship, and financial sustainability.
In Chap. 9, Brown incorporates CRT in his examination of how the
NFL perpetuates White supremacy by promoting stereotypical images of
Black masculinity. Brown argues that the NFL promotes Black masculinity
as violent, anti-intellectual, and self-serving in order to benefit the league’s
capitalist intentions. The author asserts this imagery is not fortuitous but
rather intentionally constructed to reinforce dominant racial ideologies
which portray Black males as mindless athletic gladiators.
The fourth and final theme of the book presents “Best Practices and
Leadership” in Chaps. 10, 11 and 12. In Chap. 10, Cooper, Cavil, and
6 B. HAWKINS ET AL.
Cheeks apply a CRT lens to outline how systemic racism permeates the
macro-, meso-, and micro-level challenges facing HBCUs and their ath-
letic programs. The authors draw parallels between inequitable struc-
tural arrangements and racist practices in the broader USA (e.g. limited
access to quality educational opportunities, health care, housing, legal
justice, etc.) with the organizational policies within the NCAA that dis-
advantage HBCU athletic programs. In response to these unfavorable
circumstances, the authors offer Ten Pillars for Active Engagement for
Sport Leadership and Administration in Creating Athletic Organizational
Success and Sustainability for autonomy governance and a secession plan
from the NCAA as recommendations for enhanced financial stability, cul-
tural empowerment, and institutional integrity.
In Chap. 11, Polite and Santiago incorporate CRT to critique the orga-
nizational legitimacy of the NCAA’s treatment of Black college athletes
and present corporate social responsibility as a means to increase account-
ability to this subgroup of college athletes and additional stakeholders.
Drawing from the business literature, the authors surmise that the NCAA
must adopt racially conscious initiatives in order to maintain legitimacy
as athletic-educational business enterprise designed to benefit “student”
athletes’ overall development.
In Chap. 12, Champagne utilizes CRT and social cognitive career
theory (SCCT) to examine factors related to the underrepresentation of
Blacks in leadership positions within the NCAA and at PWIHE. In par-
ticular, Champagne focuses on understanding how current Black athletic
administrators experience career mobility in a system designed to reward
and support White males. The author concludes the chapter with recom-
mendations for how to increase racial diversity among leadership positions
at the intercollegiate level.
NOTES
1. “Racism and racial discrimination.” UN News Centre. http://www.
un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17718#.VqmMCzYxf-Q
(accessed January 15, 2016).
2. PWI’s will be used in referring to the predominantly White NCAA
Division I institutions. More specifically, those institutions that make
up the eleven BCS conferences: Atlantic Coast Conference, Big East
Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Conference
USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference, Pac-
10 Conference, Southeastern Conference, Sun Belt Conference and
Western Athletic Conference.
INTRODUCTION 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Racism and Racial Discrimination. 2016. UN News Centre. http://www.un.org/
apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17718#.VqmMCzYxf-Q. Accessed 15 Jan
2016.
PART I
Theoretical Practices, Reform, and

Advocacy
CHAPTER 2
Fraternal Twins: Critical Race Theory

and Systemic Racism Theory as Analytic
and Activist Tools for College Sport Reform
John N. Singer, Anthony J. Weems, and Justin R. Garner
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the striking similarities between critical race the-
ory (CRT) and systemic racism theory (SRT), and how they can be used
in tandem to further understand and address Black athletes’ educational
rights and college sport reform in the USA. The idea for this chapter was
conceived from multiple conversations we have had with noted sociolo-
gist, race scholar, and author of the book Systemic Racism: A Theory of
Oppression, Joe Feagin. In particular, it was during a doctoral dissertation
defense in 2014 for a student whose committee both Feagin (as chair)
and Singer served on when Feagin suggested CRT and SRT are very close
relatives and acknowledged that both frameworks are rooted in the Black
J.N. Singer ( )
Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, USA
e-mail: singerjn@tamu.edu
A.J. Weems • J.R. Garner
Division of Sport Management, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, USA

12 J.N. SINGER ET AL.
radical intellectual tradition of scholars and activists who fought against

racial oppression and injustice in the USA.1 We concur with Feagin that
CRT and SRT are indeed close relatives, but we take the metaphor a bit
further and suggest they are really like “fraternal twins” because although
they originated from separate eggs (i.e., CRT from law/legal studies and
SRT from sociology) and each might have some slightly distinctive fea-
tures, these siblings were birthed from the same womb and share the same
intellectual DNA. Moreover, they both focus squarely on the interroga-
tion of race, racism, and White supremacy2 in American social institutions.
Our decision to specifically apply CRT and SRT to Black athletes’
rights and college sport reform is rooted in the belief that race, racism,
and White supremacy are central to this topic today. Although college
sport reform has been an issue since the beginning of college sport in
the 1850s, the mass integration of Black athletes into the athletic pro-
grams at historically White institutions of higher education (HWIHE)
after 1970 forever changed the landscape and economic reality of these
institutions. This influx of Black athletic talent, particularly in football and
basketball, sets the stage for the hyper-commercialism of college sport and
full-scale emergence of what social theorist Earl Smith referred to as the
“athletic industrial complex.”3 According to Richard Lapchick and col-
leagues’ 2014 Racial and Gender Report Card (RGRC) for college sport,
Black athletes represented over half the participants in Division I Football
Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football, and men’s and women’s basketball at
HWIHE. And today, as was the case when they first integrated, Black
athletes most often play the leading role in these high-profile, revenue-
producing football and men’s basketball programs,4 which serve as the
economic engine of the athletic department.
Since integration, rhetoric on what some reformers consider to be the
competing institutional logics (i.e., human development vs. commercial
development) between these institutions and their athletic departments
has intensified. We emphasize “some reformers consider” because we
acknowledge that many of these institutions embrace an academic capi-
talistic model similar to their athletic departments, where the focus across
the broader university is more on commercial development and revenue
generation than on student development. But nonetheless, the emergence
of academic capitalism5 as the dominant logic in athletic departments at
many HWIHE has led to increased attention to college sport reform from
various reform-minded groups and individuals. However, the vast major-
ity of these reform efforts give little to no attention to the issue of race.
FRATERNAL TWINS: CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND SYSTEMIC RACISM THEORY... 13
To be sure, some scholars, activists, and educators, particularly from

the Black community, have highlighted or focused on race and the edu-
cational rights and plight of the Black athlete in discussing college sport
reform issues. The pioneering work of prominent sociologist and scholar-
activist Harry Edwards during the latter part of the civil rights era and
beyond certainly helped set the tone for others to examine this issue from
a critical race-based perspective.6 As an example, the collection of essays
in Dana Brook’s and Ronald Althouse’s three editions (i.e., 1993, 2000,
and 2013) of the edited book Racism in College Athletics has made impor-
tant contributions to the discussion on race, racism, and White suprem-
acy in college sport. Another example is Billy Hawkin’s book, The New
Plantation, which draws parallels between colonialism, American slavery,
and the structural arrangement of big-time college sport to shed light on
the exploitation of Black athletes, and offers suggestions for meaningful
race-based reform.7
In this chapter, we utilize CRT and SRT as complementary frameworks
to further build upon this important work on race, Black athletes’ rights,
and college sport reform. In line with SRT in particular, we intention-
ally and unapologetically focus on the history and continued legacy of
White male patriarchy, power, and privilege and how elite White males
(i.e., those from the upper-middle and owning social classes who rep-
resent the overwhelming majority of the leaders and power brokers in
the major institutions and organizations in US society)8 are the primary
source and main culprits responsible for racism and other forms of oppres-
sion and problems in college sport. We contend the current structural
arrangements and the policies and rules of the National College Athletic
Association (NCAA) and other White-controlled college sport organiza-
tions relegate Black athletes in revenue-generating sports in particular, and
their athlete peers in other sports more generally, to the lower rungs of the
social class order in college sport. Therefore, in line specifically with CRT,
we centralize the experiences of Black athletes as a way to ultimately better
understand and address the oppression that impacts all college athletes.
As Harry Edwards has maintained for decades now, “what happens to the
subjugated racial minority in the nominally integrated and systematically
exploitive system does not just happen to them; it just happens to them
first and worst. Ultimately, it negatively influences the fate and fortunes of
all who share a comparable position with that minority.”9
With this in mind, the remainder of the chapter will focus on a few
things.
First, we provide a historical background on the college sport reform

movement. We touch on the early beginnings of reform efforts dating all
the way back before the founding of the NCAA, and then focus on reform
efforts post-integration of Black athletes into HWIHE.
Second, we provide an overview of both CRT and SRT, and the inter-
secting tenets of these frameworks. Third, we discuss how both CRT and
SRT can be used to further analyze the multilevel aspects of White racism
in college sport, and briefly highlight the activist agenda of each and its
applicability to college sport reform efforts. Finally, our chapter concludes
with some implications for research and reform efforts going forward.
OVERVIEW: HISTORY OF COLLEGE SPORT REFORM

As mentioned above, since the inception of American college sport, calls
for reform have been present. In a sociohistorical overview of academic
reform in NCAA, cultural historian Michael Oriard stated that the era of
academic reform did not begin until the 1980s, but criticisms about the
priorities and practices in college sport date back to the very first college
sport events where the eligibility of one of the participants in a Harvard
and Yale Regatta race in the 1850s was called into question.10 As college
sport expanded and became more commercialized, student control over
the growing enterprise significantly declined and the management of col-
lege sport was eventually taken over by university administrators, faculty,
and alumni. The issue of eligibility continued to be a concern, but safety
issues in football are what prompted the establishment of the NCAA as the
first and most prominent national governing body in college sport.
The NCAA officially came into existence in the first decade of the 1900s
with the primary goal to establish institutional control and order. By this
time, football had become the most popular and financially viable sport
on major college campuses, and the reform discourse was emphasizing
the issues of eligibility, commercialism, amateurism, professionalism, and
education. The 1929 Carnegie Foundation Report by Howard Savage
has been widely considered the first real landmark effort in college sport
reform. According to Michael Oriard, the primary focus of the report
was on the commercially driven recruitment and subsidization of college
football players and how this helped create a conflict between athletics
and academics. These issues became even more pronounced in the ensu-
ing years and decades as the NCAA for the first time took on enforcement
powers in the 1940s, introducing the “Sanity Code,” which was a set of
principles focusing on academic standards and eligibility. However, shortly

after the Sanity Code was approved in the late 1940s, it was jettisoned a
few years later and replaced in 1952 with an NCAA 12-point code that
addressed issues related to professionalism and the academic welfare of
college athletes.
Michael Oriard discussed how the 1950s ushered in a new era in big-
time college sport, describing it as an era rife with scandal (e.g., point-
shaving, cheating, slush funds, etc.), particularly in football and basketball.
He also discussed how this time period was when schools decided whether
or not to emphasize football, the athletic scholarship was introduced, and
the NCAA created different divisions. This eventually led to the separation
of major athletic powers that emphasized football from those programs that
deemphasized football or eliminated it altogether. Another important event
not mentioned by Oriard was the NCAA’s strategic decision, under the
leadership of executive director, Walter Byers to create the term “student-
athlete.” Doing so allowed the NCAA to protect their tax-exempt status
as a nonprofit organization, and guard against college athletes being con-
sidered by law to be employees. It also allowed the NCAA to defend the
notion of what some critics have termed the “myth” of amateurism in big-
time college sport.11
These events in the 1950s along with the invention of television helped
ignite the rise of the academic capitalist model of college sport we see
today, where the approach to university governance focuses on the finan-
cial “bottom line.” According to athletes’ rights advocate, Allen Sack, a
major assumption of the academic capitalist model is that athletes are ama-
teurs engaging in sports as an avocation. The quote below by Sack further
illuminates the central assumption of the academic capitalist mindset that
was born out of this era:
Amateurism, according to Myles Brand, ‘defines the participants, not the

enterprise,’ meaning that the amount of revenue generated by college
sports, even if this revenue comes from the same sources as those used by
professional leagues and franchises, is totally irrelevant when it comes to
differentiating amateur and professional sports…The difference lies with
whether the athletic participants are paid, and from the perspective of aca-
demic capitalism, for which Brand is a key spokesperson, athletic scholar-
ships do not constitute ‘pay for play’.12
In essence, many of the academic reforms proposed by the NCAA in the

1960s going forward were rooted in this academic capitalist philosophy.
For example, the NCAA’s 1.600 rule was established in 1965 and required
incoming athletes to have a predicted freshman grade point average (GPA)
of 1.6 and maintain it during their college career in order to receive financial
aid. Although the rule was eventually voted out in 1973 and replaced with
the 2.0 rule, interestingly enough, it was during this time that freshman
eligibility to participate was reinstated and Black athletes (many with inad-
equate academic preparation coming out of high school) were beginning to
integrate in large numbers into these athletic programs at HWIHE. This 2.0
rule required athletes to only achieve a 2.0 throughout high school to be
eligible to play in college. Oriard argued this rule essentially opened up col-
lege athletics to anyone with a high school diploma and redefined “student-
athletes” as “athlete-students.” In addition, he noted that 1973 marked the
period when sociological research revealed the pre-college academic profile
and college graduation rates of athletes were beginning to greatly decline.
It was not until the mid-1980s when the next major rule change involving
academic standards and athlete eligibility would be established.
It has been widely reported that the late, former Penn State head football
coach, Joe Paterno’s statement at the 1983 NCAA convention urging the
White sport establishment to quit exploiting young Black athletes for their
physical prowess served as the impetus for the controversial Proposition 48
rule. This rule required athletes to have taken 11 core courses in the areas of
English, math, social sciences, and physical sciences in high school, achieved
a C average or 2.0 GPA, and earned a score of at least a 700 on the scholastic
aptitude test (SAT) or 15 on the American College Test (ACT). Interestingly,
although a lot of people in the Black community opposed this rule (par-
ticularly the standardized test score requirements) because they felt it had a
disparate impact on Black athletes, Harry Edwards suggested at the time that
the rule was really more about class bias than it was race bias or a desire of
HWIHE to intentionally deny Black athletes access. He essentially argued the
bigger issue was an American educational system (PreK-12 through higher
education) that set standards too low, and a failure on the part of this system
and actors within it to properly prepare Black and other students for produc-
tive lives as citizens in American society and throughout the world.13
This controversy with Proposition 48 (and Proposition 42, which
denied financial aid to partial qualifiers such as those with the requisite
GPA or SAT, but not both) eventually led to the implementation of
Proposition 16 in the first part of the 1990s. This rule created a sliding
scale based on the student GPA and SAT score, and allowed for a lower
test score if the GPA was high enough. It also increased the number of
high school core courses required for eligibility to participate in college

sport. This rule was also supposedly meant to create transparency and
accountability for the admission, academic progress, and graduation
rates of college athletes. According to Oriard, the impetus for this rule
was created during the “Reform Convention” of 1991 when the Knight
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics was formed and issued its first of
3 reports proposing specific reforms and more broadly calling on college
and university presidents to assert more control as it relates to academic
integrity, financial integrity, and accountability through certification.
Since the formation of the Knight Commission, other academic reforms
have been advanced and several other reform groups (e.g., The Drake
Group, Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, and College Athletes Rights
and Empowerment) have emerged to address issues of academics, student
welfare, fiscal responsibility, commercialization, and governance, among
others. In regard to academic reforms, of particular note is the academic
progress rate (APR). Created and implemented in 2005 supposedly out
of concern for the graduation rates and athlete preparation for life after
college sport, the APR has been described as a term-to-term measure-
ment of the eligibility and retention of Division I college athletes. The
NCAA penalizes athletic teams for failure to ensure athletes are making
satisfactory progress toward graduation. In describing the APR as the lat-
est and current mechanism in academic reform, Oriard briefly summarized
that academic standards of today are governed by initial eligibility rules
(which have changed some since Proposition 16), by the APR (mandating
academic progress that leads to roughly a 50 % graduation success rate
(GSR)), and by a supposed limit on athletic participation to 20 hours a
week in season and 8 hours a week out of season. He further discussed the
many issues and concerns various reform groups and individuals, includ-
ing himself, have raised in recent years about these standards:
• “SAT Gaps” between athletes and non-athletes (i.e., athletes had

significantly lower scores)
• Disparity between mandated time commitments to athletic par-
ticipation and actual full-time commitments athletes devote to it
(i.e., athletes put in way more hours than the NCAA allows)
• A low minimum APR standard
• Lower APR scores for football and men’s basketball compared to
other sports
• Lower APR scores for Black athletes than for White
• The need for athletes to choose a major immediately rather than

exploring options
• Pressure by academic support staff to “cluster” athletes into less-
challenging majors (i.e., major in eligibility)
• Commercial development emphasis encourages athletic departments
to recruit best athletes and keep them eligible regardless of pre-
college academic preparation
• Failure of the current system to truly educate athletes, particularly
Black football and basketball players
In the conclusion to his article, Oriard posed the question, how can
the historical framework he laid out help us think about the prospects
of academic reform? In a response article, respected lawyer and business
professor Kenneth Shropshire asserted that there is a need for a more criti-
cal and explicit examination of how increased participant diversity coin-
cided with and influenced the link between the growing commercialism
in college sport and calls for academic reform. He further pondered the
question of what we might learn from a fully integrated historical discus-
sion of the path to reform incorporating people of color and other his-
torically underrepresented and marginalized groups (e.g., women, people
with disabilities, etc.). In reiterating the need for a deeper exploration into
this diversity issue, Shropshire suggested he was not quite sure how we
might achieve this end. We agree with Shropshire that deeper discussions
of diversity are needed in the college sport reform discourse, and reiterate
that an explicit focus and sustained engagement with race in particular has
been, with a few exceptions, missing from the college sport reform dis-
course. In this regard, our focus on CRT and SRT addresses Shropshire’s
call for a deeper exploration into this issue. In the next section, we provide
an overview of CRT and SRT and their intersecting tenets.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND SYSTEMIC RACISM THEORY:

THEORETICAL BEDFELLOWS
CRT is an academic and activist movement that emerged from the critical
legal studies tradition in the aftermath of the social missions and political
struggles of the Civil Rights Movement. Although, multiple racial minority
legal scholars (e.g., Mari Matsuda, Kimberle’ Crenshaw, Patricia Williams,
and Richard Delgado) have been tied to the initial establishment of the CRT
movement, Derrick Bell has been widely recognized as the originator.14 His
original case book on Race, Racism, and American Law from the early 1970s
is foundational to the growth and momentum of CRT. Since that time, not
only have many legal scholars adopted this framework, but scholars across
several other disciplines have utilized CRT as an analytic and activist tool to
understand the contours and nuances of race, racism, and White supremacy,
and change the bond that exists between American social systems and racial
power and privilege. According to educational researchers Marvin Lynn and
Maurianne Adams, CRT scholars have emphasized “the many ways that race
and racism were fundamentally ingrained in American social structures and
historical consciousness and hence shaped U.S. ideology, legal systems, and
fundamental conceptions of law, property, and privilege.”15 We discuss some
of the major tenets of CRT in the subsections below.
The Social and Legal Construction of Race and Endemic Nature

of Racism
CRT scholars view race as a category or designation that was socially and
legally constructed by White male elites for the purpose of establishing
permanent power and privileges for Whites and justifying the perpetual
oppression and marginalization of the non-White, racialized “other.”16 In
this regard, racism is recognized as endemic to American society and cul-
ture, not some incidental or aberrant happenstance. Racism goes beyond
individual or group acts of racial prejudice and bigotry to the institutional
level where policies, processes, and practices geared toward White inter-
ests have been permanently ingrained in American society and the cul-
tures and structures of institutions within it. For example, contrary to
the dominant White narrative that affirmative action serves as a form of
“reverse discrimination” against Whites in higher education and other
social institutions, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action policies in
the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have actually been White
females, and thus by extension, typically White families.17
Whiteness as a Property Interest and Norm

Whiteness is a property interest and valuable commodity that deems those
who are considered “White” to be superior to all other racial groups and
bequeaths certain privileges, advantages, and opportunities to White people.18
According to Ruth Frankenberg, author of the book White Women, Race

Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness, Whiteness has the follow-
ing linked dimensions: (a) it is a location of structural advantage, of race
privilege, (b) it is a standpoint or place from which White people look at
themselves, at others, and at society, and (c) it refers to a set of cultural
practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed. Whiteness in American
society has been positioned as the optimal status criterion where the his-
tories, values, perspectives, and interests of Whites are imposed on other
racial groups and used as the norm or gold standard to evaluate and judge
(often unjustly) all racial groups. For example, certain standards prospec-
tive graduate students must meet for entrance into programs at HWIHE
(e.g., particular scores on standardized tests) or faculty are required to
meet for tenure and promotion at HWIHE (e.g., certain number of
publications in so-called high-impact journals) are often steeped in this
Whiteness epistemological standpoint.
Critique of Liberalism
CRT scholars critique the notion of liberalism by discussing how antidis-
crimination laws designed to address racial inequality are limited because
they are often undermined before they can be fully implemented. Legal
scholar Timothy Davis discussed how the subtle nature of aversive racism
has often rendered these civil rights laws ineffective in securing and pro-
tecting the interests of racial minorities because the evidentiary standards
plaintiffs must meet serve as major barriers.19 For example, since their
integration into HWIHE several Black athletes have attempted to utilize
the legal system to seek restitution for their claims of academic and eco-
nomic exploitation. However, in most all cases, the courts have rejected
these athletes’ claims and suggested they were unfounded. Traditional
antidiscrimination laws and legislation such as Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 have been found to be severely limited or largely ineffective
because it is difficult for Blacks to “proffer the evidence of racial animus
necessary to prevail in a Title VII claim.”20
Critique of Color Blindness, Meritocracy, and Objectivity

CRT scholars reject the notion that race and racism is declining in sig-
nificance, and argue that the notions of color blindness, meritocracy,
and objectivity often obscure the unearned and unjust power, privileges,
and advantages many Whites have gained and maintained throughout

history. For example, one of the most common narratives we often hear
regarding the hiring for different positions in various organizational settings,
including college sport, is the idea of “hiring the best person” for the job,
regardless of their racial background. Whites as well as other racial groups
oftentimes claim not to see race or color, and that decisions to hire the “most
qualified” candidates should be rooted in race-neutral, objective measures.
Interest-Convergence Principle
Derrick Bell’s interest-convergence principle posits that White elites will
tolerate and support the advancement of racial minority interests, but par-
ticularly when doing so promotes their own self-interests, and renders
substantial and disproportionate outcomes in their favor (e.g., financial
gain and positive image).21 The important research by Mary Dudziak into
the motives behind the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education
decision provides strong support for Bell’s theory.22 That is, this research
revealed that one of the driving forces behind this decision was the desire of
White male elites within the government to deflect criticism of their unjust
treatment of Black citizens in the so-called US democracy, and project
an image to the world that the USA was indeed a progressive democracy
entrenched in the Cold War battle against the Soviet Union. The interest-
convergence principle also provides robust explanatory power for one of
the primary motives behind the integration of America’s pastime, major
league baseball, during this time period.23
Experiential Knowledge and Counter-Narratives

A focus on the experiential knowledge of racially marginalized groups
(and Whites who genuinely work on their behalf) and other subordinated
groups (e.g., women, the poor, etc.) in the form of narratives and stories
is an important mechanism for countering the status quo and master nar-
rative pertaining to issues of racism and other forms of oppression.24 For
example, scholars have conducted research with Black male and female
college athletes to illuminate their voices and assess their experiences at
HWIHE. This work serves as a counter-narrative to the dominant narra-
tive that Black athletes in particular, and all athletes in general, are a privi-
leged group of college students who are generally unaffected by racism,
sexism, classism, and other forms of oppression.25
Critical Reflection and Action by Cross-Race Coalitions

Critical reflection and action by cross-race coalitions to combat racial and
ultimately all forms of oppression is an important aspect of the CRT proj-
ect. The idea is not only to uncover the ways race and racism operate in
social institutions, including higher education and college sport, but also
engage in activism that moves beyond the limitations of the academy. CRT
educational scholars Gloria Ladson-Billings and Jamel Donnor discussed
Lani Guinier’s and Gerald Torres’ notion of “political race” in arguing for
cross-race coalitions to expose and fight to destroy the embedded hierar-
chies and privilege that exist in American social institutions.26 The Millions
More Movement, which was a commemoration of the ten-year anniversary
of the historical Million Man March of 1995, is an example of a contem-
porary social movement that speaks to the potential of cross-race coali-
tions. Similarly, the more recent Black Lives Matter movement centralizes
the experiences and rights of Black people from diverse backgrounds (e.g.,
women, men, LGBT people, people with felonies, etc.), but welcomes the
assistance and contributions of people from various (racial) backgrounds
in combating oppression.
SYSTEMIC RACISM THEORY

SRT is a framework that focuses on how White-on-Black oppression in the
USA has been at the center of the reproduction of White wealth, power,
and privilege over several centuries, and how this oppression of Blacks
and other racial minorities has persisted and taken on many forms since
the 1600s. In focusing on White-on-Black oppression as the foundation
of the White-controlled economy in American society today, Joe Feagin,
the founder of SRT, described White oppression of Blacks as archetypal
because it is the original model on which Whites’ treatment of all other
non-European groups entering into the sphere of White domination has
been patterned. Feagin built on his original work from his book in 2000,
Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations to dem-
onstrate how “systemic racism encompasses a broad range of racialized
dimensions of this society: the racist framing, racist ideology, stereotyped
attitudes, racist emotions, discriminatory habits and actions, and extensive
racist institutions developed over centuries by whites.”27 Below, we outline
some of the key tenets of SRT and show how they complement or overlap
with key tenets from CRT.
White Racism as Foundational and Systemic

Similar to one of the primary tenets of CRT, SRT acknowledges that rac-
ism in the USA goes way beyond the overt, individual, and surface-level
and is deeply embedded in the social structures, networks, and institu-
tions within the USA. Perhaps SRT’s strong emphasis on the foundational
and systemic nature of oppression based on physical appearance and dif-
ferences, even before the construct of race was built into the legal sys-
tem of the USA, is what slightly differentiates it from CRT. That is, SRT
might go further in focusing on the system of racism that White male
European colonizers put into place before they even arrived on the shores
and land of what would become the USA. SRT draws great inspiration
from Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s book from 1967, Black
Power, where they laid out the notion of institutional racism in discussing
the White power and colonial situation in USA. But in sum, SRT focuses
on the racialized character, structure, and development of US society, the
distinctive social worlds that have been created by racial oppression over
several centuries, and what this foundation of racial oppression has meant
for people of color and other marginalized groups in the USA.
Whites’ Unjust Enrichment and the Unjust Impoverishment

of Blacks
At the core of SRT is an emphasis on the long-term dependence of White
Americans on Black labor.28 Understanding the generation of wealth, social
status, and privilege for Whites at the expense of Blacks and other racial
minorities serves as an important foundation to SRT. In this regard, one
of the primary tenets of SRT is Whites’ unjust enrichment and the unjust
impoverishment of Blacks via American chattel slavery, legal segregation
(i.e., Jim Crow), and contemporary racial oppression. CRT founder,
Derrick Bell also captures this point in his book, Faces at the Bottom of the
Well: The Permanence of Racism, where he illuminates the unparalleled
struggles Blacks have faced in the USA. Sport sociologist George Sage
echoed these sentiments when he described the plight of Black people
in America as a “unique and insidious heritage of injustice,” noting that
Blacks are the only racial group in America that has been subjected to
an extended period of slavery and had segregation laws passed against
them that were fully sanctioned and supported by the Supreme Court.29
In many regards, CRT’s Whiteness as a property interest tenet has great
parallels to this foundational tenet of SRT. For example, the enslavement

of Black bodies and minds involved the making of Blacks into property
and merchandise to be manipulated, bought, and sold for the economic,
social, and political benefit of Whites. Moreover, the legal system was used
as a mechanism to render Black people as inferior and incomplete human
beings in comparison to Whites (e.g., Three-Fifths Compromise). In sum,
this tenet of SRT helps describe this system of the propertization of race as
a legal, social, and economic mechanism through which Whites generate
capital wealth while subordinating people of color.
The White Racial Frame

Another prominent tenet of SRT is the White racial frame, which has been
described as a frame embedded in peoples’ minds as well as the collective
memories and histories that help them make sense of everyday situations. It
is housed within a strong pro-White subframe, which views Whites as virtu-
ous and superior to Blacks and other racial groups, and a strong anti-Black
and anti-other subframe that includes racist stereotypes and prejudice, racial
narratives, racial images, racial emotions, and racial ideologies established
over time and used to rationalize and justify White power and privilege and
racial minority oppression and subordination. The myth of meritocracy is
an example of this White racial framing at work.30 Despite the long and
recent history of White racism against people of color, many Whites (and
even some people of color) believe White power and privilege is a result of
Whites’ ability, talent, and hard work, not unearned and unjust privileges
and wealth. As alluded to above, CRT also challenges this framing and dom-
inant ideology, describing it as a camouflage for the unearned and unjust
advantages Whites often enjoy at the expense of racial minorities in society.
In addition, CRT’s Whiteness as property interest and norm aligns to
some extent with the White racial frame in the sense that, historically,
being “White” made one superior and ensured greater economic, politi-
cal, and social security in US society. Given that the law played a major
role in reifying conceptions of race and protecting White interests, a high
value or premium was placed on being White (e.g., “passing” as a strategy
to avoid racial discrimination), while being a racialized other was deval-
ued. Due to its explicit conceptualization of the historical roots of the
White (male) character structure and detailed emphasis on the pro-White
subframe and anti-Black and anti-other subframe, it could be argued the
White racial frame extends the Whiteness as property tenet and can further
help illuminate issues Blacks and other racial groups face at the macro,
meso, and micro levels of society.31
Socioracial Hierarchy with Divergent Group Interests

This tenet has many similarities to the race as a social and legal construction
and endemic nature of racism tenet of CRT. More specifically, it focuses
explicitly on how Whites, particularly elite ruling-class males, have unjustly
created and maintained a hierarchal system of US racial oppression that
places them at the top of the social order and all other racial and social
groups beneath them. Within this racial hierarchy is also various levels of
gender and class stratification whereby women are generally subordinated
to men and the poor to the rich within racial groups, but occupy soci-
etal positions of privilege or subordination depending on their racial group
positioning. CRT scholar Kimberle Crenshaw’s notion of intersectionality
captures this point well in her work on Black women and how their overlap-
ping social identities of race, gender, and class have often led to their subor-
dination in various social contexts. For example, unlike their White female
and poor White counterparts, Black women do not benefit from member-
ship at the top of the racial hierarchy or have the privileges associated with
their Whiteness in US society. Therefore, this racial hierarchy with divergent
group interest tenet of SRT is not only related to the notion of intersection-
ality, but also to CRT’s Whiteness as property interest tenet because it dem-
onstrates how Whites with intersecting identities (e.g., poor Whites) are still
granted certain psychic and material benefits by virtue of their Whiteness. In
other words, Whiteness trumps all other social categories and identities in a
system based on White supremacy. For example, W.E.B. DuBois discussed
the concept “psychological wage” of Whiteness in the 1935 book Black
Reconstruction in America to describe the special status given to low-wage
White workers to make them feel superior to low-wage Black workers dur-
ing that time period. This wage of Whiteness is certainly something that has
been observed and discussed in more contemporary times as well.32
Alienated Social Relations

This tenet focuses on the intergenerational transfer of White wealth,
power, and privilege, and the alienated relationships this social system cre-
ates between Whites and racial minorities. This has created and helped
maintain an explicit hierarchy of difference between Whites and racial
minorities that is passed down from generation to generation in various

social networks, communities, and social institutions (e.g., Good Old Boy
network in corporate America and sport). SRT posits that this system of
injustice and inequality has become so deeply entrenched in society that
Whites (as well as many racial minorities) often underestimate the extent
to which they have inherited tangible and intangible benefits and advan-
tages in the racist US society. CRT’s challenge to the dominant ideolo-
gies of meritocracy, color blindness, and objectivity correspond with this
tenet of SRT because it uncovers how these ideologies have been used to
defend and justify the often unquestioned or taken-for-granted position of
Whites at the top of the racial hierarchy in virtually every sector of the US
society. Moreover, CRT’s interest-convergence principle also speaks to the
notion that even when racial minorities are allotted some opportunities
for advancement in this system of White domination, it is typically when
Whites also benefit (often disproportionately in their favor) by provid-
ing racial minorities with access to opportunities. Indeed, Black athletes’
integration into college sport at HWIHE not only benefited Whites from
a business and political standpoint, but it also did not directly threaten
White male dominance and rule in these organizations.
Extraordinary Costs and Burdens of Racism

This tenet focuses on considering and centralizing the life experiences
and knowledge of racial minorities in understanding the costs of racial
oppression. Feagin does this throughout his book(s) in comparing and
contrasting Blacks’ and Whites’ perspectives on the world of slavery, legal
segregation, and contemporary racial realities. In addition, the research of
Thomas Shapiro and his colleague Melvin Oliver focused on the experi-
ential knowledge of Blacks to help highlight the racial disparities between
Whites and Blacks and further shine light on the extraordinary costs and
burdens of White racism.33 This work is certainly aligned with the tenet
of CRT that focuses on the importance of the experiential knowledge and
narratives of racial minorities in combating and countering the dominant
discourse on race relations in the USA.
Constant Struggle and Resistance

Finally, the last and arguably most important tenet of SRT, the constant
struggle to resist systemic racism, has many parallels with the CRT tenets,
critical reflection and action of cross-race coalitions. Both tenets focus on
the role that Blacks in particular have historically played in countering

racial oppression through active resistance to unjust laws, policies, and
practices in American society and social institutions. For SRT, much of
this resistance starts with a strong counter-frame that leads to resistance
action. Counter-frames are frames of operation that have historically been
developed and utilized by people of color, particularly Black people in
the USA, to fight the oppressive worldview of the White racial frame.
For example, the Black Power counter-frame that emerged during the
1960s–1970s espouses positive views of Black people and culture, holds
an understanding of institutional racism, and calls for an increase in Black
political power.
Although Blacks and other racial minorities serve as the stronghold
of the various historical and contemporary race-based social movements,
White allies (e.g., abolitionist John Brown in the 1800s) also play an
important role in countering and combating White racism in American
society. This activism and anti-oppression counter-framing has been
evident across all US social institutions including sport. For example,
the activist work of scholar-athlete Paul Robeson in the first half of the
1900s helped set the tone for the activism of other Black athletes such as
Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, and Bill Russell during the civil rights move-
ment and the scholar-activist work of Harry Edwards during this era. It
also helped spawn the work of Richard Lapchick, a White male, who first
gained prominence in the 1970s for his antiracism work in South Africa
and the USA. More recently, former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma
founded the National College Players Association to fight for athletes’
rights, and scholar-activist Emmett Gill, founder of the Student Athletes
Human Rights Project in 2011, has collaborated with several female
and male scholars, reformers, and other stakeholders from various racial
groups, including Whites, to fight for athletes’ rights.
In sum, we provided an overview of some major tenets of CRT and
SRT, and noted many similarities between these frameworks. Because it
is technically the “older sibling” between “these fraternal twins” (i.e.,
it was born first), we focused first on CRT and how many of the tenets
advanced in SRT are either directly or closely related to the tenets of
CRT. Figure 2.1 provides a visual illustration of the major tenets for each
framework.
In the next section, we apply these tenets to some of the discourse on
college sport reform, paying particular attention to the racialized experi-
ences of Black athletes as the key to understanding and addressing racism
and other issues related to the reform of American college sport.
Fig. 2.1 CRT and SRT Comparison

CRT AND SRT CONCEPTUALIZATION OF COLLEGE SPORT

REFORM
We propose a multilevel framework that utilizes tenets of CRT and SRT
and other relevant literature to critically examine some key macro-, meso-,
and micro-level factors related to college sport reform and the educational
rights of Black athletes in particular. More specifically, we focus on perti-
nent historical, societal, and structural factors (i.e., macro-level), the orga-
nizational context (i.e., meso-level), and individuals and their interactions
with others (i.e., micro-level). We are also concerned with how these fac-
tors coalesce to impact Black athletes, and subsequently, reform efforts
that could impact all athletes going forward.
Macro-Level Factors
From our perspective, any meaningful and real discussion of college sport
reform today is not possible without first situating the conversation within
the broader historical, societal, and structural elements of US society.
Therefore, we begin our CRT and SRT conceptualization of college sport
reform with a discussion of the larger context of racism in American soci-
ety and the broader educational system, including organized school sport,
and its pervasiveness and cultural significance in higher education.34 The
importance of focusing on these broad macro-level factors is captured
in the excerpt below from sport sociologist Stanley Eitzen’s chapter on
reform in the second edition of the book Racism in College Athletics:
African American athletes in big-time college athletic programs are part of

two contexts, both of which disadvantage them. The first context is the inter-
racial climate of U.S. society. On every dimension related to health, housing,
work, income/wealth, and education, African Americans, when compared
to Whites, are disadvantaged…African American athletes recruited to big-
time college programs are also part of a corporate/entertainment world.
They are hired (for room, board, books, and tuition) to perform on the ath-
letic fields and in the arenas to generate monies, media interest, and public
relations for universities. They are recruited for their athletic talents but not
necessarily for their intellectual abilities. Because African American athletes
come disproportionately from economically, socially, and educationally dis-
advantaged backgrounds, the situation is loaded against them. From the
perspective of many coaches and athletic administrators, these individuals
are athletes first and only incidentally students.35
This quote speaks to the impact racism has had on Blacks in the US society
in general, the educational system broadly, and more specifically, college
sport. Below, we elaborate a bit more on these points through the tenets
of CRT and SRT.
At the heart of both CRT and SRT is the understanding that White-on-
Black oppression is foundational and deeply embedded in the economic,
legal, political, educational, and other social institutions in American soci-
ety. Derrick Bell’s notion of racial realism, as alluded to earlier, argues that
racism is endemic and a permanent part of American society and its social
history. But more specifically, Bell boldly asserted that Black people in
America will never really gain full equality in a White supremacist, racist
society such as the USA. Bell understood that the racial progress Blacks
have been able to achieve throughout American history has been tempo-
rary or short-lived in the sense that racial patterns have always shifted and
adapted to maintain White dominance and privilege. Social progress that
benefits Blacks and other marginalized populations has typically been at
the will and design of White male elites who decide if, when, and to what
extent the rules change, depending on whether or not these changes allow
them (i.e., White males) to maintain power and the status quo. At the root
of Bell’s interest-convergence principle is the understanding that White
self-interest takes precedence over Black rights. This is a key point we will
revisit below as we discuss the issue of Black athletes’ rights in particular.
As this notion of racial realism relates specifically to Blacks in the
American educational system, Gloria Ladson-Billing’s and Bill Tate’s for-
mal introduction of CRT to the field of education in 1995 inspired several
scholars to adopt this framework to better understand and address the
educational predicament of Black people and other racial minorities in
the USA, and throughout the world.36 Since this time, several scholars
have drawn from CRT and other relevant frameworks to analyze, inves-
tigate, document, and describe the impact of race and racism in various
educational contexts (i.e., PreK-12 and higher education). Much of this
work recognizes the prominent role the American educational system has
played in the continued oppression and subjugation of Black people and
other people of color.
CRT scholars in education owe a large debt of gratitude to the schol-
ars and activists of the Black radical intellectual tradition mentioned at
the outset of this chapter. But of particular note is the work of Carter
G. Woodson, who wrote two important books, The Education of the
Negro and The Mis-education of the Negro, in the first half of the 1900s.
These works, particularly the latter, laid a strong foundation for our
understanding of how Whites used “education” to stunt and stymie the
development of Black people, but in so doing, in many ways impede their
own advancement into enlightened and civilized people. Written sev-
eral decades ago, yet still relevant today, The Mis-education of the Negro
addressed the ways in which this “antiquated” system discouraged Black
achievement and trained the Black community to believe in its own inferi-
ority and the superiority of other racial groups.
In the book The White Architects of Black Education, scholar William
Watkins built on the work of Woodson in arguing that schooling, not edu-
cation, is what Blacks have been subjected to in the American educational
system.37 He focused on how when slaves were “emancipated” wealthy
elite White males put into place a system for “educating” Black people that
was designed to restrict and severely limit their knowledge acquisition.
The idea was to control the minds of Black people so that they would con-
tinue to be manipulated by and serviceable to White interests. Historian
John Henrik Clarke echoed this sentiment in the foreword to Woodson’s
earlier text, The Education of the Negro:
Unfortunately, African people in the United States still have some prevailing
misperceptions about their education and education in general. We were not
brought to the United States or the so-called New World to be educated.
We were brought as a massive labor supply…What the slave masters permit-
ted was training and not education.38
As this relates to college sport reform and the educational plight of Black
athletes, this begs the rhetorical questions: Were Black athletes brought to
HWIHE to be truly educated, or was it to serve primarily as a “massive
labor supply”? Are they being trained to serve the interests of the NCAA,
member institutions, and other powerful stakeholder groups as opposed
to being properly educated to serve their own interests and the interest of
their communities?
These are questions the first author (Singer) posed in a paper on the
mis-education of Black male athletes at HWIHE, and suggested Bell’s
interest-convergence principle was a powerful explanatory tool to help
address them.39 Scholars have used this CRT tenet to expose the busi-
ness and political motives surrounding White power brokers’ decisions
to tap into the newly accessible Black athletic talent in the wake of the
Brown v. Board of Education decision. Education, legal, and sport scholars
have utilized Bell’s principle to reveal how HWIHE’s interest in the ath-
letic prowess of Black athletes (particularly football and male basketball
players with questionable pre-college academic preparation) has in far too
many cases superseded any real concern for these athletes’ holistic educa-
tional development.40 For example, Jamel Donnor analyzed actual legal
cases involving claims by Black male athletes of educational malpractice
and breach of contract issues in efforts to uncover and expose the con-
tradictions and hypocrisy exhibited by these institutions at it relates to
the recruitment and educational journey of Black athletes. Other scholars
have tapped into the actual voices of Black athletes to hear their stories
about being exploited for their athletic talent often to the detriment of
other areas of development.41
Some scholars and commentators have embraced the notion that college
athlete exploitation is a “myth,” and college athletes are actually privileged
because they gain a myriad of tangible and intangible benefits from their
participation in big-time college sport at HWIHE.42 Although this perspec-
tive has some merit (i.e., athletes can and often do derive some benefits
from college sport participation), the argument that exploitation is a myth
is overly simplistic and lacks any real understanding of or concern for how
race and other social factors intersect to limit and inhibit the ability of Black
and other athletes to fully tap into their educational rights and interests.
Derek Van Rheenen’s article in the International Review for the Sociology of
Sport titled “Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and educational
reward” addresses this issue of race and Black athlete exploitation to some
extent. In doing so, he argued that exploitation is primarily a moral con-
struct and described it as a process that occurs when one party receives unfair
and undeserved benefits from its transactions or relationships with another.
Van Rheenen argued economic exploitation (i.e., unfair financial
compensation) exists to some degree in college sport, but focused more
specifically on the issue of academic exploitation and the educational
opportunities (or lack thereof) afforded to Black athletes in particular.
He focused on how the overrepresentation of Black athletes on revenue-
producing teams and the corresponding lower graduation rates of this
group in comparison to their peers is indicative of the racial and cultural
divisions of opportunity that exists. Although he did not draw explicitly
from CRT or SRT in his analysis, Van Rheenen did suggest that institu-
tional racism has contributed to the economic and academic exploitation
of Black athletes and potentially other athletes (e.g., White athletes in
revenue-producing sports).
From a CRT and SRT perspective, institutional racism is indeed at the

root of the exploitation of Black athletes in college sport. As mentioned
earlier, Whites’ historical exploitation of Black labor is at the core of the
systemic racism that permeates American social institutions today. The
exploitation of Black athlete labor speaks to SRT’s tenet of Whites’ unjust
enrichment and Blacks’ unjust impoverishment. But this enrichment of
White elites (e.g., salaries and other financial perks of administrators and
coaches) and impoverishment of Black athletes (e.g., restrictions on finan-
cial benefits beyond athletic scholarship) goes well beyond the economic
benefits the former receives in comparison to the latter. That is, exploita-
tion is evident because the value exchange is unfair when Black athletes’
labor produces more than the athletic scholarships they receive and NCAA
policies or rules (e.g., amateurism) prohibit athletes from capitalizing on
their market value. But even more importantly, exploitation also exists
when HWIHE promise educational opportunities to these athletes in
exchange for their athletic services, but the structural arrangements within
these institutions are not conducive to HWIHE holding up their end of
the bargain.
In the next section, we discuss some of the organizational dynamics
contributing to the economic and academic exploitation of Black athletes
and their peers. In particular, we focus on the Eurocentric nature of orga-
nizations in the athletics industrial complex, and how the dominant log-
ics, structural arrangements, and policies in them pose great challenges to
meaningful reform efforts.
Meso-Level Factors
According to some sport management scholars, organizational theory is
generally concerned with the structure and design of organizations and
an understanding of the causes and consequences of commonly occurring
patterns and regularities in these organizations. Some of these scholars
have suggested that there is a need to centralize issues of power and poli-
tics in the study of sport organizations by applying critical theory.43 This
is a step in the right direction because critical theory does allow one to
view organizations as operating in a wider cultural, economic, and political
context characterized by historically entrenched, asymmetrical power rela-
tions. However, similar to the founding CRT scholars’ critique of the criti-
cal legal studies literature, we argue that there is a need to centralize race
and racism in discussions of organizational theory and how privilege and
disadvantage are distributed within sport organizations. The first author

(Singer) of this chapter challenged his colleagues in the field of sport man-
agement to consider race-based epistemologies such as CRT to achieve
this end.44
We utilize CRT and SRT here to examine and uncover how racial privi-
lege and disadvantage are distributed by and within college sport orga-
nizations. We view the NCAA, Bowl Championship Series (BCS), major
conference offices, athletic departments at HWIHE, and other organiza-
tions within the athletics industrial complex as Eurocentric organizations
structured and designed to privilege Whites too often at the expense of
Blacks. Eurocentric organizations are typically White male-controlled and
promote European values and interests. They are based on the Western
orientation toward materialism (e.g., the “arms race” to build the big-
gest stadiums, fanciest locker rooms, and so on, to attract athletes and
fans in college sport), hierarchal control (e.g., the positioning of White
male administrators and coaches at the top of the organizational chart and
Black athletes and other marginalized groups at the bottom), bottom-line
profits (e.g., overemphasis on revenue generation and profit maximization
in athletic departments and under emphasis on meaningful educational
opportunities for athletes), hyper-competition and aggression (e.g., the
win-at-all-costs mentality that often leads to the questionable firing of
college coaches), individualism (e.g., the lack of loyalty college coaches
show to their athletes when they abruptly leave athletic programs to pur-
sue “greener pastures”), narcissism (e.g., overinflated egos of head foot-
ball coaches), and the overconsumption of natural resources and material
goods (e.g., lack of any real concern for the negative impact big-time col-
lege sport has on the environment).45 From a CRT perspective, Whiteness
as an ideology and system of assumptions and practices undergird these
types of organizations. Essentially, the White racial frame strongly influ-
ences how people, including Whites as well as other racial groups, think
and comport themselves in these organizations.
The academic capitalist model permeating the NCAA and other orga-
nizations tied to the athletic industrial complex reflects this White racial
framing and the internal structures, processes, policies, and practices that
flow from it. Most of the key decision-makers at the top of the organiza-
tional chart in these organizations have been and continue to be elite White
males who enact polices that privilege and primarily serve the interests of
Whites at HWIHE (e.g., athletics administrators, coaches, athletes in non-
revenue sport at HWIHE) and disadvantage Black athletes, particularly in
the revenue-producing sport of football and men’s basketball. For exam-

ple, the much talked about and criticized amateurism policy (i.e., NCAA
Bylaw 2.9: Principle of Amateurism) is a case in point. It states:
Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their par-

ticipation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical,
mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercol-
legiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected
from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.46
Interestingly and ironically, the claims made in this policy that college
athletes are amateurs who “should be protected from exploitation by pro-
fessional and commercial enterprises” speaks directly to the exploitative
nature of the academic capitalism model currently governing big-time
college sport organizations and which has a disparate impact on football
and men’s basketball college athletes (a majority of which are Black).
This dominant logic that amateurism defines the participants, but not the
enterprise is the epitome of White racial framing in the form of hypocrisy
and exploitation.
The founder of the College Sport Research Institute (CSRI), Richard
Southall, has for years now been critical of the NCAA’s notion of amateur-
ism and the collegiate athletic model that has been created, disseminated,
and imbedded in college sport’s institutional consciousness by the elite
White male presidents who have run and overseen the affairs of the NCAA
and other organizations tied to big-time college sport.47 This dominant
logic has been used for years to justify the NCAA’s and other college sport
organizations’ policies and practices that continue to exploit the athletic
labor of college athletes. Moreover, the academic capitalist ideology that
there is no inherent conflict between commercial and educational logics
(so as long as athletes are not engaging in commercial activity that directly
benefits them) is used to justify the idea that engaging in big-time com-
mercialized college sport (i.e., football and men’s basketball) is necessary
to achieve educational opportunity for the vast majority of college athletes.
This vast majority of athletes that benefit from these educational opportu-
nities are White middle to upper-class males and females who participate in
the non-revenue sports that usually rely heavily on financial support from
football and men’s basketball.
As mentioned earlier, Black males constitute the majority of partici-
pants in these revenue sports that primarily support these non-revenue
sports and the athletic department as a whole. Some proponents of the

academic capitalist model have argued even though football and men’s
basketball are the most popular and generate the vast majority of interest
and support from fans, the media, and corporate sponsors, athletes’ par-
ticipation in these sports is not what technically generates revenue for ath-
letic departments. Further, they argue revenue sport athletes should not
be treated any differently than their non-revenue sport peers because all
athletes put in similar amounts of time and effort in their respective sports.
Although there probably is some truth to the notion that athletes across
all sports work hard and exert great efforts, this White racial framing is
plagued by a woeful lack of understanding or outright denial of how race
and racism contributes to the exploitative management practices and
structural arrangements we see in college sport today. Unfortunately, but
not surprisingly, it fails to take into account and acknowledge how Black
labor has historically been exploited in organizational settings to build
White wealth within different industries and industry segments, including
college sport. This is a major point that was made in Billy Hawkins’ afore-
mentioned book, The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports, and
Predominantly White NCAA Institutions.
In the next section, we focus on how racial stereotypes in these
Eurocentric organizations have contributed to the exploitation of Black
athletes, and the role various stakeholder groups play in both perpetuating
and addressing this issue.
Micro-Level Factors
In the chapter by Stanley Eitzen on racism and college sport reform,
he discussed how big-time college sport exists in a larger societal con-
text where racism will only continue to intensify and this will exacerbate
the exploitation of Black athletes. He further suggested that when these
organizations exploit athletes for profit and often discard them without a
meaningful education, this helps reinforce the stereotype that Black ath-
letes are physically superior but intellectually inferior. This White racial
framing and racial stereotyping of Black athletes as “dumb jocks” has been
around for decades. Since Harry Edward’s proclamation that Black dumb
jocks are not born but they are systematically created within American
society and its educational and sport systems, scholars have focused on
how this stereotyping impacts the identity and educational experiences of
Black male and female athletes.48
Some scholars have explicitly drawn from CRT to theorize about the
racial, social, economic, cultural, and psychological factors that impact
Black athletes’ academic and athletic experiences.49 For example, Samuel
Hodge and colleagues focused on how Whites stereotype Black athletes
as physically superior and intellectually inferior, and thus, steer them
more toward athletic pursuits than academic ones. Moreover, they also
discussed how Black athletes often buy into these negative stereotypes
thrust upon them by Whites (i.e., self-stereotype) and the negative impact
internalizing these stereotypes has on their sense of self and motivation to
achieve excellence beyond the domain of sport participation. Indeed, the
White racial frame and racial stereotypes that stem from it have been so
strong that it also negatively influences the mindset and behaviors of Black
athletes, which helps contribute greatly to their exploitation at HWIHE.
Scholars have discussed the need to counter these negative stereotypes
and called on relevant educational stakeholders to assist in doing so. In
particular, arguments have been made for coaches, faculty, administrators,
academic support staff, and others (e.g., families, fans, sport media) to
engage in thoughtful self-reflection into how their own personal race-sport
stereotypic beliefs might impact their interactions with Black athletes. This
is important because as Hodge and colleagues have stated, psychological
CRT “asserts that no one is exempt from the spontaneous and persistent
influences of racism in America, thus self-reflection becomes a critical exer-
cise for interaction with a diversity of student-athletes.”50 What this means
then is that we should be mindful of and address not only White racism
against Blacks but also the internalized racism Blacks might wittingly or
unwittingly perpetuate among themselves.
But another, and arguably, the most important stakeholder group to
consider as we contemplate college sport reform and the educational
rights of Black athletes are the athletes themselves and the role they ulti-
mately play in combating the race-sport stereotypes and structural norms
mentioned above. One of the arguments Harry Edwards has made since
the 1980s is that education is an activist pursuit that Black athletes must,
despite the systemic racism that continues to permeate American soci-
ety and the social institutions of education and sport, take a substantial
role in prioritizing and attaining.51 From a CRT perspective, this educa-
tional activism involves Black athletes working with relevant stakeholders
across racial groups to ensure they receive a balanced and well-rounded
educational experience. Furthermore, it also entails Black athletes’ active
resistance to some of the historical, social, cultural, structural, political,
economic, and psychological forces at play in American society and the

Eurocentric organizations that make up the athletic industrial complex.
Below we conclude by further discussing these multilevel factors and offer-
ing some important implications for research and reform in college sport.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we drew from CRT and its younger fraternal twin, SRT, in
efforts to situate race, racism, and White supremacy at the heart of college
sport reform issues. We argued for the need to focus first and foremost on
the educational plight and rights of Black athletes in order to understand
and ultimately address the rights of all college athletes. We proposed a
multilevel framework that illuminated racism in the broader US society,
American educational system, and college sport; the Eurocentric nature
of organizations that encompass the athletic industrial complex; and the
prevalence of racial stereotyping as pertinent macro-, meso-, and micro-
level factors to consider as we think about and engage in discourse and
action related to college sport reform. Below, we offer some critical reflec-
tions and thoughts on what this all means for college sport reform, and
discuss implications for research, practice, and activism in college sport.
In 2009, Allen Sack published an important article in the Journal
of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics that identified the major issues and
assumptions that divide reformers and reform groups. More specifically,
he discussed the intellectual elitist, academic capitalist, and athletes’ rights
as three different conceptual models that have been used to interpret the
reality of commercialized college sport. The biggest differences among
these models has been in regards to the assumptions each makes about the
relationship of commercialism to academic values, the educational impact
and legal status of athletic scholarships, and the mission of higher edu-
cation. As we have discussed throughout this chapter, the predominant
model that has been embraced in the past several years by the NCAA and
other proponents of the current structural arrangements of college sport is
academic capitalism. Critics of this model have typically adopted the intel-
lectual elitist and/or athletes’ rights model.
Much of the discourse from the intellectual elitist and athletes’ rights
camps has focused on addressing the economic and academic exploitation
of college athletes. The intellectual elitist model has been highly critical
of athletic commercialism and the subsidization of athletes in the form of
athletic scholarships. Some examples of reforms promoted by this camp
include the replacement of one-year renewable athletic scholarships with

need-based aid or scholarships whose renewal is not dependent on ath-
letic performance; the restoration of freshman ineligibility particularly for
“special admits”; ensuring that athletes can pursue their major of choice,
and athletic contests do not interfere with class attendance; making the
location and control of academic support services for athlete the same as
all students; requiring athletes to fit the same academic profile as all other
students; requiring that athletes maintain a cumulative GPA of 2.0 each
semester to be eligible; full disclosure of aggregate data on the majors,
advisors, GPA, course taken, and names of instructors for all athletes; and
closely monitoring the growth rate of operating expenditures in sports,
among other reform measures.
The athletes’ rights model acknowledges that college sport as commer-
cial entertainment is deeply and likely permanently embedded in American
life and higher education. They argue that athletes are students and work-
ers who deserve to benefit from free enterprise and the fruits of their labor,
especially since it is their labor that is largely responsible for the commer-
cial success of the multibillion-dollar enterprise. Some of the most popu-
lar reform measures proposed by this camp include legislative initiatives
to secure worker’s compensation rights for college athletes, organizing
college athletes and forming alliances with organized labor, challenging
the NCAA on antitrust grounds to increase financial support and other
benefits (e.g., medical) for athletes, and filing lawsuits against the NCAA
to allow athletes to secure sponsorships and other benefits related to their
image and likeness.
There are growing examples of athlete activism that are rooted in the
athletes’ rights model and pose a potential threat to NCAA’s academic
capitalist model. Here are just a few prominent examples that have gained
some media attention: The O’Bannon v. NCAA antitrust class action law-
suit challenging the use of college athletes’ image and likeness for com-
mercial purposes; former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and his
teammates’ efforts to unionize in 2014; former University of Connecticut
basketball player Shabazz Napier challenging the NCAA’s restrictions on
player meals by speaking out after NCAA championship game in 2014; for-
mer Ohio State University quarterback Cardale Jones’ efforts to give voice
to his “powerless” college athlete peers by freely speaking out against the
NCAA’s exploitive rules after he declared for the NFL draft in 2016; the
University of Missouri football team’s (the majority of which were Black
players) decision to stand in solidarity with a group of Black students in
protest (e.g., refusal to play if university president did not resign) against
the (mis)handling of racial problems on campus.
From a CRT and SRT perspective, some of the foci of these reform
models and the recent developments that have emerged from them are
steps in the right direction toward addressing the economic and academic
exploitation of Black athletes and all athletes more generally. However,
there is a need to continue encouraging research and activism that further
centralizes and explicitly focuses on race, racism, and White supremacy.
As it relates to research and scholarship, the work of Stanley Eitzen men-
tioned earlier moved toward this approach. Eitzen focused explicitly on
the academic and economic exploitation of Black athletes, particularly
those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds with limited pre-
college academic preparation, and advanced some of the popular reform
measures of the intellectual elitist and athletes’ rights models discussed
above (e.g., strengthening of academic standards for admissions, reinstate-
ment of freshman ineligibility, increased financial support for athletes, and
educating athletic department personnel about racial stereotypes and aver-
sive racism) as recommendations for combating the problems of racism
and the exploitation of Black athletes in particular.
Although Eitzen focused on race and the Black athlete in discussing
some prospects for the year 2020 and proposal for change, Billy Hawkins’
focus on decolonization, reform, and the Black athlete in his book, The
New Plantation, is more closely aligned with a CRT and SRT approach to
college sport reform, particularly because of its explicit emancipatory focus.
While he did acknowledge that many of the reformers and reform groups
are well-meaning, competent individuals and leaders, he criticized some of
the reform demands and recommendations of the intellectual elitist (e.g.,
admissions recommendations) and academic capitalist (e.g., APR standards)
camps, suggesting they are designed to “ethnically cleanse and re-Whiten”
college football and basketball. In describing Black athletes in football and
basketball at HWIHE as internally colonized individuals, Hawkins grounded
his reform recommendations within the process of decolonization, which he
described as an emancipatory strategy that moves beyond an appeal to a
moral adjustment to “a fundamental change in structural arrangements and
the distribution of resources, and an access to services previously denied.”52
Although he did not necessary view the issue of academic integrity and col-
lege sport reform as solely a “Black athlete problem,” he did acknowledge
Black athletes are severely and disproportionately affected by the “archaic
racial ideologies” from which these Eurocentric organizations operate.
His recommendations focused first and foremost on addressing reform

in the communities and school systems these athletes are recruited from by
these HWIHE. He suggested that instead of focusing on erecting barriers
to Black athlete access to higher education via some of the counterpro-
ductive academic reform measures mentioned above, these organizations
need to invest in the academic development of these athletes by helping to
build the academic infrastructures of these communities and schools from
which they come. Doing so will help create better academically prepared
students for higher education and empower them to face the academic
challenges once they arrive on campus. Other recommended reforms
related to the academic progress of athletes included allowing college ath-
letes to take a lighter course load (e.g., 6–9 hours) to increase opportuni-
ties to learn and perform well academically, while also being able to fully
explore a meaningful major and degree path.
In regards to recommended reforms to address the economic exploita-
tion of athletes, Hawkins argued for a greater distribution of resources to
the athletes, even if that meant redirecting some of the financial perks from
coaches to athletes. He discussed the contractual nature of the relationship
between these athletes and organizations, and suggested these organiza-
tions create incentives that encourage elite athletes to invest more time in
college and support systems that provide benefits to the vast majority that
do not make it to the professional level after they graduate (e.g., financial
support for graduate school, medical benefits for life in the event of life-
altering injury, career counseling support, emeritus status, etc.).
Many of Hawkins’ race-based reform recommendations align well
with CRT and SRT because they focus on addressing what is “wrong”
with the structures, processes, and policies in these Eurocentric organi-
zations, instead of viewing Black athletes as the problem. In his book,
Race Matters, CRT proponent Cornell West argued that when discussing
and addressing issues of race and racism in America, it is important that
we begin not with the “problems of Black people” but with “flaws of
American society—flaws rooted in the historic inequalities and longstand-
ing cultural stereotypes.”53 Such should be the case when we consider
Black athletes’ history and ongoing journey in the American educational
system and big-time college sport. Black athletes in the twenty-first cen-
tury might not face the same type of overt, blatant forms of racism their
predecessors from the past had to endure, but the covert, systemic racism
today’s athletes face is no less virulent and, arguably, is more destructive
in the long term. Therefore, an examination of the educational plight of
Black athletes through a CRT and SRT lens provides additional insight
into the flaws of American society and its social institutions, and gives
us clear directives for the research and activism related to college sport
reform that we should seriously consider going forward.
In terms of research, there are a few important considerations to keep
in mind. First, any meaningful and sincere efforts at research should begin
with Black athletes in particular and other athletes in general. In align-
ment with CRT, centralizing these athletes’ voices and experiential knowl-
edge in the college sport reform discourse is paramount to the movement,
especially since they are (or should be) the prime beneficiaries of higher
education and thus college sport. In other words, if college students are
the reason that institutions of higher education exist in the first place and
college sport is truly in place to enhance the educational experiences of
this unique population of students who participate in it, it is vitally impor-
tant we give them a prominent place at the table when discussing the
issue of college sport reform at HWIHE and within the broader athletics
industrial complex (including HBCU).
In this regard, not only is there a need for large-scale quantitative survey
studies that assess athletes’ attitudes and perspectives regarding their expe-
riences and strategies for reform, but more importantly, athletes should be
invited and given incentives to participate in qualitative field-based studies
that allow them to share their perspectives and critically reflect upon their
experiences and college sport reform going forward. Scholars should go
beyond simple focus groups and individual interviews with college athletes
and adopt qualitative research designs (e.g., participatory action research)
that allow athletes to be active partners in the co-creation of practical and
emancipatory knowledge concerning college sport reform and their edu-
cational rights.54
We should definitely continue to build upon the substantial research
that has been conducted on Black male football and basketball athletes
over the years. This stakeholder group continues to represent the “face”
of big-time college sport and serve in many ways as the primary breadwin-
ner for this enterprise. However, we must also commit to research with
Black female athletes, a group that has too often been neglected, disre-
spected, and undervalued when it comes to the important contributions
they could bring to the discourse on athletes’ rights and college sport
reform. We should build on the important work of Jennifer Bruening
and her colleagues as well as the scholarship and service/activist work of
Akilah Carter-Francique and her colleagues (e.g., Sista to Sista Program).
These scholars have utilized race-based epistemologies (e.g., Black

Feminist Thought) including aspects of CRT (particularly intersectional-
ity) to examine the plight of Black female athletes at HWIHE.55
This emancipatory research with Black male and female athletes (past,
present, and future) and athletes from various other racial groups and
backgrounds should be the starting point for generating new and innova-
tive ideas for reform. This does not mean athletes within and across these
different groups will speak with a singular voice. But it does imply that we
can learn a great deal from documenting and considering the common
and varied experiences and perspectives of college athletes when making
decisions on reform. For example, we can glean valuable insight from not
only those athletes who might excel in the athletic arena and struggle
mightily in the academic domain but also those who have overcome the
structural constraints to excel in both.56 Understanding and documenting
Black athletes’ academic and athletic excellence and the “success stories”
of athletes from all backgrounds is an important aspect of the CRT project
in education and sport.
Scholars who are sincere about co-creating and producing practical
and emancipatory knowledge on reform with college athletes must seri-
ously consider learning about and explicitly adopting or drawing from
CRT, SRT, and other related theoretical and conceptual frameworks (e.g.,
post- or anticolonialism) and literature. Each of the authors of this chap-
ter has embraced CRT, SRT, and/or anticolonialism frameworks in our
individual and collective research and scholarship related to college sport
and the broader field of sport management. Further, we have discussed
the need for scholars to recognize the commonalities across these race-
based epistemological frameworks and, when appropriate, integrate them
to engage in research and activist work that uncovers and addresses racism
and other forms of oppression in American college sport and other sectors
of the sport industry. As demonstrated above, there are certainly parallels
between CRT, SRT, and the internal colonial model Hawkins adopted in
his critical analysis of big-time college sport.
These research efforts should be coupled with strategic activism, advo-
cacy, and service among athletes and other stakeholder groups who are
genuine allies for athletes’ rights. Arguably, activism is where CRT and
SRT (and other anti-colonial frameworks) hold the most promise and
potential for bringing about real meaningful college sport reform. The
various examples of contemporary activism mentioned earlier are indeed
a promising sign. However, even greater efforts are needed. As Harry
Edwards and other commentators (e.g., lawyer and ESPN basketball ana-
lyst, Jay Bilas) have suggested, the possibility of athletes boycotting major
events (e.g., The Final Four, football bowl games) is real, and perhaps the
next step toward college sport reform. This might be what it takes for the
NCAA and other organizations to realize the gravity of the situation. That
is, these Eurocentric organizations might only begin to truly recognize
that Black athlete lives do matter and respond accordingly to the rights
and educational interests of these athletes and all others if or when such
measures are taken.
In the academic keynote address at the 2011 CSRI annual conference,
the first author of this chapter (Singer) posed the question, “Are you doing
right by the Black college athlete?,” and implored the various stakeholders of
college sport to critically reflect upon their respective roles in contributing to
the educational development of Black athletes in particular, but all athletes in
general. As we conclude this chapter, we challenge the NCAA, athletic con-
ferences, HWIHE and their athletic departments, HBCU and their athletic
departments, other organizations, and the various groups and individuals who
have a stake or vested interest in college sport to do the same. We also applaud
the efforts of the several individuals and groups, from the intellectual elitists to
the athletes’ rights advocates, who have sincerely labored to improve the lives
of all college athletes. However, we stress the need for all of us, including the
athletes themselves, to continue or begin reflecting on and working to better
understand and address the racial stereotypes (micro-level), the organizational
dynamics in Eurocentric college sport organizations (meso-level), and the
historical, social, and structural arrangements within the broader American
society and its educational and sport systems (macro-level) that interfere with
meaningful college sport reform efforts. In doing so, we must be mindful of
Harry Edward’s assertion that “there are no final victories,”57 yet still stay true
to CRT’s charge to constantly oppose racism and other forms of oppression
even in the face of its persistence.
NOTES
1. There are several Black female and male scholars and activists from
the 1800s and 1900s who could be credited with establishing this
Black radical intellectual tradition. The list includes, but certainly is
not limited to, some of the following notable names: Frederick
Douglas, David Walker, W.E.B. DuBois, Ida B. Wells, Anna Julia
Cooper, Carter G. Woodson, Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Touré),
Angela Davis.
2. White supremacy can be defined as a political, economic, and cul-

tural system in which whites or Europeans overwhelmingly control
power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of
white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of
white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted
across a broad array of institutions and social settings. This definition
was cited on p. 245 in Stovall, David. “Forging community in race
and class: Critical race theory and the quest for social justice in edu-
cation”, in Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 9, 243–259, 2006.
3. Smith coined this term in his book, Race, Sport and the American
Dream (2007), to capture the interlocking systems that emanate like
a spider web from intercollegiate athletic departments.
4. Typically, only football and men’s basketball programs at the major
Division I universities with large athletic department budgets are
considered “revenue-generating” in the sense that they are self-
sustaining, and oftentimes help to underwrite the other athletic pro-
grams in the department.
5. In a 2009 article titled “Clashing Models of Commercial Sport in
Higher Education” in the Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics,
Allen Sack described academic capitalism as an approach to univer-
sity governance that emphasizes the importance of the financial
“bottom line.”
6. The impact of Edwards’ scholarship and activism is highlighted in
the edited book by Polite, Fritz and Hawkins, Billy. Sport, Race,
Activism, and Social Change. San Diego, CA: Cognella, 2012.
Although Edwards does not invoke the specific language or draw
directly from the literature on CRT or SRT in his work, he essen-
tially has operated from these and other relevant frameworks.
7. See chapter 9 in Hawkin’s 2010 book, The New Plantation: Black
Athletes, College Sports, and Predominantly White NCAA Institutions,
for insight into race-based reform ideas.
8. See Joe Feagin and Eileen O’Brien’s book from 2003 White Men on
Race for insight into how powerful, upper-income White men think
about others in US society.
9. This quote is from pp. 20–21 of Edwards, Harry. “Transformational
developments at the interface of race, sport, and the collegiate ath-
letics arms race in the age of globalization”. In Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport, 4, 18–31, 2011.
10. See 2012, issue 5 of the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport for Oriard’s
article on academic reform and the other articles that offer reactions
to it.
11. Walter Byers details these motives behind the creation of the
“student-athlete” term in his book from 1995, Unsportsmanlike
Conduct. For additional insight into the student-athlete term and
the NCAA’s Amateur “myth,” see Allen Sack and Ellen Staurowsky’s
book from 1998, College Athletes for Hire, and Robert McCormick
and Amy McCormick’s article “The myth of the student-athlete:
The college athlete as employee” in the Washington Law Review
Association, 81, 71–157, 2006.
12. This quote is from p. 79 of Sack, Allen. “Clashing Models of
Commercial Sport in Higher Education: Implications for Reform
and Scholarly Research”, in the Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletics, 2, 76–92, 2009.
13. See Edwards, Harry. “The collegiate athletic arms race: Origins and
implications of the “Rule 48” controversy”, in Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 8(1), 4–22, 1984.
14. See the book edited by Crenshaw, Kimberle’, Gotanda, Neil, Peller,
Gary, and Thomas, Kendall. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings
that Formed the Movement. New York: The New Press, 1995.
15. This quote is from p. 88 of Lynn, Marvin and Adams, Maurianne.
“Introductory overview to the special issue critical race theory and
education: Recent developments in the field”, in Equity & Excellence,
35(2), 2002.
16. See Lopez, Ian Haney. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race.
New York: New York University Press.
17. CRT educational scholar Gloria Ladson-Billings and other scholars
and commentators have discussed this reality. See, for example,
Daniels, Jesse. “White women and Affirmative Action: Prime benefi-
ciaries and opponents”, in Racism Review, March 11, 2014. See also
Nelson, Sophia A. “The real Affirmative Action babies”, in The
Root, August 3, 2009.
18. See Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness as property”, in Harvard Law
Review, 106(8), 1707–1791, 1993.
19. See Davis, Timothy. “Race, law, and collegiate athletics”, in Racism
in College Athletics (2nd Ed.) (Eds., Brooks, Dana and Althouse,
Ronald), pp. 245–265, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology, 2000.
20. See p. 263 of Davis, Timothy. “Race, law, and college athletics”, in
Racism in College Athletics (2nd Ed.) (Eds., Brooks, Dana and
Althouse, Ronald), pp. 245–265, Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology, 2000.
21. See Bell, Derrick. “Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-
convergence principle”, in Harvard Law Review, 93, 518–533.
22. See Dudziak, Mary. “Brown as a Cold War case”, in Journal of
American History, 91(1), 32–42, 2004.
23. For more insight into applications of interest convergence to
American sport, see DeLorme, Joshua, and Singer, John N. “The
interest convergence principle and the integration of major league
baseball”, in Journal of Black Studies, 41, 367–384, 2010.
24. CRT scholar Kimberle’ Crenshaw’s notion of intersectionality is
sometimes discussed as an important aspect of CRT because it
focuses on the study of the overlapping or intersecting social identi-
ties and related systems of oppression. See Crenshaw, Kimberle’.
“Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and vio-
lence against women of color”, in Stanford Law Review, 43(6),
1241–1299, 1991.
25. See, for example, Singer, J.N. “Understanding racism through the
eyes of African American male student-athletes”, in Race, Ethnicity,
and Education, 8, 365–386, 2005; Bruening, Jennifer, Armstrong,
Ketra, and Pastore, Donna. “Listening to the voices: The experi-
ences of African American female student-athletes”, in Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 82–100, 2005.
26. See Ladson-Billings, Gloria and Donnor, Jamel. “The moral activist
role of critical race theory scholarship”, in Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research (3rd Ed.) (Eds., Denzin, Norman and Lincoln,
Yvonna), pp. 279–301, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.
27. This quote is from p. xii of Feagin, Joe. Systemic Racism: A Theory of
Oppression. New York: Routledge, 2006.
28. See Feagin, Joe. How Blacks Built America: Labor, Culture, Freedom,
and Democracy. New York: Routledge, 2016.
29. See Sage, George. “Introduction”, in Racism in College Athletics
(2nd Ed.) (Eds., Brooks, Dana and Althouse, Ronald), pp. 1–12,
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2000.
30. See McNamee, Stephen and Miller Jr., Robert. The Meritocracy Myth
(2nd Ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
2009.
31. For more detailed insight into this tenet of SRT, see Feagin, Joe.
The White racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-
framing (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge, 2013.
32. David Roediger discusses this in the two editions of his book, The
wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working class.
33. See Shapiro, Thomas. The Hidden Costs of Being African American:
How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004; and Oliver, Melvin and Shapiro, Thomas. Black Wealth/
White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality (2nd Ed.).
New York: Routledge, 2006.
34. See Beyer, Janice and Hannah, David. “The cultural significance of
athletics in U.S. higher education”, in Journal of Sport Management,
14, 105–132, 2000.
35. See Eitzen, Stanley. “Racism in big-time college sport: Prospects for
the year 2020 and proposals for change”, in D. Brooks and
R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in College Athletics: The African
American Athlete’s Experience (2nd Ed.), 293–306, Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2000.
36. See Ladson-Billings, Gloria and Tate, William. “Toward a critical
race theory of education”, in Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68,
1995; see also Lynn, Marvin and Dixson, Adrienne (Eds.). Handbook
of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York: Routledge, 2013.
37. See Watkins, William. The white architects of Black education: Ideology
and power in America, 1865–1954. New York: Teachers College
Press, 2001.
38. Quoted on p. 1 in Woodson, Carter G. The education of the Negro.
Brooklyn, NY: A&B Publishing Group, 1998.
39. See Singer, John N. “the miseducation of African American male
college athletes”, in E. Comeaux (Ed.), Introduction to intercolle-
giate athletics, 193–206, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.
40. See Davis, Timothy. “The myth of the superspade: The persistence
of racism in college athletics”, in Fordham Urban Law Journal, 22,
615–698, 1995; see also Donnor, Jamel. “Towards an interest-
convergence in the education of African-American football student
athletes in major college sports”, in Race, Ethnicity, and Education,
8(1), 45–67, 2005; see also Singer, John. “African American foot-
ball athletes’ perspectives on institutional integrity in college sport”,
in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(1), 102–116, 2009.
41. See, for example, Beamon, Krystal. “’Used goods’: Former African
American college student-athletes’ perceptions of exploitation by
division I universities”, in Journal of Negro Education, 77(4),
352–364, 2008; see also Singer, John. “African American football
athletes’ perspectives on institutional integrity in college sport”, in
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(1), 102–116, 2009.
42. See Osborne, B. (2014). The myth of the exploited student-athlete.

Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7, 143–152. Osborne and others
have argued college athletes derive some of the following benefits
from their participation in college sport: “free” college education,
athletic scholarships, student assistance fund, academic and support
services, medical training, elite training opportunities, healthy living,
wide exposure and experiences, preparation for life after sports.
43. See Slack, T., & Parent, M.M. (2006). Understanding sport organi-
zations: The application of organization theory (2nd Ed.). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics and Frisby, Wendy. “The good, the bad, and the
ugly: Critical sport management research”, in Journal of Sport
Management, 19(1), 1–12, 2005.
44. See Singer, John. “Addressing epistemological racism in sport man-
agement research” Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 464–479,
2005.
45. See Nunn, Kenneth. “Law as a Eurocentric enterprise”, in Law &
Inequality, 15, 323, 1997; see also Warfield-Coppock, N. “Toward
a theory of Afrocenric organizations”, in Journal of Black Psychology,
21(30), 30–48, 1995.
46. Quoted from Southall, Richard, & Staurowsky, Ellen. “Cheering on
the collegiate model: Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the
NCAA’s redefinition of amateurism”, in Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 37(4), 403–429, 2013.
47. See Southall, Richard, & Staurowsky, Ellen. “Cheering on the col-
legiate model: Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the NCAA’s
redefinition of amateurism”, in Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
37(4), 403–429, 2013.
48. See Sailes, Gary. “An investigation of campus stereotypes: The myth
of Black athletic superiority and the dumb jock stereotype”, in
Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 88–97, 1993; see also Hughes,
Robin, Satterfield, James, and Giles, Mark. “Athleticizing Black
male student-athletes: The social construction of race, sports, myths,
and realities”, in NASAP Journal, 10(1), 112–127, 2007.
49. See Hodge, Sam, Burden, Joe Burden Jr., Robinson, Leah, and
Bennett III, Robert. “Theorizing on the sterotyping of Black male
student-athletes”, in Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in
Education, 2(2), 203–226, 2008. These scholars utilized social psy-
chologist James Jones’ psychological version of CRT to account for
the role of social psychological processes in the continuing racial
disparities between Black athletes and their white counterparts.
50. Quoted on p. 218 in Hodge, Sam, Burden, Joe Burden Jr., Robinson,
Leah, and Bennett III, Robert. “Theorizing on the sterotyping of
Black male student-athletes”, in Journal for the Study of Sports and
Athletes in Education, 2(2), 203–226, 2008.
51. See Edwards, Harry. “The Black ‘dumb jock’: An American sports
tragedy”, in College Board Review, 8–13, 1984.
52. Quoted from p. 176 of The New Plantation.
53. Quoted from p. 6 of West, Cornell. Race Matters. New York: Vintage
Books, 1993.
54. For insight into examples of various emancipatory qualitative
approaches scholars could use to conduct research with Black ath-
letes, see Agyemang, Kwame, Singer, John N., & DeLorme, Joshua.
“An exploratory study of Black male college athletes’ perceptions on
race and athlete activism”, in International Review for the Sociology of
Sport, 45(4), 419–435, 2010.
55. See Bruening, Jennifer. “Listening to the voices: The experiences of
African American female student-athletes”, in Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 76(1), 82–100, 2005. See also Carter, Akilah.,
and Hawkins, Billy. “Coping strategies among African American
female collegiate athletes in predominantly white institutions”, in
K. Hylton, A. Pilkington, P. Warmington, and S. Housee (Eds.),
Atlantic Crossings: International Dialogues in Critical Race Theory,
61–92, 2011. Birmingham, United Kingdom: The Higher Education
Academy Network.
56. For an example of a counter-narrative to the dominant narrative of
Black athlete academic struggles, see Bimper, Albert, Harrison Jr.
Louis, and Clark, Langston. “Diamonds in the rough: Examining a
case of successful Black male student-athletes in college sport”, in
Journal of Black Psychology, 39(2), 107–130, 2012.
57. Dr. Edwards made this statement in his speech titled “The promise
and limits of leveraging Black athlete power potential to compel
campus change”, at the Distinguished Lecture Series sponsored by
the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University
on March 3, 2016. His major point was that the fight for social jus-
tice is a constant struggle with no foreseeable end.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agyemang, Kwame, John N. Singer, and Joshua DeLorme. 2010. An exploratory
study of Black male college athletes’ perceptions on race and athlete activism.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(4): 419–435.
Beamon, Krystal. 2008. ‘Used goods’: Former African American college student-
athletes’ perceptions of exploitation by division I universities. Journal of Negro
Education 77(4): 352–364.
Bell, Derrick. 1973. Race, racism, and American law. Boston: Little Brown.
———. 1992a. Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York:
Basic Books.
———. 1992b. Racial realism. Connecticut Law Review 24(2): 363–379.
———. 2004. Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled
hopes for racial reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, Derrick. 1980. Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence
principle. Harvard Law Review 93: 518–533.
Beyer, Janice, and David Hannah. 2000. The cultural significance of athletics in
U.S. higher education. Journal of Sport Management 14: 105–132.
Bimper, Albert, Louis Harrison Jr., and Langston Clark. 2012. Diamonds in the
rough: Examining a case of successful Black male student-athletes in college
sport. Journal of Black Psychology 39(2): 107–130.
Brooks, Dana, and Ronald Althouse (eds.). 1993. Racism in college athletics.
Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology.
——— (eds.). 2000. Racism in college athletics, 2nd ed. Morgantown: Fitness
Information Technology.
——— (eds.). 2013. Racism in college athletics, 3rd ed. Morgantown: Fitness
Bruening, Jennifer, Ketra Armstrong, and Donna Pastore. 2005. Listening to the
voices: The experiences of African American female student-athletes. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 76: 82–100.
Byers, Walter. 1995. Unsportsmanlike conduct. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Carter, Akilah, and Billy Hawkins. 2011. Coping strategies among African
American female collegiate athletes in predominantly white institutions. In
Atlantic crossings: International dialogues in critical race theory, ed. K. Hylton,
A. Pilkington, P. Warmington, and S. Housee, 61–92. Birmingham: The
Higher Education Academy Network.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.
Crenshaw, Kimberle’, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas. 1995.
Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York: The
New Press.
Daniels, Jesse. 2014. White women and affirmative action: Prime beneficiaries and
opponents. Racism Review, March 11.
Davis, Timothy. 1995. The myth of the superspade: The persistence of racism in
college athletics. Fordham Urban Law Journal 22: 615–698.
———. 2000. Race, law, and collegiate athletics. In Racism in college athletics, 2nd
ed., ed. Dana Brooks and Ronald Althouse, 245–265. Morgantown: Fitness
DeLorme, Joshua, and John N. Singer. 2010. The interest convergence principle
and the integration of major league baseball. Journal of Black Studies 41:
367–384.
Donnor, Jamel. 2005. Towards an interest-convergence in the education of
African-American football student athletes in major college sports. Race,
Ethnicity, and Education 8(1): 45–67.
DuBois, W.E.B. 1935. Black reconstruction in America: 1860–1880. New York:
The Free Press.
Dudziak, Mary. 2004. Brown as a Cold War case. Journal of American History
91(1): 32–42.
Edwards, Harry. 1984a. The collegiate athletic arms race: Origins and implications
of the “Rule 48 controversy”. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 8(1): 4–22.
———. 1984b. The Black ‘dumb jock’: An American sports tragedy. College Board
Review, 8–13.
———. 2011. Transformational developments at the interface of race, sport, and
the collegiate athletics arms race in the age of globalization. Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport 4: 18–31.
———. 2016. The promise and limits of leveraging Black athlete power potential to
compel campus change, The Distinguished Lecture series. College Station:
Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, March 3.
Eitzen, Stanley. 2000. Racism in big-time college sport: Prospects for the year
2020 and proposals for change. In Racism in college athletics: The African
American athlete’s experience, 2nd ed., ed. D. Brooks and R. Althouse,
293–306. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology.
Feagin, Joe. 2000. Racist America: Roots, current realities, & future reparations.
New York: Routledge.
———. 2006. Systemic racism: A theory of oppression. New York: Routledge.
———. 2013. The White racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-
framing, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
———. 2016. How Blacks built America: Labor, culture, freedom, and democracy.
Feagin, Joe, and Eileen O’Brien. 2003. White men on race: Power, privilege, and the
shaping of cultural consciousness. Boston: Beacon Press.
Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White women, race matters: The social construction of
whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Frisby, Wendy. 2005. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management
research. Journal of Sport Management 19(1): 1–12.
Guinier, Lani, and Gerald Torress. 2002. The miner’s canary: Enlisting race, resist-
ing power, transforming democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Harris, Cheryl. 1993. Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review 106(8):
1707–1791.
Hawkins, Billy. 2010. The new plantation: Black athletes, college sports, and pre-
dominantly White NCAA Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hodge, Sam, Joe Burden Jr., Leah Robinson, and Robert Bennett III. 2008.
Theorizing on the sterotyping of Black male student-athletes. Journal for the
Study of Sports and Athletes in Education 2(2): 203–226.
Hughes, Robin, James Satterfield, and Mark Giles. 2007. Athleticizing Black male
student-athletes: The social construction of race, sports, myths, and realities.
NASAP Journal 10(1): 112–127.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and Jamel Donnor. 2005. The moral activist role of criti-
cal race theory scholarship. In Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., ed.
Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, 279–301. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and William Tate. 1995. Toward a critical race theory of
education. Teachers College Record 97: 47–68.
Lapchick, Richard, John Fox, Angelica Guiao, and Maclin Simpson. 2015. The
2014 racial and gender report card: College sport. Orlando: The Institute for
Diversity and Ethics in Sport, University of Central Florida, March 3.
Lopez, Ian Haney. 1996. White by law: The legal construction of race. New York:
New York University Press.
Lynn, Marvin, and Maurianne Adams. 2002. Introductory overview to the special
issue critical race theory and education: Recent developments in the field.
Equity & Excellence 35(2).
Lynn, Marvin, and Adrienne Dixson (eds.). 2013. Handbook of critical race theory
in education. New York: Routledge.
McCormick, Robert, and Amy McCormick. 2006. The myth of the student-
athlete: The college athlete as employee. Washington Law Review Association
81: 71–157.
McNamee, Stephen, and Robert Miller Jr. 2009. The meritocracy myth, 2nd ed.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Nelson, Sophia A. 2009. The real affirmative action babies. The Root, August 3.
Nunn, Kenneth. 1997. Law as a Eurocentric enterprise. Law & Inequality 15: 323.
Oliver, Melvin, and Thomas Shapiro. 2006. Black wealth/White wealth: A new
perspective on racial inequality, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Oriard, Michael. 2012. NCAA academic reform: History, context and challenges.
Journal of Intercollegiate Sport 5(1): 4–18.
Osborne, Barbara. 2014. The myth of the exploited student-athlete. Journal of
Polite, Fritz, and Billy Hawkins (eds.). 2012. Sport, race, activism, and social
change. San Diego: Cognella.
Roediger, David. 1991. The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the
American working class. London: Verso.
Sack, Allen. 2009. Clashing models of commercial sport in higher education:
Implications for reform and scholarly research. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletics 2: 76–92.
Sack, Allen, and Ellen J. Staurowsky. 1998. College athletes for hire: The evolution
and legacy of the NCAA’s amateurism myth. Westport: Praeger.
Sage, George. 2000. Introduction. In Racism in college athletics, 2nd ed., ed. Dana
Brooks and Ronald Althouse, 1–12. Morgantown: Fitness Information
Technology.
Sailes, Gary. 1993. An investigation of campus stereotypes: The myth of Black
athletic superiority and the dumb jock stereotype. Sociology of Sport Journal 10:
88–97.
Savage, Howard. 1929. American college athletics. New York: Carnegie Foundation.
Shapiro, Thomas. 2004. The hidden costs of being African American: How wealth
perpetuates inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shropshire, Kenneth. 2012. Michael Oriard on NCAA academic reform: Academics
over dollars. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport 5(1): 19–21.
Singer, John N. 2005a. Addressing epistemological racism in sport management
———. 2005b. Understanding racism through the eyes of African American male
student-athletes. Race, Ethnicity, and Education 8: 365–386.
———. 2009. African American football athletes’ perspectives on institutional
integrity in college sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(1):
102–116.
Singer, John N. 2015. The miseducation of African American male college ath-
letes. In Introduction to intercollegiate athletics, ed. E. Comeaux, 193–206.
Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Slack, Trevor, and Milena Parent. 2006. Understanding sport organizations: The
application of organization theory, 2nd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Smith, Earl. 2007. Race, sport and the American dream. Durham: Carolina
Academic Press.
Southall, Richard, and Ellen Staurowsky. 2013. Cheering on the collegiate model:
Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the NCAA’s redefinition of amateur-
ism. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 37(4): 403–429.
Stovall, David. 2006. Forging community in race and class: Critical race theory
and the quest for social justice in education. Race, Ethnicity, and Education 9:
243–259.
Ture, Kwame, and Charles Hamilton. 1992. Black power: The politics of liberation.
New York: Random House (originally published in 1967).
Van Rheenen, Derek. 2012. Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and
educational reward. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 48(5):
550–571.
Warfield-Coppock, N. 1995. Toward a theory of Afrocenric organizations. Journal

of Black Psychology 21(30): 30–48.
Watkins, William. 2001. The white architects of Black education: Ideology and power
in America, 1865–1954. New York: Teachers College Press.
West, Cornell. 1993. Race matters. New York: Vintage Books.
Woodson, Carter G. 1998. The education of the Negro. Brooklyn: A&B Publishing
Group (originally published in 1919).
———. 2000. The mis-education of the Negro. Chicago: African American Images
(originally published in 1933).
CHAPTER 3
Interest Convergence: A Revolutionary

Theory for Athletic Reform
Billy Hawkins
Some portions of this document contain excerpts from Hawkins, Billy J. The
New Plantation: Black Athletes and College Athletics. (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan Press, 2010)Interest Convergence: A Revolutionary Theory for
Athletic Reform
Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement
Vladmir Lenin
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress
Frederick Douglass
INTRODUCTION
Intercollegiate athletics is a multibillion-dollar commercial enterprise,
especially at the power five conferences.1 Football and men’s basketball,
specifically at Division I National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
B. Hawkins ()
Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: hjbilly@uh.edu

58 B. HAWKINS
predominantly White institutions (PWIs),2 generate revenues on the scale

of major corporations, and commissioners, athletic directors, and coaches
command salaries similar to those of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.
This distinction of being called the power five conferences is a major step
in distinguishing themselves as commercial models, or ideally the collegiate
model of athletics,3 that are uniquely different from the other conferences
that make up NCAA membership.
As stated in the introduction of this volume, the economic motives and
academic indiscretions of intercollegiate athletic programs have unveiled
behaviors that stand to tarnish the images of institutions of higher educa-
tion (see, e.g., University of North Carolina, The Ohio State University,
University of Miami, University of Tennessee, etc.). These acts of impru-
dence have elicited reform from several fronts, including faculty, university
presidents, external stakeholders, and so on. Amidst these heated reform
debates, athletes in these two revenue-producing sports in general, and
Black male athletes specifically, are marginalized and restricted to the role
of athletic laborers. This chapter will provide a brief historical overview
of the NCAA’s efforts to reform, including examples of student activism,
and it intends to express how Black athletes can be proactive in the athletic
reform movement. It seeks to illustrate how these athletes, specifically, are
crucial stakeholders in pushing reform among the power five conferences.
Hopefully, through revolutionary measures, these athletes can force the
power five conferences to address the fact that the ideals and beliefs of
amateurism do not apply to the athletic experiences of these college ath-
letes and the commercial practices of these conferences.
OVERVIEW OF ATHLETIC REFORM

The history of intercollegiate athletics, and its relationship with the NCAA,
has been a history defined by reform. Plainly, reform in intercollegiate athlet-
ics, specifically football, was the major catalyst that sparked the development
of the NCAA (originally named the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of
the United States—IAAUS). In 1905, at the request of President Theodore
Roosevelt, athletic leaders from 13 different colleges convened at the White
House, on two different occasions, to address athletes’ physical safety due to
the numerous injuries and deaths occurring in football.4 In 1929, a report
by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching expressed
the challenges in college athletics and highlighted how recruiting scandals
had created a culture of professionalism and commercialism in college ath-
letics. One of the major conclusions of this report emphasized the need for
INTEREST CONVERGENCE: A REVOLUTIONARY THEORY FOR ATHLETIC... 59
reform.5 Again, the history of college athletics has involved episodes of con-
troversy and contradictions requiring a need for governance and oversight,
consequently requiring reform. Thus, reform has been an ongoing process
instead of a one-shot vaccination that cures all the ills of college athletics. As
the challenges that strain the relationship between education and athletics
have evolved, they have demanded innovative and pliable governance in an
effort to meet these challenges.
Since its inception, the NCAA has evolved from an advisory group with
the authority to create policies to govern intercollegiate athletics into a
multibillion-dollar corporate enterprise. Several scholars have written con-
cerning intercollegiate athletic reform in various formats, and some have
presented provocative recommendations. Beyond the NCAA’s initial pur-
pose of reforming athletics, several organizations have emerged, within
and outside of institutions of higher education, to provide constructive
criticism, strategies, and insight into athletic reform. For example, in
1989, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation formed the Knight
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (KCIA) as a result of college
sport scandals that had achieved national attention, threatening the integ-
rity of higher education. The KCIA initial goal was as follows:
…to recommend a reform agenda that emphasized academic values in an

arena where commercialization of college sports often overshadowed the
underlying goals of higher education.6
The KCIA continues to recommend a reform agenda and seeks to keep a

balance between the missions of athletics and academics at institutions of
higher education.
The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), created in 2002,
was another organization created to address athletic reform and restore
academic integrity. It is currently an alliance of 56 faculty senate members
representing NCAA Division I universities and provides a faculty voice
in the national dialogue on academic reform. Their ultimate goal is to
“preserve and enhance the positive contributions athletics can make to
academic life by addressing longstanding problems in college sports that
undermine those contributions.”7 It seeks to work with the following
organizations and individuals in its efforts to achieve reform in intercol-
legiate athletics: the NCAA, the Association of Governing Boards (AGB),
the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the KCIA, the
Division I Faculty Athletics Representatives (Division I-FARs), the Faculty
Athletics Representatives Association (FARA), the National Association of
60 B. HAWKINS
Academic Advisors for Athletics (N4A), the Division I Athletics Directors

Association, university presidents, and conference commissioners.8 Similar
to the KCIA, COIA has also compiled several position papers and reports,
in working toward a comprehensive plan to reform intercollegiate athletics.
Yet, another organized approach to addressing issues involving reform
in intercollegiate athletics comes in the form of The Drake Group (TDG).
TDG was conceived by Drake University professor, Jon Ericson, in 1999
as the National Association for College Athletic Reform (NAFCAR). It
later changed its name to TDG, denoting its origins—Drake University.
Its original mission focused on restoring academic integrity to college
athletics. This organization mainly consists of current and former faculty
members with the following vision:
…to create an atmosphere on college campuses that encourages personal

and intellectual growth for all students, and demands excellence and profes-
sional integrity from faculty charged with teaching.9
Similar to the KCIA and COIA, TDG has created a proposal with recom-
mendations they believe, if implemented, will assist in bringing balance
and narrowing the gap between athletics and academics, which will con-
tribute to reforming intercollegiate athletics.
The National College Players Association (NCPA) is another advocacy
group worth mentioning in the efforts of athletic reform and college ath-
letes rights. Ramogi Huma founded the NCPA in 2001, with a mission
“to provide the means for college athletes to voice their concerns and
change NCAA rules.”10 They have eleven goals they strive to achieve:
Minimize college athletes’ brain trauma risks, raise the scholarship amount,
prevent players from being stuck paying sports-related medical expenses,
increase graduation rates, protect educational opportunities for student-
athletes in good standing, prohibit universities from using a permanent
injury suffered during athletics as a reason to reduce/eliminate a scholar-
ship, establish and enforce uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help
prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths, eliminate restrictions on
legitimate employment and players ability to directly benefit from commer-
cial opportunities, prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have
not committed a violation, guarantee that college athletes are granted an
athletic release from their university if they wish to transfer, and allow col-
lege athletes of all sports the ability to transfer schools one time without
punishment.11
Unlike the organizations previously mentioned, the mission and goals

of the NCPA are college athlete-centered with implications for policy
changes at the university, conference, and NCAA levels.
There have been other organizations that have sought similar measures
in academic and athletic reform. The student body population can be an
integral part of athletic reform, yet much of the activism among the stu-
dent body has sought to address broader social issues, both nationally and
internationally. Recent US history presents numerous episodes where stu-
dent activism was prevalent on college campuses and in local communities.
The next section provides a brief overview of how student activist, at vari-
ous times, united to address sociopolitical problems that confronted them
locally, nationally, and/or internationally. To preface the next section, it
is important to note how college campuses have often proven contested
terrains for varying political views and platforms when drawing attention
to social inequalities and cultural contradictions.
STUDENT ACTIVISM
Despite the transient nature of student life, there is a consistent level
of continuity to foster change in institutional practices. This brief over-
view will highlight efforts of student activism that have addressed issues
within the structures of institutions of higher education and broader social
issues. Student activism made significant contributions to the Civil Rights
Movement during the late 1950s and 1960s. Since the sixties, universities
and college campuses have consistently been sites for student activism.
They have attracted publicity and changes to local, national, and interna-
tional issues. Student activism has ranged from protesting local and inter-
campus issues, to national and international issues.
In the past 20 years, some of the major topics students have mobilized
around have involved local issues concerning management investments and
administrative policies regarding recruitment and retention of students,
faculty, and staff of color. For example, in 1964 during the Free Speech
Movement at the University of California, Berkeley, 10,000 students sur-
rounded a university police car in protest over a new campus policy that
banned student groups from handing out leaflets and setting up recruiting
tables on campus.12 The protest ended with an agreement between the
university president and students agreeing that all issues of campus reform
recommendations be submitted to a committee consisting of faculty, stu-
62 B. HAWKINS
dents, and administrators for evaluation. Additionally, an academic senate

committee was created to reevaluate the suspension of the eight students.13
Another example involved 46 Harvard students’ efforts to bring national
attention to the low wages paid to its custodial and food service workers
at the nation’s wealthiest university.14 The protest involved a three-week
occupation of the president’s office, and ultimately ended when Harvard
promised to pay food-service workers at least $10.32 an hour; however,
other employees continued to be paid less.15
Another protest, where race was a central issue, involved death threats
aimed at Black students attending Penn State.16 According to Brown:
In April, hundreds of protesters took over the student union to demand that
the administration address the climate of racial intolerance. The sit-in ended
ten days later when the school’s president promised to establish an Africana
Studies Research Center and create $350,000 in new minority scholarships.17
An example of student activism addressing national and international issues

involved the University of Michigan, New York University, and nearly 100
other universities that took part in what became known as the “Killer Coke”
campaign, in which Coca-Cola products were banned from their cam-
puses.18 This protest was an effort to publicize a lawsuit linking the com-
pany to the alleged murder and harassment of union leaders in Colombian
bottling plants.19 The protest also included demands that Coca-Cola pay
reparations to the families of those workers who were killed.
Another example of student activism that engaged global issues
involved students from five major universities that joined together to pro-
test Operation Desert Storm: 5000 students from Duke University orga-
nized a demonstration opposing the war; 4000 University of Michigan
students organized a midnight march; the University of California sent
30,000 protestors to block the Golden Gate Bridge in opposition; 3500
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) students held a 24-hour
vigil; and lastly, students from Notre Dame chartered a bus to the January
26 march in Washington.20 However, despite all of their efforts to protest
the war, President George W. Bush dismissed reports of antiwar protests
on national television.
The second example of student activism that engaged global issues and
received national and international attention was the students’ protests
across the USA against sweatshops. Students at several major universities
(Columbia University, University of Michigan, University of California at
Riverside, Duke, Kansas State, Brown, Loyola, MIT, Macalester, University
of California at Berkeley, Indiana University, Southern Mississippi, and

University of Connecticut) protested in different ways against sweatshops
run by companies such as Nike, Reebok, Champion, and Russell.21 At
some of these institutions, students marched into administrative buildings,
created mock sweatshops, held a sweatshop fashion show to raise aware-
ness of conditions for garment workers, and over 40 universities formed
United Students Against Sweatshops Chapters.22
The year 2015 sparked several campus protests due to the inflamed
racial climate in the USA resulting from several murders of unarmed Black
men and women by police officers or White men in the past year. For the
sake of space, a summary of these protests is provided in Table 3.1.
College Athletes and Activism

There are three recent examples of activism that involved college ath-
letes that are worth noting. In 2014, the Northwestern football players
Table 3.1 Student protestsa

University Issue
University of The fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, ignited a protest against an

Oklahoma African American student organization called the OU Unheard when
a video revealed this fraternity referencing lynching and using racial
slurs in a chant
Wesleyan The student newspaper questioned the legitimacy of the Black Lives
University Matter movement, which the president, Michael S. Roth, supported
in defense of free speech. Student activists staged a boycott of the
student paper and made additional demands of the publication
Ithaca College A protest emerged when two White male Ithaca alumni used
insensitive language in referring to African Americans. 7000 students
walked out of classes in protest
Yale University Sigma Alpha Epilson fraternity sparked a student protest when they
denied minority students access to their party using the phrase,
“White girls only”
Claremont Mary Spellman, dean of students, made comments regarding working
McKenna College with students who did not fit the “CMC mold,” meaning minority
students
a
Sarah Brown, “Facing protests about racial climate, another campus administrator steps down.” The
Chronicle of Higher Education. November 13, 2015. http://chronicle.com/article/Facing-Protests-
About-Racial/234191?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&elq=fcd3862adc0d4ad78d79e223e9
ad4d76&elqCampaignId=1832&elqaid=6877&elqat=1&elqTrackId=22a8ab8290b34369adbf9749be6
9c9d2
64 B. HAWKINS
sought to establish a union in an effort to be classified as employees of

the university instead of simply college athletes. Peter Ohr, director of the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), ruled that scholarship football
players at Northwestern were indeed employees of the school and eligible
to unionize.23 Although a five-member NLRB later overturned this rul-
ing, the activism these players exhibited is notable.
Another effort of activism happened in the form of a simple statement
from Shabazz Napier, who after aiding the University of Connecticut in
winning two NCAA National Championships, after winning the second
championship in 2015, mentioned his experiences of going to bed hun-
gry and not having enough money to get food on national television.
After publicly voicing his discontent, within weeks, the NCAA instituted a
policy allowing universities to provide unlimited meals to college athletes;
a proposal that had been latent under bureaucracy since 2012. Finally, in
November 2015, what the nation witnessed in the Mizzou-gate contro-
versy is the exertion of political opposition and a shift in political power
stemming from a hunger strike by Jonathan Butler and followed by 30
Black Mizzou football players’ willingness to “strike” in support of Black
students’ protest against the campus racial climate and the administra-
tion’s neglect in appropriately addressing the issues resulting from these
conditions.
These brief samplings illustrate how college and university campuses
have been sites of student and college athletes’ activism. These protests have
attracted media attention at the local, national, and international levels, and,
in some cases, they have also produced changes in administrative policies
and increased awareness about on-campus injustices and those often distant
from their respective institutions. Inherent in some of the protests outlined
above is a type of interest convergence where concessions were made when
it converged with the interest of the respective universities, especially in the
case of the University of Missouri. I intend to further illustrate how inter-
est convergence can be implemented as a revolutionary theory for athletic
reform, potentially improving the plight of Black athletes who are caught in
the commercial enterprise of collegiate athletics.
Therefore, in the remaining portion of this chapter, I would like to
employ that a grassroots approach may be appropriate and necessary for
bringing about meaningful reform. One of the reasons for drawing this
conclusion is grounded in the following critical insight by Paulo Freire,
who states that:
This, then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed:
to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who
oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power
the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that
springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free
both. Any attempt to “soften” the power of the oppressed almost always
manifests itself in the form of false generosity; indeed, the attempt never
goes beyond this.24
This statement evokes an alternative approach that is an antithesis to the

“top-down” approaches previously employed to athletic reform. It best
captures the essence of why a grassroots approach may be effective in
efforts to reform college athletics. This new approach will incorporate a
key stakeholder: the athletes. I will briefly outline interest convergence, a
tenet of Critical Race Theory (CRT), and give examples of how it can be
constructed as a revolutionary theory for athletic reform.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY

CRT is considered an offspring of Critical Legal Studies (CLS). It is an
analytic tool and a conceptual framework used to examine racist practices,
as well as an imbalance of power and privilege within social and institu-
tional arrangements in the USA.25 Although CRT originated in the field
of law, its use has been expanding to other disciplines, for example, edu-
cation26 or the sociology of mental health.27 Furthermore, according to
Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic:
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and

scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among
race, racism, and power.28
In conjunction with its efforts to expose inherent racial discrepancies,

CRT also seeks to challenge racial oppression and dominant ideology, as
well as promote racial reform.
CRT is comprised of several tenets, or core principles, that provide
insight into the interworkings of race and race relations. Though the tenets
seem to vary or have been redefined, CRT generally consists of the follow-
ing five major tenets: (1) the permanence of racism or the intercentricity
of race and racism with other forms of subordination; (2) the centrality
66 B. HAWKINS
of experiential knowledge or counter-storytelling; (3) the challenge to

dominant ideology; (4) interest convergence; and (5) the commitment to
social justice.29 Of importance to this current scholarly inquiry is interest
convergence, also referred to as interest convergence theory.
Interest convergence was first coined in 1980 and was later popularized
by Professor Derrick Bell. As explained by Professor Bell:
….This principle of interest convergence provides: The interest of blacks in

achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with
the interests of whites.30
Professor Bell further suggests that if the method (in the case of the 14th
amendment) to improve racial equality threatens the “superior societal
status of middle and upper class whites,” then the method would be
unsuccessful in its attempts.31
Interest convergence has been used as a means of explaining “a particu-
lar case or a line of judicial decisions or legislative enactments.”32 Lee sum-
marizes several major cases, regarding minorities in general, that have used
it as a means to explain Supreme Court decisions and to show a historical
pattern in legislative enactments and trends in state courts.33 All, in vary-
ing degrees, illustrate how advancement in civil rights is correlated with
the benefits of elite whites. In other words, if a court decision, affirmative
action, or legislative enactment poses a threat or burden to a superior soci-
etal status of middle- and upper-class whites, the progress of civil rights
diminishes significantly.
An additional area Lee addresses that has bearings on this current
research is in regard to the use of interest convergence theory as a “tool
of strategy or prediction” or as an “advocate in favor of desired reform.”34
She illustrates how legal scholars have used interest convergence theory to
advocate reform in four categories:
1. Workplace reform—to promote racial justice and equality in the

workplace;
2. Educational reform—as a strategy for affirmative action in higher
education;
3. Political reform—as a tool of strategy or prediction is in pushing for
progressive political reform;
4. Other reform—for example, animal rights activists seeking legislative
reform to protect animals and in the area of domestic violence.35
As it relates to sport, several researchers have used CRT in a variety

of ways. For example, Donnor used the interest convergence compo-
nent of CRT as an analytical tool to examine African American athletes’
educational experiences.36 This study explored alternative strategies to
improve academic achievement among African American football players.
Comeaux uses CRT as an interpretive framework to examine racial differ-
ences in faculty perceptions about Black and White athletes’ academic and
post-undergraduate achievements.37 also uses CRT’s interest convergence
as an analytical lens to examine the potential for improving the educational
achievement levels of Black male athletes at community colleges when
their interests converge positively with community college staff, admin-
istrators, and faculty.38 Singer also used sport as a context to apply CRT
and gain understanding of Black male athletes’ perceptions of racism and
its impact on their educational experiences and personal development.39
Finally, DeLorme and Singer, using Bell’s interest convergence principle,
concluded that although the integration of Major League Baseball (MLB)
“…is often referred to nostalgically as a crowning achievement in civil
rights equity for Black citizens in America,…[but] …the motivations were
not an altruistic gesture toward the Black population of American at all.”40
Social theories are used to study, interpret, and explain social phenom-
ena; they are generally a result of critically examining and reflecting on
social phenomena. The proactive use of social theory to promote change
is commendable. What I intend to propose in this chapter is how the com-
ponents of CRT (interest convergence) can be an effective tool in advocat-
ing for reform in intercollegiate athletics, and more specifically, improving
the conditions for athletes in the revenue generating sports of football and
men’s basketball. For the sake of space, this chapter will address a few key
areas that are associated with the experiences of intercollegiate athletes,
such as the signing of a letter of intent, academic performance, use of
identity, and so on. These areas will be addressed using the theoretical
framework of interest convergence as a strategy to revolutionize collegiate
athletics.
THE RELATIONSHIP: THE INSTITUTION AND THE ATHLETE

Clearly, in the last 30 years, a unique relationship has emerged between
NCAA Division I Universities41 and athletes, in general, and more specifi-
cally, the Black male athletes in the revenue-generating sports of football
and men’s basketball. The increased commercial appeal and demand for
68 B. HAWKINS
these sports have forged a co-dependent relationship between the insti-

tution and Black athletes. The institution is the major buyer, by way of
athletic scholarships, of athletic talent for the sports of football and men’s
basketball, and Black male athletes make up a significant percentage of the
sellers of this athletic talent. Thus, based on their percentages as starters
on the top 20 athletic football and basketball programs, their athletic labor
positions them as key stakeholders.42
Hawkins contrasted this relationship with that of the colonizer and the
colonized.43 Although for some, the colonizer/colonized or plantation
model is a loose analogy, one of the fundamental principles of the plan-
tation model is disequilibrium, where there is a disorientation, a loss of
stability, in various aspects of an individual’s life: socially, economically,
psychologically, culturally, and so on. The works of scholars who have
addressed the practice of colonialism identify the process by which this
relationship emerges and the significance of this relationship. For example,
Memmi suggests that it is the colonizer who initiates this relationship and
brings the colonized into existence for the sole purpose of benefitting
economically from the labor or resources of the colonized.44 He further
states that:
He [the colonizer] finds himself on one side of a scale, the other side of
which bears the colonized man. If his living conditions are high, it is because
those of the colonized are low; if he can benefit from plentiful and unde-
manding labor and servants, it is because the colonized can be exploited at
will and are not protected by the laws of the colony; if he can easily obtain
administrative positions, it is because they are reserved for him and the colo-
nized are excluded from them; the more freely he breathes, the more the
colonized are choked.45
Thus, Hawkins suggests that because of the profit motive of the institu-
tion, athletes are bought into this relationship, where the institution is the
major benefactor.46 Furthermore, it is the recruitment process that first
establishes this relationship.
The significance of this relationship is further illustrated when one exam-
ines the following streams of revenue: the multimillion-dollar athletic bud-
gets, where the top athletic program generates around $143,555,00047;
the 14-year, $10.8 billion contract with CBS and Turner Sports for
television, digital, and other new media rights to the 68-team Division
I Basketball men’s tournament; the lucrative Bowl Championship Series
(BCS) that had a multimillion-dollar economic impact in cities that hosted

these games and an average payouts of $18 million to each team compet-
ing in the five different BCS games; and several BCS conferences (e.g.,
Big 12, Southeastern Conference (SEC)), signing multibillion-dollar tele-
vision contracts. For example, Table 3.2 summarizes the media revenue:
With the end of the BCS era and the dawn of a new era, the new college
football playoff system is estimated to generate from $360 million to $400
million annually.48 The College Football Playoff (CFP) received $407 mil-
lion for the sale of media rights to ESPN to cover the three playoff games
and four additional bowl games.49 During the 2014–2015 bowl season,
the NCAA paid out $505.9 million in revenue to the ten FBS conferences
competing in the 39 postseason FBS games. Furthermore, the following
streams of revenue will likely increase with this new system: ticket sales for
premium events, product licensing, corporate endorsements, game foot-
age, and so on. Undoubtedly, it is in the best interests of these institutions
to maintain a productive, viable, and accessible athletic pool to meet these
economic motives.
In addition, during the 2013–14 school year, the SEC distributed
$309.6 million in revenue to its 14 member schools.50 This revenue dis-
tribution has nearly doubled since 2009, when it was only $165.9 million.
This revenue is mainly from “football and basketball TV contracts, SEC
Championship games, football bowl games, the SEC basketball tourna-
ment, and conference’s share of NCAA Championship events.”51 This dis-
tribution is expected to increase with the launch of the new SEC Network
during the fall of 2014. Again, with this revenue at stake, it is imperative
Table 3.2 Media revenue as of 2012a

Conference Value, term and media outlet
Pac-12 $3 billion 12-year deal (2023–24) with ESPN and FOX

Big 12 $2.6 billion 13-year deal (2023–24) with ESPN and FOX
SEC $825 million with CBS & $2.25 billion with ESPN 15 year deal (2023–24)
ACC $3.6 billion 15-year deal (2026–27) with ESPN
Big Ten $2.8 billion 25-year deal (2031–32) with ABS/ESPN; $1 billion 10-year
deal (2016–17) with CBS; and $72 million 6-year for basketball (2016–17)
Big East $130 million 7-year deal (2019–20) with ESPN
a
Kristi Dosh, “College TV rights deals undergo makeovers.” ESPN.com. May 13, 2012. http://espn.
go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/705/; Brett McMurphy, “Big East, ESPN agree to TV
deal.” ESPN.com. February 23, 2013. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8977673/
big-east-conference-espn-agree-tv-rights-deal
70 B. HAWKINS
that these conferences and universities, specifically, and the NCAA, in gen-
eral, continue to produce a viable athletic product.
Key to generating this revenue is the presence of Black male athletes,
who make up a significant percentage of the athletic pool who gener-
ates this revenue at the conference and national levels. For example, it is
interesting to note that less than 1% of all college athletes (i.e., 400,000,
according to NCAA public service announcement) who generate over
90% of the NCAA revenue and, on average, 60% of the less than 1% are
Black males athletes. Again, this revenue is the result of the NCAA’s
multibillion-dollar contract with Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) to
televise the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.
When we further examine the revenue generated by BCS athletic con-
ferences and programs, again we find a similar pattern where Black male
athletes make up the majority of the athletic labor class. To elaborate fur-
ther, take the former five BCS Bowl Games—collectively they generated
nearly $200 million this past season and distributed $145.2 million to
participating universities and conferences. Of the teams competing, over
50% of the players were Black male athletes, again, where the highest per-
centages of starters were Black males (e.g., for the 2011 BCS Champion
Auburn Tigers 61% of their team and 100% defensive starters were Black;
furthermore, for the 2015–2016 CFP Champions, Alabama Crimson
Tide 73% of their team were Black, 26% were White, and 1% other). This
denotes the presence and predominance of Black male athletes in corpo-
rate athletic industry and the need for their athletic labor.
With this in mind, athletes, in general, and Black athletes, specifically,
are in a strategic position to negotiate for athletic reform, especially as
it relates to their academic and athletic success at these institutions. It is
important for Black athletes to understand how the power of their pres-
ence as athletic laborers creates a platform for negotiation; as previously
mentioned, the Missouri football team provides evidence of this power.
Furthermore, parents or legal guardians play critical roles in negotiating
the academic and athletic futures of their teenagers. Parents or legal guard-
ians must play the dual role of providing parental oversight and acting as
agents who provide legal guidance. The latter will require them to become
more knowledgeable in the recruitment process, including the letters of
intent their teenagers will be signing, or they will need to seek affordable
legal counsel to advise them accordingly. The main purpose is to be pro-
active, instead of reactive, in this recruitment process. Keep in mind, that
there are several interests that are seeking to be served in this institutional
arrangement: athletic departments desire to generate revenue; athletes’

desire to get an education; for some, get an education and make it to the
professional sport level; while for others, they just desire to get to the
professional sport level. All interests can be served if given establishing
parameters during the commencement of this arrangement. Therefore,
the place to start this negotiation is when the relationship begins: the
recruiting process and the signing of the letter of intent.
LETTER OF INTENT: THE COMMITMENT

According to Hawkins, it is the recruiting process that brings the Black
athlete into contact with the PWI, where the “potential” for a mutually
beneficial relationship is created in order for these institutions to main-
tain multimillion athletic budgets and for athletes to obtain an education
(generally signified by graduating with a college degree), or, for a small
percentage, to become professional athletes.52 Regardless, the culminating
piece that solidifies this relationship, to some degree,53 is the signing of a
letter of intent.
Each year, national signing days are garnering more and more media
attention. To ease complication surrounding this event, a website, called
National Letter of Intent (NLI), has been developed with the intent of
demystifying the process. 54 Content from this site informs stakeholders
about the purpose of the letter of intent, guidelines, signing dates, and
so on. Although it is not a requirement for students and parents to sign
a letter of intent, or for institutions to be registered with this program,
according to their website, “the NLI is a binding agreement between a
prospective student-athlete and an NLI member institution,”55 which
assures the following:
• A prospective student-athlete agrees to attend the institution full-

time for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters).
• The institution agrees to provide athletics financial aid for one aca-
demic year (two semesters or three quarters).56
The alleged purpose and media attention given to “signing days” across
this country provide an additional narrative of the significance of the NLI.
Furthermore, regarding the binding agreement, according to the NLI
the following is the penalty for not fulfilling the NLI agreement:
72 B. HAWKINS
A student has to serve one year in residence (full-time, two semesters or

three quarters) at the next NLI member institution and lose one season of
competition in all sports.57
This is one of the initial forms that begins the interdependent relationship
between the athlete and the college or university.
To offset the imbalance in the assumed benefits, the NLI can further
develop and emerge into an athletic contractual agreement that extends
beyond an athlete’s commitment to a specific college or university, and
include specific guarantees granted to the athlete given the athletic
investment of his talents. For example, since the NCAA has increased the
amount of institutional aid athletes can receive and approved institutions
having the authority to offer multi-year grants in aid instead of the one-
year athletic scholarships, athletes should negotiate these terms with the
university and establish an agreement based on these terms (more will be
discussed on the multi-year grants in aid or scholarship in the next sec-
tion). Furthermore, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors “adopted
legislation giving student-athletes who receive full athletic scholarships
the opportunity to receive additional athletic aid up to the full cost of
attendance or $2,000, whichever is less,”58 thus presenting another point
of negotiation prior to the signing the NLI. It is important to note that
both of these policy changes are not mandatory; they are at the institu-
tion’s discretion. Thus, during the initial stages of recruitment, athletes
should demand these options be included in their athletic contractual
agreement.
Another point of negotiating during the NLI period is for long-term
healthcare coverage for athletic-related injuries that will impact the lives
of these athletes after their eligibility has expired. The NCAA catastrophic
injury insurance program should expand beyond just covering head
trauma injuries that produce diminished mental abilities to include injuries
that will incur diminished physical abilities later in life (e.g., joint replace-
ments or the insertion of plates, screws, rods, or nails to repair bone or
joint injuries).
Finally, in the NLI’s current configuration, the only party subject to
being penalized is the athlete. But what happens when the university
defaults on providing the athlete with the terms agreed upon? Most
importantly, the university should be held liable when an athlete fails to
receive a quality educational experience. The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill is a recent case that provides an example of how athletic
demands overshadow academic achievement.59 The need for athletic

departments to maintain eligibility should not be the prevailing order of
business where academic negligence is the result.
MULTI-YEAR ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIP

In 2012, the NCAA passed legislation to allow their member institutions
to offer multi-year athletic scholarships, instead of the yearly grant-in-aids
that were previously provided.60 The yearly scholarships provide athletic
programs the option to renew annually, while the multi-year scholarship
provides the athlete with more security and sends a message that these
institutions are committed to the academic success of these athletes.
However, as of 2013, only six universities “in the six major conferences
signed at least 24 multi-year scholarships across all sports over the past year:
Florida (60), Ohio State (47), NC State (40), Michigan State (30), Arizona
State (27) and Auburn (27).”61 The argument ranges from the financial strain
this will cause many universities to the entitlement it will provide to athletes.
The premium on athletic talent needed to maintain athletic financial
viability creates an opportunity for athletes to negotiate multi-year schol-
arships. Again, interest convergence posits that institutions are willing to
concede when it is in their best interests. When athletes understand the
power they have as an athletic commodity, they are in a better position to
negotiate demands, such as, multi-year scholarships.
SIGNING OTHER ATHLETIC DOCUMENTS

(STUDENT-ATHLETE STATEMENT FORMS)
Once an athlete has made a decision regarding a college or university,
additional forms are required to ensure eligibility. The following are exam-
ples of forms many student athletes are required to sign as incoming fresh-
man, which are outlined in the NCAA’s Manual62:
• Statement concerning eligibility statement

• Buckley Amendment consent
• Affirmation of status as an amateur athlete
• Promotion of NCAA championships, events, activities, or programs
• Drug test statement
• Incoming transfers—previous involvement in NCAA rules violation
• Incoming freshman—affirmation of valid ACT or SAT score
74 B. HAWKINS
Again, the revolutionary application of interest convergence can

empower athletes in this process, especially when athletes unknowingly
are dispossessed of the rights to their athletic talents, rights, and the like-
ness of their image.
The O’Bannon v. NCAA case is a perfect example of the disposses-
sion of the rights to athletic talent and their likeness.63 When an athlete
fully understands his worth and value to the athletic department’s capi-
talist’s agenda, he or she will be better equipped to negotiate prior to
being dispossessed of his or her athletic talents and rights. Additionally,
evoking the theoretical assumptions of interest convergence, where the
athlete understands that his or her athletic and academic interests and the
capitalist interests of the athletic department are intricately interwoven.
However, the athlete cannot allow his athletic rights or the likeness of his
image to be used or misused without proper compensation. This requires
knowledge of the different contracts an athlete signs each year for eligibil-
ity purposes; thus, employing the assistance of legal counsel is imperative.
Making the assumption that these institutions are functioning in the best
interest of the athletes is a risk not worth taking given the high stakes
involved with this commercial enterprise.
One document that should be a part of the package signed by athletes
is a guarantee educational contract form. This form will be constructed to
assure the athlete that once he or she is recruited and offered a scholar-
ship, it is good until he or she graduates with a degree. If the athlete is
injured, a new coach is hired and decides to replenish his or her roster by
replacing existing athletes, or if the athlete is drafted to the professional
level prior to graduating, he or she will still have an open scholarship to
return and complete his or her degree. Several schools are adopting poli-
cies of this nature, but it is not all altruistic; for some, it is for the sole
purpose of maintaining and/or gaining a favorable Academic Progress
Rate (APR) score.
INVOKING JUSTICE
A final example of employing interest convergence proactively can be
found in the case of the University of Missouri football players. As men-
tioned earlier in this chapter, this case speaks to the power athletes have
in using their presence and publicity to invoke change on campus, or at
least draw national media attention. The threat of “work” stoppage from
these athletes drew considerable attention in the national media because
it would have cost the university millions of dollars. This price tag was
enough to invoke action in the best interest of both parties. In this case,
the resignation of the president, Tim Wolfe, and the stepping down of
Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin were the beginning stages of invoking justice
because of these administrators’ blatant negligence in addressing racially
charged incidents that were occurring on campus.
The effectiveness of athletes using interest convergence as a revolution-
ary strategy to invoke justice requires a collective effort from both White
and Black college athletes, and in some cases, members of the larger stu-
dent body. Several of the issues sought in reform efforts, such as keeping
scholarship values in line with the cost of tuition, compensation for sport-
related injuries beyond their eligibility, and so on, can all be addressed if
athletes collectively voiced their opinion through work stoppage or other
political means; for example, uniting with the efforts of All Players United
or organizations like NCPA.
Similar to other movements that sought reform, whether based on race,
gender, or labor reform, the threat to the economic motives and gains of
capitalist institutions warrants attention and forces them to act accord-
ingly. College athletes cannot rely on a top-down approach to address
their athletic reform needs. Employing interest convergence as a revolu-
tionary theory, college athletes can be proactive in using their publicity
and collective power in combating acts of injustices that occur nationally,
campus-wide, and/or athletic-related.
CONCLUSION
The effort to implement grassroots reform through athletic activism
requires the collective efforts of blue chip athletes, specifically, and ath-
letes in revenue generating sports, in general, who are willing to forego
the temporary gains for long-term change. In the spirit of activism, sac-
rifice and acts of selflessness are required. The history of activism further
documents how individuals were willing to forego individual benefits to
ensure the benefits of their posterity (e.g., whether it was during the abo-
litionist movement, women’s suffrage movement, civil rights movement,
etc.). The application of the critical race tenet of interest convergence in
a proactive manner provides a revolutionary theory to empower student
athletes in revenue generating sports and reduce the exploitation that
exists when there is an imbalance in athletic expenditure and academic
achievement.
76 B. HAWKINS
The proactive use of this tenet also encourages student athletes in rev-
enue generating sports, specifically, to obtain legal expertise prior to sign-
ing documentation that waives their rights to their images and likenesses
for the sake of amateurism. Again, with the understanding that the ath-
letes’ and university’s interests are intricately interwoven and that they
share a symbiotic relationship, athletes will be better equipped in negotiat-
ing the terms of their tenure at these institutions.
Moving CRT from an analytic theoretical framework to a revolution-
ary theoretical framework is useful for grassroots athletic reform. Athletes
cannot longer absolve themselves of the power they have in their rela-
tionship with the university and within the intercollegiate athletic com-
plex. The united efforts demonstrated at Northwestern University and the
University of Missouri scratch the surface of the collective power athletes in
revenue generating sports, specifically, can command; whether it is sparking
national debate around the unionization of athletes or forcing university
administrators to address racist practices latent in culture of universities.
Reform in collegiate athletics will not move beyond the token conces-
sions sparingly allocated by the NCAA to appease the masses until agitation
that significantly threatens the commercial interests of these conferences is
employed. As long as there is a majority Black athletic labor class (Black
male football and basketball athletes) generating revenue that is supporting
the athletic experiences of students who are predominantly White, there
is a level of comfort and inertia to making any significant changes, espe-
cially under the current racial configuration. This wealth transfer where
Black labor converts into White wealth has been a historical pattern in
this country. These “educational” institutions, similar to other US institu-
tions, continue the tradition in exploiting the Black body, whether it was
economic exploitation that occurred during slavery, the system of share-
cropping, from the high incarceration of Black males trapped in the prison
industrial complex, and even with police brutality which justifies militariza-
tion of police departments. Thus, there is a level of comfort in having the
Black body serve the needs of the White establishment. Therefore, trying
to appeal to the moral consciousness of administrators, commissioners, and
presidents of the power five conferences and the NCAA administrators
who governs these institutions or waiting for them to be altruistically moti-
vated to reform this system has proven a minimally successful endeavor.
In conclusion, the words of Frederick Douglass, during the 23rd anni-
versary of the West India Emancipation, best capture the essence of reform
and the measures necessary to pursue reform:
Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of
the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her
august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been
exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other
tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle
there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate
agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they
want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the
awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it
may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes
nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what
any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure
of injustice and wrong, which will be imposed upon them, and these will
continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.64
This conceptual framework for reform was applicable in the abolition of

slavery and it is applicable to the athletic reform currently needed in col-
lege athletics, in general, and the power five conferences, specifically.
NOTES
1. The Power Five conferences consist of the following NCAA Division
I conferences: The Big East, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big
12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and
Southeastern Conference (SEC).
2. PWIs will be used in referring to the predominantly White NCAA
Division I institutions.
3. For a critical examination of the NCAA’s Collegiate Model, see
Richard Southall & E. Staurowsky, “Cheering on the Collegiate
Model Creating, Disseminating, and Imbedding the NCAA’s
Redefinition of Amateurism,” Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 37,
no. 4 (2013): 403–429.
4. Joseph N. Crowley, The NCAA’s First Century in the Arena
(Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association,
2005), 7.
5. Howard J. Savage, American College Athletics, Bulletin no. 23 (New
York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
1929).
78 B. HAWKINS
6. The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, http://www.

knightcommission.org/about/ (accessed February 11, 2016).
7. The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, “About COIA,” http://
pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen045/US045-COIA-Home.
html (accessed January 9, 2016).
8. Ibid.
9. The Drake Group, “Vision, Mission, and Goals,” http://thedrake-
group.org/2012/12/04/hutchins-award-2/ (accessed December
2, 2015).
10. National College Players Association, “Mission and Goals,” http://
www.ncpanow.org/about/mission-goals (accessed February 17,
2016).
11. Ibid.
12. “Student activism becoming more personal,” National On-Campus
Report, 33 (2005): 1–4.
13. Ibid.
14. Jack Brown, “Giving it the old college outcry,” Mother Jones, 26
(2001 Sept/Oct): 20–21.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., 20–21.
18. “Magazine Reviews Year of Student Activism,” National On-
Campus Report, 20 (2005, September 15): 2–3.
19. Ibid.
20. Heather Rhoads, “Activism revives campus,” Progressive, 2 (1991,
March 16): 15–17.
21. Peter Dreier and Richard Applebaum, “Students confront sweat-
shops,” Nation, 18 (2005, November 10): 28.
22. Ibid.
23. Ben Strauss and Steve Eder, “College players granted right to form
union,” The New York Times. March 26, 2014. http://www.nytimes.
com/2014/03/27/sports/ncaafootball/national-labor-relations-
board-rules-northwestern-players-are-employees-and-can-unionize.
html?_r=0
24. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Bloomsbury
Academic, 2014): 21.
25. Derrick A. Bell, And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial
Justice (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Kimberlé Crenshaw, Neil
Gotanda, Gary Peller, & Kendall Thomas (Eds.), Critical Race
Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement (New York:
New Press, 1995); Richard Delgado, Critical Race Theory: The
Cutting Edge (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995); Richard
Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction
(New York: New York University Press, 2001).
26. Daniel G. Solorzano, “Images and words that wound: Critical race
theory, racial stereotyping and teacher education,” Teacher Education
Quarterly 24 no. 3 (1997): 5–19; Gloria Ladson-Billings & William
F. Tate IV, “Toward a critical race theory of education,” Teachers
College Record, 97 no. 1 (1997): 47–68.
27. Tony N. Brown, “Critical race theory speaks to the sociology of
mental health: Mental health problems produced by racial stratifica-
tion,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Special Issue: Race,
Ethnicity, and Mental Health, 44 no. 3 (2003): 292–301.
28. Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An
Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2001): 2.
29. Jessica T. DeCuir & Adrienne Dixson, “So when it comes out, they
aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a
tool of analysis of race and racism in education,” Educational
Researcher, 33 no. 5 (2004): 26–31; Richard Delgado & Jean
Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York:
New York University Press, 2001); Tara J. Yasso, “Whose culture has
capital? A critical race theory discussion of community culture
wealth,” Race Ethnicity and Education, 8 no. 1 (2005): 69–91.
30. Derrick A. Bell, “Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-
convergence dilemma,” Harvard Law Review, 93, no. 3 (1980):
523.
31. Ibid., 523.
32. Cynthia Lee, “Cultural convergence: Interest convergence theory
meets the cultural defense,” Arizona Law Review 49, (2007): 925.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., 933.
35. Ibid., 933–938.
36. Jamel K. Donnor, “Towards an interest-convergence in the educa-
tion of African-American football student athletes in major college
sports,” Race Ethnicity and Education, 8 no. 1 (2005): 45–67.
37. Eddie Comeaux, “Racial differences in faculty perceptions of colle-
giate student-athletes’ academic and post-undergraduate achieve-
ments,” Sociology of Sport Journal, 27 (2010): 390–412.
80 B. HAWKINS
38. Shaun R. Harper, “Race, interest convergence, and transfer out-
comes for Black male student athletes at community colleges,” In
College Men and Masculinities: Theory, Research, and Implications
for Practice. S.R. Harper & F. Harris, III, (Eds), 494–503 (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010).
39. John N. Singer, “Understanding racism through the eyes of African
American male student-athletes,” Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8
no. 4 (2005): 365–386.
40. Joshua DeLorme & John N. Singer, “The interest convergence prin-
ciple and the integration of Major League Baseball,” Journal of Black
Studies, 41 no. 2 (2010): 381; Derrick A. Bell, “Brown v. Board of
Education and the interest-convergence dilemma,” Harvard Law
Review, 93, no. 3 (1980): 518–533.
41. Although, in theory, these are two different entities with varying phi-
losophies: the university and the NCAA. The NCAA seeks to compli-
ment the overall mission of the university; and both have benefitted
economically from this union. Thus, there is a greater effort by the
NCAA to establish academic guidelines for eligibility to compliment
the mission of the university; therefore, I will refer to both as a single
of entity—the institution—when their missions coincide and as they
relate to Black male athletes, specifically.
42. Billy J. Hawkins, The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports,
and Predominantly White NCAA Institutions (New York: Palgrave
MacMillan Press, 2010).
43. Ibid.
44. Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1965).
45. Ibid., 8.
Macmillan Press, 2010).
47. For additional information on NCAA revenues and expenses data,
see the 2011 Edition of Revenues and Expenses of NCAA Division I
Intercollegiate Athletics Programs, retrieved from http://www.ncaa-
publications.com/productdownloads/2010RevExp.pdf.
48. Brett McMurphy, “Power conferences likely to receive most of play-
off revenue.” CBSSPORTS.COM. June 18, 2012. http://www.cbss-
ports.com/collegefootball/story/19378895/power-conferences-likely-to-receive-
most-of-playoff-revenue.
49. “College bowl payouts,” ESPN.com. April 14, 2015. http://espn.

go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12688517/college-bowl-game-payouts-surpass-
500-million-first-year-college-football-playoff.
50. Tim Tucker, “SEC schools will get $20.9 million each from league.”
AJC.com. May 30, 2014. http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/col-
lege/sec-schools-will-get-209-million-each/ngBB2/.
51. Ibid., para 3.
Macmillan Press, 2010).
53. I suggest to “some degree” because there are no guarantees that
with the signing of a letter of intent, the athlete will not renege, with
potential penalties; or that institutions will follow through on their
offer, despite NCAA legislation that prohibits teams from oversign-
ing. For more on issues of oversigning, see Andy Staples, “Oversigning
offenders won’t be curbed by NCAA’s toothless rule.”
SportsIllustrated.com. January 24, 2011. http://www.si.com/more-
sports/2011/01/24/oversigning.
54. See http://www.nationalletter.org/index.html.
55. Ibid., para 3.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid., para 4.
58. Michelle Brutlag Hosick, “DI Board adopts improvements in aca-
demic standards and student-athlete support.” NCAA.org. http://
www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-board-adopts-
improvements-academic-standards-and-student. Para 4.
59. For a thorough examination of the academic negligence that
occurred at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, see Kenneth
L. Wainstein, A. Joseph Jay III, and Colleen Depman Kukowski,
Investigation of Irregular Classes in the Department of African and
Afro-American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. October 16, 2014. http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.
wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf.
60. Michelle Brutlag Hosick, Multiyear scholarships to be allowed: Vote
to override legislation falls just short of required mark, NCAA.Com.
February 17, 2012. http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/arti-
cle/2012-02-17/multiyear-scholarships-be-allowed.
82 B. HAWKINS
61. Zack Ellis, “Report: NCAA multiyear scholarships not taking hold
in major programs.” SI.Com: Campus Union. April 19, 2013.
http://college-football.si.com/2013/04/19/ncaa-multiyear-
scholarships/. Para 2.
62. For further information, see bylaw, article. The National Collegiate
Athletic Association. NCAA Division I Manual 2015–16. http://
www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D116JAN.pdf.
63. United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Edward O’Bannon,
Jr. v. NCAA. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.
php?pk_id=0000000757.
64. Philip S. Foner (Ed), Frederick Douglass Slavery and the Civil War:
Selections from his writings (New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,
2003): 42; the original source is from a speech delivered by Frederick
Douglass on August 3, 1857, at Canandaigua, New York, regarding
the West India Emancipation, entitled “If there is no struggle, there is
no progress.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bell, Derrick A. 1980. Brown v. board of education and the interest-convergence
dilemma. Harvard Law Review 93(3): 518–533.
———. 1989. And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York:
Basic Books.
Brown, Jack. 2001. Giving it the old college outcry. Mother Jones 26: 20–21.
Brown, Tony N. 2003. Critical race theory speaks to the sociology of mental
health: Mental health problems produced by racial stratification. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, Special Issue: Race, Ethnicity, and Mental Health
44(3): 292–301.
Brown, Sarah. 2015. Facing protests about racial climate, another campus admin-
istrator steps down. The Chronicle of Higher Education. November 13. http://
chronicle.com/article/Facing-Protests-About-Racial/234191?cid=at&utm_
source=at&utm_medium=en&elq=fcd3862adc0d4ad78d79e223e9ad4d76&e
lqCampaignId=1832&elqaid=6877&elqat=1&elqTrackId=22a8ab8290b343
69adbf9749be69c9d2
Comeaux, Eddie. 2010. Racial differences in faculty perceptions of collegiate
student-athletes’ academic and post-undergraduate achievements. Sociology of
Sport Journal 27: 390–412.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, and K. Thomas (ed). 1995. Critical
race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York: New Press.
Crowley, Joseph N. 2005. The NCAA’s first century in the arena, 7. Indianapolis:
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
DeCuir, Jessica T., and A.D. Dixson. 2004. So when it comes out, they aren’t that
surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race
and racism in education. Educational Researcher 33(5): 26–31.
Delgado, Richard. 1995. Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Delgado, Richard, and J. Stefancic. 2001. Critical race theory: An introduction.
DeLorme, Joshua, and J.N. Singer. 2010. The interest convergence principle and
the integration of Major League Baseball. Journal of Black Studies 41(2):
367–384.
Donnor, Jamel K. 2005. Towards an interest-convergence in the education of
African-American football student athletes in major college sports. Race
Ethnicity and Education 8(1): 45–67.
Dosh, Kristi. 2012. College TV rights deals undergo makeovers. ESPN.com. May
13, 2012. http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/705/
Dreier, Peter, and R. Applebaum. 2005, November 10. Students confront sweat-
shops. Nation 18: 28.
Ellis, Zack. 2013. Report: NCAA multiyear scholarships not taking hold in major
programs. SI.Com: Campus Union. April 19, 2013. http://college-football.
si.com/2013/04/19/ncaa-multiyear-scholarships/. Para 2.
Foner, Philip S. (ed). 2003. Frederick Douglass slavery and the Civil War: Selections
from his writings. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Hosick, Michelle B. 2012. Multiyear scholarships to be allowed: Vote to override
legislation falls just short of required mark. NCAA.Com. February 17, 2012.
h t t p : / / w w w. n c a a . c o m / n e w s / n c a a / a r t i c l e / 2 0 1 2 - 0 2 - 1 7 /
multiyear-scholarships-be-allowed
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and W.F. Tate IV. 1997. Toward a critical race theory of
education. Teachers College Record 97(1): 47–68.
Lee, Cynthia. 2007. Cultural convergence: Interest convergence theory meets the
cultural defense. Arizona Law Review 49: 925.
Magazine Reviews Year of Student Activism, National On-Campus Report, 20:
2–3, September 15, 2005.
McMurphy, Brett. 2012. Power conferences likely to receive most of playoff rev-
enue. CBSSPORTS.COM. June 18, 2012. http://www.cbssports.com/colleg-
efootball/stor y/19378895/power-conferences-likely-to-receive-most-
of-playoff-revenue
———. 2013. Big East, ESPN agree to TV deal. ESPN.com. February 23, 2013.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/stor y/_/id/8977673/
big-east-conference-espn-agree-tv-rights-deal
Memmi, Albert. 1965. The colonizer and the colonized. Boston: Beacon Press.
84 B. HAWKINS
Rhoads, Heather. 1991, March 16. Activism revives campus. Progressive 2: 15–17.
Savage, Howard J. 1929. American college athletics, Bulletin no. 23. New York:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Solorzano, Daniel G. 1997. Images and words that wound: Critical race theory,
racial stereotyping and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly 24(3):
5–19.
Southall, Richard, and E. Staurowsky. 2013. Cheering on the collegiate model
creating, disseminating, and imbedding the NCAA’s redefinition of amateur-
ism. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 37(4): 403–429.
Student activism becoming more personal. National On-Campus Report. 33: 1–4,
2005.
The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. 2016. About COIA. http://pages.
uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen045/US045-COIA-Home.html. Accessed 9
Jan 2016.
The Drake Group. 2015. Vision, mission, and goals. http://thedrakegroup.
org/2012/12/04/hutchins-award-2/. Accessed 2 Dec 2015.
The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. 2016. http://www.knight-
commission.org/about/. Accessed 11 Feb 2016.
Tucker, Tim. 2014. SEC schools will get $20.9 million each from league. AJC.
com. May 30, 2014. http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/sec-schools-
will-get-209-million-each/ngBB2/
Yasso, Tara J. 2005. Who’s culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community culture wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education 8(1): 69–91.
CHAPTER 4
Converging Interests: Black Scholar-

Advocacy and the Black College Athlete
Akilah Carter-Francique, Emmett Gill,
and Algerian Hart
Introduction
With the University of Missouri athlete boycott and racial unrest at several
Football College Subdivision (FCS) schools (e.g., Southern Methodist
University [SMU], Purdue University, University of Oklahoma, and
University of Alabama), one aspect of the relationship between Black
college athletes and Historically White Institutions of Higher Education
(HWIHE) is clear—Black college athletes’ status does not insulate them
from campus race and diversity issues. Historically, Black college athletes
were “super-segregated” from students of color who were non-athletes
A. Carter-Francique (*)
Department of Health and Kinesiology, Prairie View A&M University,
Prairie View, TX, 77446, USA
e-mail: akilahfrancique@gmail.com
E. Gill
Department of Social Work, University of Texas San Antonio,
San Antonio, TX, USA
A. Hart
Department of Kinesiology, Western Illinois University,
Macomb, IL, USA

86 A. CARTER-FRANCIQUE ET AL.
and issues impacting the latter’s well-being, including lack of diversity in

the student body and among faculty, race discrimination by peer and fac-
ulty, daily micro-aggressions, as well as lack of space inside and outside
of the classroom for discourse on race. Likewise, contemporarily more
tangible issues germane to Black college athletes, like neglecting their
substance abuse issues, ignoring their mental health vulnerabilities, and
delaying deterrents to dating or domestic violence situations, also persist.
On March 3, 2016, Dr. Harry Edwards delivered a speech titled
“The Promise and Limits of Leveraging Black Athlete Power to Compel
Campus Change” at Texas A&M University for the Department of Health
and Kinesiology’s Distinguished Lecture Series. Edwards’ speech inti-
mated that racism in America is at the foundation for much of its matters.
Further, he asks rhetorically to consider the historical underpinnings of
which America was founded as well as the efforts made to redress rac-
ism and discrimination, particularly for Black college athletes that attend
HWIHE, participate in revenue-producing sports, and are the primary
recipient of inequitable treatment. Edwards’ speech reminded all that the
aforementioned boycotts, racial incidents, and formal and informal efforts
have roots with his own efforts, as a Black faculty member, and advocacy,
with Black college athletes, 48 years prior at San Jose State University.
Hence, the current string of police shootings of Black citizens, Black Lives
Matter activism efforts, and the Missouri football athletes’ boycott con-
tinue to dramatically alter the intersection between athletics and activism
in higher education. Consequently, one central aspect of Black college
athletes’ relationship and consciousness within HWIHEs, which poses a
stark contrast of overt racism then and pseudo-covert racism today, is that
these young, athletically talented Black females and males are likely pon-
dering how they, and their peers who are non-athletes, are valued on these
campuses.
In 1981, in conjunction with the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) policy change that allowed more autonomy regard-
ing the negotiation of television contracts, NCAA member institutions’
interest in converting college sports into the figurative “front porch” of
the university increased as a priority.1 As such, winning athletic contests
became increasingly important and with that epiphany also came the real-
ization that the Black college athlete was integral in winning and further-
ing the visibility of institution.
In 2004, former University of Notre Dame football great Paul Hornung
put it best when he infamously proclaimed that his alma mater “… gotta
CONVERGING INTERESTS: BLACK SCHOLAR-ADVOCACY AND THE BLACK... 87
get the black athlete. We must get the black athlete if we’re going to
compete.”2 Not only do HWIHE need Black athletes to compete, they
also need them to generate revenue. According to basketball shoe guru
Sonny Vaccaro, “Ninety percent of the NCAA revenue is produced by 1
percent of the athletes. Go to the skill positions—the stars. Ninety per-
cent (of the 1 percent) are Black.”3 Concomitantly, Harper, Williams, and
Blackman’s 2013 report on Black Male Athletes and Racial Inequities in
NCAA Division I College Sports presents six major NCAA Division I ath-
letic conferences, where Black men were 2.8 percent of the undergraduate
student body, but 57.1 percent of the football players and 64.3 percent of
the basketball players.4 Given this reality at HWIHE, Hornungs’ declara-
tion came to fruition many years before his 2004 statement, but what has
not evolved for Black college athletes or their undergraduate peers who
are non-athletes are the supports and opportunities for students of color
as well as protections from the overt racism, covert prejudice, and insti-
tutional exploitation. In the absence of adequate investments by athletics
departments and universities to insure the well-being of Black college ath-
letes, Black faculty have traditionally advocated this group on college and
university campuses. However, the demands and politics of a tenure-track
position at a HWIHE is reflected in the minute number of Black profes-
sors on these campuses, which creates an atmosphere where acting as a
Black scholar-activist is risky. Therefore, employing the lens of critical race
theory (CRT), the purpose of this chapter is to illuminate the roles and
conflicts that Black sport scholars endure in the contexts of HWIHE to
advocate Black college athletes.
Black Faculty at HWIHE

Extant literature on the experiences of Black faculty begins as early as the
1970s.5 While primarily demographic and quantitative in nature, these
research examinations attempted to identify the differences between
Black and White faculty experiences at HWIHE.6 In 1983, Elmore and
Blackburn examined (a) scholarly productivity, (b) maintenance of univer-
salistic quality criteria, and (c) how “a” and “b” affect Black faculty’s gen-
eral health within the academic environment. Based on the results of the
quantitative questionnaire, the authors discerned that “black and white
faculty are more alike than they are different.”7 While their examination
was appreciated, we as critical scholars found their assertion troublesome
due to the absence of qualitative voices from the participants.
For example, the opportunity to understand why over 60 percent of

Black faculty disagreed with the statement “I am working and striving
more than the average to make my skills and abilities known through my
department because of my minority status” could be of benefit particu-
larly within a HWIHE where they are an underrepresented population.
Understanding the agreement and/or disagreement with the quantitative
items can also aid in understanding the specific challenges of Black faculty,
rather than the assumed challenges of Black faculty. Nevertheless, Elmore
and Blackburn articulated that while the Black faculty’s response results
reflected that all was well, the “generally satisfied” faculty “may be paying
some expensive psychic costs.”8
The concern regarding Black faculty who work at HWIHE and
their psychic costs is a legitimate reality. Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh, and
Bonous-Hammarth along with the aforementioned scholars, expound on
the endemic nature of racism within HWIHEs as contributing factors of
the underrepresentation and low academic ranking among Blacks:
The academic hierarchy, which favors Whites over non-Whites, typically

penalizes [Black] professors, who are less likely to be tenured, spend more
time on teaching and administrative tasks that on research, work at less pres-
tigious institutions, and have lower academic ranks compared to their White
counterparts.9
The authors’ claim that the academic hierarchy is associated with racial
hierarchy in the United States, and consequently, Blacks lack the social
capital necessary to overcome race discrimination within this hierarchy.
Social capital consists of the social networks (e.g., personal, commu-
nity) a person has acquired that provide the necessary social support to
aid in their endeavors (i.e., education, career, health, and well-being).10
Correspondingly, racial hierarchy is also associated with institutional rank-
ing and prestige.11 Therefore, when examining the number/percentage of
Black faculty at “high ranking” intuitions, the Journal of Blacks and Higher
Education reported that Blacks are greatly underrepresented at research
one institutions. However, at high-ranking liberal arts institutions (i.e.,
Mount Holyoke College, Swarthmore College, Williams College), Blacks
are represented fairly well.
Black representation at respective levels as well as within institutions
of higher education is noteworthy. The National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES)’ 2015 report detailed race and gender representations
Table 4.1 Percentage of full-time faculty based on race, sex, and rank
Academic Level White White Blacks Hispanic Asian (Pacific
males females Islander)
Professor 58 26 4 3 9
Associate Professor 44 34 6 4 11
Assistant Professor 36 38 7 5 12
Instructor 34 44 8 7 6
Lecturer 37 44 5 6 7
Total Faculty 43 35 6 5 10
*Note: Adapted from 2015 NCES Fall 2013 Percentage distribution of full-time faculty in degree-
granting postsecondary institutions, by academic rank, race/ethnicity, and sex (National Center for
Education Statistics. “Fast Facts.” U. S. Department of Education, Institute on Education Science, 2015.
Accessed January 10, 2016 from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61)
of full-time faculty employed at degree-granting postsecondary institu-

tions (e.g., public, private nonprofit, private for-profit). In Table 4.1, the
respective percentile representations are reflective of the 791,400 full-time
faculty in the fall of 2013, a 45 percent increase since the fall of 1993.
Identifying the disparity of Black faculty in comparison to White faculty
is necessary; and, understanding the rationale behind Black faculty repre-
sentation is central to the purpose of this chapter. Explicating the work of
Allen and colleagues, Black faculty face challenges and/or obstacles that
hinder their upward academic ranking, mobility, and ability to serve as
activists generally and activists on behalf Black college athletes specifically.
These challenges include: (a) overburdened with teaching and service
responsibilities and (b) inflexible expectations of universities and colleges
about research and publication.12
All faculty, Black and White, are charged with research, teaching, and
service obligations; however, Allen and colleagues state Black faculty
“place higher value on teaching and service.”13 The manifestation of this
reality often results with Black faculty spending more time and effort on
advising, counseling, and mentoring students that are often Black and/
or are additional students of color as well as serving on committees at
the departmental, college, university, and/or organizations as the racial
minority representative. For example, Allen and colleagues indicate that:
[Black] faculty members are also expected – by their administrations, fac-

ulty, colleagues, students, and sometime community members – to serve
on committees that address minority issues, campus security, racial/ethnic
relations, recruitment of faculty and students of color, university relations,

and community outreach. Faculty members in such situations feel keen
responsibilities to their departments, the university, students, and to larger
constituencies. However, they undertake such work almost always at the
cost of reducing their efforts in other areas.14
Therefore, teaching and service, while expected, are not valued nor
rewarded within the academic hierarchy at certain institutions (i.e.,
research I). Involvement in these efforts decreases the amount of time
available to conduct research investigations, submit publications, and
apply for grants; and depending on the type of institutions (i.e., research
I, liberal arts), Black faculty fail to obtain tenure and/or get promoted.
While this information is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important
to note that HWIHE administration and White faculty rarely consider or
display concern for the effect counseling, mentoring, and service efforts
have on scholarly productivity and the effect of racism on Black faculty’s
experiences within these institutions.
Black College Athletes at HWIHE

The rise of Black scholar-activists emerged out of the plight of Blacks in
America. As alluded, systemic racism manifestations were displayed with
unequal hiring practices, housing discrimination, and police brutality. In
college sport, capitalistic interest and bragging rights nurtured the exploi-
tive behavior of institutional and athletic administrators at HWIHE which
gave rise to Black faculty scholars like Dr. Harry Edwards to advocate on
behalf of the Black college athlete (see Revolt of the Black Athlete).15 But
what is the difference between a scholar-activist and scholar-advocacy. In a
2014 blog, Dr. Sara Goldrick-Rab, professor of Educational Policy Studies
and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison explicated:
Scholarly activism is not advocacy. Let me say that again, since in my expe-
rience people have trouble hearing this. I am a scholar-activist, but not an
advocate. The difference is critical. An advocate begins with a core and guid-
ing goal—not a theory—and pushes for changes to achieve that goal. In
contrast, a scholar-activist begins with a set of testable assumptions, subjects
these to rigorous research, and once in possession of research findings seeks
to translate those findings into action. With much respect to my colleagues
working in advocacy, I much prefer the latter role since I often have more
unanswered questions than clear goals, prefer to turn to data rather than
personal beliefs when thinking through policy options, and find that actions
are more effective when guided by research.16
Understandably, some may disagree with the distinction between scholar-

activist and scholar-advocacy, but for the purpose of this chapter, the expla-
nation presents a difference between the two with respect to motivations
and foundational bases on action (e.g., theory or personal beliefs, data or
anecdotal evidence, etc.). This is noteworthy, particularly when under-
standing the impetus for the relationship between Black faculty and Black
college athletes. However, before this relationship can be understood, it
is necessary to situate Black college athletes’ integration and assimilation
into HWIHE.
Black College Athletes Integration into HWIHE

While the contemporary experiences of Black college athletes consist of a
host of issues from academic disengagement (i.e., attrition) to coping with
the manifestations of social, political, and economic dissention on their
campuses. The interaction between sport and society often positions them
as separate entities, with sport “often regarded as a pristine and isolated
cultural practice that is untainted by problems and issues of the general
society. Americans tend to cherish the illusion that sports are just ‘fun and
games,’ and those who have held the power and influence [white males] in
sports have vigorously fought any attempt to change this image.”17
However, American history has captured the prevalence and impact
of systemic racism on Blacks in society and in the institution of sport.18
Sport is a microcosm of society, and systemic racism has influenced many
of the policies and practices that marginalize Blacks as leaders (e.g., hiring
and promotion) and as participants (e.g., recruitment and position assign-
ment) in sport. In college sport, extant literature has elucidated the effects
of systemic racism on Blacks representation as leaders (e.g., administrators
and coaches) and participants (i.e., participation rates).19 Primarily, scholars
denote the interplay between society and sport in institutions of higher edu-
cation with the history of forced integration (or as some refer to as assimila-
tion) of male football players into HWIHE. The landmark case of Brown v.
Topeka Board of Education found that separate educational institutions for
Black and White students in K-12, nor in HWIHE, was not equal.20
Prior to legislative acknowledgment of racial inequality in American
public institutions, a majority of Blacks attended Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The inception of HBCUs was a by-

product of systemic racism, and thus, these institutions served as sites for
education, nurturance, and collective uplift for Black students and the
surrounding Black community.21 HBCUs recruited the best and most
gifted students, to include college athletes, to attend these schools often
because it was the only location to obtain a higher education and par-
ticipate in intercollegiate athletics.22 Thus, HBCUs academic and athletic
programs flourished and became the most respected institutions as they
would develop the most respected men and women in a range of educa-
tional fields such as business, clergy, medicine, law and politics, media and
entertainment, and sport. HBCUs were a success, but the impact of the
Brown decision would ultimately adversely affect the status and composi-
tion of these institutions.
The Brown decision disrupted century-old legislation and a hege-
monic ideology that subjugated Blacks in America for over 400 years; and
thus, made its implementation slow to accept. In HWIHE, this legisla-
tion placed Black males in a precarious situation as institutions and their
respective all white teams lead by all white coaches had to open their ros-
ters to Black males from HBCUs and Black high schools. The institutions
in the North and West had integrated years earlier (e.g., Jack Roosevelt
“Jackie” Robinson, University of California Los Angeles [baseball, foot-
ball, track and field, 1939–1941]; James Cleveland “Jesse” Owens, The
Ohio State University [OSU] [track and field – 1933–1936]) and were
the exception, not the standard as Southern schools met racial integration
of Blacks with great resistance.23 However, upon the success and domina-
tion of these Black college athletes in their respective sports (e.g., Samuel
Lewis “Bam” Cunningham, University of Southern California [football,
1970–1973]), HWIHE and their athletic coaches discerned that it was in
their best financial interest to recruit and integrate Blacks and Whites on
the fields, courts, and tracks of college campuses. Nevertheless, Black col-
lege athletes’ presence was met with experiences of overt racial discrimi-
nation in the forms of differential treatment (e.g., traveling with athletic
teams only to not be able to stay at the same hotel with White athletes)
and racial slurs and slights by coaches, teammates, and others within and
outside the university.24
History presents a tumultuous entrance for Black athletes into HWIHE
and today’s Black college athletes still contend with differential treat-
ment and experiential challenges that manifest in their representation
in sport, academic disengagement, and psychosocial and sociocultural
arginalization.25 Hence, in the NCAA at the Division I level athletics,

m
the racial composition of college athletes’ participation rates is White men
57.5 percent, Black men 25.0 percent, and men of color (e.g., American
Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, two or
more races) 17.7 percent. While White women comprise 65.7 percent,
Black women comprise 15.0 percent, and women of color (not including
Black women) 19.4 percent.26
Conceptual Framework
Per the title of this book, CRT is central to this issue. Critical race theory,
or CRT, is a derivative of Critical Legal Studies (CLS) that was developed
to challenge discriminatory legal doctrine and policies.27 While as expli-
cated in the Foreword by Kevin Hylton, CRT is a framework that cen-
ters race and racism at the fore of discussions to unveil inequities within
educational and social institutions. Acknowledging this chapter, we agree
that racism is a thread woven into the fabric of the United States and
thus racism is permanent.28 We also acknowledge that Blacks ability to
advocate on behalf of other Blacks is limited within HWIHE’s. Therefore
in this chapter, CRT is employed to (a) identify the role of race and rac-
ism in educational and social institutions and (b) aid in the eradication of
oppressive practices to include racism, sexism, and classism.29 In particular,
the use of the interest convergence principle is employed to illuminate
how dominant groups support the efforts and endeavors of Blacks and
other historically oppressed groups when, and only when, it benefits their
group.30
More pointedly, Dr. Derrick Bell’s seminal manuscript “Brown v.
Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma” introduced
the interest-convergence principle through a retrospective examination of
the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.31 To review, in 1954,
the Supreme Court ruled that separate educational facilities was not equal;
and thus, mandated the integration of Blacks into White schools. Bell
contended that the approved legislation was not altruistic on behalf of
Blacks and civil rights, but legislation was approved because it benefitted
Whites. Thus, Bell defined interest convergence as when Blacks receive
favorable judicial decisions to the extent that their interests coincide with
the interests of Whites.32 Thus, the interest-convergence argument sug-
gests that progressions in the larger culture change only when the interests
of controlling groups and marginalized groups converge. Sometimes the
interests are not obvious, are hidden, and benefit both the controlling or
dominated groups.
In the absence of overt racial discrimination of a character that shocks the

public conscience, the Fourteenth Amendment, standing alone, will not
authorize judicial relief providing an effective remedy for [B]lacks where the
remedy sought threatens the superior societal status of middle and upper
class whites. It follows that the availability of Fourteenth Amendment pro-
tection in racial cases is not actually determined by the character of harm
suffered by [B]lacks or the quantum of liability against whites. Rather,
racial remedies are the outward manifestations of unspoken and perhaps
unconscious judicial conclusions that the remedies, if granted, will secure
or advance societal interests deemed important by the upper class. Racial
justice or its appearance may, from time to time, be counted among the
interests deemed important by the courts and the society’s policymakers.33
Since Bell’s examination scholars have utilized the interest convergence

principle to examine race-based legal doctrine, business transactions, and
policies and practices to understand the rationale behind their imple-
mentation in society and sport.34 In sport, Donnor (2005) employed
the interest-convergence principle to explicate the experiences of Black
football players that participated within NCAA Division I athletics.35 The
majority of these programs reside in HWIHE in which scholars have illu-
minated a pattern of marginalization and discrimination. Nevertheless,
Donnor’s (2005) research unveiled that Black football players (and bas-
ketball players) athletic prowess was being exploited, thus, forsaking their
academic interests.36 Hence, Employing CRT as a mode of analysis, again,
centers race to expose racist practices and promote social equality.
Black Scholar-Advocacy of Black College Athletes

To reiterate, nationally the percentage of Black faculty at HWIHE’s is
approximately six percent of the total faculty on campus and the per-
centage of Black students on campus is about the same meaning the
plight of Black faculty, Black college students, and Black college athletes
at HWIHE’s is similar.37 This statistic is alarming considering Whites
comprise 78 percent of college professors.38 The illumination of these rep-
resentational statistics is important as we discuss the experiences of Black
faculty at institutions of higher education that have athletic departments
within the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) division. It is at these
major and mid-major institutions of higher education that Black college

athletes, particularly males, are recruited and participate at high percent-
age rates in football and basketball.39
Understandably, scholars characterize the experiences of Black college
athletes as exploited, marginalized, and disenfranchised due to colleges and
universities programmatic emphasis on athletic prowess and de-emphasis
on academic engagement.40 Exploited characterizations are steeped in the
racial fabric of the United States and the historical journey, categorization,
and treatment of Blacks. In 2012, Polite defined the notion of exploita-
tion as “the unfair treatment or use of, or practice, of taking selfish or
unfair advantage of, a person or situation, usually for personal gain.”41
Further Leonard notes that, “exploitation is a multi-faceted intercolle-
giate sports phenomenon. It contains fiscal, educational, racial, social, and
moral overtones.”42 Utilizing these definitions to describe the experiences
of Black college athletes is significant; and, as we unpack the experiences
of Black faculty, the notion of exploitation will also speak to their journey
and role within these institutions.
A Symbiotic Relationship
There are several ways Black faculty and Black college athletes help each
other. First, athletic departments oftentimes call upon Black faculty to
provide personal and academic mentoring because, in many instances,
they understand Black college athletes’ (past and) current circumstances
and how these realities impact achievement and retention. Black college
athletes and Black faculty are often stretched thin whether it is athletes’
athletic obligations or faculty obligations to represent diverse perspectives
at HWIHE. Second, in terms of linguistic capital, Black college athletes
are likely to be more comfortable speaking with and learning from adults
of the same race and/or ethnicity.43 According to CRT scholar Tara Yosso,
linguistic capital consist of acquired social and intellectual skills obtained
through experiential communication in more than one language (i.e.,
Standard English and Spanish) and/or style (i.e., Standard English and
Ebonics).44 Because of a shared cultural and linguistic background, Black
faculty members can gain “cool points” from athletic coaches, athletic
administrators, and academic department administrators, when they are
able to communicate with Black athletes about their personal, social, aca-
demic, and other challenges associated with being a minority student and
college athlete at HWIHE. Hence, in a “publish or perish” environment,
the number of hours Black faculty expend mentoring college athletes and
non-athletes can add up because building linguistic capital requires an
inordinate time investment. While there are campus resources available to
help students get organized and learn the importance of communicating
with professors, Black faculty are critical in validating the importance of
these strategies.
For several Black scholars, their advocacy is connected to their research,
which typically includes Black male and female college athletes. Since
2012, roughly 20 articles were published pertaining specifically to Black
male and female college athletes and their current conditions. Despite the
enormous contribution Black males and females provide to the fabric of
college sports, one can argue that research on issues impacting their well-
being is not keeping pace with their contribution to the $8 billion college
sports industry.45 In some ways, Black scholars’ interactions with Black col-
lege athletes serve as the foundation for how Black scholar-activists con-
ceptualize research on Black athletes. In other words, when we witness
subpar academic achievement, low retention rates, substance abuse, racism,
sexism, and/or miseducation, we develop empirical or conceptual research
around these issues. Second, our relationship becomes a mutually beneficial
exchange because we advocate Black college athletes and they directly or
indirectly become key informants for or co-constructors in our research.
For example, Gill’s area of research includes mental health and part of
his advocacy with Black athletes. His advocacy work with Black college
athletes includes lobbying for efforts to improve their mental health and
for athletic departments to value their mental health in the same way their
physical health is valued.46 Further, in his direct practice as social worker,
he provides counseling and case management services to college athletes.
Black scholar-activists who have experience in counseling, social work, and
psychology bring an added capital (i.e., social, navigational, resistant, cul-
tural, spiritual, and community) to retention efforts because their training
allows them to help Black college athletes adapt to the majority environ-
ment and avoid and/or minimize maladaptive behaviors that come with
transitioning into new environments and new roles.
The Challenges of Black Scholar-Advocacy

Whether advocacy or activism as previously defined, Black scholars’ efforts
to support Black college athletes come with a myriad of challenges. Black
faculty at NCAA-affiliated HWIHE may understand (more times than not)
the overburdened realities of teaching and service. It has been common

practice among athletic departments to utilize faculty of color to aid in the
recruitment and/or retention of athletes of color.
For instance, Carter-Francique witnessed the recruitment process first-
hand as a former DI student-athlete in the sport of track and field. Through
her athletic recruitment, she participated in three official visits and one
nonofficial visit. With each visit (official, nonofficial), she was hosted by
a Black college athlete, met with academic advisor for intended majors,
and, if on staff, meetings with Black faculty. In addition, she was often
introduced to other Black faculty that were outside of her intended major,
Black staff (i.e., Multicultural Services, Black Staff Organizations, Greek
Life Organizations), and/or attended Black functions during the 48-hour
recruitment visit. Based on her perspective, the recruitment process and
interactions were purposeful. Thus, the interactions were designed to give
off the impression that the HWIHE was diverse, inclusive, and a safe space
for Black students.
Years later after Carter-Francique’s undergraduate matriculation at a
HWIHE, she became a staff member at another HWIHE with a “big-
time” athletic program. During her tenure, and based on her position as
an administrator in campus recreation, she became a “go to” Black staff
person to aid in the recruitment of Black college athletes. As a campus
recreation administrator and former college athlete, the athletic depart-
ment recognized the amount of capital she maintained to influence Black
college athletes and their parents/guardians. Thus, her lived experience as
an Black college athlete served in the interest of the athletic department
as she spoke about the university, campus recreation’s activities and special
events, student life, and the campus racial climate. The interaction also
served in the interest of Carter-Francique as her research agenda focused
on examining the experiences of Black college athletes, with specific inter-
est in Black female college athletes. Therefore, the interactions between
the recruits and their parents resulted in a “valued” and “trusted” opinion
that “respected” her authenticity.
In 2008, she became a faculty member at yet another HWIHE with
a “big-time” athletic program. Immediately upon her arrival at the
university’s faculty/staff orientation, she was drafted by the athletic

department to aid in the recruitment of a Black female college athlete. A
few weeks later, she was asked to mentor a Black college athlete. Requests
for her social support through mentorship were frequent and contin-
ued throughout the year. Understanding the aforementioned faculty
expectations, she enlisted the help of a colleague in Student Affairs to

create a co-curricular leadership program to support Black female college
athletes’ development.47 Nevertheless, her involvement at each institution
reflected a converged interest with her and the athletic department.
Black faculty and staff have differing experiences with their engage-
ment because university and college athletic departments have differing
needs. There are a number of positive engagements that embody one-on-
one or group mentoring efforts, academic support (i.e., tutoring, research
engagement), and social development; however, when sifting through
the headlines, negative engagements grace the headlines that include aca-
demic scandals and mistreatment of Black college athletes.
The Mistreatment of Black College Athletes

Another challenge comes when Black scholars advocate Black college ath-
letes who have been wronged or mistreated athletically, academically, and
socially. When alleged mistreatment of Black college athletes unfolds and a
Black faculty member becomes their advocate, the faculty member is now
confronting their employer or an entity of the university who can directly
or indirectly impact their quest for tenure and promotion. In terms of
college athletes’ academic tenure, we know that the six-year graduation
rate for Black college football players at the Division I level who entered
college in 2006 is 50 percent, but 85 percent of White college athletes
graduate.48 Anecdotal and empirical evidence affirm the unacceptable
graduation rates, soft degree majors (i.e., English, psychology; majors
absent of rigorous coursework and the ability to lead to a career), aca-
demic clustering, and academic improprieties among Black college ath-
letes in revenue sports. The University of North Carolina (UNC) athletic
department academic scandal demonstrates several of the aforementioned
ills as well as the quandary that a Black faculty member faces when put in
a position where Black college athletes can use their assistance. (See Cavil
and Flowers chapter for more specifics on UNC scandal.)
Gill, who was a professor at nearby North Carolina Central University,
was intimately involved in the UNC “paper class” scandal via his role as
the national coordinator for the Student-Athletes Human Rights Project
(The Project). In brief, the UNC paper class scandal involved UNC ath-
letes (as well as several non-athletes) that were taking courses that required
no attendance, only called for students to write one paper to receive a
high grade, and sometimes included grading from someone other than
the course instructor.49 Less than one month after former UNC learning
specialist Mary Willingham revealed that the UNC college athletes she
worked with read between a fourth and eighth grade level, UNC began
a third investigation spearheaded by former US prosecutor Kenneth
L. Wainstein into the “paper classes.”50 Wainstein’s report revealed that
athletic academic advisors directed UNC athletes into the “paper classes”
and Black athletes accounted for 256 hours of enrollment in these courses
compared to White athletes that were enrolled in 19 hours. According to
Cheated, the UNC paper class scandal persisted 23 years—from 1988 to
2011.51
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education conducted the latest study
on Black college faculty, and among the top-tier state and private univer-
sities, UNC had the highest percentage of Black faculty members (6.2
percent).52 UNC, a state flagship university, typically ranks in the top five
among top-tier state and private universities in tenured Black faculty (led
the nation in 2002 with 51, but that number dropped to 47 in 2005 [2nd
place]). This suggests that at UNC Black faculty enjoy the type of sta-
tus that can protect scholar-activists against retaliation after speaking out
about the miseducation of Black athletes. Not one of the 279 UNC Black
tenured and non-tenured faculty members publicly demonstrated that
their interest converged with the UNC Black athletes (as in the Missouri
case?). Some UNC Black scholars worked behind the scenes, but in front
of the cameras, the scandal assumed a Black face (i.e., undereducated
Black college athletes and a rouge African American Studies department).
The only collective public statement made by Black UNC faculty was by
the Carolina Black Caucus:
We stand united for black Americans, both enslaved and free, who built
this university and who were also barred from its doors.” The caucus added
that it stands united for “black athletes who face stereotype, threat, and
are targets of ridicule”; “the Department of African, African American and
Diaspora Studies, which has been unfairly attacked, overly investigated,
and whose legitimacy has been repeatedly questioned”; [and] “courageous
administrators, faculty, staff, and students who press on despite impatience,
media inaccuracies, gossip, and public attacks on our institution.53
Furthermore, in response Phillip Jackson, the executive director of the

Black Star Project, wrote: “ … I find it appalling that the University of
North Carolina’s Black Caucus would choose to issue a declaration of
support to defend UNC even after the university admitted that it cheated
young black men out of the best education possible on its campus.”
The interest convergence argument also suggests that the larger culture
will go unchanged when the interests of controlling groups and marginal-
ized groups do not converge. A difference between marginalized groups
and controlling groups is power. Black faculty, unlike Black college ath-
letes, understand how to use their power. In this instance, the UNC fac-
ulty exercised its influence via its silence. On the surface, the UNC faculty
and Black college athletes’ Sometimes the interests are not obvious, are
hidden, and benefit both the controlling or dominated groups. In the
UNC case, scores of Black and White, current and former, UNC athletes,
except for approximately eight, were also silent in order to maintain their
scholarship and kinship with the “Carolina” family. In this case, interest
convergence was at work, but in a different way from previous examples.
The UNC “paper class” scandal will prove to be the most prolific colle-
giate athletics academic scandal to date.
Lest we forget, the mistreatment of Black college athletes within
HWIHE is not a new development. For over 50 years, Dr. Harry Edwards
and other scholars have discussed instances of mistreatment and, while
not discussed within the CRT framework, issues of power, structure, and
leadership, as well as concerns regarding institutional policies and practices
have been addressed in the literature. Nevertheless, it is within these insti-
tutional spaces that radical change can occur, but change must acknowl-
edge that there is an issue. Change based on issues of race and racism
signify the need for diversity-based responses (i.e., approaches, strategies,
training, and development) to address the multilevel impact of racism (i.e.,
individual, leadership, and institutional) within and throughout a univer-
sity or athletic department. Black scholars’ advocacy of Black college ath-
letes must recognize within their efforts that the sociocultural burden also
falls on HWIHE to support Black college athletes.
Interventions for Black College Athletes

The goal of scholar activism and advocacy is to create interventions that
will help ensure the well-being of Black college athletes. While systemic,
athletic department driven interventions are more desirable, oftentimes the
Black faculty member’s involvement evolves into an intervention of sorts
(as conveyed by Carter-Francique). Some Black scholars intervene because
of the difficulties of coping with the “lip service” athletic d epartments
provide when Black college athletes are victimized, mistreated, or experi-

ence traumatic race-related events. Oftentimes athletic departments, like
the University of Oklahoma athletics after the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fra-
ternity comments, simply want to “move forward” and avoid engaging in
issues that require White administrators to confront blatant discrimination
and racism.54 Similarly, The Rutgers University (Rutgers) women’s bas-
ketball/Don Imus controversy serves as another example of institutional
avoidance. Nevertheless, should Black scholars choose to advocate Black
college athletes, they may incur negative and/or positive undercurrents in
their desire for social justice and social change.
Negative Dynamics of Black Scholar-Advocacy

As alluded to above, there are negative and positive dynamics (personal
and institutional) associated when Black scholars advocate on behalf of
Black college athletes. These dynamics arise for Black scholars who desire
social justice and social change as they may embody the historical founda-
tions of “Black Power Movement” in which they seek for “… a call for
black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, to build
a sense of community” and they seek “… a call to reject the racist insti-
tutions and values of this society.”55 In making that call, particularly for
Black college athletes at HWIHE, Black faculty understanding that there
is an “interest convergence” opportunity can find themselves in opposi-
tion to institutional practice and philosophies.
The Case of a Black Scholar Advocating Black College Athletes

Gill was the faculty mentor for the Rutgers women’s basketball team in
the aftermath of the Don Imus “nappy-headed ho controversy.”56 In the
days following the comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team
by Don Imus and Bernard McGuirk, there was much discourse on campus
about the travesty, but there was little discussion about a constructive
intervention that would help the women’s basketball players overcome
being publicly shamed. The Rutgers women’s basketball team was “called
out” on an international level, and from this Black faculty member’s view-
point, the entire episode adversely impacted their self-image.57
At the time, Gill was only one of two Black faculty members employed
by the Rutgers School of Social Work (at the time Rutgers tenure-track
faculty was 3 percent Black) and the faculty mentor for the women’s
asketball team. Given his aspirations to receive a positive third-year

b
review, he had to be careful about confronting his employer, albeit
indirectly, about an intervention that would help assess and revive the
women’s basketball players’ self-perception and confidence. The Rutgers
community adored its women’s basketball program and denounced Imus,
but the athletic department wanted to take a “let’s move on” approach
without considering the impact of their passive attitude on the psychologi-
cal well-being of the young women. The Rutgers School of Social Work,
where he was employed, developed a declaration denouncing Imus’ com-
ments, but the document amounted to a press release and did nothing for
the Black female basketball athletes who Don Imus had expressed look
liked men and mascots. Eventually, Gill recommended that the athletic
department provide counseling to the Rutgers women’s basketball play-
ers, but Robert Mulcahy, the Rutgers athletic director, balked at the idea.
Two years later, Gill was relieved of his duties as the Rutgers women’s
basketball faculty mentor unbeknownst and to the chagrin of head coach
C. Vivian Stringer. The following year one player transferred from the
program, another opted to play professionally, and one player attempted
to sue Don Imus, but withdrew her lawsuit. Since the Don Imus scandal,
the Rutgers women’s basketball program has been unable to achieve the
level of success it garnered prior to the verbal assault on the predominately
Black female basketball team. Gill’s efforts describe an “interest conver-
gence” opportunity through aiding in the psychosocial support of Black
female college athletes that would likely have resulted in a positive sense
of self and athletic success for the women’s basketball team. Yet, institu-
tional practice, policy, and an inability to recognize negative implications
of racism on the development and performance of Black college athletes
resulted in a failure to heed a “culturally relevant approach” for the well-
being of these young women.
The Case of a White Scholar Advocating for Black College Athletes

Another and equally complex reality is White scholars’ interest in being
involved in advocacy for Black college athletes, via academic retention or
rehabilitation. Consequently, when considering employing a Black scholar
or a White scholar turf issues can develop. White faculty and administra-
tors have greater access to Black college athletes at HWIHE because they
are, in many cases, more prevalent on campus (refer to Table 1) and are
less likely to spend time in some of the areas that can consume a Black
faculty members time (i.e., service). Some can view White faculty involve-
ment in advocacy for Black college athletes as another form of “interest
convergence” in that by helping vulnerable Black athletes, Whites are pro-
moting racial advances for Blacks while they promote White self-interests.
For example, Gill experienced an episode where a White faculty and Black
faculty in the counseling department practically became confrontational
over the opportunity to counsel a Black male athlete that had substance
abuse and early parenthood issues. This was of interest as a Black fac-
ulty member offered counseling services to the athletic department free
of charge, but the White faculty member was paid for providing the same
counseling services to the college athletes. The opportunity, ability, and
willingness to advocate Black college athletes at HWIHE are commend-
able; therefore, Black and White scholars need to recognize how “interest
converge” for the benefit of all.
Positive Effects of Black Scholar-Advocacy

Embarking on advocacy does not always, or have to, end negatively.
Another Black scholar has taken a mainstream route toward advocacy via
an unparalleled position at a HWIHE. In the aftermath of a race scandal
at Colorado State University (CSU), the athletic department created a
position for an Associate Athletic Director for Diversity, Inclusion and
Engagement, and hired Dr. Albert Bimper to the position.58 Bimper is a
former CSU football player and a member of the Super Bowl Champion
Indianapolis Colts in 2006, and holds a faculty appointment as an assis-
tant professor in the CSU Ethnic Studies Department. Foremost in Dr.
Bimper’s positive effect, and converged interest, is that he is in a posi-
tion where he can bypass many of the barriers in counseling, teaching,
mentoring, and guiding Black college athletes at CSU. As an assistant
professor, Bimper teaches in both undergraduate and graduate courses,
focusing primarily but not exclusively on courses in African American
Studies.59 Therefore, Dr. Bimper’s duties include assessing the outcomes
of programming and curriculum initiatives with a particular focus on the
recruitment and retention of diverse coaches, staff, and college athletes.
Not only is Bimper practicing, but he is also spreading knowledge of his
experiences to the fields of diversity, sport management, sociology, social
work counseling, and other disciplines that come in contact with college
athletics via an annual conference that he hosts on diversity in athletics.
Dr. Bimper’s lived experience and scholarly practice serves as a positive
example of a Black faculty member who was permitted to create universal

change and improve efforts from the inside.
Dr. Bimper’s internal opportunity at scholar activism is rare; thus, Black
scholars must continue to carve out strategies for their work. One strategy
is to develop a network of Black scholar-activists. A network would pro-
vide Black faculty involved in athletics and college athlete development
with a support group for their well-being and as a resource for ideas for
Black college athlete development. A network would also provide Black
scholar-activists with a critical mass and a vehicle to address universal issues
impacting Black college athletes like academic reform or the litany of scan-
dals that seem to include their fair share of Black athletes. Moreover, Black
faculty can use a support network to create efficient strategies to collabo-
rate on scholarship specifically related to activism and advocacy for Black
college athletes, which will allow them to circumvent the time deficiencies
that come about with being a Black scholar-activist.
Nonetheless, a second strategy is encouraging Black college athletes to
become involved in their own positive development is an equally impor-
tant task for a network of Black scholar-activists. As exemplified by the col-
lege athlete boycott at the University of Missouri, Black college athletes
may be the most powerful group on college campuses. As such, how can
Black scholars harness Black college athletes’ enormous potential and edu-
cate them on global and NCAA issues that impact their well-being. This
powerful, practical strategy of empowering Black college athletes is posi-
tive whether it is providing them with information that helps them navigate
campus, NCAA bylaws, or other system policies and practices that they will
encounter after they graduate. Information on opportunities such as study
abroad and internships are important, especially if the athletes field of study
and future job prospects favor a guided work experience; thus, there is a need
to provide reasonable and efficient strategies to support the development of
Black college athletes. Oftentimes Black scholars have utilized the resources
that they share with Black college athletes, or taken a similar path; therefore,
the information may be more credible for the athletes’ perspective.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to elucidate the significance of Black
scholars advocating for Black college athletes at HWIHE. However,
throughout this chapter a range of tensions were illuminated that often
create challenges and barriers for Black scholars to advocate Black college
athletes to include incurring institutional resistance via leadership tradi-

tion, policies, and practices. These incurred challenges and perceived bar-
riers may deter Black faculty’s desire to advocate on behalf of Black college
athletes, but for those who choose to advocate their efforts can promote
positive engagements and support of Black college athletes and serve in
the greater interest of institutional diversity and inclusion efforts regard-
ing recruitment, retention, and the matriculation of Black college athletes.
As exemplified in the University of Missouri football athlete boycott,
Black college athletes can be integral to the entire fabric of the university
community and reform efforts. Hence, every effort should be made to
integrate them in integral ways. First, Black scholar-activists must actively
engage with Black athletes and realize that some of the thought patterns
and behaviors of young Black male and female athletes are continuing to
evolve with concern to their value across the landscape of colleges and
universities. Moreover, if Black scholars, in particular those who are for-
mer college athletes or who study college athletics, do not advocate for
Black college athletes then who will. While, it is important for all faculty
to be engaged with the everyday plight of the student-athlete, there are
many academics who have little knowledge of the college athletic experi-
ence and may find it difficult to be effective advocates for today’s college
athletes. This lack of experience can create dissonance between Black col-
lege athletes’ actual circumstances and what is projected in the media. The
persistence of prejudice and racism in the twenty-first-century US society
and in the academy for both Black faculty and Black students suggests
Black students fare better in those HWIHE with a stronger Black faculty
presence. Moreover, when the administration of colleges and universities
promotes efforts to diversify the curriculum and value diverse scholarship,
faculty of color can be empowered to create pathways for success. This
success can lead to mutual benefits for Black faculty and Black student-
athlete experiences across their respective universities.
The various compositional representations of Black faculty can serve as
mentors and role models in unique and special ways. At the same time, in
the context of the academy, Black faculty struggle to find a “safe space”
within their respective institutions of higher learning, and often turn to
Black students for community. Being that Black faculty are often a small
numerical minority on HWIHE campuses, we must acknowledge that
Black faculty experience their own issues of race discrimination (i.e., racial
micro-aggressions, racial macro-aggressions, racial battle fatigue), alien-
ation, isolation, and lack of social support.60
Both Black faculty and Black students often times must navigate the
waters of academia without the human resources in the form of mentors
and role models, with a sense of estrangement on their respective cam-
puses. In many respects, the two find themselves in the same predicament.
While Black faculty perceive of themselves as potential role models and
supporters, Black college athletes (and Black students) do not always share
this perspective of them. This provides a challenge for Black faculty as they
seek solutions for reaching Black college athletes. Hence, deconstructing
the intra-racial communication barriers adds to the level of stress already
experienced by Black faculty engendered by an ethic of “giving back” as
they look to Black college athletes as a population with whom they can
lend support, as well as a place where they can look for community and a
sense of camaraderie when navigating the waters of a HWIHE which can
be a challenging journey. Nevertheless, to the aim of this book and pur-
pose of this chapter, the experiential wisdom of Dr. Harry Edwards con-
tends, “The challenges to achieving the promise of America, of bringing
into existence that ‘more perfect union’ are diverse and dynamic; there-
fore, our struggles to those ends must be multi-faceted and perpetual and
there are NO Final Victories!”61
The utilization of CRT to articulate the nuances of this topic was
necessary to illuminate the significance that race and racism play in
HWIHE. More specifically, the interest convergence principle unveiled
the ways in which Whites and individuals in power will support the efforts
and development of marginalized groups if it is to their benefit. However,
beyond the “interest convergence” of Black faculty, Black college ath-
letes, and HWIHE, there is a need for cultural awareness and competence
to support the academic, athletic, and social development efforts. This
includes college and university administrators who create institutional
policy that supports, promotes, and cultivates, spaces for Black faculty and
Black student-athlete matriculation and encouraging the necessity of cul-
tural nuances that embolden the success between Black faculty and Black
college athletes. Throughout today’s college campuses, it is necessary for
HWIHE to embrace the importance of institutional leadership buy-in that
support the fruitful efforts of Black faculty empowering Black student and
Black college athlete success. These ideals are emphasized when regarding
the efforts for successful retention. There are numerous strategies that
can be employed to promote the engagement of faculty with student suc-
cess; therefore, we end this chapter by highlighting the United Negro
College Fund (UNCF)’s comprehensive assessments that speak specifically
to institutions with limited resources and educate students of color.62 The

UNCF explicate success strategies based on their research and reveal five
best practices to promote effective student retention:
1. Create a comprehensive retention plan that employs the expertise

and resources of all stakeholders (students, faculty, staff, and athletic
administrators), identify academic risk factors, and ensure each fac-
tor is reflected within the plan.
2. Enhance program assessment practices and requirements for pro-
moting key evidence-based performance indicators and/or bench-
marks to assess institutional retention progress.
3. Develop cautionary policies and practices that promote robust fac-
ulty buy-in.
4. Encourage institutional leadership transparency for faculty and staff
that identify retention success and challenges.
5. Establish an institutional retention committee that encompasses

representation from Enrollment, Academic Affairs, Faculty, and
other campus-wide stakeholders whose mission is linked to the insti-
tutional mission.
Notes
1. Gordon S. White. “N.C.A.A. Calls Convention on TV Policy.”
New York Times, September 9, 1981. Accessed January 12, 2016
from http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/09/sports/ncaa-calls-
convention-on-tv-policy.html.
2. ESPN.com news services (2004, April1). Hornung: Irish should
still lower standards. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/ncf/
news/story?id=1772368, para 2.
3. Everett Glenn. “Unsportsmanlike conduct: The exploitation of black
athletes.” Black Press USA, November 26, 2013. Accessed December
12, 2015 from http://www.blackpressusa.com/unsportsmanlike-
conduct-the-exploitation-of-black-athletes/: para 5.
4. Shaun R. Harper, Collin D. Williams Jr, and Horatio W. Blackman.
“Black male student-athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division
I college sports.” Center for the Study of Race & Equity in Education,
2013. Retrieved from https://www.gse.upenn.edu/ equity/sites/
gse.upenn.edu.equity/files/publications/Harper_Williams_and_
Blackman_%282013%29.pdf
5. Dennis P. Andrulis, Ira Iscoe, Melvin P. Sikes, and Thomas Friedman.

“Black Professionals in Predominantly White Institutions of Higher
Education-An Examination of some Demographic and Mobility
characteristics.” The Journal of Negro Education 44, no. 1 (1975):
6–11. James W. Bryant. “A Survey of Black American Doctorates.”
(1970). James Harvey. “Minorities and Advanced Degrees.”
Research Currents. ERIC Clearing-house on Higher Education,
George Washington University, 1972.
6. Dennis P. Andrulis, Ira Iscoe, Melvin P. Sikes, and Thomas Friedman.
“Black Professionals in Predominantly White Institutions of Higher
Education-An Examination of some Demographic and Mobility
characteristics.” James W. Bryant. “A Survey of Black American
Doctorates.” Charles J. Elmore and Robert T. Blackburn. “Black and
white faculty in white research universities.” The Journal of Higher
Education (1983): 1–15. Harvey, James. “Minorities and Advanced
Degrees.”
7. Elmore and Blackburn. “Black and white faculty in white research
universities,” 12.
8. Ibid.
9. Walter R. Allen, Edgar G. Epps, Elizabeth A. Guillory, Susan
A. Suh, and Marguerite Bonous-Hammarth. “The Black academic:
Faculty status among African Americans in US higher education.”
Journal of Negro Education (2000): 112.
10. Yosso, Tara J. “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory
discussion of community cultural wealth.” Race ethnicity and edu-
cation 8, no. 1 (2005): 69–91.
11. Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh, and Bonous-Hammarth. “The Black
academic: Faculty status among African Americans in US higher
education,” 112–127.
education.,” 112–127. No Author. “Black Faculty in Higher
Education: Still Only a Drop in the Bucket.” Journal of Blacks in
Higher Education, 2006 Accessed January 12, 2016, from http://
www.jbhe.com/features/55_blackfaculty.html.
education,” 114.

education,” 114–115.
15. Harry Edwards. The revolt of the black athlete. Vol. 69. New York:
Free Press, 1969.
16. Sara Goldrick-Rab. “On scholar activism”. Contexts: Understanding
people in their social worlds, December 4, 2014. Accessed December
9, 2015, from https://contexts.org/blog/on-scholarly-activism/.
17. George Sage. “Introduction.” In Dana Brooks and Ronald

C. Althouse (eds.), Diversity and Social Justice in college sports:
Sport Management and the Student-Athlete (Morgantown: Fitness
Information Technology, 2007): 1–2.
18. Harry Edwards. “Sport within the veil: The triumphs, tragedies and
challenges of Afro-American involvement.” The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 445, no. 1 (1979):
116–127. Harry Edwards. “The Exploitation of Black Athletes.”
AGB Reports 25, no. 6 (1983): 37–46. Sage. “Introduction,” 1–17.
19. Richard Lapchick, John Fox, Angelica Guiao, and Maclin Simpson.
The 2014 Race and Gender Report Card: College sport. The
Institute on Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Orlando, FL: University
of Central Florida. Sage. Introduction. In Dana Brooks and Ronald
C. Althouse (eds.), Diversity and Social Justice in college sports: Sport
Management and the Student-Athlete, 1–17. John N. Singer and
Akilah R. Carter-Francique. “Representation, participation, and
the experiences of racial minorities in college sport.” In Sports in
Higher Education: Issues and Controversies in College Athletics,
edited Gary Sailes 113–138. San Diego, CA: Cognella, 2013.
20. Samuel R. Hodge, Louis Harrison, Joe W. Burden, and Adrienne
D. Dixson. “Brown in black and White—Then and now A ques-
tion of educating or sporting African American males in America.”
American Behavioral Scientist 51, no. 7 (2008): 928–952. Edward
Taylor. “Critical race theory and interest convergence in the deseg-
regation of higher education.” Race is… race isn’t: Critical race
theory and qualitative studies in education (1999): 181–204.
21. Gail E. Thomas and Susan Hill. “Black Institutions in US Higher
Education: Present Roles, Contributions, Future Projections.”
Journal of College Student Personnel 28, no. 6 (1987): 496–503.
22. William B. Harvey, Adia M. Harvey, and Mark King. “The impact
of the Brown v. Board of Education decision on postsecondary
participation of African Americans.” Journal of Negro Education

(2004): 328–340.
23. It is documented that “Jesse” Owens officially left The Ohio State
University in 1941 and consequently did not graduate.
24. Patrick B. Miller and David Kenneth Wiggins. Sport and the color
line: Black athletes and race relations in twentieth-century America.
Psychology Press, 2004.
25. Jamel K. Donnor. “Towards an interest-convergence in the educa-
tion of African-American football student athletes in major college
sports.” Race Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 1 (2005): 45–67.
Billy Hawkins. “The New Plantation Model: A Conceptual
Framework for Diagnosing the Experiences of Black Athletes at
Predominantly White NCAA Division I Institutions.” Palgrave
Macmillan US, 2010. John N. Singer, “Understanding racism
through the eyes of African American male student-athletes.” Race
Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 4 (2005): 365–386. John N. Singer.
“African American football athletes’ perspectives on institutional
integrity in college sport.” Research quarterly for exercise and sport
80, no. 1 (2009): 102–116. Singer and Carter-Francique.
“Representation, participation, and the experiences of racial minor-
ities in college sport,” 2013.
26. Lapchick, Fox, Guiao, and Simpson. “The 2014 Race and Gender
Report Card: College sport.” The percentages reported by
Lapchick and colleagues include a .2% and .1% men and women
discrepancy respectively in their calculations—which we attribute
to the rounding up of percent.
27. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. “Critical Race Theory: An
Annotated Bibliography 1993: A Year of Transition.” University of
Colorado Law Review 66 (1995). Gloria Ladson-Billings. “Just
what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like
education?” International journal of qualitative studies in educa-
tion 11, no. 1 (1998): 7–24.
28. Derrick A. Bell. Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of rac-
ism. Basic Books, 1992.Delgado, Richard. “Legal Scholarship:
Insiders, Outsiders, Editors.” U. Colo. L. Rev. 63 (1992): 717.
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. “Critical Race Theory: An
Annotated Bibliography 1993: A Year of Transition.” University of
Colorado Law Review 66 (1995). Ladson-Billings. “Just what is critical
race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education?” 7–24.
29. Derrick A. Bell. “Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-

convergence dilemma.” Harv. L. Rev. 93 (1979): 518. Delgado,
Richard D. “Storytelling for oppositionist and others: a plea for
narrative.” Michigan Law Review (1989): 2411–2441.
30. Bell. “Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence
dilemma.” Ladson-Billings. “Just what is critical race theory and
what's it doing in a nice field like education?” 7–24.
dilemma.”
dilemma.” Derrick Bell. “Diversity’s Distractions.” COLUM. L.
REV. 1622, 1624 (2003): 103.
33. Bell, Derrick A. Race, racism and American law. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown, 1992: 646.
34. David H. Bearce and Stacy Bondanella. “Intergovernmental organi-
zations, socialization, and member-state interest convergence.”
International Organization 61, no. 04 (2007): 703–733. Richard
Delgado, Richard. “Rodrigo’s roundelay: Hernandez v. Texas and
the interest-convergence dilemma.” Harv. CR-CLL Rev. 41 (2006):
23. Donnor. “Towards an interest-convergence in the education of
African-American football student athletes in major college sports,”
45–67. Shaun R. Harper. “Race, interest convergence, and transfer
outcomes for Black male student athletes.” New Directions for
Community Colleges, no. 147 (2009): 29–37. H. Richard Milner.
“Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in
teacher education policies and practices.” Journal of teacher educa-
tion 59, no. 4 (2008): 332–347.
45–67.
36. Ibid.
37.
National Center for Education Statistics. “Fast Facts.”
U.S. Department of Education, Institute on Education Science,
2015. Accessed January 10, 2016 from https://nces.ed.gov/fast-
facts/display.asp?id=61. Patton, Lori & Catching, Christopher.
“‘Teaching while Black’: Narratives of African American student
affairs faculty.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 22, no. 6, 2009: 713–28. Wilson, Kirby. “Lack of
diversity leads to burden on professors of color.” Duke Chronicle,
February 11, 2015. Accessed January 9, 2016 from http://www.

dukechronicle.com/article/2015/02/lack-diversity-leads-
burden-professors-color.
38. National Center for Education Statistics. “Fast Facts.”
39. Lapchick, Richard, J. Fox, A. Guiao, and M. Simpson. The 2014
Race and Gender Report Card: College sport. The Institute on
Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Orlando, FL: University of Central
Florida. (2015).
45–67. Harry Edwards. “Sport within the veil: The triumphs, trag-
edies and challenges of Afro-American involvement.” The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 445, no. 1
(1979): 116–127. Harry Edwards. “The Exploitation of Black
Athletes.” AGB Reports 25, no. 6 (1983): 37–46. Harry Edwards.
“The Black” Dumb Jock”: An American Sports Tragedy.” College
Board Review 131 (1984): 8–13. Harry Edwards. “Crisis of Black
athletes on the eve of the 21st century.” Society 37, no. 3 (2000):
9–13. Louis Harrison, Gary Sailes, Willy K. Rotich, and Albert
Y. Bimper. “Living the dream or awakening from the nightmare:
Race and athletic identity.” Race Ethnicity and Education 14, no.
1 (2011): 91–103. John N. Singer. “Understanding racism
through the eyes of African American male student-athletes.” Race
Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 4 (2005): 365–386. John N. Singer.
“Benefits and detriments of African American male athletes’ par-
ticipation in a big-time college football program.” International
Review for the Sociology of Sport 43, no. 4 (2008): 399–408.
41. Fritz G. Polite. “Introduction.” Sport, race, activism, and social
change: The impact of Dr. Harry Edwards’ scholarship and service,
edited by Polite, F. G. and B. Hawkins, (Eds.). San Diego, CA:
Cognella Publishers, 2012: 2.
42. Wilbert Marcellus Leonard. “The sports experience of the black
college athlete: Exploitation in the academy.” International Review
for the Sociology of Sport 21, no. 1 (1986): 38.
43. Yanghee Kim and Quan Wei. “The impact of learner attributes and
learner choice in an agent-based environment.” Computers &
Education, 56, no. 2 (2011): 505–514.
44. Tara J. Yosso. “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory
discussion of community cultural wealth.” (2005): 78. In addition,
Yosso conveys that linguistic capital “reflects the idea that Students
of Color arrive at school with multiple language and communica-
tion skills. In addition, these children most often have been engaged
participants in a storytelling tradition, that may include listening to
and recounting oral histories, parables, stories (cuentos) and prov-
erbs (dichos). This repertoire of storytelling skills may include
memorization, attention to detail, dramatic pauses, comedic tim-
ing, facial affect, vocal tone, volume, rhythm and rhyme. Linguistic
capital also refers to the ability to communicate via visual art, music
or poetry. Just as students may utilize different vocal registers to
whisper, whistle or sing, they must often develop and draw on var-
ious language registers, or styles, to communicate with different
audiences,” 78–79.
45. Alex Mayyasi. “The Pseudo-Business of the NCAA.” Priceonomics.
com., May 17, 2013. Accessed January 10, 2016 from http://pri-
ceonomics.com/post/50660332678/the-pseudo-business-
of-the-ncaa
46. Emmett Gill. “Mental Health in intercollegiate athletics: It’s time
for social workers to get in the game.” Social Work 53, no. 1
(2008): 85–88. Emmett Gill. “The Blunt Truth: Marijuana Policies
in Division One College Sports.” Journal of Social Work Practice in
the Addictions 9, no. 1 (2009): 140–142.
47. In 2009, Akilah Carter-Francique and Deniece Dortch created the
Sista to Sista program to aid in the development of Black female col-
lege athletes at Texas A&M University. For more information, go to
www.sistatosista.org. Carter-Francique discusses the significance of
the need for the program and the theoretical underpinnings in
Racism in American Sport. Essays edited by James Conyers entitled
“An ethic of care: Black female college athletes and development”.
48. Shaun R. Harper, Shaun R., Collin D. Williams Jr, and Horatio
W. Blackman. “Black male student-athletes and racial inequities in
NCAA Division I college sports.” Center for the Study of Race &
Equity in Education, 2013.
49. Daniel Schere. “UNC keeps tabs on classes with clusters of ath-
letes.” Daily Tarheel, April 16, 2014. Accessed December 13,
2016, from http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/04/
unc-keeps-tabs-on-classes-with-clusters-of-athletes.
50. Sara Ganim. “CNN analysis: Some college athletes play like adults,
read like 5th-graders.” CNN, January 8, 2014. Accessed December
9, 2015 from http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-

athletes-reading-scores/
51. Jay M. Smith and Mary Willingham. Cheated: The UNC Scandal,
the Education of Athletes, and the Future of Big-time College Sports.
U of Nebraska Press, 2015.
52. No Author. “Black Faculty in Higher Education: Still Only a Drop
in the Bucket.” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2006
Accessed January 12, 2016, from http://www.jbhe.com/fea-
tures/55_blackfaculty.html.
53. No Author. “Carolina Black Caucus releases statement of unity.”
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill News, February 1,
2014. Accessed December 20, 2015, from http://uncnews.unc.
edu/2014/02/02/carolina-black-caucus-releases-statement-
unity/.
54. Candea, Ben, and Gina Sunseri. “Oklahoma football team stages
silent protest over racist video.” ABC News, March 12, 2015.
Accessed February 10, 2016, http://abcnews.go.com/US/
oklahoma-f ootball-team-stage-silent-protest-racist-frat/
story?id=29591974.
55. Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton. Black Power: The
Politics of Liberation in America. New York: Vintage Books, 1967:
50–55.
56. Emmett L. Gill. “The Rutgers women’s basketball and Don Imus
controversy (ruimus): White privilege, new racism, and the impli-
cations for college sport management.” Journal of Sport
Management 25, no. 2 (2011): 118–130.
57.
Akilah R. Carter-Francique and F. Michelle Richardson.
Controlling media, controlling images: The role of sport media on
Black women’s sport participation. Race, Gender, & Class Journal
(In Press).
58. Colorado State University. “Athletics News: Albert Bimper.”

Colorado State Rams Athletic Directory. Accessed January 20,
2016, from http://www.csurams.com/genrel/albert_bim-
per_857074.html. Ben Candea and Gina Sunseri. “Oklahoma
football team stages silent protest over racist video.” ABC News,
March 12, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2016, http://abcnews.
go.com/US/oklahoma-football-team-stage-silent-protest-racist-
frat/story?id=29591974
59. Colorado State University. “Athletics News: Albert Bimper.”

education,” 112–127. Elmore and Blackburn. “Black and white
faculty in white research universities,” 1–15.
61. Harry Edwards. “The promise and limits of leveraging Black ath-
lete power potential to compel campus change.”
62. Sylvia Carey-Butler and Clarissa Myrick Harris. “Faculty’s Role in
Student Success: Engagement in and outside of the Classroom.”
New York University Faculty Resource Network, November
21–22, 2008. Accessed February 2, 2016, from http://www.nyu.
edu/frn/publications/defining.success/Butler.Harris.html
Suggested best practices used in Myrick-Harris and Nagle’s
research were identified from Carey-Butler, Sylvia. Enrollment
Management Practices at Private Historically Black Colleges and
Universities: A Model for Success. United Negro College Fund
(UNCF) Institute for Capacity Building. Accessed February 2,
2008, from http://icb.uncf.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ywOO
53O9BEQ%3D&tabid=160&mid=511.
Bibliography
Allen, Walter R., Edgar G. Epps, Elizabeth A. Guillory, Susan A. Suh, and
Marguerite Bonous-Hammarth. 2000. The Black academic: Faculty status
among African Americans in US higher education. Journal of Negro Education
69(1/2): 112–127.
Andrulis, Dennis P., Ira Iscoe, Melvin P. Sikes, and Thomas Friedman. 1975. Black
professionals in predominantly White institutions of higher education: An
examination of some demographic and mobility characteristics. The Journal of
Negro Education 44(1): 6–11.
Bearce, David H., and Stacy Bondanella. 2007. Intergovernmental organizations,
socialization, and member-state interest convergence. International
Organization 61(04): 703–733.
Bell, Derrick A. 1979. Brown v. Board of education and the interest-convergence
dilemma. Harvard Law Review 93: 518.
———. 1992a. Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York:
Basic Books.
———. 1992b. Race, racism and American law. Boston: Little Brown.
———. 2003. Diversity’s distractions. Columbia Law Review 103: 1622–1624.
Bryant, James W. 1970. A survey of Black American doctorates. The Ford
Foundation: 2–12.
Candea, Ben, and Gina Sunseri. 2015. Oklahoma football team stages silent pro-
test over racist video. ABC News, March 12. Accessed 10 Feb 2016, http://
abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-football-team-stage-silent-protest-racist-
frat/story?id=29591974
Carey-Butler, Sylvia. 2014. Enrollment management practices at Private
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: A model for success. United Negro
College Fund (UNCF) Institute for Capacity Building, November 11. Accessed
2 Feb 2008 from http://icb.uncf.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ywOO53O9B
EQ%3D&tabid=160&mid=511
Carey–Butler, Sylvia, and Clarissa Myrick-Harris, C. 2008. Faculty’s Role in Student
Success: Engagement in and outside of the Classroom. New York University
Faculty Resource Network, November 21–22. Accessed 2 Feb 2016 from
http://www.nyu.edu/frn/publications/defining.success/Butler.Harris.html
Carmichael, Stokely, and Charles V. Hamilton. 1967. Black power: The politics of
liberation in America. New York: Vintage Books.
Carter-Francique, Akilah R., and F. Michelle Richardson. Controlling media, con-
trolling images: The role of sport media on Black women’s sport participation.
Race, Gender, & Class Journal (In Press).
Colorado State University. Athletics News: Albert Bimper. Colorado State Rams
Athletic Directory. Accessed 20 Jan 2016 from http://www.csurams.com/gen-
rel/albert_bimper_857074.html
Delgado, Richard D. 1989. Storytelling for oppositionist and others: A plea for
narrative. Michigan Law Review: 2411–2441.
Delgado, Richard. 1992. Legal scholarship: Insiders, outsiders, editors. University
of Colorado Law Review 63: 717.
———. 2006. Rodrigo’s roundelay: Hernandez v. Texas and the interest-convergence
dilemma. Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review 41: 23–65.
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 1995. Critical race theory: An annotated bibli-
ography 1993: A year of transition. University of Colorado Law Review 66: 159–193.
African-American football student athletes in major college sports. Race
Edwards, Harry. 1969. The revolt of the black athlete. New York: Free Press.
———. 1979. Sport within the veil: The triumphs, tragedies and challenges of
Afro-American involvement. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 445(1): 116–127.
———. 1983. The exploitation of Black athletes. AGB Reports 25(6): 37–46.
———. 1984. The Black ‘dumb jock’: An American sports tragedy. College Board
Review 131: 8–13.
———. 2000. Crisis of Black athletes on the eve of the 21st century. Society 37(3):
9–13.
———. 2016. The promise and limits of leveraging Black athlete power potential to
compel campus change. Texas A&M University Distinguished Lecture Series.
Elmore, Charles J., and Robert T. Blackburn. 1983. Black and white faculty in
white research universities. The Journal of Higher Education 54(1): 1–15.
Ganim, Sara. 2014. CNN analysis: Some college athletes play like adults, read like
5th-graders. CNN, January 8. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 from http://www.cnn.
com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-athletes-reading-scores/
Gill, Emmett. 2008. Mental health in intercollegiate athletics: It’s time for social
workers to get in the game. Social Work 53(1): 85–88.
———. 2009. The blunt truth: Marijuana policies in division one college sports.
Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 9(1): 140–142.
Gill, Emmett L. 2011. The Rutgers women’s basketball and Don Imus contro-
versy (RUIMUS): White privilege, new racism, and the implications for college
sport management. Journal of Sport Management 25(2): 118–130.
Glenn, Everett. 2013. Unsportsmanlike conduct: The exploitation of black ath-
letes. Black Press USA, November 26. Accessed 12 Dec 2015 from http://
w w w. b l a c k p r e s s u s a . c o m / u n s p o r t s m a n l i k e - c o n d u c t - t h e -
exploitation-of-black-athletes/
Goldrick-Rab, Sara. 2014. On scholar activism. Contexts: Understanding people in
their social worlds, December 4. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 from https://contexts.
org/blog/on-scholarly-activism/
Harper, Shaun R. 2009. Race, interest convergence, and transfer outcomes for
Black male student athletes. New Directions for Community Colleges 147: 29–37.
Harper, Shaun R., Collin D. Williams Jr, and Horatio W. Blackman. 2013. Black
male student-athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division I college sports.
Center for the Study of Race & Equity in Education Retrieved from https://
www.gse.upenn.edu/equity/sites/gse.upenn.edu.equity/files/publications/
Harper_Williams_and_Blackman_%282013%29.pdf.
Harrison, Louis, Gary Sailes, Willy K. Rotich, and Albert Y. Bimper. 2011. Living
the dream or awakening from the nightmare: Race and athletic identity. Race
Harvey, James. 1972. Minorities and advanced degrees. Research currents. ERIC
Clearing-house on Higher Education, George Washington University.
Harvey, William B., Adia M. Harvey, and Mark King. 2004. The impact of the
Brown v. Board of education decision on postsecondary participation of African
Americans. Journal of Negro Education 73(3): 328–340.
Hawkins, Billy. 2010. The new plantation model: A conceptual framework for
diagnosing the experiences of Black athletes at predominantly White NCAA
division I institutions. In The new plantation, ed. B. Hawkins, 41–55. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hodge, Samuel R., Louis Harrison, Joe W. Burden, and Adrienne D. Dixson. 2008.
Brown in black and white—Then and now a question of educating or sporting
African American males in America. American Behavioral Scientist 51(7): 928–952.
Keck, A. 2015. Stroman on sports: Sports and social justice. Chapelboro.com.
October 6. Accessed 15 Feb 2016 from http://chapelboro.com/sports/unc-
sports/stroman-on-sports-sports-and-social-justice
Kim, Yanghee, and Quan Wei. 2011. The impact of learner attributes and learner
choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education 56(2): 505–514.
Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, Jennifer A. Buckley, Brian K. Bridges, and John
C. Hayek. 2006. What matters to student success: A review of the literature. In
Commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success:
Spearheading a dialog on student success. National Post Secondary Education.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Kuh_Team_Report.pdf
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1998. Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing
in a nice field like education? International journal of qualitative studies in
education 11(1): 7–24.
Lapchick, Richard, John Fox, Angelica Guiao, and Maclin Simpson. 2015. The
2014 Race and Gender Report Card: College Sport. The Institute on Diversity
and Ethics in Sport. Orlando: University of Central Florida.
Leonard, Wilbert Marcellus. 1986. The sports experience of the black college ath-
lete: Exploitation in the academy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport
21(1): 35–49.
Mayyasi, Alex. 2013. The Pseudo-business of the NCAA. Priceonomics.com., May 17.
Accessed 10 Jan 2016 from http://priceonomics.com/post/50660332678/
the-pseudo-business-of-the-ncaa
Miller, Patrick B., and David Kenneth Wiggins. 2004. Sport and the color line:
Black athletes and race relations in twentieth-century America. New York:
Psychology Press.
Milner, H. Richard. 2008. Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic
tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of Teacher Education
59(4): 332–347.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2015. “Fast Facts.” U.S. Department of
Education, Institute on Education Science. Accessed 10 Jan 2016 from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61
No Author. 2004. Hornung: Irish should still lower standards. ESPN.com, April 1.
Accessed 20 Jan 2016 from http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1772368
———. 2006. Black faculty in higher education: Still only a drop in the bucket.
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Accessed 12 Jan 2016 from http://
www.jbhe.com/features/55_blackfaculty.html
———. 2014. Carolina Black Caucus releases statement of unity. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill News, February 1. Accessed 20 Dec 2015 from
http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/02/02/carolina-black-caucus-releases-
statement-unity/
Patton, Lori, and Christopher Catching. 2009. Teaching while Black’: Narratives
of African American student affairs faculty. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education 22(6): 713–728.
Polite, Fritz G. 2012. Introduction. In Sport, race, activism, and social change: The
impact of Dr. Harry Edwards’ scholarship and service, ed. F.G. Polite, and
B. Hawkins, 1–7. San Diego: Cognella Publishers.
Polite, Fritz G., and Billy Hawkins (Eds.). 2012. Sport, race, activism, and social
change: The impact of Dr. Harry Edwards’ scholarship and service. San Diego:
Cognella Publishers.
Sage, George. 2007. Introduction. In Diversity and social justice in college sports:
Sport management and the student-athlete, ed. Dana Brooks, and Ronald
C. Althouse, 1–2. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology.
Schere, Daniel. 2014. UNC keeps tabs on classes with clusters of athletes. Daily
Tarheel, April 16. Accessed 13 Dec 2016 from http://www.dailytarheel.com/
article/2014/04/unc-keeps-tabs-on-classes-with-clusters-of-athletes
Singer, John N. 2005. Understanding racism through the eyes of African American
male student-athletes. Race Ethnicity and Education 8(4): 365–386.
———. 2008. Benefits and detriments of African American male athletes’ partici-
pation in a big-time college football program. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport 43(4): 399–408.
integrity in college sport. Research quarterly for exercise and sport 80(1):
102–116.
Singer, John N., and Akilah R. Carter-Francique. 2013. Representation, participa-
tion, and the experiences of racial minorities in college sport. In Sports in higher
education: Issues and controversies in college athletics, ed. Gary Sailes, 113–138.
San Diego: Cognella.
Smith, Jay M., and Mary Willingham. 2015. Cheated: The UNC Scandal, the edu-
cation of athletes, and the future of Big-time College Sports. University of
Nebraska Press.
Taylor, Edward. 1999. Critical race theory and interest convergence in the deseg-
regation of higher education. Race is… race isn’t: Critical race theory and qual-
itative studies in education, 181–204.
Thomas, Gail E., and Susan Hill. 1987. Black institutions in US higher education:
Present roles, contributions, future projections. Journal of College Student
Personnel 28(6): 496–503.
Tinto, Vincent. 2005. Presented at the 2005 national conference on student
recruitment, marketing and retention, Washington, DC, July 27–30.
White, Gordon S. 1981. N.C.A.A. Calls convention on TV policy. New York
Times, September 9. Accessed 12 Jan 2016 from http://www.nytimes.
com/1981/09/09/sports/ncaa-calls-convention-on-tv-policy.html
Wilson, Kirby. 2015. Lack of diversity leads to burden on professors of color. Duke
Chronicle, February 11. Accessed 9 Jan 2016 from http://www.dukechroni-
cle.com/article/2015/02/lack-diversity-leads-burden-professors-color
Yosso, Tara J. 2005. Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education 8(1): 69–91.
PART II
Academic Experiences, Challenges,

and Legislation
CHAPTER 5
Sports and Hip-Hop, the “Winning at All

Costs” Mentality: The Intersection of
Academic Fraud and Snitching on Black
College Athletes
Courtney Flowers and Jafus Kenyatta Cavil
Introduction
Hip-hop artist Wale gives voice to the voiceless in his song “Varsity Blues.”
“Matter of fact go ask they schools how many jerseys they was mov-
ing”—in this song, Wale, a former NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic
Association), football, college athlete (Hill 2013), colorfully articulates
the NCAA’s apostasy from its core value “the pursuit of excellence in both
academics and athletics” and lyrically discloses the duplicitous nature of
being voiceless, hence a marginalized African American college athlete.
Varsity Blues creatively sheds a light on the current state of college ath-
C. Flowers (*)
Texas Southern University, Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: flowerscl@TSU.EDU
J.K. Cavil
Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas Southern University,
Houston, TX, USA

124 C. FLOWERS AND J.K. CAVIL
letics for African American college athletes by tackling the controversial

issues of balancing the requirements of academics and athletics as well as
the tumultuous nature of being a star college athlete while living below
the US poverty level (Huma 2011).
More specifically, through the lyrics above, Wale uses Varsity Blues to
artfully speak to the injustices of African American college athletes being
used to drive money into the college system that is hypocritically using
them (Gumbel 2011). However, the crescendo of the song is a high-
lighted recording of Bryant Gumbel debating whether NCAA college ath-
letes should get paid. Perceptively, Wale’s inclusion of Bryant Gumball’s
contentions on this debate on Varsity Blues constructs the pervasive power
and diabolical nature of the NCAA, and therefore this collaboration gives
the foundation for the winning-at-all-costs mentality in college sports.
In 2011, a HBO episode of the “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel”
highlighted journalists Bryant Gumbel and Bernard Goldberg debating on
the NCAA paying college athletes for performance. During the episode, as
rendered on Wale’s song “Varity Blues,” Gumbel (2011) states, “We have
this multi-billion dollar, collegiate sports industry, we have to figure out a
way to fairly compensate those who are fueling this industry. Like Bernie
(referring to Bernard Goldberg) said you make billions and oh by the way
you don’t have to pay the employees anything.” Gumbel’s quote speaks to
the essence of the winning-at-all-costs mentality by alluding to the NCAA’s
power constraints over college athletes to fuel money into the college sys-
tem while ethically discarding normal US business practices of fairly paying
for performance. Arnold (1998) states the winning-at-all-costs mentality
“signifies a call for victory, without a corresponding concern for practices,
internal goals or the demand for moral virtue” (Arnold 1998, p. 23).
Therefore, the winning-at-all-costs mentality manifests through the
NCAA’s escape from ethical business standards by not paying college ath-
letes for playing college athletics when they are earning an abundance of
money on the college athletes’ efforts. This intentional stray from ethics
and normal business standards hence sets the foundation for this chap-
ter’s articulation of the winning-at-all-costs mentality. In correlation with
the winning-at-all-costs mentality, narratives on Varsity Blues similarly
exposed the one-dimensional dynamic of being a college athlete.
In 2014, Rashad McCants, a Black college athlete and the second-
leading scorer on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)
basketball team, spoke to ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” about the one-
dimensional dynamic of playing college athletics as an African American
SPORTS AND HIP-HOP, THE “WINNING AT ALL COSTS” MENTALITY... 125
college athlete. McCants stated he would have been declared ineligible

to play during his athletic tenure at UNC had he not participated in the
academically fraudulent culture at UNC. McCants’s accounts of “paper
classes” and tutors writing papers for college athletes helped to shed light
on the controversial topic of athletic academic fraud and has called for an
investigation of the prevalence of academic fraud and a thorough examina-
tion of the orchestrators of this fraudulent system.
The NCAA arguably has taken a stance on academic fraud by impos-
ing penalties on institutions as a result of academic infractions. On May
20, 2015, Chancellor Carol Folt of UNC received a letter from Jonathan
F. Duncan, Vice President of Enforcement for the NCAA and a White
male. The 59-page letter outlined years of allegations, including unethi-
cal conduct, failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation,
failure to uphold the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, and the
presumption of lack of institutional control. The letter further stated the
case be heard by a hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee
on Infractions to determine if the allegations serve breach of conduct.
Kenneth Wainstein, external investigator for UNC, reported in reference
to the UNC academic counselors, “These counselors saw the paper classes
and the artificially high grades they yielded as key to helping some col-
lege athletes remain eligible” (Ganim and Sayers 2014). When debating
academic fraud cases, it is pivotal to define the true scope of the word
“helping.” Chancellor Folt defined “helping” in reference to academic
fraud, as a failure to college athletes. He stated, “We also accept the fact
that there was a failure in academic oversight for years that permitted this
to continue” (Ganim 2014a). Similarly, Mary Willingham, a former aca-
demic specialist for UNC athletics, also viewed “helping” as egregious.
During her tenure as UNC, she reported working with UNC college ath-
letes who could not read or were reading at an elementary school level
(Ganmin 2014b). These accounts support the notions articulated by
Rashad McCants during his ESPN interview; however, Willingham was
labeled as a whistleblower (Ganim 2014b; Norlander 2014) for her accu-
sations against UNC, while McCants was labeled as a “snitch.”
On the surface, academic fraud provides no racial or sociocultural con-
notations; however, through careful examination of the racial constructs of
college athletics and exploring the social and cultural focused narratives of
marginalized college athletes, the undertones become apparent. Through
the use of critical race theory (CRT), this chapter will focus on the winning-
at-all-costs mentality in college athletics through exploring the impact of
academic fraud on African American college athletes. Furthermore, as

introduced at the beginning of this section, the hip-hop culture will be
used as a vehicle to broaden the narratives of African Americans in sport
on athletic academic fraud. Finally, the term “snitch” will also be explored.
The term provides an opportunity to expand knowledge of the potential
relationship between college athletes and avoidance to whistle-blowing on
NCAA violations. Moreover, this exploration expressively could broaden
knowledge on the circumstances surrounding the demonization associ-
ated with marginalized college athletes when selecting to speak out against
NCAA violations.
Conceptual Framework and Methodology
“And since all the ballers leaving college early….I turn on the TV and
don’t see no brothers with degrees lately,” is Hip-Hop artist J. Cole’s
artfully articulation of a strand of the intricacy associated with being an
African American, NCAA, college athlete when he alluded to “brothers”
merging into the professional sports field without a college degree in his
song “Be Free.” In this context, J. Cole uses the familial term “brother”
to denote the African American ethnicity of the people he is referencing
in his lyrics. Referencing this context, the song “Be Free” provides an
intimate glimpse into the perils faced by some African American college
athletes when faced with the decision to leave college to join the profes-
sional sports arena.
CRT is an analytic framework aimed at capitalizing on the conven-
tional civil rights rhetoric and scholarly discourse on race and power
while exploring the neutrality of legal jurisprudence and liberal order.1
Crystalized from principles of Critical Legal Studies and radical feminism,
CRT provides a vehicle for exploring legal indeterminacy. The analytic
framework deviates from legal scholarship by providing narratives that cri-
tique and debate the notion of White people being the primary beneficia-
ries of legal legislation2; Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin thoroughly
provides elements to further explore this notion.
This case focused on the University of Texas’s use of Affirmative Action
race-based college admission standards. Plaintiff Abigail Fisher alleged the
University of Texas violated her fourteenth amendment rights as a White
woman when they denied her admission into the university. The Supreme
Court rejected the lower appellate court’s ruling and held that the appel-
late court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny.3 Race-based
discourse looming from this case argued postracial discourse. Postracial

discourse is synonymous with color blindness; it posits freedom from
racial preference, discrimination, and prejudice. In addition, color blind-
ness is a social construct of reformulated discrimination,4 fundamentally a
form of “camouflaged racism.”5 Therefore, subscription into color-blind
philosophies only further mutes the voice of the marginalized; hence,
the framework of CRT provides an estrangement from color blindness
and therefore highlights true narratives of marginalized college athletes,
thereby outlining the racial discourse needed to objectively examine the
intersection of winning at all costs on athletic academic fraud.
As referenced in J. Cole’s lyrics, many college athletes are drawn to
the professional sports arena. Obviously, the million dollar contracts are
an extreme draw to the professional sports field team ranks. College ath-
letes receive athletic scholarships not to singularly play college athletics,
but two-dimensional dynamic of a college athlete also in embedded in
this decision. NCAA college athletes must but operate successfully within
the two-dimensional context of the role college athlete. For example, the
NCAA requires college athletes to gain a college-level education and grad-
uate with a college degree, while playing college-level sports (NCAA n.d.).
Haphazardly, the two-dimensional role becomes singular when athletic
requirements begin to overshadow the academic endeavors of the college
athlete. This overshadowing may lead some college athletes to feel their
academic endeavors are secondary to their athletic responsibilities hence
switching their titles from college athlete to athlete-student. An example
of this can easily be seen in the UNC academic fraud scandal. The ongo-
ing investigation uncovered years of fraudulent violations (Carolina 2014;
Delsohn 2014; ESPN 2014; Ganim 2014a; NCAA 2014) and warranted
not only NCAA violations (Carolina 2014; Delsohn 2014; NCAA 2014),
but also legal suits of wrongdoings. The University of North Carolina set-
tled a lawsuit with Mary Willingham, former athletic academic specialist,
for $335,000 (ESPN 2015; Kane 2015). In addition, former UNC col-
lege athletes Devon Ramsey and Rashanda filed a class action suit againist
UNC and the NCAA alleging college athletes contract violations for being
steered toward taking “paper classes,” hence reciving an inferior education
at the institution (McCann and Wethem 2015).
The convolution of this debate begins with the vagueness of the defini-
tion of academic fraud and the lax misconduct policies formulated by the
NCAA. During a US Senate hearing on “Promoting the well-being and
academic success of college athletes,” Ramsay testified on the c onvoluted
nature of being a college athlete. He spoke to the inability of college ath-

letes to successfully complete career-driven opportunities like internships
and the demonization of college athletes by the college athletic system
who select to participate in activities contrary to the initiatives of the
NCAA or the college system (Senate 2014). He testified “There needs
to be an organization that will, in fact, protect the college athlete and has
no ties to financial being of the Universities or to the NCAA. Allowing
the NCAA continue to intimidate schools and athletes is dangerous and
unfair” (Senate 2014, p. 30). This statement speaks to the power constructs
afforded and exuded by the NCAA; however, it is through exploring the
NCAA’s academic fraud definitions and policies that the sociocultural con-
structs surrounding academic fraud as well as the disastrous implications
attributed to this behavior all uniquely surface as barriers for Black college
athletes, hence making this debate even more challenging and all-encom-
passing of a myriad of discussions and analyses.
According to Bylaw 10.1-(b) of the NCAA Division I manual, fraud-
ulent academic behavior is separated into two terms: academic miscon-
duct and academic offense. Although both include fraudulent behavior
only the academic misconduct violation is required to be reported to the
NCAA. Examples given by the NCAA6 of academic misconduct are aca-
demic fraud or violations of the institution’s honor code, whereas exam-
ples of academic offenses are cheating on a test or plagiarism on a term
paper. Even more complex are the NCAA’s policies for governing these
violations.
The NCAA typically defaults to the institution’s policy on academic
fraud. Structurally, this standard places the authority of interpreting the
difference between academic misconduct and academic offense violations
on the institution. Consequently, this policy becomes more ambiguous
allowing an infinite number of ways in which these violations could be
defined and governed. Haphazardly, the rigidness of the institution’s aca-
demic culture becomes a deciding factor in reporting academically fraudu-
lent violations to the NCAA.
Stepping outside of policy, academic fraud also forges constructs that are
contradictory to the mission of the NCAA and disastrous to Black college
athletes. The mental and physical prowess needed to balance the academic
rigor exemplified in the classroom and success expected on the filed can
be inconsequential for some and insurmountable for others. For example,
Ramsay testified during the Senate hearing the ability of only one football
player on his team to successfully complete an internship (Senate 2014).
Moreover, during an investigation, CNN found some college athletes

“scored in the 200s and 300s on the SAT critical reading test… an ele-
mentary reading level and too low for college classes. The lowest score
possible on that part of the SAT is 200, and the national average is 500”
(Gamin 2014b).
The athletic department at UNC has been featured by various media
outlets and covered by numerous academic scholars.7 In addition, alle-
gations of fraudulent tactics being used by the athletic department have
led to several circumstantial and highly opinionated articles and studies.8
Although numerous other NCAA DI athletic institutions have been penal-
ized and published for academic fraud infractions9 differently, the UNC
case has become a tool of assessment and refinement of academic fraud in
NCAA athletics.10 Through its internal studies and external investigations,
the probe into the manifestation of a fraudulent athletic academic climate
at UNC has provided not only descriptive details outlining 20 years of
nontraditional academic behavior among college athletics,11 but has also
indirectly forged an intersection with the sociocultural dynamics of snitch-
ing which will be discussed later in this chapter. 12
Throughout history many institutions (e.g., educational, economic,
political, religious, financial, and judicial) were established for and main-
tained by Europeans and later Americans, and this includes sports. Thus,
in order to engage a comprehensive analysis of the intersection of hip-
hop, African American athletics, and the athletic industrial complex as an
institution that is governed by White normative values and the inequi-
table relationship between these groups, it is useful to incorporate CRT
as an analytic tool.13 In 2010, André Douglas Pond Cummings suggests
the kinship between CRT and the hip-hop nation were two movements
“borne of disaffect, disappointment, and near desperation—a desperate
need to give voice to oppressed and disposed peoples.”14
Decuir and Dixson (2004) outlined the core tenets of CRT: (a) (coun-
ter) storytelling, (b) the permanence of racism, (c) Whiteness as prop-
erty norm, (d) interest convergence, and (e) the critique of liberalism.
Interest convergence is a methodological approach designed to consider
the motivating factors for laws, social policies, and/or organizational gov-
erning policies established to eradicate racial discrimination or provide
remedies for racial injustice on the basis of “merit” and “colour blind-
ness.”15 Bell (1980) defines interest convergence as a construct that occurs
in the absence of overt racial discrimination of a character that shocks the
public conscience. Hence, the Fourteenth Amendment, standing alone,
will not authorize judicial relief providing an effective remedy for [B]lacks
where the remedy sought threatens the superior societal status of mid-
dle and upper class whites. It follows that the availability of Fourteenth
Amendment protection in racial cases is not actually determined by the
character of harm suffered by [B]lacks or the quantum of liability against
whites. Rather, racial remedies are the outward manifestations of unspo-
ken and perhaps unconscious judicial conclusions that the remedies, if
granted, will secure or advance societal interests deemed important by
the upper class. Racial justice or its appearance may, from time to time,
be counted among the interests deemed important by the courts and the
society’s policymakers.16
The integration of talented African American athletes into state sup-
ported public Historically White Colleges and Universities (HWCUs) in
the mid-twentieth century is a most important example of interest con-
vergence, insomuch as talented African American college athletes’ interest
in receiving increased exposure and prospects of attaining a professional
sport career converged with large HWCUs’ interests. This relationship
becomes exploitative in nature when laws, social policies, and/or organiza-
tional governing policies are established for mainly the benefit of European
Americans based on athletic revenue generation and institutional prestige.17
As previously mentioned, this analysis utilizes CRT as the base of its
theoretical framework in representing hip-hop through the eyes of African
American college athletes.18 The framework of (Counter) storytelling is a
methodological approach designed to emphasize and empower the voices
of persons who have been historically marginalized and oppressed within
discussions or narratives associated with race.19 Delgado (1989) offers four
points of view for the use of storytelling and voice in the theoretical concepts
of CRT scholarship: “(a) Reality is socially constructed, (b) stories are a pow-
erful means for destroying and changing mind-sets, (c) stories have a com-
munity-building function, and (d) stories provide members of out-groups
mental self-preservation.”20 The notion of telling stories derives from cul-
tural heritage. One of the tenets of hip-hop is the musical art of storytelling.
The Exploitation of Black College Athletes

“Got hella options, like a college team” in his song “They Don’t Love
You No More,” hip-hop artist Jay-Z alludes to the perception of ath-
letes being viewed as commodities in college sport. College athletes are
an extremely valuable asset to the NCAA and universities. According to a
report developed by Huma and Staurowsky,21 the fair market value for the
average Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football player is approximately
$121,048 and $265,027 for the average basketball player. More specifi-
cally, addressing Black college athletes, the NCAA reported of the 96,142
male, DI athletes, 24,319 were Black which was the second highest popu-
lation behind Whites at 54,003.22 Similarly, of the 83,548 female, DI col-
lege athletes, 12,763 were Black which followed White females at 53,685.
However, the graduation rates of these students pose the need for NCAA
athletic academic reform. According to the NCAA, “African-American
male college athletes earned a 52 percent federal graduation rate,23 11
points higher than the federal graduation rate for African-American men
in the overall student body. African-American female college athletes grad-
uate at 63 percent, a rate 13 points higher than African-American females
in the overall student body.” With this in mind, many urban youth agree
with what Jay-Z expresses in the song “They Don’t Love You No More”;
that is, the NCAA should allow college athletes to earn money from their
skills, names, images, and likeness.
Moreover, the NCAA reported supporting college athlete success in the
classroom is at the heart of their Association; however, this is not evident
in accounts looming around the UNC academic fraud case. An example of
this can be seen in the 2014 ESPN interview with former UNC defensive
back, Deunta Williams. During the interview, Williams gave his account
of the fraudulent athletic academic behavior at UNC. He stated, “The
first ones that actually told us [about the paper classes] were our [athletic
academic] advisors. Their job isn’t necessarily to make Deunta Williams
a better person, a smarter person, their job necessarily is to make sure
I’m eligible to play.”24 According to Sue,25 perpetrators of microaggres-
sions are typically unaware of the racial slights they project at minorities.
Moreover, Sue states as victims of cultural conditioning, prejudice per-
meates within White people causing them to discriminate against Black
people.26 Consequently, the lack of cultural competence among college
athletic administrators could potentially create an impasse for Black college
athletes in their graduation endeavors. However, in justifying this correla-
tion, the authors are in no way suggesting all college athletic administrators
are intentionally harming African American student-athletes; contrary, the
authors are providing a theory of unintentional attribution of racial micro-
aggression as a barrier faced by Black college athletes in college athletics.
However, William’s quote presents a mystifying paradox that questions
whether the tangible objective of athletic personnel is to graduate college
athletes or just to keep them NCAA eligible. Hence, accepting Williams’s

account is synonymous with acknowledging the exploitation of Black col-
lege athletes due to the contradictory nature of being a college athlete and
receiving an opportunity for a “true” college education through playing
NCAA sports.
In addition, as the “Don” of college sports it is the duty of the NCAA
to protect and provide for its college athletes. Using the “Godfather”
analogy as a characterization of college athletics is not unique to this
chapter;27 using terminology from the movie “The Godfather” provides
a visual depiction of the constraints associated with being a Black college
athlete and portrays the power dynamic posed by the NCAA.
For example, Black college athletes “kiss the ring of the Don” in accep-
tance of a scholarship to pay for their college tuition while playing NCAA
sports. Many African American student-athletes view this as an “offer they
cannot refuse” because acceptance of the scholarship paves the way for edu-
cational and athletic success. In addition, it provides an opportunity to not
only change their lives, but also the lives of their families while also standing
as predecessors of success and therefore allowing other African American
college athletes the opportunity to follow in their footsteps.28 Therefore, for
some Black college athletes obtaining a college degree without economic
assistance provides an immobile barrier in their opportunity to expand their
education. Thus, indirectly the athletic scholarship transitions into a method
of economic exploitation for these students because without this monetary
assistance a college degree becomes unattainable and their educational level
remains stagnant, greatly impacting their ability to obtain a job and which
manipulates their ability to become productive members of society.29
However, with transitioning back to “Godfather” rhetoric, once the
college athlete has accepted the “offer they cannot refuse” they are wel-
comed to the family table of their respective college athletic department.
This notion further validates the duty of the NCAA and college system to
provide academic assistance to these students to ensure their contractual
agreement to receive a “true” college education is upheld. Nevertheless,
when the contractual agreement bears conflict to the college athletes’
ability to obtain a college degree or a professional career in sports the
dilemma to discuss the “family business” becomes a complex sociocultural
construct for Black college athletes. During his testimony to the Senate,
Devon Ramsay reported, “The college athlete has a short career and is an
amazing new, renewable resource. And because of that, the NCAA is able
to take advantage of naïve young men and women” (Senate 2014, p. 30).
Another example of this construct was highlighted during an interview

with Mary Willingham, former learning specialist with UNC Academic
Support Program for college athletes. She stated,
I think that to keep winning and to keep these athletes eligible we had
to do something and so we cheated, everyone else is doing it, that’s what
I’m told time and time again. Mary, stop talking, everybody else is doing
it, who cares. Well, I care because I can still see the faces of all the athletes
that I worked with that we cheated out of what we promised them—a real
education.”30
In order to examine this sociocultural context of snitching the next sec-

tions will define the term while also introducing historical frames that add
to the complexity of the intersection of snitching and academic fraud.
Moreover, the theories of athletic industrial complex and the triangulation
effect will also be discussed to further forge a relationship between the
sociocultural aspects of snitching, athletic academic fraud culture, and the
winning at all costs mentality.
Stop Snitching: Hip-Hop, Black College Athletes,

and the Athletic Industrial Complex
Over the last decade, a myriad of ethical issues has arisen in the landscape of
college athletics. “I’m major leagues, who’s catching because I’m pitchin,’
Jose Canseco just snitchin’ because he’s finished”—in this song, hip-hop
artist Rick Ross speaks to the scandals involving players receiving improper
benefits, coaches involved in recruiting violations, players and coaches
involved in illicit activity, institutions involved in academic fraud, and alle-
gations of steroid use have arisen. Many would suggest these issues are now
challenging the integrity of college athletics and professional sports, while
others would suggest this has always been the case in collegiate athletics.
The “winning at all costs” mentality is not just a college athletic phenom-
enon as the “I’m winning and you lose because you snooze” conceptualiza-
tion is prevalent in the hip-hop urban community, as is “snitching.”
As denoted above in Rick Ross’s lyrics, a snitch is a demonized char-
acter, although interestingly, the terms “snitch” and “whistleblower” are
used interchangeably as a characterization of informing (Woldoff and
Weiss 2010); however, the sociocultural connotations and legal append-
ages of these terms distinctly separate them in definition.
As an example, when revealing inside information to outside sources,

the whistleblower is denoted as the hero, whereas the snitch is vilified as
a traitor (Woldoff and Weiss 2010). In the UNC case, Mary Willingham
was coined a whistleblower and celebrated for bringing light to college
athletes at UNC taking “paper classes” (Ganim 2014b; Norlander 2014),
whereas Rashad McCants was demonized by his peers for sharing the same
information, hence labeled a derogatory snitch. The informant is labeled
a snitch by his social and cultural peers when he/she shares insider secrets
with people outside of the circle (Woldoff and Weiss 2010; Gutierrez and
McLauren 2012 ). Therefore, Rashad as an African American, former
UNC college athlete was considered an “insider” of the UNC athletic
community who shared uncommon knowledge about the academic cli-
mate for college athletes at UNC. However, as this chapter will analyze,
the discussion deepens in complexity when the racial and social constructs
surrounding the word “snitch” are intertwined with the above theory.
Legally, Gutierrez and McLauren (2012) stated that “a snitch is
someone who provides incriminating information about a person to law
enforcement authorities in exchange for leniency or pardon for their own
role in an unlawful act…an egregious breach of loyalty” (p. 1). In con-
trast, they state the whistleblower “is not self-serving,” but can also be
demonized (Gutierrez and McLauren 2012). Understanding the inter-
changeability of the terms whistleblower and snitch as described above
provides an inference of the cultural socialization of deciphering who is
informing, what they are informing, and to whom. In addition, personal
stance on the information being disclosed as well as social relationship to
the informant collective deem the use of the term “snitch” or “whistle-
blower”; hence, some may see McCants as a whistleblower, while others
may see him as a snitch.
Contrarily, Cornell University of Law school states the terms are not
interchangeable in that whistleblower receives legal protection from the US
government for “blowing the whistle” on violations of public law. Cornell
(n.d.) defines whistleblower in conjugation with The Whistleblower
Protection Act of 198931 which is a US federal law that protects employees
informing the government about violations within their respective orga-
nizations. “An employee who alleges wrongdoing by his or her employer
of the that violates public law or tends to injure a considerable num-
ber of people” (Cornell n.d.). This notion supports the notion of Mary
Willingham being labeled as a whistleblower. As a u niversity employee she
informed “outsiders” of the university about violations of public law hence
the perpetual academic fraud climate at UNC. In addition, arguably, as a

nonemployee, McCants would not be labeled as a whistleblower, but this
does not explain why McCants was vilified by other African American col-
lege athletes.
The term “Stop Snitchin’” has found its way into the modern collegiate
and professional sports framing of competition. From whistle-blowing in
intercollegiate athletics causing investigations by the NCAA on its mem-
ber institutions to national news reports on alleged steroid use at the pro-
fessional level in various sports has been a focus of the sports news cycle
of late. Prior to that, snitching was connected with hip-hop’s controversial
“Stop Snitchin’” campaign.32 But the snitch has a lengthy past as a hated
character in historical references throughout time as it pertains to vari-
ous social communities. Until recently most academic literature focused
on criminal informants exchanging information with law enforcement
agencies in the criminal justice system. Nonetheless its quintessential to
acknowledge and explore the sociocultural context of the term in refer-
ence to sport. Understanding the social and racial undertones for the term
“snitch” will broaden the scope of understanding the complexities sur-
rounding informing “outsiders” of unethical accepted standards like aca-
demic fraud, intertwine the previous referenced “Don” characterization
associated with the college system, as well as unweave delicate relationship
between African American college athletes.
Although exclaiming similar sentiments to Mary Willingham, Rashad
McCants was vilified by his African American peers while being hailed as
a trailblazer by media,33 McCants was coined a “Snitch” by adversaries of
his claims34 and his disloyalty was made visible to the world through the
outcry of former UNC college athletes, athletic personnel, and fans on
social media. Matt Doherty tweeted, “In response to Rashad McCants’s
ESPN int.: ‘I did not see any problems while I was at UNC as a player or
a coach. I feel sorry for Rashad . . . ’”35
As the resentment toward McCants escalated, hashtags like #clown and
#dontbelievehim began to trend throughout social media, and the racial
complexities surrounding snitching in sport became evident through posts
made by Julius Hodge. The volatile rants of former North Carolina State
University’s men’s basketball player Julius Hodge that best signifies the
racial constructs of snitching, the personalization of the informants reveal-
ing of “insider” secrets.
In the 2014 tweet, Hodge posted the following tweet in reference to
McCants’s ESPN interview: “I’m going FULL Denzel in “Training Day”
on McCants. ‘You disloyal, fool *** ”36 The volatile nature and threats
used in Hodge’s social media posts contextualizes his personalization to
the “secrets” disclosed by McCants. Moreover, his violent imagery “Full
Denzel” provides a sense of the severity in which Hodge has ranked the
perceived disloyalty by McCants. Hence, snitching and loyalty go hand in
hand.
For example, certain communities view the exploitative nature of foot-
ball and basketball sports in college infringing on the commodifiable
bodies in their communities without loyalty to their neighborhood and
leaving them to question the ethics of such a system. Some of the key
ethical questions regarding college sports have at their foundation a “Stop
Snitchin’” reframe. The “Stop Snitchin’” is an offspring of a long time-
honored notion of loyalty, honor, and prudence.
As suggested above, the moral compass is part of the soul of American
culture. Culture is an energy source. The underpinning construction of
“Stop Snitchin” is found in many American institutions, from colonial
times with the stories of Benedict Arnold and his defection from the
Continental Army to the British side of the conflict and the failed uprising
on Denmark Vesey’s planned revolt of enslaved Africans in Charleston,
South Carolina, to modern times with parents who teach their kids games-
manship in youth sports that go beyond the whistle and pick-up basketball
games in Harlem’s famed Rucker Park, to the way high schools, college
athletics, and professions sports franchises or sports related business go
about their business practices.
Although there is a federal Whistleblower Protection Act, consider-
ing the American motif it is never easy to blow the whistle, especially in
a sporting context. In this section, the concept of the snitch is expanded
by identifying the US historical subcultures and application of the snitch
label within the collegiate context by illustrating the broader content
analysis using the framework of CRT by Bell and culture of terror theory
developed by Taussig.37 CRT is a useful theoretical approach when exam-
ining the situations encountered by marginalized groups in a hierarchal
society.38
The “Stop Snitchin’” campaign was brought to the national forefront
in 2004 in Baltimore, Maryland when a video released by Rodney Bethea,
a young man from the inner-city community, surfaced in the underground
market. Taussig offers the concept of “space of death” as a beginning
that helps create a sense and consciousness in societies in which terror,
torture, and death are endemic to that community.39 He frames how a
horrendous culture of terror can be produced from the fibers of mystery,

fantasy, rumor, and everyday life can forge a mindset of a “dense web of
magical realism.”40 In other words, the enforcers project outwardly the
savage beings they themselves become.
The “Stop Snitchin’” campaign earns an even larger platform for dis-
course when a prominent professional athlete, at the time Denver Nuggets
star Carmelo Anthony of the NBA, was noticed after briefly appearing in
this underground video. Many attribute the video for creating a cultural
movement not only on the streets of Baltimore, but across America and
beyond and even spread into the culture of hip-hop as well as eventu-
ally entering into the common vernacular of the general lexicon.41 As the
video became exceedingly popular, Baltimore police decided to counteract
the video with one of their own, titled “Keep Talking.”
The Current Framing of the Urban Community,

Hip-Hop, and Sport Entertainment
It is important to understand the cultural identity and its relationship
with the urban community, hip-hop, and sport entertainment. In its very
nature, culture is a source of energy. Understanding that cultural identity
development is significant to the contextual framing of such a relationship,
it is important to research hip-hop and urban youth cultures.42 What is the
connection between hip-hop and urban youth cultures and why does it
interrogate this relationship with police?
The cultural expression conveyed through music and sports provides
a historical foundation for the journey of the African American athlete,
which was created to support cultural identity of racial pride, cultural
expression, social engagement, economic development, Black masculin-
ity, Black femininity, and the need to create and ultimately sustain Black
community empowerment that continues today.43 Moreover as the exhib-
ited above in the lyrics of David Banner’s “Whos that” sometimes the
various facets of this racial or social membership can also manifest as dis-
turbing and the lack of depth regarding consequences.
For example, in 2015, Baltimore police have once again found them-
selves in the middle of a national story as the news spread regarding
the death of Freddie Gray, a Baltimore resident who died from injuries
sustained while in police custody. After the confirmation of Gray’s inju-
ries to his neck and spine during his transport in a police vehicle and
Gray’s subsequent coma, the urban community’s residents of Baltimore
rotested. Gray’s death became public knowledge and amid the police
p
department’s inability to sufficiently or consistently explain the events fol-
lowing the arrest and his injuries civil unrest erupted. In that event, the
hip-hop community chimed in and the sports entertainment community
spoke up on the death of Freddie Gray. From the very foundation of hip-
hop, the art form noted “[h]ip-hop is like a CNN that black kids never
had” and is a direct response to the hip-hop artist’s perceptions of police
and the criminal justice system.44 Hip-hop music and the overrepresen-
tation of African Americans sports participation in a few key sports like
basketball, football, and track and field are derived from a subculture dis-
proportionately impacted by the criminal justice system (prison industrial
complex) and the collegiate sports model (athletic industrial complex).
These stories are one component of the unique intersection between hip-
hop, sports, and urban youth cultures.
While for much of the twentieth century crime and punishment have
provided some of the most powerful symbols of the racial divide in
America, this narrative between the police and inner-city communities has
a much more extensive and complex history. Kendrick Lamar outlines his
notion in his song “The Black the Berry,” “I mean, it’s evident that I’m
irrelevant to society. That’s what you’re telling me, penitentiary would
only hire me.”45
This history dates back to the late eighteenth century, through-
out the nineteenth century, and the early part of the twentieth century
with first the slave patrol militias which are associated with the Second
Amendment and later lynching, sharecropping, segregation, chain-gang-
style penal practices, convict lease system, and prosecutorial and judicial
bigotry that were common, particularly in the southern criminal justice
systems.46 Throughout the United States, racial minorities were generally
tried without their minority peers as jurors or judges, essentially all-White
courtrooms.47
The Athletic Industrial Complex

The athletic industrial complex continues to be the conveyor belt that
houses the exploited class of athletes participating in athletics at the colle-
giate level, specifically the NCAA Division I FBS Power Five Conferences
(ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC). Particularly, in the sports
of football and basketball as expressed in the song “March Madness” by
Future referencing the complex urban framing of the NCAA Division
I Basketball marketed as March Madness, criminalization of the Black

body by police officers, and the dream of urban youth leaving their cur-
rent environment by playing a professional sport. The athletic industrial
complex embraces the plantation model—precisely, the internal colonial
model when analyzing the African American athlete collegiate experience
of structural inequalities between racial groups as measured by sport par-
ticipation and social institutional access to societal norms as measured by
graduation rates.48 With this conceptual edifice, it should be of no surprise
that African Americans constitute the majority of players in college foot-
ball and basketball. Between 2007 and 2010, African American men were
2.8 percent of full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students, but 57.1
percent of football teams and 64.3 percent of basketball teams. These are
the two sports that are most popular when reviewing college athletics.
Basketball and football revenues at the Power Five Conferences’ insti-
tutions fund billions in athletic scholarships annually, making African
American athletes the single largest generator of athletic scholarship dollars
besides the federal government. At the Power Five Conferences, African
American scholarship athletes support athletic scholarships for mostly
European American athletes and salaries for mostly European American49
coaches as well as mostly European American athletic administrators and
European American collegiate presidents. Similar to the frameworks of
sharecropping, this is an exploitative arrangement to have players work for
less than their economic free market value while universities, advertisers,
and television networks profit from their efforts in an open market system.
Athletic Sharecropping
Similarly, the NCAA has mastered the construct of this socio-legal “foot-
ball game” as operating through the newly formed collegiate model sys-
tem that is constantly raging between embracing commercialism in every
facet of intercollegiate athletics except on a single issue, athlete compensa-
tion. Immortal Technique provides a lyrical twist of the traditional fram-
ing of sharecropping, a system of farming that developed in the South
after the Civil War when European American landowners, many of whom
had formerly held enslaved Africans in America, attempted to reestablish
a labor force without providing a fair market wage to recently freed blacks
seeking economic independence and autonomy as field laborers, many
of whom were formerly enslaved and ultimately created a new system
of indentured servitude, by introducing a new concept of corporate
sharecropping. Ultimately this collegiate athletic form of sharecropping

is a system of sport business in which an institution of higher learning
allows athletic scholarship college athletes to use their facilities and play
in university approved and association sanctioned contests in return for
an athletic scholarship that covers only tuition, room, board, books, fees,
and most recently the full cost of attendance, as well as an opportunity to
earn a degree.
In a speech entitled “God’s Judgment of White America” in 1963,
Malcolm X stated,
The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the
liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocriti-
cal than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one
who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor;
and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the
white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “foot-
ball game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white
conservatives.50
The institutionalization of the ethos of amateurism in the collegiate ath-

letic enterprise points to the insincerity of the governance structure and
its leadership. There is an undercurrent of racial prejudice that drives
this current opposition to paying college athletes. Thus, it is evident
that the current model of collegiate athletics creates the framework for
“The New Plantation”; the relationship between NCAA Division I inter-
collegiate athletes programs, specifically the Power Five Conference at
HWCUs and Black male college athletes.51 The New Plantation model
prescribes to the socio-historical and sociopolitical context of exploita-
tion and oppression endured by internally colonized Blacks in the system
of enslaving Africans in America framed in collegiate sports insomuch as a
large percentage of Black college athletes of the two revenue-generating
sports are playing for the privilege of mostly White college administra-
tors and the mostly Olympic sport participating White male and female
college athletes.52
Furthermore, these conditions have created this winning-at-all-costs
approach to collegiate athletics and the rules violations associated with
that mindset. These rule violations in college athletics stem from the grow-
ing imposition of market forces. This collegiate culture has also fostered
the same mindset connected to criminal informants exchanging informa-
tion with law enforcement agencies in the criminal justice system with the
infusion of the hip-hop, collegiate sports, and urban youth cultures that
associates snitching with a negative connotation. Thus, this concept of the
snitch has expanded into the collegiate athletic model lexicon.
Conclusion
The social and racial constructs embedded in the winning-at-all-costs
mentality frame the academic fraud climate of college sports. This notion
affirms the volatile nexus of being a student-athlete and strays away from
the NCAA’s visible, but contradictory purpose of deeming athletes two-
dimensionally; student and athlete. Moreover, the complexities outlined
through various facets obstructing a true sense of academic achievement
and obtainment also calls for academic reform.
In addition, the paradigms surrounding the historical context of African
American culture and the social dynamics embedded in the hip-hop cul-
ture illustrate an intersection between these terms and the usage of the
term “snitch” among marginalized college athletes. Moreover, the escape
from the term “whistleblower” among African American college athletes
also provides a path for further exploration on this topic and the true sepa-
ration of these terms for the explored demographic.
In addition, Sue’s theory of microaggression provides another potential
racial construct for college athletes that are African American by foster-
ing unintentional racial undertones which could arbitrarily contradict put-
ting the college athlete on the correct path to graduation.53 Similarly, this
notion also calls for further exploration prior to intersecting this theory
to marginalized college athletes. However, the challenge of the college
athletic system is to facilitate and fairly guide African American college
athletes in such a way that “voids the stereotypical beliefs of self and oth-
ers that now permeate society.”54 In addition, NCAA athletic participation
should pave the way for African American college athletes to be afforded
their contractual obligation of obtaining a college-level education and
earning degree while participating on a NCAA athletic team.
This chapter contends there is a need for athletic academic reform how-
ever this reform should include cultural awareness of the racial constructs
surrounding being an African American student-athlete as well as the social
parameters forged with educational attainment. In addition, these college
athletes should be fairly assisted throughout the educational process.
Moreover, the authors assert the winning-at-all-costs mentality greatly
impacts the overall academic athletic atmosphere and hence provides
an insurmountable obstruction for African American college athletes

attempting to gain a college education. CRT provides an understanding
of contextualization of the racial constructs as well as delineates the impact
of athletic sharecropping on the oppression felt by marginalized college
athletes, hence further forging the need for reform and cultural awareness
in college athletics.
Notes
1. Kimberle Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and
Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine,
Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago
Legal Forum 1 (1989): 139–67; Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping the
Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against
Women of Color,” in The Public Nature of Private Violence, ed.
Martha Albertson Fineman (New York: Routledge, 1994); Kimberle
Crenshaw, Intersectional Interventions: Unmasking and Dismantling
Racial Power (Cambridge, MA: Hutchins Center for African &
African American Research, 2011); Richard Delgado and Jean
Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 2nd ed. (New York: University
Press, 2012).
2. Gloria Ladson-Billings, “Just What Is Critical Race Theory and

What’s It Doing in a Nice Field like Education?,” International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 11, no. 1 (1998): 7–24.
3. According to Cornell Law School strict scrutiny imposes a suspect
classification of race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty
on examining the constitutionality of passed laws.
4. Alikah R. Carter-Francique and Courtney L. Flowers, “Intersections
of race, ethnicity, and gender in sport,” in Gender Relations in Sport,
ed. Emily E. Roper (The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2013).
5. Patricia Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness,
and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Routledge, 2000), 279.
6. NCAA, NCAA Division I Manual (Overland Park, KS: NCAA,
2014).
7. UNC-Chapel Hill, “ASPCA,” accessed [date], http://3qh929iorux
3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/
uploads/2011/09/aspsa-report.pdf; UNC-Chapel Hill, “UNC
Chapel Hill Statement,” accessed 2015, http://3qh929iorux3fdpl53
2k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/
uploads/2015/01/UNC-Oct-22-Press-Conference-Transcript.pdf;
ESPN, “UNC Academic Scandal: Whistleblower, Former Athlete
Speak Out,” accessed 2016, http://espn.go.com/video/
clip?id=10671809; Dan Kane, “UNC Got Warning on Suspect
Classes,” accessed 2016, http://www.newsobserver.com/news/
local/education/unc-scandal/article15573764.html#storylink=cpy;
Kirk Mango, “‘Winning at All Costs’ NOT Only Relative to
PED’s!!!,” accessed 2015, http://www.chicagonow.com/the-ath-
letes-sports-experience-making-a-difference/2014/04/winning-at-
all-costs-not-only-relative-to-peds/; Courtney L. Flowers, Disgrace
on Tobacco Road: Using CRT to Analyze Student Perceptions of the
UNC Academic Fraud Scandal (Portland, OR: North American
Society for the Sociology of Sport Conference Abstracts, 2014).
8. Mango, “‘Winning at All Costs’”; Kane, “UNC Got Warning”;
ESPN, UNC Academic Scandal; Flowers, Disgrace on Tobacco Road;
Steve Delsohn, “UNC’s McCants: Just Show Up, Play,” accessed
2015, http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11036924/
former-north-carolina-basketball-star-rashad-mccants-says-took-
sham-classes.
9. Jon Solomon, “What Syracuse’s NCAA Case Revealed about

Academic Fraud,” accessed [2016], http://www.cbssports.com/
collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25096871/what-syracuses-
ncaa-case-revealed-about-academic-fraud; Max Williens, “NCAA
Investigating 20 Schools for Academic Fraud,” accessed [2016],
http://www.ibtimes.com/ncaa-investigating-20-schools-
academic-fraud-1790870.
10. UNC-Chapel Hill, “ASPCA,” UNC-Chapel Hill, “UNC Chapel Hill
Statement,” NCAA, “Academic Misconduct—Reporting a Misconduct
Violation (I),” accessed 2016, http://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/
edColumnDisplay?edColumnDisplaySubmit=Display&multiple=2353
9&division=1; Jon Solomon, “Inside College Sports: NCAA Redefines
Academic Misconduct after UNC Case,” accessed [2015], http://
w w w. c b s s p o r t s . c o m / c o l l e g e f o o t b a l l / w r i t e r / j o n - s o l o -
mon/25315260/inside-college-sports-ncaa-redefines-academic-
misconduct-after-unc-case.
11. UNC-Chapel Hill, “UNC Chapel Hill Statement.”
12. Malcolm X, “God’s Judgement of White America (The Chickens
Come Home to Roost),” accessed [2016], http://www.malcolm-x.
org/speeches/spc_120463.htm.
13. Derrick Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of
Racism (New York: Basic Books, 1992); William F. Tate, “Critical
Race Theory and Education: History, Theory, and Implications,”
Review of Research in Education 22 (1997): 195–247; Hodge, S. R.,
Harrison, L., Jr., Burden, J., Jr., & Dixson, A. D. (2008).; Delgado
and Stefanic, Critical Race Theory; Gloria Ladson- Billings and
William F. Tate IV, “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education,”
Teachers College Record 97 no. 1 (1995): 47–68; Daniel Solórzano,
Miguel Ceja, and Tara Yosso, “Critical Race Theory, Racial
Microaggressons, and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of
African American College Students,” The Journal of Negro Education
69, nos. 1/2 (2000):60–73.
14. andre douglas pond cummings, “A Furious Kinship: Critical Race
Theory and the Hip-Hop Nation,” University of Louisville Law
Review 48, no. 3 (2010): 499.
15. Jamel K. Donnor, “Towards an Interest-Convergence in the
Education of African-American Football Student Athletes in Major
College Sports,” Race, Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 1 (2005):
45–67; H. Richard Milner, “Critical Race Theory and Interest
Convergence as Analytic Tools in Teacher Education Policies and
Practices,” Journal of Teacher Education 59 (2008): 332–346.
16. Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, 646.
17. Milner, “Critical Race Theory”; Joseph N. Cooper, “Personal
Troubles and Public Issues: A Sociological Imagination of Black
Athletes’ Experiences at Historically White Colleges and Universities
in the United States,” Sociology Mind 2, no. 3 (2012): 261–71;
Donnor, “Towards an Interest-Convergence”; Joseph N. Cooper,
J. Kenyatta Cavil, and Geremy Cheeks, “The State of Intercollegiate
Athletics at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs):
Past, Present, & Persistence,” Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletics 7 (2014): 307–332.
18. Dawn-Elissa Fischer, “Hip-hop as Critical Pedagogy,” Anthropology
News 43, no. 8 (2002): 46–47.
19. Delgado and Stefanic, Critical Race Theory.
20. Tate, “Critical Race Theory,” 220.
21. Ramoji Huma and Ellen J. Staurowsky, The Price of Poverty in Big
Time College Sports (National College Players Association, 2011).
22. NCAA, “College Athletes Earn Diplomas at Record Rate,” accessed
2016, http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/
college athletes-earn-diplomas-record-rate.
23. The Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) is a graduation metric used by

the NCAA which compares graduations of college athletes to the
general student body. See NCAA, “College Athletes Earn Diplomas.”
24. ESPN, “UNC Academic Scandal.”
25. Derald Wing Sue, Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender
and Sexual Orientation (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010).
26. Derald Wing Sue et al., “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life:
Implications for Clinical Practice,” American Psychologist 62, no. 4
(2007): 271.
27. Braden Gall, “Coaches as Characters in The Godfather,” accessed
2016,http://athlonsports.com/college-basketball/coaches-characters-
godfather.
28. Kenyatta J. Cavil, “Early Athletic Experiences at HBCUs: The
Creation of Conferences,” in The Athletic Experience at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities: Past, Present, and Persistence, ed.
Billy Hawkins, Joseph Cooper, Akilah Carter-Francique, and
Kenyatta J. Cavil (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015); Billy
Hawkins, The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports, and
Historically White Colleges/Universities (New York, NY: Palgrave
MacMillan, 2010); Shaun Powell, Souled Out? How Blacks Are
Winning and Losing in Sports (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2008); Gary A. Sailes, African Americans in Sport (New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009); Njororai Wycliffe W. Simiyu,
“Individual and Institutional Challenges Facing Student Athletes on
U.S. College Campuses,” Journal of Physical Education and Sports
Management 1, no. 2 (2010): 16–24; Simiyu, “Challenges of Being
a Black Student Athlete.”
29. Elisia J. P. Gatmen, “Academic Exploitation: The Adverse Impact of
College Athletics on the Educational Success of Minority College
Athletes,” Seattle Journal for Social Justice 10, no. 1 (2011): 509–83.
30. ESPN, “UNC Academic Scandal.”
31. The Whistleblower Protection Act was enhanced in 2012 and
focused on enhancing ten critical areas of original the 1989 Act.
32. Ladel Lewis, “Stop Snitching: Hip Hop’s Influence on Crime
Reporting in the Inner City,” PhD., Western Michigan University,
2012, http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1029&context=dissertations.
33. Delsohn, “UNC’s McCants.”
34. Delsohn, “UNC’s McCants”; Pearson, “UNC Basketball”; Jones,

“LA Lakers Star.”
35. Pearson, “UNC Basketball.”
36. Ibid.
37. Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well; Michael Taussig, Shamanism,
colonialism, and the wild man: A study in terror and healing (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1987).
38. Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well; Crenshaw, “Mapping the
Margins,” 1241–99; Jessica T. Decuir and Adrienne D. Dixson, “‘So
When It Comes Out, They Aren’t That Surprised That it is There’:
Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis of Race and Racism
in Education,” Educational Researcher 33, no. 5 (2004): 26–31;
Delgado and Stefanic, Critical Race Theory; Ladson-Billings and
Tate, “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education.”
39. Taussig, Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man.
40. Ibid.
41. Jeannie Amber, “The Streets are Watching.” Essence 37 (2007):
106–112.
42. Ernest Morrell and Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade, “Promoting Academic
Literacy with Urban Youth through Engaging Hip-Hop Culture,”
English Journal 91 (2002): 88–92.
43. Cavil, Early Athletic Experiences, 48.
44. Kevin F. Steinmetz and Howard Henderson, “Hip-Hop and
Procedural Justice: Hip-Hop Artists’ Perceptions of Criminal
Justice,” Race and Justice 2 no. 3 (2012): 155–178.
45. Kendrick Lamar, “The Blacker the Berry,” by Kendrick L. Duckworth,
Top Dawg Entertainment, Aftermath Entertainment, Interscope
Records, 2015, MP3.
46. Sally E. Hadden, Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the
Carolinas: (Harvard Historical Studies) (Harvard University Press,
2003).
47. Ronnie A. Dunn, “Race and the Relevance of Citizen Complaints
against the Police,” Administrative Theory & Praxis 32 (2010):
557–577.
48. Earl Smith, Race, Sport and the American Dream (Durham, North
Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2009).
49. The terms European and White will be used interchangeably.
50. Delsohn, “UNC’s McCants,” 2014; Zack Pearson, “UNC

Basketball: Twitter Reacts to Rashad McCants,” accessed [2014],
http://keepingitheel.com/2014/06/06/unc-basketball-twitter-
reacts-rashad-mccants/; Alex Jones, “LA Lakers Star Calls Rashad
McCants a Snitch,” accessed [2015], http://www.givemesport.
com/473410-la-lakers-star-calls-rashad-mccants-a-snitch.
51. Hawkins, The New Plantation.
52. Cavil, “Early Athletic Experiences at HBCUs,” 19–58.
53. Sue, “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life.”
54. Simiyu, “Challenges of Being a Black Student Athlete.”
Bibliography
Akintimehin, O. V. 2011. Varsity Blues [Recorded by Wale].
Amber, Jeannie. 2007. The streets are watching. Essence 37: 106–112.
Bell, Derrick. 1992. Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism.
New York: Basic Books.
Carter, S. H. 2006. Hustlin’ [Recorded by Rick Ross]. Miami, FL.
Carter-Francique, Alikah R., and Courtney L. Flowers. 2013. Intersections of
race, ethnicity, and gender in sport. In Gender relations in sport, ed. Emily
E. Roper, 73–94. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Cavil, Kenyatta J. 2015. Early athletic experiences at HBCUs: The creation of
conferences. In The athletic experience at historically Black Colleges and
Universities: Past, present, and persistence, ed. Billy Hawkins, Joseph Cooper,
Akilah Carter-Francique, and Kenyatta J. Cavil, 19–58. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Cole, J. L. 2014a. Be Free [Recorded by J. Cole].
———. 2014b. Revenge of the Dreamers [Recorded by J. Cole].
Collins, Patricia. 2000. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the
politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Cooper, Joseph N. 2012. Personal troubles and public issues: A sociological imagi-
nation of Black athletes’ experiences at historically White Colleges and
Universities in the United States. Sociology Mind 2(3): 261–271.
Cooper, Joseph N., J. Kenyatta Cavil, and Geremy Cheeks. 2014. The state of
intercollegiate athletics at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs): Past, present, & persistence. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A
Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and anti-
racist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1: 139–167.
———. 1994. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and vio-
lence against women of color. In The public nature of private violence, ed.
Martha Albertson Fineman, 93–118. New York: Routledge.
———. 2011. Intersectional interventions: Unmasking and dismantling racial
power. W. E. B. Du Bois Lecture Series. Cambridge, MA: Hutchins Center for
African & African American Research.
Crump, L. W. 2012. Whos That [Recorded by David Banner].
cummings, andre douglas pond. 2010. A furious kinship: Critical race theory and
the hip-hop nation. University of Louisville Law Review 48(3): 499.
Decuir, Jessica T., and Adrienne D. Dixson. 2004. ‘So when it comes out, they
aren’t that surprised that it is there’: Using critical race theory as a tool of analy-
sis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher 33(5): 26–31.
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2012. Critical race theory, 2nd edn.
Delsohn, Steve. UNC’s McCants: Just show up, play. ESPN, Accessed 2014.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/stor y/_/id/11036924/former-north-
carolina-basketball-star-rashad-mccants-says-took-sham-classes
Dixon, M., Murphy, D., and Dechalus, L. 1990. Brand Nubian [Recorded by
Brand Nubian].
Duckworth, K. L. 2015a. The Blacker the Berry [Recorded by Kendrick Lamar].
———. 2015b. Alright [Recorded by Kendrick Lamar].
Dunn, Ronnie A. 2010. Race and the relevance of citizen complaints against
police. Administrative Theory & Praxis 32(4): 557–577. doi:10.2753/
ATP1084-1806320404.
ESPN. UNC Academic Scandal: Whistleblower, former athlete speak out. ESPN,
Accessed 2014. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10671809
Fischer, Dawn-Elissa. 2002. Hip-hop as critical pedagogy. Anthropology News
43(8): 46–47.
Flowers, Courtney L. 2014. Disgrace on tobacco road: Using CRT to analyze stu-
dent perceptions of the UNC academic fraud scandal. Portland: North American
Society for the Sociology of Sport Conference Abstracts.
Gall, Braden. Coaches as characters in The Godfather. Athlon Sports & Life, Accessed
2015. http://athlonsports.com/college-basketball/coaches-characters-godfather
Gatmen, Elisia J.P. 2011. Academic exploitation: The adverse impact of college
athletics on the educational success of minority college athletes. Seattle Journal
for Social Justice 10(1): 509–583.
Hadden, Sally E. 2003. Slave patrols: Law and violence in Virginia and the
Carolinas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Historical Studies, Harvard University
Press.
Harrison, C. Keith, and Suzanne Malia Lawrence. 2003. African-American stu-
dent athletes’ perception of career transition in sport: A qualitative and visual
elicitation. Race Ethnicity and Education 6(4): 373–394.
Hawkins, Billy. 2010. The new plantation: Black athletes, college sports, and histori-
cally White Colleges/Universities. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hodge, S.R., L. Harrison Jr., J. Burden Jr., and A.D. Dixson. 2008. Brown in
Black and White—Then and now: A question of educating or sporting African
American males in America. Journal of American Behavioral Scientists 51(7):
928–952.
Huma, Ramoji, and Staurowsky, Ellen J. 2011. The price of poverty in Big Time
College Sports. National College Players Association.
Jones, Alex. 2014. LA Lakers Star Calls Rashad McCants a Snitch. Givemesports.
com, Accessed 2015. http://www.givemesport.com/473410-la-lakers-star-
calls-rashad-mccants-a-snitch
Kane, Dan. 2012. UNC Got warning on suspect classes. The News & Observer,
December 8, Accessed 2016. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/
education/unc-scandal/article15573764.html#storylink=cpy
Khaled, M. K. 2015. The Don’t Love You No More [Recorded by DJ. Khaled].
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1998. Just what is critical race theory and What’s it doing
in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education 11(1): 7–24.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and William F. Tate IV. 1995. Toward a critical race the-
ory of education. Teachers College Record 97(1): 47–68.
Lewis, Ladel. 2012. Stop snitching: Hip hop’s influence on crime reporting in the
inner city. Western Michigan University, Accessed 2016. http://scholarworks.
wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=dissertations
Malcolm, X. 1963. God’s judgement of White America (The chickens come home to
roost). New York: Manhattan Center, 4 Dec 1963. Malcolm-X.org, Accessed
2016. http://www.malcolm-x.org/speeches/spc_120463.htm
Mango, Kirk. 2016. ‘Winning at all costs’ NOT Only Relative to PED’s!!!
ChicagoNow.com, Accessed 2016. http://www.chicagonow.com/the-
athletes-s ports-experience-making-a-difference/2014/04/winning-at-
all-costs-not-only-relative-to-peds/
Milner, H. Richard. 2008. Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic
tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of Teacher Education
59: 332–346.
Morrell, Ernest, and Jeffrey M.R. Duncan-Andrade. 2002. Promoting academic
literacy with urban youth through engaging hip-hop culture. English Journal
91: 88–92.
NCAA. Trends in graduation success rates and Federal graduation rates at NCAA
division I institutions. NCAA, Accessed 2016. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/
default/files/GSR%2Band%2BFed%2BTrends%2B2013_Final_0.pdf
NCAA. Academic misconduct—Reporting a misconduct violation (I). NCAA,

Accessed 2016. http://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/edColumnDisplay?edCo
lumnDisplaySubmit=Display&multiple=23539&division=1
NCAA. College athletes earn diplomas at record rate. NCAA.org, Accessed 2016.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/college athletes-
earn-diplomas-record-rate
NCAA. 2014. NCAA Division I Manual. NCAA: Overland Park.
Pearson, Zack. UNC Basketball: Twitter reacts to Rashad McCants. keepingitheel.
com, Accessed 2016. http://keepingitheel.com/2014/06/06/unc-basketball-
twitter-reacts-rashad-mccants/
Powell, Shaun. 2008. Souled out? How Blacks are winning and losing in sports.
Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Rocque, Michael. 2011. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system and per-
ceptions of legitimacy: A theoretical linkage. Race and Justice 1: 292–315.
Sailes, Gary A. 2009. African Americans in sport. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Shakur, T. A. 1997. Fake Ass Bitches [Recorded by 2Pac].
Simiyu, Njororai Wycliffe W. 2010. Individual and institutional challenges facing
student athletes on U.S. college campuses. Journal of Physical Education and
Sports Management 1(2): 16–24.
———. 2012. Challenges of being a Black student athlete on U.S. college cam-
puses. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 5: 40–63.
Smith, Earl. 2009. Race, sport, and the American dream. Durham: Carolina
Academic Press.
Solomon, Jon. Inside College Sports: NCAA redefines academic misconduct after
UNC case. CBS Sports, Accessed 2016. http://www.cbssports.com/college-
football/writer/jon-solomon/25315260/inside-college-sports-ncaa-redefines-
academic-misconduct-after-unc-case
Solomon, Jon. What Syracuse’s NCAA case revealed about academic fraud. CBA
Sports, Accessed 2016. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/
jon-solomon/25096871/what-syracuses-ncaa-case-revealed-about-
academic-fraud
Solórzano, Daniel, Miguel Ceja, and Tara Yosso. 2000. Critical race theory, racial
microaggressons, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African
American college students. The Journal of Negro Education 69(1/2): 60–73.
Steinmetz, Kevin F., and Howard Henderson. 2012. Hip-hop and procedural jus-
tice: Hip-hop artists’ perceptions of criminal justice. Race and Justice 2(3):
155–178. doi:10.1177/2153368712443969.
Sue, Derald Wing. 2010. Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender and sexual
orientation. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri,
Aisha M.B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. Racial microag-
gressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist

62(4): 271–286. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271.
Tate, William F. 1997. Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and
implications. Review of Research in Education 22: 195–247.
Taussig, Michael. 1978. Shamanism, colonialism, and the wild man: A study in ter-
ror and healing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
UNC-Chapel Hill. ASPSA, Accessed 2015. http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.
wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/aspsa-report.pdf
UNC-Chapel Hill. UNC Chapel Hill Statement, Accessed 2015. http://3qh929i
orux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/
uploads/2015/01/UNC-Oct-22-Press-Conference-Transcript.pdf
West, K. O. 2013. New Slaves [Recorded by Kayne West].
Wilburn, N. D. 2015. March Madness [Recorded by Future].
CHAPTER 6
Race and Racism: The Black Male

Experience in Sports
Wardell Johnson and Vanessa Prier Jackson
INTRODUCTION
Institutions of higher education often seek out Black college athletes for
their physical fitness and strong athletic abilities, hoping to create a reli-
able income stream. In turn, these same athletes see college as an opportu-
nity to advance their education and possibly prepare for a successful career
while honing their athletic skills. However, institutions do not adequately
prepare these athletes for the challenges invoked by their racial identity. As
these athletes move through the halls of these institutions, they find that
racism persists, even though they are considered an asset to the institu-
tion. There are explicit issues—such as negative perceptions and stereo-
types, academic clustering, low graduation rates, and the exploitation of
the desire to go pro in athletics—that isolate, marginalize, and possibly
alienate student-athletes from the larger university populace. According to
W. Johnson ()
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Eastern Kentucky University,
Richmond, KY, USA
e-mail: wardell.johnson@eku.edu
V.P. Jackson
Department of Retailing and Tourism Management, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY, USA

154 W. JOHNSON AND V.P. JACKSON
Dolores Bernal, students of color often feel as if their culture, experience,

language, and history are devalued by or omitted in formal education.1
In this chapter, we discuss some key factors for the analysis of race and
racism and the Black college athletes’ experiences in sports using the criti-
cal race theory (CRT). CRT was developed in the 1960s and early 1970s
to bring new awareness to a conservative administration and a public that
had grown weary of hearing about race. This theory defines “race” as a
socio-historical construction that assigns privilege to specific racial groups
while devaluing others, as the focal point of both academic and cultural
analyses.2 These factors influence the academic and career success of many
Black college athletes, although this chapter focuses specifically on male
athletes, who often experience the most. CRT helps to organize infor-
mation about racial transformation in sports, and thereby raises a critical
awareness of issues in this field.
CRT has several tenets. Three major tenets of this theoretical lens are
as follows: The first is that racism is a part of American society and is
thus deeply embedded in everyday life and institutions; however, many
Americans believe that this is not true.3 The second tenet of CRT is to
validate the need to document evidence of racism through story-telling or
narrative analysis, and in this way, protest against arrangements designed
to benefit others such as institutions of higher education. The third tenet
of CRT is that white elites will tolerate or encourage racial progress for
minorities only if doing so also promotes white self-interest.4
As an explanatory tool, CRT allows scholars to explore issues of race
and racism in society, particularly as they arise in and are facilitated by
institutions, by analyzing the experiences and perspectives of those groups
affected by racism.5 In this chapter, we will draw on the experiences of
Black male college athletes as they seek academic and career success in
both predominantly white institutions (PWIs) and Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), highlighting their limited allowance
of support toward institutional goals. The resulting awareness will hope-
fully inspire new strategies aimed at motivating Black college athletes to
identify more with their educational opportunities.
RACISM AND PERCEPTIONS OF MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES

Despite what privileges might be afforded to Black male college athletes,
they are often denied equitable education and are exploited for institu-
tional purposes. Because they are seen merely as athletes, Black males are
RACE AND RACISM: THE BLACK MALE EXPERIENCE IN SPORTS 155
not generally viewed as worthy members of the academic community.

While there are myriad reasons for differences in Black students’ academic
performance, research suggests that faculty harbor prejudicial attitudes
that lead them to perceive Black college athletes as unintelligent, apa-
thetic, and academically deficient compared to their white college athlete
counterparts.6
In line with this stereotyping, Black male college athletes typically see
themselves as athletes first and students second.7 This academic stereotyp-
ing is linked to long-standing and pervasive stereotypes about Black men
as intellectually inferior and having innate physical abilities (the “Dumb
Jock”).8 White college athletes are, by contrast, generally credited for their
“hard work,” “discipline,” and “knowledge of the game.”9 The frequency
and magnitude of these stereotypes are significant hurdles to the academic
and professional success of Black male college athletes. Racism, and its off-
spring stereotyping, manifest in many forms (academic clustering, social
isolation, etc.), thus accentuating their presence and persistence in the
daily experiences of these athletes.
Academic Clustering
Academic clustering occurs when 25 percent or more of a single athletic
team enrolls into a major.10 A study by Fountain and Finley reported that
several football teams in the Big Six Conferences (The Big Ten, Atlantic
Coast Conference [ACC], Southeastern Conference, Big East, Pac-10,
and Big-12) demonstrated a clustering density far beyond the 25 percent
traditionally allowed in clustering studies.11 Clustering is also apparent at
HBCU institutions: In a study of 18 HBCU institutions, Goodson found
that clustering occurred in 5 of the 50 football seasons, and 30 of the 67
basketball seasons (45 %) examined.12
Whether by personal choice or social pressure, many Division I col-
lege athletes end up in the same majors,13 which has the consequence of
academic and social isolation.14 In examining the impact of racial cluster-
ing among players, Fountain and Finley found it was significantly more
pronounced among racial minority football players who competed in the
ACC.15 While clustering occurred at all 11 schools in the study (data for
Duke University was not available), minority players were consistently
more densely clustered into single academic majors, with five of the pro-
grams having 50 percent or more of the minorities listed in one major.
Further, the data showed that secondary clusters sometimes existed; for
example, one school had 50 percent of its minority players listed as Sport
Management majors, with another 25 percent listed in Sociology. In gen-
eral, though, the white players were overrepresented in business programs,
whereas minorities were overrepresented in general studies and behavior
sciences.16
Further, Fountain and Finley reported not only that certain play-
ers migrated into a single clustered major over time, but also that a sig-
nificant number of recruits and National Football League draftees also
selected clustered majors.17 Likewise, Otto found that college athletes are
not selecting majors that reflect their interests or career aspirations; some
players listed favorite courses and subjects that did not match their stated
major. The same was true of career goals. For example, one college athlete
indicated a desire to be a civil engineer, but was majoring in history (at an
institution in which 62 % of football players were history majors).18 Dent,
Sanserino, and Werner uncovered a similar pattern at a separate university,
with one college athlete studying psychology and the goal of becoming a
physical therapist, while another was majoring in history and yet wanted
to work in finance.19
Clustering also serves as a way for institutions to ensure that athletes
remain eligible to play as per the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) academic reform initiative. The intent of this initiative was to
improve the academic progress, retention, and graduation rates of college
athletes; however, it also entails a pressure among all those involved (i.e.,
coaches, academic advisors, and academic service personnel) to maintain
college athletes’ eligibility. Seemingly, college athletes are being pushed
toward majors that are traditionally considered to be less academically rig-
orous in order to keep them academically eligible, and thus, on the team.
Such majors often encompass the social sciences and general studies and
are generally viewed as the “easy” or “fluff” majors on campus.20
As a group, Black male college athletes also experience clustering due
to their lack of college preparation. As reported in Reynolds, Fisher, and
Cavil, the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics acknowledged:
Athletes are often admitted to institutions where they do not have a rea-
sonable chance to graduate. They are athlete-students, brought into the
collegiate mix more as performers than aspiring undergraduates. Their
ambiguous academic credentials lead to chronic classroom failures or
chronic cover-ups of their academic deficiencies. As soon as they arrive on
campus, they are immersed in the demands of their sports.21
Social Isolation
The prestige and respect a college athlete receives on the court, field, and
gridiron holds great allure, especially when compared to the alienation
and subordination he or she may experience in the classroom.22 Black male
college athletes are often unprepared for these tensions and thus do not
expect them. This stems from the belief by whites that Black males at a
PWI are there to play a sport; if not, they do not belong. As stated by
Hawkins, there is a consensus among white students about their Black
peers: “If you were not an athlete, your stock is worthless.”23 Johnson
reported that Black students, in talking about post-athletic experiences
at PWIs, experienced feelings of estrangement, subtle forms of bias, and
the perception that they were unwelcomed outsiders—taking the form,
for instance, of not being acknowledged and being talked over in the
classroom.24
Black male college athletes at HBCUs seem to feel greater acceptance
and show less anxiety about interpersonal relationships than those at
PWIs. According to Johnson, Black male college athletes feel that meet-
ing people, getting along with professors, participating in extracurricular
activities, and achieving a smooth transition from high school to college
(due to the social environment) are all easier at an HBCU.25 Like their
white male counterparts at PWIs, Black male college athletes on HBCU
campuses feel like they are “in charge.” Consequently, they show greater
academic gains, more eagerness to compete, and considerably more social
assertion than their peers on predominately white campuses.26
Exploitation
The exploitation of Black male college athletes can take many forms and
often involves the myriad of people (families, coaches, administrators)
involved with their career success or failure. From the institutional side,
exploitative entities typically include administrators (at the organizational
and individual levels) and faculty members (as individuals and as an admin-
istrative body).27 Studying Black football and basketball players at PWIs,
Murty and Roebuck found the primary facilitators of exploitation to be
the commercialization and overemphasis of college sports, racial stereo-
typing, economic misdeeds and limited economic opportunities, academic
difficulty and conflict, and campus social isolation.25 College athletes are
also prevented from reaping the full benefits of an education by the very
structure of their athletic programs, whose profit-driven motives and

emphasis on athletic commitments overshadow the concern for college
athletes’ academic success.28 In short, there is no time for nurturing a col-
lege athlete’s intellectual and social development.
Of course, this struggle is not new and has led some players to take
action. A recent lawsuit filed by Michael McAdoo, a former football player
at the University of North Carolina, accused the institution of failing to
provide him with a quality education in exchange for his talents on the
gridiron. Meanwhile, former Northwestern University quarterback Kain
Colter has called the NCAA a “dictatorship,” and he and a handful of
Northwestern football players attempted to form the first labor union for
college athletes—one they hope will eventually represent players nation-
wide. Their efforts assisted them in obtaining employee status by Peter
Ohr, director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was
later overturned by a five-member committee of the NLRB.29
Motivations to Go Pro
The gap between intercollegiate athletics and the mission and philoso-
phy of higher education has widened significantly over the past decade.30
Instead of enhancing the academic environment, college athletics are
clearly eliminating the opportunity to pursue a valuable education in favor
of prioritizing athletic endeavor and revenue generation.31 Of course, this
problem is rooted in a larger socioeconomic issue. The gifted Black athlete
is a success symbol in poor Black communities, where he or she is pushed
into football and basketball by parents, friends, coaches, and associates
who think success in these sports will provide the college athlete with
free and easy access to college, and from there, a chance to go pro and
amass wealth.32 These pressures cause the college athlete to focus more of
their time and energy on their athletic performance instead of their aca-
demic performance in the ultimate hope of entering professional leagues.
However, the great majority of college athletes will never make it that
far: According to the NCAA, only about 9 percent of baseball players, 2
percent of football players, and 1 percent of men’s basketball players will
move from the collegiate to the professional level.33 The rest graduate
with a degree in an area they have little or no interest and their potential
for a successful career in something other than the pros is limited.
Black male college athletes experience many challenges that influence
their academic and career success. Once they arrive on campus, they soon
become detached from their academic goals, focusing instead on reaching

the professional leagues. This goal is apparent among many college ath-
letes at the University of Kentucky, for example. While some have indeed
gone on to the pros, a larger number were not picked at all and thus were
left with no career and no meaningful education. Fewer Black college ath-
letes at HBCUs encounter this issue, as their schools have less exposure
and are thus not in the top leagues.
Graduation Rates and Careers

One of the many justifications for intercollegiate sport is the perspective
that college athletes will have the opportunity to secure an education and
improve their opportunities for career advancement.34 For some this is
true, but for Black college athletes, securing an education and reaping the
benefits of an enhanced career is less plausible.35 Evidence suggests that
Black college athletes are not reaping the benefits of enhanced careers
after graduation—that is, if they graduate.36 According to Thomas and
Nasir, only 65 percent of Black basketball college athletes graduated in
2013, and there is a 25-percent gap between the graduation rates of Black
and white college athletes.37 According to The Institute for Diversity and
Ethics in Sports, of the Division I men’s basketball teams that were in the
Sweet 16 tournament in 2015, the graduation rate of white male college
athletes was 98 percent, while it was an abysmal 55 percent for Black
male college athletes. HBCUs also exhibit poor graduation rates for col-
lege athletes.38 According to Muhammed, PWIs such as Alabama State
University and Howard University had a graduation success rate (GSR) of
81 percent and 61 percent, respectively, in 2012–2013. Meanwhile, the
average GSR of NCAA Division I HBCU football teams during the same
year was slightly over 47 percent.39
Once in college and positioned as athletes, Black college athletes strug-
gle with athletic identity and its relationship to career transition.40 Scholars
refer to this as role identity, which is defined as “one’s imaginative view
of himself as he likes to think of himself being and acting as an occupant
of that position.”41 Many may commit to the role of “athlete” and refrain
from investigating other identities.42 Participating in highly visible sports
(such as football, basketball, and track and field) can serve to magnify
the transitional issues faced by Black college athletes.43 One such issue
is that many college athletes are not introduced to the academic culture
before they are introduced to athletics. This inclines athletes to focus more
on their identity with athletics and forget about their educational deci-
sions. While college athletes understand the need to choose a career fol-
lowing graduation, their fear of choosing a complex career can lead them
to pursue a more familiar path. On this point, Brown, Glastetter-Fender,
and Shelton found that extensive hours in athletics, the failure to exam-
ine different roles, and the belief that one’s career is unaffected by one’s
actions are associated with lower self-efficacy for career decision-making.44
In short, educational decisions become secondary to athletic exposure.
Moreover, students who tend to favor education may be stigmatized for
doing so, and therefore choose to favor the sport.
A CALL FOR JUSTICE THROUGH CHANGE

The CRT calls for the exposure of racist activities toward certain groups
in society. This is done through narrating the experiences of those who
feel they have been unjustly treated or marginalized by society. The theory
attempts to create social change by promoting the exposure of these expe-
riences. This chapter puts a central focus on race and racism in the analysis
of Black male college athletes’ academic and career experiences at PWIs
and HBCUs. To this end, the chapter documented such issues as cluster-
ing, isolation, exploitation, the motivation to go pro, and the ultimate
graduation rates and career paths of these college athletes.
The predominantly white American educational experience has an
isolating impact on Black students, who must navigate two different
cultures—home and school—in search of compatibility. Even in higher
education, Black college athletes experience a dismissal of their cultural
heritage. During their time at the PWIs, the Black college athlete experi-
ences seemed to start with an atmosphere of stereotyping and prejudice,
clustering and isolation, which incline these students to detach from their
educations in favor of chasing a potential career in the professional leagues.
Both male and female Black college athletes face stereotypes that rein-
force and construct oppressive attitudes from the administration, faculty,
students, the general public and the media. Both are seen as natural ath-
letes who are biologically and physically superior to other whites.45 For
example, American sports commentator James Synder (known as Jimmy
the Greek) once described the Black male athlete as “a better athlete to
begin with because he’s been bred to be that way… This goes back all the
way to the Civil War when the slave owner would breed his big black to
his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.”46
This belief in Black athletes’ natural skill is also accompanied by an

emphasis on the Black athlete’s body and social inadequacies. Female ath-
letes, in particular, are often characterized as hypersexual,47 as well as loud,
aggressive, and obnoxious. For instance, sports commentator Don Imus
referred to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team (which is com-
prised of eight Black and two white players) as “nappy-headed hos,” while
former Imus sports announcer Sid Rosenberg claimed: “The more I look
at Rutgers, they look exactly like the [National Basketball Association’s]
Toronto Raptors.”48
To help ameliorate these negative stereotypes, universities need to first
explore methods of nurturing differences in culture and skin color. It is
not enough to simply meet and greet, eat different foods, and adopt tra-
ditional clothing. Programs are needed where cultural differences and the
accompanying tensions can be discussed openly and honestly. These pro-
grams should include effective curricula and opportunities to learn more
about others and thereby realize the educational benefits of a diverse
environment. Cultural competence can be infused in general education
requirements and international study opportunities, as well as fostered by
having greater diversity in academic majors and minors. The University of
Maryland provides a valuable model here, as its faculty have shown that
teaching, researching, mentoring, and faculty development can galvanize
social change related to diversity and cultural competence.
To this end, both PWIs and HBCUs face similar challenges with regard
to male and female Black college athletes. Because of requirements from
the NCAA, both types of institutions use clustering as a method of steer-
ing college athletes toward “easy” degree programs and thereby maintain-
ing their eligibility—despite what the students’ career interests might be.
As a result, there are few people who help the student stay focused on their
education. Once they graduate—if they graduate—most will not ascend to
the pros and instead be forced to pursue a different career, one that they
may not be invested in. Their career could lead to low earnings, underem-
ployment, and poor attitudes toward entry-level jobs.
Thus, institutions need to reaffirm the importance of education as
a driver of career development. This will entail that clustering be mini-
mized and resources be devoted to uncovering college athletes’ career
interests and helping them achieve these goals. One example of such a
mentoring program was initiated by Fritz Polite, assistant professor in the
Department of Exercise, Sport and Leisure Studies at the University of
Tennessee.49 The program is designed to introduce Black male college
athletes to someone outside of basketball and football as a mentor, includ-

ing engineers, lawyers, and professors who look like them.
Black male initiatives (BMIs) are another form of engagement on cam-
pus. BMIs provide a welcoming and affirming approach to engaging Black
males, promoting collective and shared identity, emphasizing mentor–men-
tee relationships, and structuring opportunities for thoughtful reflections.50
The LSU Black Male Leadership Initiative is an example of one institu-
tion’s interest in improving the retention, graduation, and participation
rates of Black males through academic, social, and personal development.51
Implementing this type of leadership team for Black male college athletes
requires a collaborative approach among coaches, faculty, and administrators.
As reported in a study by Harper, Williams, and Blackman, “Campus leaders
should pay more careful attention to racial differences in college athletes’
grade point averages (GPAs), classroom experiences, course enrollment and
major selection patterns, participation in enriching educational experiences
beyond athletics (e.g., study abroad, summer internships, service learning,
and research opportunities with faculty), and post-college pathways (gradu-
ate school, employment in one’s major field of study, etc.).”52
With all this comes the need to increase the expectations of and sup-
port for college athletes, particularly those who have been marginalized or
overlooked by the education system.
NOTES
1. Dolores D. Bernal, “Critical Race Theory, Latino Critical Theory,
and Critical Race-Gendered Epistemologies: Recognizing Student
of Color as Holders and Creators of Knowledge,” Qualitative
Inquiry 8, no. 1 (2002).
2. Kwame Agyemang, John N. Singer, and Joshua DeLorme, “An
exploratory study of black male college athletes’ perceptions on
race and athlete activism,” International Review for the Sociology of
Sport 45, no. 4 (2010), doi: 10.1177/1012690210374691; Shaun
R. Harper, “Race, interest convergence, and transfer outcomes for
black male student athletes,” New Directions for Community
Colleges 2009, no. 147 (2009), doi:10.1002/cc.375.
3. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic, The Critical Race Theory: An
Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2012).
4. Keith C. Harrison and Suzanne Malia Lawrence, “African American
Student Athletes’ Perceptions of Career Transition in Sport: A
Qualitative and Visual Elicitation,” Race, Ethnicity, and Education

6, no. 4 (2003), doi: 10.1080/1361332032000146384.
5. Kevin Hylton, Race and Sports: Critical Race Theory (New York:
Routledge, 2009).
6. Chris Baucom and Christopher D. Lantz, “Faculty Attitude toward
Male Division II Student Athletes,” Journal of Sports Behavior 71,
no. 2 (2001).
7. Casie Gane-McCalla, “Athletic Blacks vs Smart Whites: Why Sports
Stereotypes Are Wrong,” Huffpost Entertainment, last modified
May 25, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/casey-
ganemccalla/athletic-blacks-vs-smart_b_187386.html.
8. Harry Edwards, “The Black ‘dumb jock’: An American Sports
Tragedy,” The College Board Review 131 (1984), ERIC.; Eddie
Comeaux, “Black Males in the Classroom: A Quantitative Analysis
of Student Athlete-Faculty Interactions,” Challenge 14, no. 1
(2008), ERIC.
9. Gane-McCalla, “Athletic Blacks”.
10. Jeffrey J. Fountain and Peter S. Finley, “Academic Clustering: A
Longitudinal Analysis of a Division 1 Football Program,” Journal
of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 2011, no. 4 (2011).
11. Jeffrey J. Fountain and Peter S. Finley, An Investigation of Academic
Clustering of Athletes in BCS Athletic Departments. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 21–23, 2010 (Chapel Hill,
NC: Scholarly Conference on College Sport, 2010).
12. Aaron Goodson, “Clustering by Academic Major at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities” (master’s thesis, West Virginia
University, 2015), ProQuest (AAT: 1588065).
13. Eddie Comeaux, “Racial Differences in Faculty Perceptions of
Collegiate Student Athletes’ Academic and Post-Undergraduate
Achievements,” Sociology of Sport Journal 27, no. 4 (2010).
14. Mary Howard-Hamilton and Sherry Watt, Student Services for
Athletes: New Directions for Student Services, No. 93 (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2001).
15. Peter S. Finley and Jeffrey J. Fountain, “Academic majors of upper-
classmen football players in the Atlantic Coast conference: An anal-
ysis of academic clustering comparing white and minority players,”
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletes, 2 (2009).
16. Ibid.
17. Fountain and Finley, “Academic Clustering”.
18. Kandence A. Otto, How Pervasive Is Academic Clustering?: An

Analysis of Academic Majors of SEC and Pac-10 Football Players,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 21–23, 2010
(Chapel Hill, NC: Scholarly Conference on College Sport, 2010).
19. Mark Dent, Michael Sanserino, and Sam Werner, “College athletes
Tend to Cluster In Easier Majors,” Valley News, last modified June
10, 2014, http://www.vnews.com/lifetimes/12308529-95/col-
lege athletes-tend-to-cluster-in-easier-majors.
20. Lacey Reynolds, Dwalah Fisher, and Kenyatta Cavil, “Impact of
demographic variables on African American student athletes’ aca-
demic performance,” Educational Foundations 26, no. 3/4
(2012), 16.
21. Ibid.
22. Billy Hawkins, The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports,
and Predominantly White NCAA Institutions (England: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2010), 115; Robert M. Sellers, “African American col-
lege athletes: Opportunity or exploitation?,” in Racism and College
Athletics, eds. Dana Brooks and Ronald Althouse (Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2013).
23. Hawkins, The New Plantation, 115.
24. Wardell Johnson, Race and Sport: Experiences of Black Male College
athletes Attending Historically Black and Predominately White
Colleges and Universities (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky
Press, 2003).
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Komanduri Murty and Julian B. Roebuck, “Deviant Exploitation
of Black Male Student Athletes on White Campuses,” Deviant
Behavior 36, no. 6 (2015), doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.93569
1; John P. Minkes and Leonard Minkes, “Organizational and
Occupational Deviance,” The Routledge Handbook of Deviant
Behavior, ed. Clifton D. Bryant (New York: Routledge, 2011).
28. John N. Singer, “Benefits and Detriments of African American
Male Athletes’ Participation in a Big-Time College Football
Program,” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 43, no. 4
(2008), doi: 10.1177/1012690208099874.
29. Ben Strauss and Steve Eder, “College players granted right to form
union,” The New York Times. March 26, 2014. http://www.
nytimes.com/2014/03/27/sports/ncaafootball/national-labor-
relations-board-rules-northwestern-players-are-employees-and-
can-unionize.html?_r=0.
30. D. Stanley Eitzen, Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes
of Sport (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009).
31. Comeaux, “Black Males in the Classroom”.
Comeaux, “Racial Differences”.
32. Isiah Thomas and Na’ilah Suad Nasir, “Black Males, Athletes and
Academic Achievement,” Huffington Post, last modified July 7,
2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isiah-thomas/black-
males-athletes-and-_b_3232989.html#.
33. NCAA Research, “Estimated probability of competing in athletics
beyond the high school interscholastic level,” NCAA, last updated
September 24, 2013. https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/
Probability-of-going-pro-methodology_Update2013.pdf.
34. Singer, “Benefits and Detriments”.
35. Doris R. Corbett, “Academic integrity and the plight of the African
American college athlete,” in Racism and College Athletics, eds.
Dana Brooks and Ronald Althouse (Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology, 2013).
36. Comeaux, “Racial Differences”.
37. Thomas and Nasir, “Black Males, Athletes and Academic
Achievement”.
38. Richard Lapchick et al., “The 2014 Racial and Gender Report
Card: College Sports,” The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in
Sport (TIDES), last modified March 3, 2015, http://www.tides-
port.org/college-sport.html.
39. Starla Muhammad, “Why college sports continues failing Black
male student athletes,” New Pittsburg Courier, last modified
January 15, 2015, http://newpittsburghcourieronline.
com/2015/01/15/not-making-the-grade-why-big-time-college-
sports-continue-failing-black-male-college%20athletes/.
40. Harrison and Lawrence, “Perceptions of Career Transition”.
41. Eldon L. Snyder, “A Theoretical Analysis of Academic and Athletic
Roles,” Sociology of Sport Journal, 2 (1985): 212.
42. Allen J. Good et al., “Identity Foreclosure, Athletic Identity, and
College Sport Participation,” Academic Athletic Journal Spring
(1993).
43. Harrison and Lawrence, “Perceptions of Career Transition”.

44. Chris Brown, Chandra Glastetter-Fender, and Matthew Shelton,
“Psychosocial Identity and Career Control in College College ath-
letes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 56, no. 1 (2000): 53–62.
45. Dehlia D. Douglas, “To be young, gifted, black and female: A
meditation on the cultural politics at play in representations of
Venus and Serena Williams.” Sociology of Sport Online, 5, no. 2
(2002).
46. Scott Cooley, “12 sports commentators who got fired for being
stupid”, Covers, last modified February 11, 2010, http://www.
covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?theArt=181590.
47. Jaime Schultz, “Reading the Catsuit: Serena Williams and the
Production of Blackness at the 2002 US Open,” Journal of Sport
and Social Issues, 29, no. 3 (2005).
48. Ryan Chiachiere, “Imus called women’s basketball team ‘nappy-
headed hos’”, Media Matters for America, last modified April 4,
2007,http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/04/04/imus-called-womens-
basketball-team-nappy-headed/138497.
49. Paul Steinbach, “Academics Confront the Exploitation of African-
American Male Athletes”, Athletic Business, last modified May
2010, http://www.athleticbusiness.com/People/academics-
confront-the-exploitation-of-african-american-male-athletes.html.
50. Robert A. Fisher, “Black male student success in U.S. higher edu-
cation: Lessons from the Institute for Responsible Citizenship”,
UTC Scholar, last modified May 2015, http://scholar.utc.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=honors-theses.
51. Vincent T. Harris and Chaundra Allen, “The Impact of the LSU
Black Male Leadership Initiative Continues to Grow,” Louisiana State
University, last modified April 21, 2014, https://sites01.lsu.edu/
wp/lovepurple/2014/04/21/the-impact-of-the-lsu-black-male-
leadership-Initiative-continues-to-grow/.
52. Shaun R. Harper, Collin D. Williams and Horatio W. Blackman,
“Black Male College athletes and Racial Inequities in NCAA
Division I College Sports”, Center for the Study of Race and
Equity in Education, last modified 2013, http://www.gse.upenn.
edu/equity/sports.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agyemang, Kwame J.A., John N. Singer, and Joshua DeLorme. 2010. An explor-
atory study of black male college athletes’ perceptions on race and athlete activ-
ism. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(4): 419–435.
doi:10.1177/1012690210374691.
Baucom, Chris, and Christopher D. Lantz. 2001. Faculty attitude toward male
Division II student athletes. Journal of Sports Behavior 71(2): 223–246.
Bernal, Dolores D. 2002. Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical
race-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing student of color as holders and cre-
ators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry 8(1): 105–126.
Brown, Chris, Chandra Glastetter-Fender, and Matthew Shelton. 2000.
Psychosocial identity and career control in college athletes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 56(1): 53–62.
Chiachiere, Ryan. Imus called women’s basketball team ‘nappy-headed hos’.
Media Matters for America. Last modified April 4, 2007. http://mediamatters.
org/research/2007/04/04/imus-called-womens-basketball-
team-nappy-headed/138497.
Comeaux, Eddie, and C. Keith Harrison. 2008. Black males in the classroom: A
quantitative analysis of student athlete-faculty interactions. Challenge 14(1):
1–13. ERIC.
———. 2010. Racial differences in faculty perceptions of collegiate student ath-
letes’ academic and post-undergraduate achievements. Sociology of Sport Journal
27(4): 390–412.
———. 2011. A conceptual model of academic success for student athletes.
Educational Research 40(5): 235–245. doi:10.3102/0013189X11415260.
Cooley, Scott. 12 sports commentators who got fired for being stupid. Covers.
Last modified February 11, 2010. http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.
aspx?theArt=181590.
Corbett, Doris R. 2013. Academic integrity and the plight of the African American
college athlete. In Racism and college athletics, 3rd ed., ed. Dana Brooks and
Ronald Althouse, 171–194. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology.
Cunningham, Leigh A. Multicultural awareness issues for academic advisors.
NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. Last modified 2003.
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/
Multicultural-a84.aspx.
Delgado, Richard, and J. Stefanic. 2012. The critical race theory: An introduction.
Dent, Mark, Michael Sanserino, and S. Werner. College athletes tend to cluster in
easier majors. Valley News. Last modified June 10, 2014. http://www.vnews.com/
lifetimes/12308529-95/college athletes-tend-to-cluster-in-easier-majors.
Douglas, Dehlia D. 2002. To be young, gifted, black and female: A meditation on

the cultural politics at play in representations of Venus and Serena Williams.
Sociology of Sport Online 5(2): 1–16.
Edwards, Harry. 1984. The Black ‘dumb jock’: An American sports tragedy. The
College Board Review 131: 8–13. ERIC.
Eitzen, D. Stanley. 2009. Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Finley, Peter S., and Jeffrey J. Fountain. 2009. Academic majors of upperclassmen
football players in the Atlantic Coast conference: An analysis of academic clus-
tering comparing white and minority players. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletes 2: 1–13.
Fisher, Robert A. Black male student success in U.S. higher education: Lessons
from the Institute for Responsible Citizenship. UTC Scholar. Last modified
May 2015. http://scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&
context=honors-theses.
Fountain, Jeffrey J., and Peter S. Finley. 2010. An investigation of academic clus-
tering of athletes in BCS Athletic Departments. University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, April 21–23, 2010. Chapel Hill: Scholarly Conference on College
Sport.
———. 2011. Academic clustering: A longitudinal analysis of a division 1 football
program. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 2011(4): 24–41.
Gane-McCalla, Casie. Athletic Blacks vs Smart Whites: Why sports stereotypes are
wrong. Huffpost Entertainment. Last modified May 25, 2011. http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/casey-ganemccalla/athletic-blacks-vs-smart_b_187386.
html.
Good, Allen J., Britton W. Brewer, Albert J. Petitpas, Judy L. Van Raalte, and
Mathew T. Mahar. 1993. Identity foreclosure, athletic identity, and college
sport participation. Academic Athletic Journal Spring: 1–12.
Goodson, Aaron. 2015. Clustering by academic major at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities. Master’s thesis, West Virginia University. ProQuest (AAT:
1588065).
Harper, Shaun R. 2009. Race, interest convergence, and transfer outcomes for
black male student athletes. New Directions for Community Colleges 2009(147):
29–37. doi:10.1002/cc.375.
Harper, Shaun R., Collin D. Williams, and Horatio W. Blackman. Black male col-
lege athletes and racial inequities in NCAA division I college sports. Center for
the Study of Race and Equity in Education. Last modified 2013. http://www.
gse.upenn.edu/equity/sports.
Harris, Vincent T., and Chaundra Allen. The impact of the LSU Black male leader-
ship initiative continues to grow. Louisiana State University. Last modified April
21, 2014. https://sites01.lsu.edu/wp/lovepurple/2014/04/21/the-impact-
of-the-lsu-black-male-leadership-Initiative-continues-to-grow/.
Harrison, Keith C., and Suzanne Malia Lawrence. 2003. African American student
athletes’ perceptions of career transition in sport: A qualitative and visual elici-
tation. Race, Ethnicity, and Education 6(4): 373–394. doi:10.1080/1361332
032000146384.
dominantly White NCAA institutions. England: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hittle, Shaun. 2012. Athletes’ tendencies to ‘cluster’ in certain academic fields
problematic, some say. Laurence Journal-World. Last modified June 15, 2012.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jun/15/athletes-tendencies-cluster-
certain-academic-field/.
Howard-Hamilton, Mary K., and Sherry K. Watt. 2001. Student services for ath-
letes: New directions for student services, No. 93. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hyatt, Rhonda. 2003. Barriers to persistence among African American intercolle-
giate athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive variables. College Student
Journal 37(2): 260–276. Academic Search Complete.
Hylton, Kevin. 2009. Race and sports: Critical race theory. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, Wardell. 2003. Race and sport: Experiences of Black male college athletes
attending historically Black and predominately White Colleges and Universities.
Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
Lapchick, Richard, John Fox, Angelica Guiao, and Maclin Simpson. The 2014
racial and gender report card: College sports. The Institute for Diversity and
Ethics in Sport (TIDES). Last modified March 3, 2015. http://www.tidesport.
org/college-sport.html.
Lawrence, Janet H. 2009. Faculty perceptions of intercollegiate athletics. New
Directions for Institution Research 144: 103–112. doi:10.1002/ir.317.
Minkes, John P., and Leonard Minkes. 2011. Organizational and occupational
deviance. In The Routledge handbook of deviant behavior, ed. Clifton D. Bryant,
344–364. New York: Routledge.
Muhammad, Starla. Why college sports continues failing Black male student ath-
letes. New Pittsburg Courier. Last modified January 15, 2015. http://new-
pittsburghcourieronline.com/2015/01/15/not-making-the-grade-
why-big-time-college-sports-continue-failing-black-male-college athletes/.
Murty, Komanduri, and Julian B. Roebuck. 2015. Deviant exploitation of Black
male student athletes on White campuses. Deviant Behavior 36(6): 429–440.
doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.935691.
NCAA Research. Estimated probability of competing in athletics beyond the high
school interscholastic level. NCAA. Last updated September 24, 2013.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Probability-of-going-pro-
methodology_Update2013.pdf.
Otto, Kandence A. 2010. How pervasive is academic clustering? An analysis of
academic majors of SEC and Pac-10 football players. University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 21–23, 2010. Chapel Hill: Scholarly Conference
on College Sport, 2010.
Reynolds, Lacey, Dwalah Fisher, and Kenyatta Cavil. 2012. Impact of demo-
graphic variables on African American student athletes’ academic performance.
Educational Foundations 26(3/4): 93–111.
Schultz, Jaime. 2005. Reading the catsuit: Serena Williams and the production of
blackness at the 2002 US Open. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 29(3):
338–357.
Sellers, Robert M. 2013. African American college athletes: Opportunity or
exploitation? In Racism and college athletics, 3rd ed., ed. Dana Brooks and
Ronald Althouse, 133–154. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology.
Simon, Mashaun D. Black college athletes graduating at higher rates. Black
Enterprise. Last modified October 1, 2006. http://www.blackenterprise.com/
mag/black-college athletes-graduating-at-higher-rates/.
Simons, Herbert D., Corey Bosworth, Scott Fujita, and Mark Jensen. 2007. The
athlete stigma in higher education. College Student Journal 41(2): 251–273.
ERIC.
Singer, John N. 2008. Benefits and detriments of African American male athletes’
participation in a big-time college football program. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport 43(4): 399–408. doi:10.1177/1012690208099874.
Snyder, Eldon L. 1985. A theoretical analysis of academic and athletic roles.
Sociology of Sport Journal 2: 210–217.
Steinbach, Paul. Academics confront the exploitation of African-American male
athletes. Athletic Business. Last modified May 2010. http://www.athleticbusi-
ness.com/People/academics-confront-the-exploitation-of-african-american-
male-athletes.html.
Strauss, Ben, and S. Eder. College players granted right to form union. The
New York Times. March 26, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/
sports/ncaafootball/national-labor-relations-board-rules-northwestern-
players-are-employees-and-can-unionize.html?_r=0.
Thomas, Isiah, and Na’ilah Suad Nasir. Black males, athletes and academic achieve-
ment. Huffington Post. Last modified July 7, 2013. http://www.huffington-
post.com/isiah-thomas/black-males-athletes-and-_b_3232989.html#.
CHAPTER 7
The Presence and Absence of Race:

Ross v. Creighton University
Sarah K. Fields
INTRODUCTION
In 1982, Kevin Ross left Creighton University, after playing varsity basketball
for four seasons. When he departed, his language skills tested at the fourth-
grade level. He enrolled at the Westside Preparatory Academy in Chicago,
Illinois, where he learned to read, write, think, and analyze. His enrollment
and the image of a very large African American man sitting in a classroom
with small children captured the nation’s attention and re-energized a dis-
cussion about the apparent conflict between education and college sport in
America. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) changed its
eligibility requirements for first-year athletes soon after Ross’s story went
public. Ross himself sued Creighton for a variety of things, including negli-
gent admission and breach of contract. Various media outlets reported the
entire story, but interestingly those reports rarely acknowledged race. At
most, the stories included a photo of Ross in the classroom.
I first became interested in Ross’s story as a high school basketball
player myself. I had seen his photo and some of the news stories about
S.K. Fields ( )
Department of Communication, University of Colorado Denver,
Denver, CO, USA
e-mail: sarah.fields@ucdenver.edu

172 S.K. FIELDS
how he had returned to Westside Prep. I became acutely aware of the

intersection of race, sport, and education, when I was one of two White
girls on my high school’s ninth-grade basketball team. I was pretty sure
I had made the team less because of my talent and more because of my
race and grade point average. I also heard the racial taunts from opposing
fans and been told by my coaches to escort my Black teammates to the
restroom at certain away games. As a slightly built shooting guard, I knew
it was my race and not my size that was protective.
Critical race theory (CRT) eventually provided me a lens through which
to examine and critique my own experiences because CRT is a framework
to interrogate the relationship between race, racism, and power. CRT also
presumes that race is a social construction that needs to be highlighted in
order to challenge an inherently racist world.1 CRT asserts that race and
racism, even when unacknowledged, are constantly present in ordinary
life in America. CRT demands that race be a focal point of research and
discussion, especially in law, because as Nadine Ehlers has argued, “law
has operated to mask the performative production of race within which it
is complicit.”2 Thus, CRT demands that race be part of every story, par-
ticularly in a story that centers on law and sport—arenas that are, today,
presumed to be color-blind.3
Kevin Ross’s story sits at the center of a web of stories. Ross’s personal
story and his education are, in part, products of the history of his schools.
The stories of law, justice, and sport are also relevant. Ross’s lawsuit and
the legal implications of the courts’ decisions frame my interpretation of
his story. The media representations of Ross’s tale and the lawsuit resulted
in academic reforms, reforms that many criticized as flawed. Almost all of
these stories were played out as media representations and those affected
my interpretations and understandings of these stories at the time and
years later. And the tie that binds all these stories together is race; even
when race is not explicitly articulated, it is still present.
THE MIS-EDUCATION OF KEVIN ROSS

Kevin Ross grew up in Kansas City, Kansas, and attended Wyandotte High
School, places which, like most of America, had a complicated racial his-
tory. Historically Kansas was a free state and some Black slaves fled the
neighboring slave state of Missouri for the relative safety of Kansas, but
this did not mean that African Americans were treated equally. In 1859,
the governor signed a bill establishing a public school system and formally
THE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE OF RACE: ROSS V. CREIGHTON... 173
established racial segregation in education. Although sometimes Black

and White children used the same facilities at different times of day or
they were in the same building but in separate rooms, racial segregation
was the norm. Like much of America, when separate, the buildings for the
Black students were often of lesser quality than for the White students.
Wyandotte High was built in 1929 and plans were made for a separate
Black high school, but it was never built.
Racial segregation officially ended in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of
Education decision, and unlike many places in the country, the Kansas City
schools integrated relatively quickly. Almost immediately after the ruling,
the school board ordered all schools to draw their students from the clos-
est geographical zone possible. The only all-Black high school in the area
allowed students to either finish out their education there or to transfer to
closer White high schools. Although Whites outnumbered Blacks in the
community, White flight from the schools began in the 1950s and contin-
ued through the 1970s meaning that Black enrollment increased propor-
tionally. When Kevin Ross graduated from Wyandotte High in 1978, the
school was about 60 percent African American.4
Ross was a star athlete in high school, averaging 21 points and 20
rebounds per game.5 He managed to complete his high school degree
with a C average without ever learning to read particularly well. Ross,
the youngest of six children, had been nine when his parents divorced.
His mother, Opal Ross, a retired postal worker, said she knew Kevin was
“slow” in high school, saying, “I knew that he needed some help. We
were doing the best we possibly could.”6 Ross himself rarely focused on
academics as a high school student. Later he blamed his high school bas-
ketball coach, saying, “I thought he cared about me. But he cared more
about winning.” He would credit one math teacher with insisting that he
perform to a C level in class before allowing him to play ball and wished
that other teachers had held him to similar standards.7
Ross’s scores on the American College Testing (ACT) exam reflected
his academic limitations: he scored a 9 when the national average was
18.7.8 The average ACT score for Black students at this time, however,
was 12.4, compared to 19.3 for White students.9 Because of his basket-
ball acumen and despite his limited academic preparation, he was widely
recruited to play basketball, and he ultimately chose the predominantly
White Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.
Creighton, founded in 1878, is a Jesuit school with an enrollment of
almost 6000 students, most of whom are White. In 2015, less than 3 percent
174 S.K. FIELDS
of Creighton’s students were Black.10 It seems unlikely that the school had
a significantly larger Black population when Ross was a student 30 years
earlier, although it never prohibited African Americans from enrolling.
The school was small, but it had a strong athletic program and had a long
history of success in the Missouri Valley Conference (MVC).
Kevin Ross was admitted primarily as an athlete; he was enrolled in
Creighton as a “special permission” student after appeals from the ath-
letic department to the academic vice president, because although he had
a 2.0 grade point average in high school, his ACT score of 9 was well
below Creighton’s 23.2 average.11 The numbers were concerning, but
Creighton would later justify his acceptance, arguing that about 500 spe-
cial cases, or “students from underprivileged areas,” enrolled each year,
and many eventually graduated. Further the school noted that only ten
percent of those 500 special cases were athletes, implying that Ross’s
admission had less to do with his status as a basketball player than other
undefined issues.12 Perhaps his application was aided by his race and socio-
economic status, but his athletic skills also likely played a role. Ross later
claimed that Creighton knew of his academic limitations and that they had
promised him appropriate tutoring, academic support, and a “meaningful
education.”13
Ross spent four basketball seasons and a little less than four years at
Creighton from 1978 to 1982 but served mostly as a reserve on the team,
averaging about four points a game. During his time at the university, Ross
enrolled in what he called “bonehead” courses like theories of basketball
and football as well as marksmanship, courses the athletic department
advised him to take. Athletic department personnel taught many of these
courses and few counted toward a degree. Ross also received additional
help: an athletic department secretary read his assignments and wrote his
papers, and when he had tests, the answers were already filled out. Until
his fourth year when his grade point average dropped, he maintained a D
average; however, his reading skills were those of a seventh grader and his
overall language skills those of a fourth grader.14
“We tried to help Kevin become a better student, and we didn’t keep
him here just to play basketball,” said Robert J. Gerraughty, vice president
for administration.15 Athletic Director Dan Offenburger claimed he had
encouraged Ross, after his second year, to transfer to a different school
where he would have more success in the classroom and perhaps more
playing time on the basketball court. But the University insisted that Ross
at the time had pleaded for a second chance, which he was granted.
To Creighton’s credit, when Ross left the school with his deficient skills,
Creighton paid for Ross to attend renowned educator Marva Collins’s
Westside Preparatory Academy in Chicago. Collins, an African American
teacher, had established Westside Prep in 1975 after becoming frustrated
in the Chicago city schools. She garnered national attention when the CBS
news show “60 Minutes” profiled her successful work with predominantly
African American children who had often been unsuccessful in the public
schools.16 Creighton paid for Ross’s tuition, tutoring, books, and living
expenses at the famous school. The national press documented his atten-
dance. Ross spent a year at Westside working closely with tutors,17 and
after progressing academically to levels expected of college sophomores,
he was the students’ choice to speak at their commencement in 1983.18
ROSS’S LIFE AFTER WESTSIDE PREP

During Ross’s time at Westside Prep and in the years following, he and
Creighton University had very public battles over what had happened at
Creighton and who was responsible for Ross’s failure to get an educa-
tion at the University. Generally, both sides shied away from discussions
of race, preferring to focus on Ross’s status as a basketball player rather
than of being one of the few Black students on a White campus. Ross
and Creighton University both acknowledged, though, that race was
mentioned in his discussion with school officials on at least one occa-
sion. On a “Nightline” television episode in 1983, Ross said that Athletic
Director Dan Offenburger, who was White, had “once told him that peo-
ple would one day look upon him as ‘a big, dumb nigger.’” In a response,
Offenburger offered a broader context for the line. He claimed that while
visiting Ross’s home in the summer of 1980 after the end of his first year,
during which Ross had earned a 1.6 grade point average, he told Ross to
take his studies more seriously because after graduation, the young man
would be “moving to a White-dominated society, and if you do not have
your education, that society will view you as a big, dumb nigger. That
would be wrong.”19 This exchange seems to be one of the only times that
race was openly discussed, and neither side directly addressed the use of
the pejorative term and the racism embedded in its usage.
Several years after leaving Westside, Ross appeared on the Phil Donahue
television program to discuss his experiences at Creighton. Creighton was
so frustrated by the negative publicity that the school sent letters to 44,000
alumni and others to refute Ross’s claims: “Several statements made on
176 S.K. FIELDS
the program were inaccurate, misleading and potentially damaging to

the university,” wrote the Rev. Michael Morrison, the White president of
Creighton. In the letter, Creighton also rejected Ross’s claims on the tele-
vision show that he found Westside Academy and convinced Creighton
to pay. White university spokesman Steve Kline said that Creighton had
located the program and then persuaded “a reluctant Ross” to attend.
Klein added, “This was part of a consistent pattern of Ross’s refusal to take
advantage of help offered to him through and by Creighton University.”20
In 1987, Ross’s life began to fall apart very publicly. He was arrested
after barricading himself in a Chicago hotel and throwing the furniture
out of his eighth story window. He told police he had a gun, although
no weapons were found, and after a several hour standoff, he surrendered
to Marva Collins. Collins told the press that Ross had been frustrated by
his inability to find a job and his inability to pay for more than two years
of college at Roosevelt University. Creighton had refused to pay Ross’s
tuition at Roosevelt. The press reported Ross had problems with alcohol-
ism.21 After Ross declined psychiatric care and was bailed out of jail, Collins
arranged for him to go to California to work construction. He returned
to Illinois within the week though, after appearing naked on the job site.
He was arrested again for throwing rocks at Collin’s windows, but she did
not press charges.22 Subsequent to this incident, he was hospitalized for
psychiatric care. Eventually Ross was found guilty of felony property dam-
age for his behavior at the hotel, sentenced to a two-year probation, and
ordered to pay $7500 to the hotel for restitution. His lawyer at the time
had tried to argue that Ross was temporarily insane. Although the court
conceded that Ross was depressed, it concluded he was sane.23
For the next several years, Ross worked at various menial jobs, includ-
ing as a part-time janitor at Westside Prep. Marva Collins told the press
that Ross continued to struggle with alcohol and drugs, self-medicating
for depression and thoughts of suicide. Ross denied having problems with
drugs or alcohol and said he was seeing a doctor, but he admitted to hav-
ing considered suicide.24
DISCRIMINATION IN LAW AND SPORT

People in Western society sometimes pretend that justice is blind. An
iconic image of justice is a statue of a blindfolded woman holding the
scales of justice, which dates back to Hans Gieng’s 1543 statue in Berne,
Switzerland. Gieng’s image was to suggest that justice would be meted
out equally based not simply on visual evidence—that the commoner

would be treated no differently than the elite.25 Americans often adopt the
illusion of blind justice and part of that myth is manifested in the fact that
in published court documents, the parties’ race are usually only identified
if deemed legally relevant. That tends to happen predominantly in racial
discrimination cases.
In the United States, justice has never been blind to race. For exam-
ple, despite the Declaration of Independence’s pronouncement on July
4, 1776, that “all men are created equal,” the Founding Fathers never
meant all men broadly or even literally—they meant White males only.
The Constitution, as adopted in 1787, more clearly articulated the dis-
tinction. In section two of Article I, the founders concluded that when
apportioning representatives to Congress, states should count “by adding
to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service
for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other Persons.” Those “three fifths of all other Persons” were Black slaves.
Continuing the long tradition of racial discrimination in the law, the
1850 Fugitive Slave Act eliminated the safe harbor of the northern non-
slave states for Black people. After the Act passed, White citizens were
required to assist in recapturing fugitive slaves and all alleged fugitive
slaves were denied a jury trial.26 In 1857, the United States Supreme
Court showed its racial bias when it stripped Black Americans of all rights
of citizenship in the Dred Scott decision.27
Several years after the Civil War ended, the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution adopted in 1868 finally declared that citizenship could not
be withheld on the basis of race. The 15th Amendment, enacted in 1870,
sought to protect voting rights of African American men, but almost a
century passed until the federal government (through the 1964 and 1965
Civil Rights Acts) was able to dismantle individual states’ attempts to
withhold voting privileges. Justice in the United States has never been
blind when it comes to matters of race, despite the statues.
Nor has sport been color-blind. The history of racial discrimination
in sport has been well-documented.28 Professional sports organizations
banned participation of many non-White athletes, including Black jock-
eys, Black baseball players, Black football players, and Black golfers.29 The
NCAA never seems to have instituted a national ban on Black athletes
in college sports, but many colleges and conferences did.30 Creighton
University does not appear to have ever banned Black athletes as a rule,
but the MVC, of which it was a member, had. Influenced by then member
178 S.K. FIELDS
schools Tulsa University and Oklahoma A&M (which would eventually

become Oklahoma State University), the MVC had a gentlemen’s agree-
ment not to recruit Black athletes. In 1947, the conference decided to end
the agreement by 195031; the delay was to allow the Oklahoma schools to
prepare their communities for integration.32 The process of integration,
however, did not go smoothly. Drake University in Iowa left the confer-
ence in 1951 after an Oklahoma A&M football player punched their star
Black halfback. Although the Drake player’s jaw was broken, the confer-
ence refused to discipline the player or the school.33 Creighton, though,
had already left the MVC in 1948 for reasons unrelated to desegregation
(the school dropped football after World War II)34 and returned to the
conference in 1977 after competing for almost 30 years as an independent
program.
ROSS’S LAWSUIT
In 1988, Ross filed a complicated and novel lawsuit against Creighton.
Ross, through his lawyer, argued that the university had been negligent in
his admission and in his subsequent education at the school. The lawsuit
entwined issues of negligent infliction of emotional distress with educa-
tional malpractice to prove that recruiting Ross and keeping him enrolled
despite his academic problems without supplying tutoring contributed to
the depression and emotional problems from which Ross suffered as an
adult. Ross also argued that Creighton had breached its contract with
him to provide educational and financial support to allow him to obtain a
“meaningful education.”35
In 1990, Federal District Court Judge John A. Nordberg rejected Ross’s
educational malpractice claim. He noted that the term had a “seductive
ring to it: after all if doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professionals
can be held liable for failing to exercise due care, why can’t teachers?” But
he concluded that the nature of education was different because educa-
tion was profoundly collaborative with the teacher and the student both
capable of dramatically effecting the quality of the experience. He con-
cluded that “the ultimate responsibility for success remains always with the
student,” which would make educational malpractice almost impossible.
Further, Nordberg worried that if such a cause of action were allowed,
the courts would be flooded with cases from every student who felt that
teachers or administrators had not provided an appropriate education
without putting any onus on the students themselves.36
Next Nordberg dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress

claim, concluding that such a cause of action only stemmed from those
who were victims of recognized malpractice claims or those who were in
a physical zone of danger.37 He separated educational malpractice from
the emotional distress claim despite Ross’s attempt to intertwine them.
Instead, Nordberg examined the pieces and concluded that if the pieces
failed, the whole could not survive.
Nordberg then considered Ross’s claim that student-athletes have a
special cause of action because universities sometimes admit them under
separate standards. Essentially Ross argued that Creighton had negligently
admitted him because he did not meet their educational standards, and
further that once he was admitted; he needed to be truly educated and
not simply kept eligible for basketball. Nordberg was unwilling to create
a new legal cause of action in part because he saw no reason to limit such
an action to athletes. He felt that accepting such a cause of action would
make it difficult if not impossible for universities to accept any marginal
applicant for fear that they would later be sued for negligent admission.38
Nordberg was equally unenthusiastic about Ross’s claim that Creighton
had breached their contract with him. Ross had emphasized that the school
had violated its promise to get him competent tutoring and to make him
attend that tutoring. Further he alleged it did not allow him to red-shirt
(sit out a year) to focus on his academic work. Nordberg noted Ross’s
theory that Creighton should have forced him to attend tutoring under-
mined his argument that he had, at the time, truly desired a complete
education. Nordberg believed that sport administrators, not the courts,
needed to supervise the educational experiences of student-athletes.39
After Judge Nordberg dismissed Ross’s lawsuit for failure to state a
claim, Ross appealed to the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals.
The three-judge panel of Kenneth F. Ripple, Michael S. Kanne, and Jesse
E. Eschbach sustained part of Judge Nordberg’s decision and overruled
part of it in 1992. Judge Ripple wrote the unanimous decision.
The appellate court broke down Ross’s claims slightly differently
than Judge Nordberg did. First the court addressed what it said were
three separate theories of negligence: educational malpractice, negligent
admission, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Just as before,
the judges were skeptical about the educational malpractice claim, noting
11 states had rejected the claim because educational theories were not
uniform and, thus, it was almost impossible to compare experiences. Plus
they agreed that a student’s involvement in his/her education was critical.
180 S.K. FIELDS
The Seventh Circuit also feared a flood of lawsuits, which would force
the courts to oversee the daily operation of the educational system. Thus,
the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss this
claim.40
Similarly, Judge Ripple and his colleagues rejected Ross’s negligent
admission theory. Ripple wrote that determining who is a reasonably
qualified applicant is “subjective” and not easy to assess. Further, Ripple
worried that if this new concept were adopted not only would universities
be reluctant to admit marginal students (harming these individuals), but
the lack of disadvantaged students would hurt the diversity of the institu-
tion and limit the experiences of the other students. Finally without any
negligence, Ross would be unable to recover for his claim of negligent
infliction of emotional distress. Thus, all of Ross’s negligence claims were
dismissed again.41
The appellate court then addressed Ross’s claims that Creighton had
breached their contract with him. Ross argued that the breach had come
because of five things that the university failed to do: (1) it failed to provide
him with appropriate tutoring; (2) it failed to require that he attend those
tutoring sessions; (3) it failed to give him the opportunity to take advan-
tage of the tutoring sessions; (4) it failed to red-shirt him to allow him to
adjust to the college’s academic expectations; and (5) it failed to fund his
attempts to complete his college education at Roosevelt University.
Judge Ripple noted that the relationship between students and pri-
vate universities are contractual, with all catalogs, bulletins, and regula-
tions being part of that contract. He also commented, however, that to
state a claim for breach of contract, the complaint must allege more than
a failure to educate generally: it must identify specific areas where the
university promised educational services that were not performed. The
appellate court believed that Ross’s claim had done just that. The court
overruled Judge Nordberg and ordered the breach of contract issue to
be reheard on its merits. The panel told Judge Nordberg to look at the
narrow claim that Ross was “barred from any participation in and benefit
from the University’s academic program.”42 Ross’s race was absent from
both legal decisions.
Less than two months after the appellate court’s decision was published
and the day before the parties were to return to court in April 1992,
Creighton University and Kevin Ross reached a settlement. Creighton
admitted to no liability of fault but gave Ross $30,000 in exchange for
Ross dropping the breach of contract lawsuit.43
Although Ross failed to have his causes of action for educational malprac-
tice or negligent admission recognized, he convinced the Seventh Circuit
to recognize that as a student and an athlete at Creighton University, he
had a contract with the school. This provided a future cause of action for
athletes who did not receive the benefits that they had been promised dur-
ing the recruiting process when, in 2015, two former basketball players
at the University of North Carolina filed a class action lawsuit alleging,
among other things, that the school had breached its contract with them
to provide an “education that included academically sound classes with
legitimate educational instruction.”44
Legal scholars at the time were skeptical of the practical blueprint Ross
v. Creighton provided. Harold Hilborn, for example, argued that the
Seventh Circuit’s narrow ruling requiring student-athletes to bargain for
specific terms was problematic because recruits were usually given stan-
dard scholarship contracts and standard National Letters of Intent to sign.
Plus Hilborn saw no equity in bargaining power between the student and
the university during the recruitment process. He feared that as long as
the courts failed to find a duty to educate, the Ross ruling was a hollow
victory for future athletes.45
Another legal scholar Hazel Glenn Beh critiqued the Seventh Circuit’s
failure to provide any real guidance to other courts as to how to deter-
mine if a school has violated the terms of the contract with an athlete. Beh
suggested using a good faith standard. Specifically, she suggested a court
could consider if a university offered any tutoring program whatsoever,
what its funding source was, and whether the quality and availability was
similar to the tutoring offered to other student-athletes at other schools.
Further a court could examine if Ross’s basketball schedule allowed time
to attend classes and tutoring sessions or to study. She suggested that
courts inquire if a college’s behavior toward student-athletes was ethical
and fair. She argued that a good faith evaluation comparing one school
to others would eliminate the risks that a court would be evaluating the
substantive quality of the education being offered.46
ACADEMIC REFORM AFTER ROSS

After the Kevin Ross experience and by 1983, Creighton University made
changes to its academic programs for its athletes. The college offered
scholarships for an additional year of academic study for those athletes
who failed to graduate within their athletic eligibility. Faculty replaced
182 S.K. FIELDS
coaches as academic advisors to athletes. Daily two-hour supervised study

halls were established for athletes, and those who encountered academic
challenges were assigned to a special services program to help them. A
university administrator met with coaches and the athletic director at least
once a semester to review the athletes’ academic progress.47 The school
over the years has made significant progress. By 2015, the men’s bas-
ketball team had an impressive graduate success rate with 92 percent of
the cohorts who entered between 2005 and 2008 graduating or leaving
school in good standing within six years of enrollment.48
Like Creighton, the NCAA also recognized that there was a problem.
In earlier years before Ross even entered high school, the NCAA had
attempted to provide some eligibility rules. In 1966, incoming athletes
needed to be projected to be capable of earning a 1.6 grade point average
while they were college students. This calculation was based largely on
standardized test scores and has caused much concern about the disparate
impact on Black athletes. The 1.6 rule was rescinded in 1973 and schools
were left to determine their own admissions standards. Intriguingly, 1973
was the same year that freshmen were eligible to compete in varsity games.
The result was a plethora of under-prepared students playing college
sports.49 This poor preparation showed in the graduation rates: from 1983
to 1985, Black college athletes graduated at rates of roughly 35 percent.
For those same years, White college athletes graduated at rates of roughly
59 percent.50
In 1983, after the Ross affair went national, the NCAA enacted
Proposition 48, which would go into effect in 1986. Prop 48 required
that each athlete earned a 2.0 grade point average in 11 core courses in
high school and score 700 out of 1600 points on the SAT or 15 out of
36 on the ACT in order to be eligible as a first-year student.51 If athletes
did not meet these minimums, they were ineligible to participate in athlet-
ics during their first year, but if they progressed successfully, they could
then compete for the remaining years of eligibility. New NCAA rules also
required that all student-athletes complete at least 24 units toward gradu-
ation each year; previously, the NCAA had no requirement that students
generally complete any courses or achieve any minimum grade point
average—those rules were left to the individual schools. Then Harvard
President Derek Bok argued that the rule changes would refocus schools
back on education because it would be in the university’s interest to keep
their athletes eligible.52
Almost immediately Prop 48 was criticized largely based on the greater

impact it had on African American athletes than on White athletes.
First-year students who entered college in 1981 had very different aver-
ages based on their race: the SAT average for Black students was 694 and
the average for White students was 925, and on the ACT Black students
averaged 12.4 while White students averaged 19.3.53 Even the group of
all White coaches, presidents, and athletic directors which had initially
proposed the standardized testing minimums acknowledged that they
had not considered any racial disparity in the tests. The 39 members of
the American Council of Education presidents who reviewed and refined
the proposal included only two Black members. This second group also
admitted they did not consider any data about any testing bias. Over
time, Prop 48 would be modified and tweaked but the testing minimums
remained.54 The debate continued as well, even among African American
activists: in the late 1980s, tennis player and scholar Arthur Ashe argued
that the minimums were not racist and that they encouraged education.
Scholar-activist Dr. Harry Edwards and John Thompson, the basketball
coach at Georgetown University, said the minimums were racist.55
Because of that disparate impact, several African American athletes filed
a class action lawsuit against the NCAA alleging racial discrimination. The
lead plaintiffs both had been African American high school students who
had failed to meet the testing minimums despite having done well in high
school—one had a 3.5 grade point average and ranked fifth in her class of
305. Neither was eligible to participate in athletics as a first-year student
in the NCAA.56 They argued that Title VI, a federal law prohibiting orga-
nizations receiving federal funding from discriminating on race, should
prevent the enforcement of Prop 48 and its progeny. The federal district
court agreed and enjoined enforcement of the rules because it concluded
that the disparate impact on Black athletes constituted racial discrimina-
tion. The appellate court, however, concluded that the rules could stand
because the NCAA was not bound by Title VI as it did not receive federal
funding directly.57
The federal government also offered reforms. In 1991, Congress
passed the Student-Athlete’s Right to Know Act as sponsored by Senator
Bill Bradley, a former college basketball player himself. The law required
that any college or university receiving federal money disclose graduate
rates of athletes by race, gender, and sport to prospective student-athletes
and to the Department of Education.58
184 S.K. FIELDS
MEDIA AND THE REPRESENTATION OF RACE

In almost all of the press about Ross and his remarkable and tragic story,
his height and his reading skills were described but his race was not. Some
of the articles included photographs, often of him sitting in a classroom
with small children at Westside Prep, but most left his race blank, as if it was
irrelevant that he was Black, that his limited reading skills had nothing to
do with race. This is not to say that every other college athlete in America
read at the college level or that every Black college student read below the
college level. Ross was unusual, but he was not unique—other college ath-
letes also admitted their limited reading skills.59 But CRT requires that the
story be considered through the lens of race, and Ross’s discussion with
the White athletic director proves that both sides recognized that Ross was
Black. CRT demands an acknowledgment that he was not just a college
athlete but a Black college athlete working in athletic and justice systems
that were both overwhelmingly controlled by White people.
Although race was not overtly acknowledged in much of the cover-
age about Ross’s unique story, some media sources did acknowledge it,
especially when they contextualized the story more broadly into the world
of collegiate sport and academic reform. The Christian Science Monitor
particularly focused on race and college sports and its potential conflict
with academics. In a series of articles at the end of 1983, the newspa-
per relied heavily upon comments from Harry Edwards. He emphasized
how the time commitments in college sport precluded an opportunity
to get a quality education, and he argued that the NCAA rules requiring
athletes to carry full academic loads produced “educational mediocrity,
and often failure.” Further he argued that Black athletes particularly suf-
fered because of what the paper paraphrased as “ideological strikes against
him…which tend to condemn him to intellectual inferiority.”60
After Creighton and Ross announced their legal settlement, a column
in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 1992 failed to mention Ross’s
race, but in a larger complaint about the inherent conflict between ath-
letics and education at Division I sports programs, African American
columnist Terence Moore referred to the athletes as “slaves” and the
athletic departments as “plantations,” clear references to race.61 Further,
even the legal media tended to be color-blind: only one of the three
law review articles to focus solely on Ross v. Creighton mentioned race,
and that article did so in the context of race issues in college sport more
broadly.62
CONCLUSION
Kevin Ross’s story had an impact. His experience not only changed his
own life, but it changed the law, a university, and the NCAA. The press’s
failure to acknowledge his race when it came to his story does not under-
mine the significance of race. Kevin Ross was a Black college athlete at a
time when colleges tended to use the players, many of whom were Black at
White institutions, and discard them when they were finished. Creighton
did more than most, however, when it sent Ross to Westside Prep. Even
then though, Creighton sent a Black man to a predominantly Black school
in a city far away from campus and from his home. Why Creighton picked
Westside, whether it was because of Marva Collins’s fame or some other
reason is not clear, but it is significant.
Kevin Ross still had not gotten his college degree in 2006, the last ref-
erence to him in the public press. He had held a series of relatively menial
jobs. In 2002, Ross was a night shift custodian at his old middle school
in Kansas City. He had enough college credits (but no certification or a
degree) to do some part-time substitute teaching work.63 In 2006, Ross
was a cab driver in Kansas City and trying to do some motivational speak-
ing. At the time he had a website advertising his services and still hoped to
finish his degree,64 but that website was no longer active by 2011.
In a moment of confluence, Ross’s experience impacted the life of his
own son, Kevin Shorter. Shorter’s mother, Sheila McBride, lived sepa-
rately and Ross rarely saw their young son. Their son, like his father had
been, was a talented high school basketball player in Detroit who was
recruited by Division I schools. As an involved mother, McBride kept
detailed records of her son’s academic progress and kept well-appraised of
NCAA eligibility rules.65 Like other parents she discovered that the NCAA
clearinghouse process, which determines eligibility, was challenging. She
told a reporter, “Once I started figuring this process out and doing lots
of research, to my surprise, I found out that this entire process was put
in place in August 1986 because of my son’s father, Kevin Ross. My son
now faced meeting deadlines put in place because of his father.” To help
other parents, she formed a company in 1997 called GradeCheck® to help
navigate the process of establishing NCAA eligibility.”66
In some ways, this is a simple story about a basketball player who made
it through college without getting an education. Frankly, there have prob-
ably been many like him. The story of Kevin Ross and his mis-education
are linked to the history of his institutions and the history of discrimination
186 S.K. FIELDS
in American law and sport. All of this culminated for Ross in a lawsuit
against Creighton, but for future college athletes, it culminated in massive
reforms. But failure of the courts to recognize the role of race in the Ross
case was a failure to address the totality of Ross’s experience.
NOTES
1. See Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory and Valdes et al,
eds., Crossroads, Directions, and a New Critical Race Theory.
2. Ehlers, “Hidden in Plain Sight,” 314.
3. See Hylton, “‘Race’, Sport and Leisure,” arguing that sport, like
law, is presumed to be a level playing field and adding that CRT
answers Susan Birrell’s call for theorists to examine race in sport. See
Birrell, “Racial Relations Theories and Sport.”
4. All information regarding the Kansas City schools came from
Plucker, “Schools in Kansas City, Kansas, in Years of Change,
1962–1986” (hardcopy in author’s possession); and McGuinn, The
History of the Kansas City, Kansas Public School System, 1819–1961.”
5. Bock, “Sports News.”
6. Curry, “Suing for a 2nd Chance to Start Over,” B9.
7. Hall, “Post Graduate,” culture/sports.
9. For a discussion of the history of Prop 48 and Prop 16 and the fall-
out, see Brubaker, “Minimum Standard, Maximum Dispute,” D1.
10. “Creighton University.”
12. Berkow, “How Creighton’s Dreams Came Apart.”
13. Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 411, hereinafter Ross II.
14. Ross v. Creighton University, 740 F. Supp. 1322, hereinafter Ross I.
See also “Ex-Basketball Star Fights White School,” 52 and Cohn,
“The Story Behind Grade Check.”
15. Berkow, “How Creighton’s Dreams Came Apart.”
16. “Marva Collins Biography.”
17. Ross I at 1322.
18. “Taking the Path to Learning,” B11.
19. “Sports People,” 30.
20. “Sports News,” October 9, 1986.
21. Dishneau, “Sports News.”
22. “Sports News,” September 30, 1987.
23. “Sports News,” February 6, 1989.

24. Curry, “Suing for a 2nd Chance to Start Over.”
25. See, Curtis and Resnik, “Images of Justice.”
26. See also Horton, “Race and the American Constitution.”
27. Scot v. Sanford, 403, 411.
28. See, Wiggens and Miller, The Unlevel Playing Field, Ross, ed., Race
and Sport, Miller and Wiggens, eds., Sports and the Color Line, and
Davis, “The Myth of the Superspade.”
29. See, Hotaling, The Great Black Jockeys, Ruck, Raceball, Ross, Outside
the Lines, and Sinnette, Forbidden Fairways.
30. Martin, Benching Jim Crow.
31. Martin, “Jim Crow in the Gymnasium: Integration of College
Basketball,” in Miller and Wiggens, eds., Sports and the Color Line,
278.
32. Wiggins, “Prized Performers but Frequently Overlooked Students.”
33. “Yesterday in Negro History,” 11.
34. Mihelich, The History of Creighton University, 254.
35. Ross I at 1223.
36. Ross I at 1328–9.
37. Ross I at 1329.
38. Ross I at 1330.
39. Ross I at 1331.
40. Ross II at 414–415.
41. Ibid.
42. Ross II at 417.
43. “Creighton, Kevin Ross Settle Suit on Negligence,” 17.
44. McCants and Ramsey v. National College Athletic Association and
the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, complaint filed on
January 22, 2015, 97; available through Svrluga, “Lawsuit Filed
Against NCAA” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2015/01/22/lawsuit-filed-against-ncaa-university-of-
north-carolina-in-paper-class-athletics-scandal/ (accessed March
15, 2016).
45. Hilborn, “Student-Athletes and Judicial Inconsistency,” 758.
46. Beh, “Student Versus University,” 219.
47. Overbea, “Helping Athletes to Graduate with More Than Sports
Memories,” 6.
48. Anderson, “Creighton Leads BIG EAST.”
49. Sack and Staurowsky, Colleges for Hire, 96–98.
188 S.K. FIELDS
50. “March Madness,” 10.

51. Ibid.
52. Purcell, “When Academics Play Second String to Sports,” B2.
53. Brubaker, “Minimum Standard; Maximum Dispute,” D1.
54. Ibid.
55. Charen, “Patronizing Blacks a Form of Racism,” B5.
56. Brubaker, “Minimum Standard, Maximum Dispute,” D1.
57. Cureton v. NCAA.
58. Truax, “Why Can’t the Football Team Read?”
59. See Sherman, “Good Sports, Bad Sports.”
60. Purcell, “When Academics Play Second String to Sports,” B2.
61. Moore, “University System Excuses Hard to Swallow,” F3.
62. Davis, “Ross v. Creighton University” (mentions race); Rafferty,
“Technical Foul!” (no mention of race), and Sherman, “Good
Sports, Bad Sports” (no mention of race).
63. Hall, “Post Graduate.”
64. Cohn, “The Story Behind Grade Check.”
65. Brubaker, “Minimum Standards, Maximum, Dispute,” D1.
66. Cohn, “The Story Behind Grade Check.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Rob. 2015. Creighton leads BIG EAST, ranks 14th nationally in gradu-
ation success rate. November 5. http://www.gocreighton.com/
news/2015/11/5/MBB_1105154317.aspx?path=mbb. Accessed 17 Jan
2016.
Beh, Hazel Glenn. 2000. Student versus University, the University’s implied obli-
gations of good faith and fair dealing. Maryland Law Review 59: 183–224.
Berkow, Ira. 1985. How Creighton’s dreams came apart. New York Times, May
19.
Birrell, Susan. 1989. Racial relations theories and sport: Suggestions for a more
critical analysis. Sociology of Sport 6: 212–227.
Bock, Hal. 1987. Sports News. Associated Press, July 23.
Brubaker, Bill. 1999. Minimum standard, maximum dispute; freshman eligibility
rule has controversial past, contentious present and faces uncertain future.
Washington Post, July 25.
Charen, Mona. 1989. Patronizing Blacks a form of racism. The [Portland]
Oregonian, February 1.
Cohn, Lowell. 2006. The story behind grade check: Humiliation to triumph: A
student-athlete’s Odyssey. The [Santa Rosa, CA] Press Democrat, December, 10.
Creighton University. http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/NE/

Creighton_University.html. Accessed 26 Dec 2015.
Creighton, Kevin Ross settle suit on negligence. 1992. Chicago Sun-Times, April
28.
Cureton v. NCAA, 198 F.3d 107 (3rd Cir., 1999).
Curry, Jack. 1990. Suing for a 2nd chance to start over. New York Times, January
30.
Curtis, Dennis E., and Judith Resnik. 1987. Images of justice. Yale Law Journal
96(8): 1727–1772.
Davis, Timothy. 1992. Ross v. Creighton University: Seventh circuit recognition
of limited judicial regulation of intercollegiate athletics? Southern Illinois
University Law Journal 17: 85–115.
———. 1995. The myth of the superspade: The persistence of racism in college
athletics. Fordham Urban Law Journal 22: 615–696.
Davis, Timothy, Kenneth L. Shropshire, and Alfred Mathewson (eds.). 1999.
Sports and the law: A modern anthology. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Delagado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2001. Critical race theory: An introduc-
tion. New York: New York University Press.
Dishneau, David. 1986. Sports News. Associate Press, July 23.
Ehlers, Nadine. 2004. Hidden in plain sight: Defying juridical radicalization in
Rhinelander v. Rhinelander. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 1:
313–334.
Ex-basketball star fights white school for failing to give him an education. 1992.
Jet, March 23.
Hall, Greg. 2002. Post Graduate: KCK’s famed illiterate hoopster cleans up a
school that failed him. Kansas City Pitch Weekly, April 11.
Hilborn, Harold B. 1995. Comment: Student-athletes and judicial inconsistency:
Establishing a duty to educate as a means of fostering meaningful reform of
intercollegiate athletics. Northwestern University Law Review 89: 741–783.
Horton, James O. 2007. Race and the American constitution: A struggle towards
national ideals. History Now: American History Online 13, September. http://
www.gilderlehrman.org/historynow/09_2007/historian3.php. Accessed 7
Jan 2016.
Hotaling, Edward. 1999. The great black jockeys: The lives and times of the men who
dominated America’s first national sport. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Hylton, Kevin. 2005. ‘Race’, sport and leisure: Lessons from critical race theory.
Leisure Studies 24: 81–98.
Martin, Charles H. 2010. Benching Jim Crow: The rise and fall of the color line in
southern college sports, 1890–1980. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Martinez, George A., Kevin R. Johnson, and Timothy Davis (eds.). 2001. A
reader on race, civil rights, and American law: A multiracial approach. Durham:
Carolina Academic Press.
190 S.K. FIELDS
Marva Collins Biography. Encyclopedia of world biography. http://www.notablebi-

ographies.com/Co-Da/Collins-Marva.html. Accessed 26 Dec 2015.
McGuinn, Nellie. The history of the Kansas City, Kansas public school system,
1819–1961 (1967) excerpted in The Historical Journal of Wyndotte County
3(2010): 85–89 and 3 (2011): 173–174.
Mihelich, Dennis N. 2006. The history of Creighton University, 1878–2003. Omaha:
Creighton University Press.
Miller, Patrick B., and David K. Wiggens (eds.). 2004. Sports and the color line:
Black athletes and race relations in twentieth century America. New York:
Routledge Press.
Moore, Terrence. 1992. University system excuses hard to swallow. Atlanta
Journal Constitution, May 3.
Overbea, Luix. 1983. Helping athletes to graduate with more than sports memo-
ries. Christian Science Monitor, December 27.
Plucker, O.L. Schools in Kansas City, Kansas, in years of change, 1962–1986: School
enrollments and urban change. http://www.kckps.org/disthistory/publica-
tions/plucker/plucker-book-1962-86.html. Accessed 22 Mar 2011.
Purcell, David. 1983. When academics play second string to sports, student ath-
letes are the losers. Christian Science Monitor, December 29.
Rafferty, Daniel P. 1993. Technical foul!: Ross v. Creighton University allows
courts to penalize universities which do not perform specific promises made to
student athletes. South Dakota Law Review 38: 173–188.
Ross v. Creighton University, 740 F. Supp. 1319 (E.D. Ill., 1990).
Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir., 1992).
Ross, Charles K. 2001. Outside the lines: African-Americans and the integration of
the national football league. New York: New York University Press.
———. (ed.). 2004. Race and Sport: The struggle for equality on and off the field.
Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.
Ruck, Rob. 2011. Raceball: How the Major Leagues colonized the Black and Latin
game. Boston: Beacon Press.
Sack, Allen L., and Ellen J. Staurowsky. 1998. Colleges for hire: The evolution and
legacy of the NCAA’s amateur myth. Westport: Praeger.
Scot v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
Sherman, Edmund J. 1991. Good sports, bad sports: The District Court abandons
college athletes in Ross v. Creighton University. Loyola of Los Angeles
Entertainment Law Journal 11: 657–687.
Sinnette, Calvin H. 1998. Forbidden fairways: African Americans and the game of
golf. Farmington Hills: Gale Cengage.
Sports News. 1986. Associated Press, October 9.
———. 1987. Associated Press, September 30.
———. 1989. Associated Press, February 6.
Sports people: Creighton responds. 1983. New York Times, May 28.
Svrluga, Susan. 2015. Lawsuit filed against NCAA, University of North Carolina
in ‘paper class’ athletic scandal. Washington Post, January 22.
Taking the path to learning.1983. New York Times, May 26.
Truax, Chris. 1997. Why can’t the football team read?: The student athlete’s right-
to-know act and the growing threat of liability. Villanova Sports and
Entertainment Law Journal 4: 301–325.
Valedes, Francisco Valdes, Jerome McCristal Culp, and Angela P. Harris (eds.).
2002. Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Wiggins, David K. 1991. Prized performers but frequently overlooked students:
The involvement of Black athletes in intercollegiate sports on predominantly
White University campuses, 1890–1972. Research Quarterly for Exercise Science
and Sport 62(2): 164–177.
Wiggens, David K., and Patrick B. Miller (eds.). 2003. The unlevel playing field: A
documentary history of the African American experience in sport. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Yesterday in Negro history. 1962. Jet, November 29.
CHAPTER 8
NCAA Bylaw 12: The Double Standard

of Promotion and Suppression of Black
Athlete Enterprise and Entrepreneurship
Markesha McWilliams Henderson
INTRODUCTION
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as articulated in the Declaration
of Independence are considered fundamental rights of the citizens of the
United States of America. The product of this ideology is the American
Dream. Opportunity to achieve success with the prospect of obtaining
prosperity without limitation and suppression was not a traditional model
to govern a nation. It was a meritocratic design not prevalent among estab-
lished European countries, which were heavily rooted in feudal system
social hierarchy. This concept of having jurisdiction over individual achieve-
ment uninhibited by predetermined circumstances fueled American entre-
preneurship and innovation. It would be the basis of inspiration for people
who aspired to achieve great things through hard work and perseverance.
History would teach us that, although the concept of the American
Dream was innovative as it pertained to guiding principles in gover-
M.M. Henderson ( )
Department of Sport Management, Wellness, and Physical Education,
University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, USA
e-mail: mhenders@westga.edu

194 M.M. HENDERSON
nance, the fault in the design is it was not written to include everyone.
The individuals that crafted the blueprint for it were homogenous in back-
ground—White, Anglo Saxon, male, and Protestants. In a nation that also
contained women and persons of other races, ethnicities, and religions, the
absence of inclusion in the American Dream would become, and still is, the
basis for women’s suffrage, civil rights activism, and social justice agendas.
Entrepreneurship is the offspring of the American Dream. In a country
where unemployment is only at 4.9 percent, as reported by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, it would appear far more favorable to work for an estab-
lished company.1 Yet, according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM), nearly 14 percent of working-age Americans are starting or run-
ning new businesses.2 College campuses are not just preparing students to
enter the job market but to become the job market. There are 224 univer-
sities that offer entrepreneurship majors worldwide and 2364 postsecond-
ary institutions offer entrepreneurship and small business certificates.3 Out
of the more than 600,000 students that took an entrepreneurship course
in college, 39 percent eventually founded a company.4
Some enterprising students take advantage of the resources and con-
nections to actually start their businesses while in school. Companies such
as Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Dropbox, Snapchat, Yahoo, and Apple
were all started by college students and are iconic brands worth billions
of dollars. College could be considered a prime time to start a business
because of the schedule flexibility, access to intellectual capital and men-
torship, and less at stake should the venture prove unsuccessful. For oth-
ers who may not have their sights on a start-up venture, college is an
opportunity to hone skills to perhaps become involved in a family business
or to engage in brand-building experiences to establish your professional
reputation.
While business-minded college students have the opportunity to utilize
their education, connections, and institutional resources to get an initial
start in business, there is a segment of the student population for which
certain professional development opportunities and related activities are
regulated and sometimes prohibited. Students who participate in inter-
collegiate athletics at National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA)
member institutions are bound by the bylaws of the association and pro-
hibited from engaging in certain employment and promotional activities
that would be considered threatening to their status as amateur athletes.
Limitations that would restrict enterprising ventures of college athletes
include the creation of a business that requires the use of their athletic skill,
NCAA BYLAW 12: THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF PROMOTION AND SUPPRESSION... 195
use of their own name or likeness to promote their business—regardless if

it is an athletic-related business or not, and accepting payment for services
based on their athletic skill. This is the only student population subject to
such strict prohibitions on enterprising behavior. If a non-athlete college
student created a business based on a talent or skill and found a way to
market that business, there would be few limitations on the endeavor. In
fact, some institutions hold competitions for student innovation. Business
schools have professional development opportunities for entrepreneurial
students. There are registered student organizations on campus for which
students can network with other enterprising students. For college ath-
letes, cultivating entrepreneurship can be a challenge and adversely affect
their eligibility to play college sports.
THE BLACK MALE COLLEGE ATHLETE

Football and men’s basketball are the sports with the largest Black male
participation.5 Black males account for 47.1 percent of all football players
and 58.3 percent of all basketball players at the NCAA Division I level.6
Football and men’s basketball are also among the most profitable. While
every other sport in NCAA Division I competition struggles to break even,
between 50 and 60 percent of football and men’s basketball programs in
the Football Bowl Subdivision generated revenue.
Black male college athletes are disproportionately suppressed by the
rules regulating promotional activities because their likenesses have more
market value on the sport business landscape. NCAA policies, under the
disguise of maintaining and protecting amateurism, restrict college ath-
letes from engaging in any activities for which their athletic ability is at the
center of the promotion or employment. Meanwhile the NCAA, member
institutions, and corporate partners profit handsomely from the use of
athlete likenesses and the entertainment value of their athletic skill. This
double standard calls into question whether the restrictions are genuinely
in place to protect amateurism and the integrity of college athletics or if
restricting athletes from marketing themselves and receiving any type of
benefit derived from their athletic ability is a way of justifying the billions
of dollars generated from college sports that they do not have to share
with the athletes.
Using critical race theory as an analytical lens, this chapter will exam-
ine NCAA bylaws pertaining to promotional activities, specifically Bylaw
Article 12—Amateurism and Athletics Eligibility and its impact on the
196 M.M. HENDERSON
enterprising pursuits of Black male athletes in revenue-generating sports.

Although amateurism applies to all NCAA collegiate athletes, this chapter
will mainly focus on Black male college athletes and the implications of
amateurism and athletics eligibility. Policy analysis, participation data, and
market data will be reviewed to determine which populations of college
athletes either benefit from or are penalized by Article 12. The analysis
challenges the meritocracy of the American Dream and illustrates the sys-
tematic exclusion of Division I Black male college athletes from entrepre-
neurial and enterprising endeavors.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY AS AN ANALYTICAL TOOL

IN SPORT STUDIES
Critical race theory (CRT) is a conceptual framework in which scholarship

and activism intersect to challenge race, racism, and power in society.7
With early roots in legal scholarship, CRT was developed by a collection
of activist, lawyers, and legal scholars who sought to apply new theories
and constructs to address the subtler forms of racism that was becoming
more prominent in the afterglow of the civil rights movement.8 CRT has
expanded beyond the legal discipline and has served as a useful framework
for not just understanding social conditions but to transform society.
Sport is an integral function of American society in both participa-
tory and spectator spheres. It is also a multibillion-dollar industry. When
applied to sport studies, CRT serves as a useful framework to examine
the policies and practices that govern access to both participation and
power. This chapter uses the basic tenets of CRT to address the abil-
ity of Black athletes to partake in the economic gains associated with
their participation in intercollegiate athletics and the utilization of policy,
specifically NCAA legislation, which aims to neutralize or suppress their
involvement.
Delpit contends the dialog of people of color is missing and silenced in
the educational system.9 A critical race theoretical perspective in sport is
similar to education because opportunities for sport participation are often
situated in school-based settings. Sport participation, particularly on the
collegiate level requires athletes to surrender aspects of their own individ-
ualism for what is purported to be for the good of the team or program.
When applying a critical lens to intercollegiate athletics an appraisal of the
NCAA policy is necessary. This analysis evokes basic components of CRT
in the evaluation of NCAA Bylaw 12. First, the analysis is built on the
premise that racism is a normal and regular occurrence in intercollegiate

athletics just as it is in other facets of higher education and society at large.
Second, specific examples of how policies disproportionately affect Black
male athletes in revenue-generating sports are presented to provide con-
text. Finally, a critique of how racism in intercollegiate athletics and the
justification of these practices serves the agenda of White elites at the helm
of these institutions to maintain their privilege.
PROTECTING AMATEURISM
The 405 pages of the NCAA Division I Manual govern the activities and
conduct of member institutions, institutional staff and coaches, college
athletes, and prospective college athletes. Article 12 is an operating bylaw
and addresses amateurism and athletics eligibility. Operating bylaws are
adopted by the membership “to promote the principles enunciated in the
constitution and to achieve the Association’s purposes.”10 Amateurism is
considered a “bedrock principle of college athletics and the NCAA.”11
Merriam-Webster simply defines an amateur as “a person who does some-
thing (such as a sport or hobby) for pleasure and not as a job.”12 In an
effort to protect college athlete amateurism, the regulations in Article 12
outline what is permissible and impermissible for college athletes within the
boundaries of being an amateur athlete.13 Anything that does not maintain
what is considered the integrity of amateurism is considered activities of a
professional athlete and subject to harsh penalties including loss of eligibil-
ity, institutional sanctions, and vacated wins and championships.
The amateurism requirement not only pertains to active participants
in intercollegiate athletics at NCAA member institutions, but also to pro-
spective college athletes not yet enrolled. The NCAA Eligibility Center
certifies eligibility and amateurism for prospective college athletes for
intercollegiate competition. Prospective college athletes who want to play
at NCAA Division I or Division II Institutions must pay $65 ($95 for
international athletes) to have their eligibility, including amateurism cer-
tified via the NCAA Eligibility Center.14 The fee is waived for students
who received a fee waiver for the ACT or SAT college admission exams.
Prospects attending Division III institutions, which do not issue athletic
scholarships, may be certified by the institution they attend without going
through the Eligibility Center. Approximately 7.8 million students play
sports in high school.15 At $65 per person, the revenue generated from
potential athletes could be substantial.
198 M.M. HENDERSON
The regulatory environment under which college athletes are governed

includes all that they are allowed to receive, down to every bite of food
they are allowed to consume, all in the name of protecting amateurism.
Until University of Connecticut basketball player Shabazz Napier went on
national television and told the world he was hungry, there were restric-
tions on how many meals an institution could provide for their athletes.16
This rule has since been lifted and institutions can now provide unlimited
meals incidental to their participation in intercollegiate athletics.17 The
rules that remain on the books govern employment activities, acceptable
forms of pay, expenses, awards, benefits, involvement with professional
teams, advertising, and promotional activities.
The Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is responsible for
reviewing facts of possible rule violations and determining the appropriate
penalties.18 Previously, NCAA infractions were divided into two categories:
major and secondary violations.19 In 2013, the tiers changed to four levels
ranging from Level I, severe breach of conduct, to Level IV, incidental
issues.20 Under the old model, Level I and II would be considered major
infractions and Level III and IV would be considered secondary viola-
tions. Impermissible benefits would typically fall under a Level I or Level
II violation. The extensiveness of the benefit received would determine
which level is appropriate. Violations are published in the NCAA Major
Infraction cases database.21 A search for cases from 2000 to 2016 involving
football and/or men’s basketball yielded 33 results. Out of those cases, 54
percent of them involved the receipt of impermissible benefits. The other
violations involved recruiting violations or academic misconduct.
The debate on whether college athletes should receive pay often ensues
when an NCAA athlete, current or former, makes headlines regarding
NCAA infractions that involve seeking or accepting improper benefits.
Typically, if found in violation, in addition to the penalties imposed on
the individual athlete, the team may be required to vacate wins or cham-
pionships that were earned during the period of misconduct. Hence, it
becomes the fodder of sports talk radio and a trending topic on social
media by jaded fans who postulate if players were paid their fair share,
corruption surrounding the receipt of impermissible benefits would be
eliminated or at least reduced.
Several NCAA athletes made headlines for attempting to get a piece
of the billion-dollar bounty on the college sports marketplace. In 2011,
University of Southern California (USC) football standout Reggie Bush
was found in violation of accepting improper benefits while in school and
the team was forced to vacate all of their wins from the 2005 season. Bush
also had to vacate his Heisman honor.22 Another violation at USC, this
time involving basketball, resulted in the team vacating all 21 of their wins
in the 2007–08 season because Ovinton J’Anthony “O.J.” Mayo received
what was considered improper gifts from someone connected to a sport
management agency.23 Adriel Jeremiah “A.J.” Green, a football player for
University of Georgia, was suspended for four games for selling his jersey
for $1000 from the 2009 Independence Bowl.24 In 2010, Marcell Dareus
was suspended from the University of Alabama football team for the first
two games of the season and required to pay approximately $1800 to
charity for attending a party hosted by sport agents in Miami.25 In 2011,
The Ohio State University quarterback Terrelle Pryor and four teammates
were suspended for receiving improper benefits, such as tattoos, and sell-
ing memorabilia.26
Disproportionately, the athletes that made national news for receiving
improper benefits have been Black athletes, some of which came from
minimal resources. Reaction to these infractions varied. The participants
in the debate with the greatest platform were largely White male sports
journalists. Some feel sorry for the athletes because they realize they are
being exploited in a multibillion-dollar enterprise. Others consider the
athletes greedy and selfish for putting their individual gains ahead of the
welfare of the team. The conversation regarding what is fair for athletes
was a ping-pong of rhetoric. Then along came Johnny Manziel.
Manziel, also known as Johnny Football, a moniker his family trade-
marked, was the Heisman Trophy winner in 2012 who was investigated
for violating Bylaw 12 for signing autographs that were to be sold.27
Thus, the same debate resurfaced again, but with a lot more fervor in
favor of athlete compensation. Manziel, who is White, graced the cover
of Time magazine in the famous Heisman pose with the headline “It’s
Time to Pay College Athletes.”28 The nature of this headline begs the
question, why it was now time to pay college athletes and why was it
not time before? For years, Black college athletes have had to vacate
wins, return honors, and face penalties, but it was now time to talk
about paying athletes. Interestingly, at the time the Manziel issue hit the
newsstands, there was an NCAA case pending before the United States
Supreme Court involving the use of athlete likenesses. The primary
named litigant was Ed O’Bannon, a Black basketball star from University
of California—Los Angeles (UCLA) (1991–95), but he did not get a
Time magazine cover.
200 M.M. HENDERSON
Nevertheless, whether you are in favor of or opposed to athlete com-

pensation, the paradigm shift in public opinion and popular press when
the discussion involves White athletes is markedly different. Athlete com-
pensation muddies the waters of amateurism and is a threat to what the
NCAA has identified as the foundation of the association and intercolle-
giate athletics. When that foundation is rocked, the entire edifice is subject
to collapse. More pointedly, when alleged infractions committed by Black
athletes shine a light on the amateurism hypocrisy, the crack in the foun-
dation is quickly repaired with sanctions and more rules meant to deter
athletes from wanting to participate in the NCAA athletic enterprise. Yet,
when the fairness of the amateurism rules is called into question by individ-
uals with whom those in positions of influence more closely identify such as
White college athletes, the call for reform becomes more vociferous.
BLACK ATHLETES AND THE NCAA ENTERPRISE

Not only are institutions, conferences, and the NCAA using athlete images
for promotional purposes, in 2015 collegiate athletes appeared on the cover
of popular sports magazine Sports Illustrated 18 times. Of those 18 times,
Black male athletes representing college football or men’s basketball teams
appeared on 13 covers. In an attempt to not understate the complexity of
how individuals self-identify nor minimizing multiracial identities, for the
purpose of this analysis, individuals were counted as Black if at least one
parent was Black. The only cover that did not feature college football or
men’s basketball was the issue with University of Connecticut (UConn)
women’s basketball. That particular issue featured a photograph of three
Black female players along with UConn head coach Geno Auriemma.
Even with the rise of mobile users, the magazine still has approximately
19 million readers of its print and digital editions.29 The frequent appear-
ance of Black male college football and basketball players on popular sport
magazine covers demonstrates the significance of their marketability. Mass
media outlets select the images and headlines they feel will generate the
most interest, which in turn generates more revenue. Institutions benefit
from the notoriety gained from the publicity but also capitalize on the
popularity of high-profile athletes to generate revenue for their programs.
Media rights compose 81 percent of NCAA total revenue (approxi-
mately $705 million).30 College athletes are featured in “promos,”
mini-commercials that highlight matchups for televised games, on televi-
sion networks. The promos invite viewers to tune in to watch televised
broadcasts for which the television networks secured the rights to show
by brokering multimillion (and sometimes billion)-dollar contracts with
teams, conferences, or the NCAA. During those broadcasts, everyone
from automobile manufacturers, cell phone carriers, pizza moguls, and
quick service restaurants pay for the opportunity to sell their goods or
services during TV timeouts taken during the broadcast or other breaks
in action. If a fan were able to score a seat to the game, of which prob-
ably cost several hundreds of dollars if you are close enough to the action,
advertisers also paid top dollar to promote their business or service to fans
on signage, giveaways, in game announcements, sponsored half-time con-
tests, and even on the building itself.
The professional leagues rely on talent honed on college campuses
to recruit personnel for their enterprises. Out of the 32 players selected
in the first round of the 2015 National Football League (NFL) Draft,
29 of them are Black. Even with the popularity of international athletes
in the National Basketball Association (NBA), 24 of the 30 first round
draft picks in 2015 are Black. These facts underscore the significant role
Black males play in generating revenue in American sport. Black bodies
exert the athletic skill that makes football and basketball among the pre-
mier sources for American entertainment. Black likenesses make up the
images for promoting and selling the entertainment along with ancillary
products and services. Yet, the role Black males play in making decisions
related to American sport is relatively insignificant. If you look at every
level of the governance structure of college sport, the numbers for Black
males are quite dismal. As of October 2015, Lapchick and colleagues at
the University of Central Florida’s The Institute for Diversity and Ethics
in Sport found that 100.0 percent of conference commissioners of the
Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), 79.7 percent of athletic directors, 89.9
percent of faculty athletic representatives, and 87.5 percent of head foot-
ball coaches are White.31 Thus, Black men are not at the table in significant
numbers as leaders to make decisions pertaining to their role in the college
sports enterprise. There is a saying of unknown origin, “If you are not on
the table you are on the menu.” Hence, NCAA member institutions and
their leaders have been feasting on the lucrative exploits of Black athletes
for decades.
The attempt to cut college athletes out of profiting is not subtle. It
seems a bit disingenuous that the entity that has been entrusted to enforce
the rules governing amateurism is granted exceptions to profiting from col-
lege sport but binds the individuals participating to said rules. In general,
202 M.M. HENDERSON
there are five ways amateur status can be jeopardized: (a) receiving pay for
athletic skill, (b) accepting a future promise of pay, (c) signing a contract,
(d) getting an agent, and (e) engagement with professional teams. All of
these activities, although prohibited by the athletes themselves, are regu-
larly committed by NCAA member institutions and conferences.
First, institutions and conferences receive pay based on athletic skill
in the form of media rights, which is why the most competitive games
are selected for broadcast. If this were truly about co-curricular amateur
involvement, every game would have equal chance at getting airtime.
Media deals with institutions encompass future promises to pay and
typically involve extensive contract negotiation. The college athletes that
will play in the final year of the 14-year, $10.8 Billion deal CBS and Turner
Broadcasting have for the NCAA Division I Basketball Championship
were only five years old when the deal was inked.
College athletes are prohibited from signing with agents but institu-
tions engage third-party agencies to help them maximize revenue from
ticket sales, merchandising and licensing agreements, fundraising, and
marketing. Larger Division I athletic departments may outsource market-
ing and ticket sales functions and the account executive, although he or
she may be employed by the agency, it is common for the account execu-
tive to work on campus in the athletic department administrative offices.
This person has the ability to cultivate relationships with sponsors, fans,
and stakeholders on the athletic department’s behalf.
College athletes are prohibited from playing on professional teams
either for pay or without pay but it is permissible for NCAA, institutions,
and conferences to accept financial sponsorship and developmental funds
from professional sport organizations. College athletes may not gain from
their athletic ability but institutions are allowed an exception for fund-
raising activities. Bylaw 12.1.4.5 specifically allows athletes to participate
in activities only if the money goes “directly to the member institution,
member conference, or the charitable, educational or nonprofit agency.”32
When institutions enter into reciprocal marketing agreements with pro-
fessional sports leagues, none of the funds can be used to support college
athletes. Bylaw 12.6.1.5 (a) stipulates:
A member institution shall not accept funds from a professional sports orga-
nization if: The funds are for the purpose of recognizing the development
of a former student-athlete in a particular sport. The receipt of such funds
by an institution would make additional money available that could benefit
student-athletes and thus result in student-athletes indirectly receiving funds

from a professional sports organization…33
The rule also specifies that funds received cannot be credited for the finan-
cial assistance of college athletes. The waters are muddy when it comes to
accepting funds from professional organizations and institutions should
either be able to accept funds or not. To accept funds but stipulate they
cannot benefit the college athletes is an example of how institutions are
willing to leave the door cracked to accept money that they probably
should be declining.
Putting aside the argument that Black athletes are disenfranchised from
participating in the windfall of American sport revenue, what about the
ability to start their own businesses? This is where the double standard
of the amateurism and promotions rule becomes even more evident.
NCAA Bylaw 12.4.4 regarding self-employment specifically contains pro-
hibitions to college athletes as it pertains to entrepreneurship. It states
that “[A] student-athlete may establish his or her own business, provided
the student-athlete’s name, photograph, appearance or athletics reputa-
tion are not used to promote the business.”34 A few pages later, NCAA
Bylaw 12.5.1.8 regarding promotion of NCAA and conference champion-
ships states, “The NCAA [or a third party acting on behalf of the NCAA
(e.g., host institution, conference, local organizing committee)] may use
the name or picture of a student-athlete to generally promote NCAA
championships.”35
The NCAA is not the only entity permitted to use the names or pictures
of athletes. Bylaw 12.5.1.1. allows:
A member institution or recognized entity thereof (e.g. fraternity, soror-

ity or student government organization), a member conference or a
non-institutional charitable, educational or nonprofit agency may use a
student-athlete’s name, picture or appearance to support its charitable or
educational activities or to support activities considered incidental to the
student-athlete’s participation in intercollegiate athletics …36
Athletes are prohibited from selling their autographs written with the
names given to them by their parents, but charitable organizations are
allowed to sell autographed memorabilia to fundraise.
College athletes have likely cultivated athletic-related knowledge since
childhood. The ability to use that knowledge for enterprising activities
204 M.M. HENDERSON
is subject to strict regulation and scrutiny. Consider this example: Mike,

a basketball college athlete wants to make some extra money in the off-
season. He cannot get a job at the fast food restaurant where most stu-
dents work because of the time demands of his sport so he decides to
give local kids lessons for $10 per hour on Saturdays. He gets a couple
of photos from his mother of when he played basketball as a kid thinking
it would be a good way to relate to his potential customers and heads to
the local copy shop to get flyers. He also advertises his business on social
media with the caption “Basketball lessons from Mike for only $10.” He
uses some money he saved up to pay the rental fee the university recre-
ation center charges for people to use the basketball court and books his
first group lesson with four kids from the local high school. One of the
kids cannot afford to pay Mike’s fee so the local youth pastor pays for the
kid to participate. The lesson consists of warm up exercises, skill building
fundamentals, and one-on-one instruction. At the end of the lesson, the
kids apply everything they learned by playing a pick-up game with Mike.
Mike made $40 and will report his income on his tax return.
Nearly every activity mentioned in the example is a violation of NCAA
Bylaw 12.4.2.1 that outlines regulations on fee-for-lesson instruction.
College athletes may receive compensation for teaching or coaching but
they are not allowed to play in the scope of teaching. Institutional facilities
cannot be used, even if the college athlete pays to rent the facility. Not
only does Mike have to report his income to the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), he also has to provide his client list and the amount he charged to
the institution. The fees paid by the client must only be paid by the indi-
vidual and their family. And of course, the college athlete cannot use their
name, image or likeness on advertising materials promoting the lessons,
even if the photos do not depict the college athlete in their team-issued
uniform.
The rule disallowing college athletes from playing with someone they are
providing fee-for-lessons instructions is particularly perplexing. Typically
playing against individuals that are more skilled is an effective way to build
skills. In fact, Bylaw 12.6.1.6 allows institutions to receive revenue from
pro-am events involving their college athletes.37 These are events where
professionals and amateurs compete against each other. Institutions are
allowed to charge admission and receive a guarantee from the professional
sports team from such events and coaches probably concur it is a good
learning experience for their athletes. As long as the institution can find a
way to profit, the activities are considered permissible.
No other student population on campus is limited in profiting from

their talent and subject-matter expertise. This type of scrutiny is not given
to the enterprising and entrepreneurial endeavors of college students who
are musicians, dancers, or artists. The kid cutting hair in his dorm room
does not have to submit his client list to the institution. Students can cre-
ate businesses tutoring if they are particularly gifted in an academic sub-
ject. Countless early childhood education majors babysit on the weekend.
Athletes are not prohibited from giving fee-for-lesson instruction but the
level of scrutiny is a deterrent and the rules do not allow for them to maxi-
mize profit. The distinction of an amateur and a professional athlete is one
issue, but when amateur rules are extended to include the knowledge one
possesses and the dissemination of that knowledge, the rule exceeds the
scope of what it was originally intended to regulate.
NCAA AND ANTITRUST
Antitrust laws exist to ensure anyone seeking to be a participant in
American enterprise can do so without unfair restraint of trade. NCAA is
no stranger to controversy surrounding the promotion and commercial-
ism of college athletes as evidenced by multiple antitrust lawsuits in which
they are named. When the judicial system is asked to discern whether the
protection of amateurism infringes on the protection of civil liberties, the
pendulum often swings in favor of the athlete.
O’Bannon v. NCAA is a landmark case that addresses the NCAA’s use
of college athletes’ likeness for promotional purposes.38 As previously
mentioned, Ed O’Bannon was a basketball star at UCLA that led the
Bruins to an NCAA national championship in 1995. O’Bannon noticed
a striking resemblance to a player on a college basketball video game.
O’Bannon filed a class action suit on behalf of former college athletes
against the NCAA, video game producer Electronic Arts (EA) Sports
and Collegiate Licensing Company, the company that manages NCAA’s
merchandising, citing an antitrust violation.39 EA Sports and Collegiate
Licensing Company exited as co-defendants and agreed to pay a $40 mil-
lion settlement to approximately 100,000 college athletes whose likeness
was featured in their video games.40 The NCAA was ultimately found in
violation of federal antitrust law.41 They appealed the decision but the
primary tenet of the lower court’s decision was upheld.42 It was not a total
loss for the NCAA. An appellate panel struck down the provision in the
first case requiring institutions to pay up to $5000 in name, image, and
206 M.M. HENDERSON
likeness rights fees (NIL rights) each year to Division I football and men’s
basketball players. The court instead ruled that they only needed to pay up
to the cost of attendance.43
The O’Bannon case may not have made a solid case for paying athletes,
but it did give steam to the disposition that capitalizing on college athlete
likenesses for commercial purposes is not only unethical but also unlawful.
It is important to not lose sight of the fact that the institutions themselves
are the NCAA. All rules in the governance manuals are proposed, vet-
ted, and eventually adopted by member institutions and the enforcement
staff at the NCAA that holds the institutions accountable to the rules that
they have set and, when necessary, offers interpretations based on the cir-
cumstances. The NCAA staff does not have the authority to create rules.
Imagery of this controlling and oppressive organization dictating and rul-
ing with greed and corruption is simply not accurate. This also means the
decision of whether or not to allow college athletes the agency to control
the use of their image rests with the member institutions for whom they
compete.
Arguably, the reason the rules have not changed is because the institu-
tions do not want them to change. A profound question was raised by for-
mer University of Texas at Austin President William Powers Jr. in an email
to the commissioner of the Big 12 conference regarding the O’Bannon
lawsuit: he asked, “Why should we be defendants in this, rather than plain-
tiffs representing our students?”44 The NCAA was created to protect col-
lege athletes. Recruiters authorized by member institutions sit in living
rooms across America and pledge to parents of college athletes they will
look out for the best interests of their children. However, on signing day,
with a stroke of a pen, the promised protection is bundled with exploita-
tion and the name on the signature line is no longer their own.
OLYMPIC AND NON-REVENUE SPORT EXCEPTIONS

Bylaw 12.1.2.4 lists a number of exceptions that provide college athletes
with some opportunities to participate in enterprising opportunities.45
These exceptions are more applicable to non-revenue individual sports
rather than team sports and specifically exclude football and basketball
players. All athletes may accept prize money based on place finish up to the
amount of actual and necessary expenses. Prospective tennis athletes may
accept prize money up to $10,000 per calendar year based on their place
finish prior to their full-time enrollment in college. After $10,000, they
are limited to the amount of actual and necessary expenses for participat-
ing in the event. Once they enroll, they are limited to actual and necessary
expenses. Golf and tennis are sports where prize money is typically allot-
ted. But, these are not sports that have large Black male participation.
The effort to specifically exclude the NFL and NBA from engaging
with the institutions and enterprising opportunities is outlined in bylaw
12.6.1.8 that provides the guidelines for reciprocal marketing agreements.
It reads, “In sports other than football and men’s basketball, an insti-
tution’s marketing department may enter into a reciprocal contractual
relationship with a professional sports organization for the specific pur-
pose of marketing and promoting an institutionally sponsored sport.”46
Major League Soccer (MLS), the National Hockey League (NHL), and
Major League Baseball (MLB) can all enter into contracts with the athletic
departments but football and basketball professional leagues are specifi-
cally excluded.
The United States Olympics Committee (USOC), the standard bearer
of amateur athletics, has apparently done a better job than the NFL and
NBA in convincing the NCAA to allow for exceptions to the prohibitions
on pay. Cash or cash equivalent awards are a prohibited form of pay as
outlined in Bylaw 12.1.2.1.1.47 An exception to this rule is the Operation
Gold program that is administered by the USOC. The semantics used is
program or grant, but in essence it is a cash award for placing in the top
eight of a qualifying event or in the top three at an Olympic games. The
amounts range from $10,000 for third place to $25,000 for first place.48
Football and basketball players would not be eligible for this type of award
because American football is not an Olympic sport and the Olympic bas-
ketball team is no longer made up of amateur (college) basketball players.
There is a reoccurring theme of allowing exceptions for sports that do
not generate revenue more flexibility as it pertains to pay and promotion.
Some would argue that non-revenue producing sports need the boost
because opportunities to earn monies post-college are not as prevalent
as revenue producing sports. That logic is faulty because only 3.7 per-
cent of NCAA football athletes advance to play professional football and
11.6 percent of men’s basketball players play professional basketball.49 The
probability is even less for college athletes to go pro in the major leagues
(e.g., MLB, MLS) that offer higher incomes. For the rest of the college
athletes, college is the final stop on, what was for some, a long career of
sport participation that started in early adolescence. Another explanation is
sports that generate more revenue are also more vulnerable to corruption.
208 M.M. HENDERSON
Perhaps, but if that is the case institutions should also mitigate the risk of
becoming victims of corruption. Instead, the institutions themselves cash
in at any opportunity that is allowed by the rules, again, not losing sight
that it is the institutions that create the rules that the NCAA enforces.
Here lies the power.
Olympic and non-revenue sport exceptions could also be attributed
to advocacy. Golf and tennis are sports typically associated with elitism.
When a posture of subordination is not present in negotiations, there
could be a difference in how the request for reform is considered. In a
similar vein, The United States Olympic Committee is an entity with a lot
of influence and power and probably advocated for the Gold Medal Grant
program to receive an exemption. It is likely that even the semantics of
calling it a grant instead of a prize is deliberate so to not pose a conflict to
amateurism. College football and basketball players do not generally have
collective activism on their behalf and the parties who stand to gain from
exceptions to the amateur rule in those sports do not typically come from
spheres of influence.
CULTIVATING ENTERPRISING COLLEGE ATHLETES

Institutions of higher education house the resources necessary for indi-
viduals to be successful in their pursuit of the American Dream. On the
surface, paying college athletes like employees is probably not a good prac-
tice. However, placing restrictions on enterprising endeavors for college
athletes, particularly Black male athletes, while everyone else (i.e., univer-
sity, athletic departments, coaches) profits is exploitation. The NCAA has
embellished the definition amateur to include a myriad of other activities
beyond compensation, largely in part to monopolize the revenue oppor-
tunities football and basketball generate. The men who play these sports
are cut out of the sponsorship opportunities, endorsement deals, and
marketing opportunities they could secure for themselves. Billy Hawkins
points out, Black male athletes are the commodity that drive college sports
enterprise and the NCAA’s business model requires the ownership of ath-
letic identity.50
As institutions of higher education, athletes should be encouraged
to participate in enterprising endeavors as a form of experiential learn-
ing. After all, intercollegiate sports are lauded as co-curricular activities.
Teaching college athletes how to manage their brand and the responsibility
that comes along with it is a far better lesson than teaching subordination.
A college athlete securing an endorsement deal should be the equivalent

of a college student landing a top internship. It will not happen for every-
one, but those that are willing to work hard and present the right cre-
dentials can compete for greater opportunity. Instead, college athletes are
conditioned and socialized to dim their own light.
There are psychosocial implications for placing a greater emphasis on
the performance aspect of athletic identity rather than a more holistic
approach. There are countless stories about professional football and bas-
ketball athletes going broke after making millions of dollars.51 After being
herded their entire athletic experience, they are suddenly charged with
managing their own affairs. What ends up happening to some of those
that do not fare well is they either trade the NCAA rule book for another
shepherd that does not prioritize their best interests or sit at the helm of
their enterprise without the proper training.
As presented, Bylaw 12 reaches far beyond the scope of pay for play and
can even interfere with a family’s legacy. The rule does not acknowledge
that the name on the back of the jersey does not just represent that indi-
vidual but represents a family. At some point, for a young man or woman
to become an NCAA Division I athlete, an investment was made in him
or her before they started college. Travel team or summer league fees,
camps and clinics, uniforms, equipment and medical bills had to be paid
for an athlete to make it to an elite level of play. Therefore, it seems unjust
that in order to continue playing on an elite level, they must give up the
right to that name. If the family owns a business, they cannot use their
son or daughter’s earned celebrity to promote the business, but another
company can. If a young man with ingenuity and an enterprising spirit
invented a product, had an idea for a business, or wanted to capitalize on a
special talent—athletic or non-athletic—these endeavors must be pursued
with a level of anonymity.
CONCLUSION
Similar to the founding documents of this nation, the NCAA Manual was
never written for all participants to benefit. Through education, advo-
cacy, and civil action, such as O’Bannon v. NCAA, those on the fringes of
the sport industry can realize their full value and contributions to such a
central aspect of American culture. Playing sports are what some of these
young men do best and, for many of them, has been a central part of their
lives for as long as they can remember. Athletes should be allowed to use
210 M.M. HENDERSON
the marketability they generated from their athletic talents to promote

other endeavors. Finding ways to maximize possibilities for a skill so inher-
ent to them should foster participation, not exclusion, in the American
Dream.
Threats, intimidation, and fear are the typical oppressive tools used to
maintain power. The NCAA guidelines are saturated with punitive mea-
sures for athletes who fail to adhere to prescribed rules of which they,
nor their predecessors, had any voice in establishing and limited ability
to challenge. Collective activism and legal action have proven effective in
challenging policies that disproportionately put Black college athletes at a
disadvantage. In the relationship between these institutions and Black col-
lege athletes, CRT informs us that race matters because the Black athletic
talents that undergird this corporate collegiate sport enterprise benefit the
least, and they are adversely impacted by NCAA legislation that restricts
their access to the revenue their labor produces. Without advocacy, Black
male athletes are simply bystanders in a billion-dollar game.
NOTES
1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary-
January 201, USDL-16-0210 (Washington, DC, 2016). http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.
2. Donna Kelly, Slavica Singer, and Mike Herrington, “Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015/16 Global Report,” Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Research Association, accessed February
5, 2016, http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-
center/global-research/gem/Documents/GEM%202015-
2016%20Global%20Report.pdf.
3. “List of Colleges With Majors in Entrepreneurship or Small
Business,” Saint Louis University, accessed February 5, 2016,
http://www.slu.edu/eweb/connect/for-faculty/infrastructure/
list-of-colleges-with-majors-in-entrepreneurship-or-small-business.
4. Ibid.
5. NCAA Sport Sponsorship, Participation and Demographics data-
base, accessed February 8, 2016, http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/
exec/saSearch.
6. Ibid.
7. Gloria Ladson-Billings, “Just what is critical race theory and what’s it

doing in a nice field like education?,” International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education,7
8. Ibid.
9. Lisa Delpit, “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in
Educating Other People’s Children,” Harvard Law Review 58
(1988): 280.
10. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 2015–16 NCAA Division I
Manual. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic Association,
2015, vii.
11. “Amateurism,” National Collegiate Athletic Association, http://
www.ncaa.org/amateurism.
12. Merriam-Webster, s.v. “Amatuer”, accessed February 11, 2016,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amateur.
13. NCAA Division I Manual, 59.
14. “Amateurism,” National Collegiate Athletic Association, http://
www.ncaa.org/amateurism.
15. “High School Participation Increases for 25th Consecutive Year,”
National Federation of State High School Associations, last modified
October30,2014,https://www.nfhs.org/articles/high-school-participation-
increases-for-25th-consecutive-year/.
16. Rodger Sherman, “Shabazz Napier: ‘There’s hungry nights where
I’m not able to eat’,” SB Nation, April 7, 2014, http://www.sbna-
tion.com/college-basketball/2014/4/7/5591774/shabazz-
napier-uconn-basketball-hungry-nights.
18. “Division I Committee on Infractions”, National Collegiate Athletic
Association, http://www.ncaa.org/governance/committees/division-
i-committee-infractions.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. NCAA Legislative Services Database; accessed February 8, 2016,
https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch.
22. “Reggie Bush to forfeit Heisman,” ESPN, last modified September15,
2010, http://espn.go.com/losangeles/ncf/news/story?id=
5572827.
23. David Wharton and Baxter Holmes, “O.J. Mayo scandal leads to
heavy sanctions for USC basketball; team ‘shocked and saddend’,”
Los Angeles Times, last modified January 4, 2010, http://articles.
212 M.M. HENDERSON
latimes.com/2010/jan/04/spor ts/la-sp-usc-basketball4-
2010jan04.
24. “NCAA Benches Georgia’s A.J. Green,” ESPN, last modified
September 11, 2010, http://espn.go.com/college-football/news/
story?id=5547721.
25. Chase Goodbread, “Marcell Dareus Suspended Two Games,”
Tuscaloosa News, last modified September 2, 2010, http://www.tus-
caloosanews.com/article/20100903/NEWS/100909925.
26. “Ohio State Football Players Sanctioned,” ESPN, last modified
December 26, 2010, http://espn.go.com/college-football/news/
story?id=5950873.
27. Daniel Uthman, “Report: Johnny Manziel Accepted Money for
Autographs,” USA Today, last modified August 5, 2013, http://
www.usatoday.com/stor y/sports/ncaaf/sec/2013/08/04/
texas-am-aggies-johnny-manziel-money-for- autographs/
2617413/.
28. TIME magazine, September 16, 2013, Vol. 182 No. 12.
29. “Number of Sports Illustrated Readers in March 2015, by platform
(in thousands)”, Statista, accessed February 10, 2016, http://www.
statista.com/statistics/191784/us-magazine-audiences-
2010-sports-illustrated/.
30. “Revenue”, National Collegiate Athletic Association, http://www.
ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/revenue.
31. Richard Lapchick, “Small Progress Throughout Collegiate Athletic
Leadership: Assessing Diversity among Campus and Conference
Leaders for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) Schools in the 2014–15
Academic Year,” UCF Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport,
November 5, 2014.
34. Ibid., 70.
35. Ibid., 73.
36. Ibid., 70.
37. Ibid., 75.
38. O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 7 F. Supp 3d
955 (N.D. Cal 2014).
39. Ibid.
40. Tom Farrey, “Players, Game Makers Settle for $40M,” ESPN, last
modified on May 21, 2014, http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/
stor y/_/id/11010455/college-athletes-reach-40-million-
settlement-ea-sports-ncaa-licensing-arm.
41. O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 7 F. Supp 3d
955 (N.D. Cal 2014).
42. Michael McCain, “What the Appeals Court Ruling Means for
O’Bannon’s Ongoing Lawsuit,” last modified October 2, 2015,
Sports Illustrated, http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/
09/30/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-appeals-court-ruling.
43. Ibid.
44. Farrey, “Players, Game Makers Settle for $40M”.
47. Ibid., 62.
48. USA Track and Field, “Operation Gold Grants”, accessed February
11, 2016, https://www.usatf.org/groups/elite/supportPrograms/
OperationGoldGrants.asp.
49. National Collegiate Athletic Association, “Estimated Probability of
Competing in Professional Athletics”, last updated April 14, 2015,
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-
competing-professional-athletics.
50. Billy Hawkins, “The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports,
and Predominately White NCAA Institutions. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan Press. Page 105.
51. Maureen Callahan, “How Pro Athletes Lose Everything,” last modi-
fied June 14, 2015, New York Post, http://nypost.com/2015/
06/14/how-pro-athletes-lose-everything-buying-cars-jewels-
and-pet-tigers/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2015–16 NCAA Division I manual. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic
Association.
Amateurism. National Collegiate Athletic Association. http://www.ncaa.org/
amateurism. Accessed 10 Feb 2017.
Callahan, Maureen. How pro athletes lose everything. New York Post. Last
Modified June 14, 2015. http://nypost.com/2015/06/14/how-pro-athletes-
lose-everything-buying-cars-jewels-and-pet-tigers/.
Delpit, Lisa. 1988. The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Law Review 58: 280.
214 M.M. HENDERSON
Division I Committee on Infractions. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

http://www.ncaa.org/governance/committees/division-i-committee-
infractions. Accessed 11 Feb 2016.
Estimated probability of competing in professional athletics. National Collegiate
Athletic Association. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/
estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics.
Farrey, Tom. Players, game makers settle for $40M. ESPN. Last Modified May 21,
2014. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11010455/college-
athletes-reach-40-million-settlement-ea-sports-ncaa-licensing-arm.
Goodbread, Chase. Marcell Dareus suspended two games. Tuscaloosa News. Last
Modified September 2, 2010. http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/arti-
cle/20100903/NEWS/100909925.
Hawkins, Billy. The new plantation: Black athletes, college sports, and predominately
White NCAA Institutions. New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press.
High school participation increases for 25th consecutive year. National Federation
of State High School Associations. Last modified October 30, 2014. https://
w w w. n f h s . o r g / a r t i c l e s / h i g h - s c h o o l - p a r t i c i p a t i o n - i n c r e a s e s -
for-25th-consecutive-year/.
Kelly, Donna, Slavica Singer, and Mike Herrington. Global entrepreneurship monitor
2015/16 global report. Babson Park: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Research
Association. http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-
research/gem/Documents/GEM%202015-2016%20Global%20Report.pdf.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a
nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education 11(1): 7–24. doi:10.1080/095183998236863.
Lapchick, Richard. 2014. Small progress throughout collegiate athletic leadership:
Assessing diversity among campus and conference leaders for Football Bowl
Subdivision (FBS) Schools in the 2014–15 academic year. UCF Institute for
Diversity and Ethics in Sport.
List of colleges with majors in entrepreneurship or small business. Saint Louis
University. Accessed 9 Feb 2016. http://www.slu.edu/eweb/connect/for-
faculty/infrastructure/list-of-colleges-with-majors-in-
entrepreneurship-or-small-business.
McCain, Michael. What the appeals court ruling means for O’Bannon’s ongoing
lawsuit. Sports Illustrated. Last modified October 2, 2015. http://www.si.
com/college-basketball/2015/09/30/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-
appeals-court-ruling.
Merriam-Webster, s.v. “Amateur”. http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction-
ary/amateur. Accessed 10 Feb 2016.
NCAA benches Georgia’s A.J. Green. ESPN. Last modified September 11, 2010.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/news/story?id=5547721.
Sports illustrated: Audience by platform March 2015. Statista. http://www.
statista.com/statistics/191784/us-magazine-audiences-2010-sports- -
illustrated/. Accessed 10 Feb 2016.
O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 7 F. Supp 3d 955.
(N.D. Cal. 2014).
Ohio State football players sanctioned. ESPN. Last modified December 26, 2010.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/news/story?id=5950873.
Operation gold grants. USA Track and Field. https://www.usatf.org/groups/
elite/supportPrograms/OperationGoldGrants.asp. Accessed 10 Feb 2016.
Reggie Bush to Forfeit Heisman. ESPN. Last modified September 15, 2010.
http://espn.go.com/losangeles/ncf/news/story?id=5572827.
Revenue. National Collegiate Athletic Association. http://www.ncaa.org/about/
resources/finances/revenue. Accessed 10 Feb 2016.
Sherman, Rodger. Shabazz Napier: ‘There’s hungry nights where I’m not able to
eat’. SB Nation. Last modified April 7, 2014. http://www.sbnation.com/
c o l l e g e - b a s k e t b a l l / 2 0 1 4 / 4 / 7 / 5 5 9 1 7 7 4 / s h a b a z z - n a p i e r- u c o n n -
basketball-hungry-nights.
Time Magazine, September 16, 2013, Vol. 182, No. 12.
U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The employment situation—January 2016.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02052016.pdf.
Uthman, Daniel. Report: Johnny Manziel accepted money for autographs. USA
Today. Last modified August 5, 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/
spor ts/ncaaf/sec/2013/08/04/texas-am-aggies-johnny-manziel-
money-for-autographs/2617413/.
Wharton, David, and Baxter Holmes. O.J. Mayo Scandal leads to heavy sanctions
for USC basketball; team ‘shocked and saddened’. Los Angeles Times. Last
modified January 4, 2010. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/04/sports/
la-sp-usc-basketball4-2010jan04.
CHAPTER 9
The Portrayal of Black Masculinity

in the NFL: Critical Race Theory
and the Images of Black Males
Drew D. Brown
INTRODUCTION
The assumptions and maintenance of White hegemony often overpower
the way Black masculinity is portrayed and interpreted. As a result, social
constructions of Black masculinity, especially those found in sport, con-
tinue to dwell amidst negative racial stereotyping, which consequently
helps maintain the social vilification of Black males. Many of the images
of Black masculinity in mainstream media are based on stereotypical exag-
gerations and blatant falsehoods of White imagination. Therefore, there
is a vital need for corrective images of Black masculinity that counter the
media-constructed images “of who and what we really are,” in the words
of Louis Farrakhan.1 The question is, “who is the Black man, and what is
Black masculinity?” As Black males attempt to redefine Black masculinity
in order to include control, strength (mental and physical), pride, and per-
sistence,2 it is clear that, because of the propagated beliefs about Black mas-
D.D. Brown ( )
Department of African-American Studies, University of Houston,
Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: dbrown45@uh.edu

218 D.D. BROWN
culinity, Black males are often thought of as being gang-affiliated, violent,

inherent rapists, brutes, unintelligent, and physically gifted. Philosophy
and race professor George Yancy labels this assumption-filled lens the
“White gaze.” He describes the White gaze in an editorial concerning a
young Black male who was killed by a police officer. He explains, “This
officer had already inherited those poisonous assumptions and bodily per-
ceptual practices that make up what I call the ‘White gaze.’ He had already
come to ‘see’ the black male body as different, deviant, ersatz.”3 This is
an accurate example of how the White general public often misinterprets,
misappropriates, or fails to contextualize Black masculinity. The spectacle
of Black masculinity portrayed through the media and entertainment is
strengthened specifically in the world of sports and even more specifically
in the visual images of the National Football League (NFL).
Sports can be viewed as a perpetuator of racial differences and a vehicle
for widespread racism. Although the financial rewards and the glamor-
ous fame of playing in the NFL capture the attention of all races, it is the
low-economic Black male youth who are seemingly most affected by the
visual representations of Black masculinity. They internalize and imitate the
images and portrayals of people resembling them. Through the NFL, the
ubiquitous depiction of Black males as physically gifted, yet unintelligent,
perpetuates the traditional ideologies of the Black brute—all brawns and no
brains.4 White hegemony often attributes the dominance of Blacks in sport
to “natural ability” rather than to intelligence, perseverance, and work
ethic.5 What is most vilifying is the shaming of Black males who exhibit con-
fidence.6 Black male celebration dances are considered arrogant forms of
boasting and self-praise to the White gaze. Black NFL players who express
confidence are often criticized as attention-seeking show-offs who care
more about how they look than how they perform. While some attention
has been paid toward racist formation like this, various outlets continue to
portray Black masculinity found in the NFL in ways that omit intellectual
ambition, are associated with violence and hyper-aggression, and interpret
confidence as arrogance.7 Therefore, this chapter argues that the NFL, the
media, and public commentary use a racist lens to display and interpret
visual representations of Black masculinity as unintelligent, aggressive, and
arrogant. It is this gender-based racism that consequentially contributes to
the negative social construction and perception of Black masculinity.
Images of Black male athletes, particularly those in the NFL, are the
most pervasive portrayals of Black masculinity. While some scholars, such
as Black Sociologist Robert Staples, believe “it is difficult to single out a
THE PORTRAYAL OF BLACK MASCULINITY IN THE NFL: CRITICAL RACE... 219
dominant force in the socialization process for Black youth,”8 the popu-
larity of the NFL has a significant amount of influence on both Black
and White communities. ESPN, which focuses on providing a broad
array of sports coverage and has eight domestic cable networks, is the
most watched cable network in the USA.9 According to the Hollywood
Reporter,10 NFL Monday Night Football was the most watched weekly
show in 2015; NFL Sunday Night Football ranked second; NFL Thursday
Night Football ranked forth; and NFL Sunday (Afternoon) Football on
Fox ranked fifth. In online news, the top ten sports websites, combined,
received almost 400 million views per month.11 Furthermore, Black males
make up the majority of NFL rosters at over 67 percent.12 In addition to
games, Black players are also captured by the media in dressing rooms,
pre- and post-game press conferences, and promotion events. A growing
number of off-the-field images of Black NFL players are available through
marketing and public relations campaigns. Less than flattering images of
Black NFL players are also exposed. Images of players at nightclubs, get-
ting arrested, spending large amounts of money, and engaging in a host
of other provocative acts continuously fill the media. Given the popularity
of sports, the viewership of NFL games, the percentage of Black players
on NFL rosters, and various other forms of player pageantry, it is logical
to conclude that the NFL produces more images of Black males than any
other source in the US combined. These images influence the social beliefs
of Black masculinity. Unfortunately, the NFL does not display or promote
a proportionately accurate portrayal of Black masculinity.
BLACK MASCULINITY
For an in-depth understanding of the misrepresentation and negative
interpretation of Black masculinity in the NFL, it is important to define
Black masculinity and identify its influence, both inside and outside of
sports. Masculinity is most commonly defined as a socially constructed set
of role responsibilities, behaviors, expressions, achievements, and interac-
tion within men’s culture that is dependent on time and cultural space.13
I am not suggesting that all Black NFL players who are publicized exhibit
the same multisided expressions of masculinity. Nor am I implying that
a monolithic form of Black masculinity exists. However, many scholars
like C. Keith Harrison argue that the images of Black males in sports fre-
quently promote essential characteristics of Black masculinity that perpet-
uate negative social assumptions toward Black males.14
220 D.D. BROWN
A number of writers discuss Black males’ performance of masculinity

through sports.15 Some of them claim that the visual representations of
Black males in the NFL influence society’s notions of Black masculinity
in the USA.16 For instance, when viewing conventional advertisements
involving Black NFL players, race and sports scholar John Hoberman
argues that the muscles and body shape of Black males is a global signifier
of Black masculinity. Hoberman recounts:
A few years ago, one Black American long resident in Thailand sent me a let-
ter in which he commented on the effects of this relentless barrage of Black
athletic images. Based on what their media showed them, he reported, South
Asians had no reason to believe that African-American abilities extended
beyond the world of sports.17
This narrative suggests that the images of Black masculinity displayed in

the NFL carry a symbiotic social relationship with Black masculinity in the
broader society. In other words, the distorted characteristics of Black mas-
culinity being taught through the various sports media outlets influence
and impair Black males outside of sports. It has a significant effect on the
outcomes of Black males in the “real world.” When others perceive Black
males as overaggressive and unintelligent, it results in a host of hindrances.
A report describing the practical consequences states:
The real-world effects alluded to in the literature include everything from

less attention from doctors to harsher sentencing by judges, lower likeli-
hood of being hired for a job or admitted to school, lower odds of getting
loans, and a higher likelihood of being shot by police. For example, various
experimental simulations have shown that Whites are more likely to “shoot”
an unarmed Black male than an unarmed White male.18
The “success” associated with Black NFL players contribute to the sig-
nificance of their images. According to the US Census Bureau, the mini-
mum salary of a first year NFL player is approximately ten times that of
the average salary in the USA. They also enjoy fame, leisure time with
their families, and elite status. Yet still, the success associated with Black
NFL players has yet to translate into success for Black males outside of
the NFL. Unfortunately, outside the NFL, Black men in the USA con-
tinue to produce the highest rates of unemployment, incarceration, and
college dropout.19 The detrimental images of Black masculinity displayed
in the NFL and the affect they have on society, cannot be explained by
examining one dimension of racial oppression. They exist because of many
interlocking, interconnected sets of racist assumptions in a racialized,
oppressive society. For this reason, employing a holistic theoretical frame
such as Critical Race Theory is crucial for assessing the deep and surrepti-
tious issues of race within this phenomenon.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY

When examining the imagery of Black masculinity in sport, shallow or
myopic critiques will not adequately illustrate the hidden racial under-
pinnings that assist contemporary racism. Therefore, in order to gain a
comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon, this chapter utilizes
CRT as a theoretical frame. CRT helps explain how racism and White
supremacy greatly contribute to the contemporary disadvantages for
Blacks. According to CRT theorists, Delgado and Stefancic,20 CRT was
created because “new theories and strategies were needed to combat the
subtle forms of racism that were gaining ground …”21 CRT enables a
critical examination of the negative portrayal of Black masculinity in the
NFL. Through CRT, this chapter will explore issues of race, anti-Black
racism, and power from the broader perspective and context of history,
economics, and (group) self-interest.22 CRT is used in this chapter to
expose White supremacy through the investigation of (1) race as a social
construction, (2) omnipresent racism, (3) color blindness, and (4) interest
convergence. In addition, CRT is used to challenge the racially oppressive
institutions that are related to sports. However, a critical discussion of the
racist formations within sport must start with a foundational understand-
ing of race and racism.
RACE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

Race is a social construction that has been developed over time and
refined to serve the agenda of the dominant group. Although the conver-
sation of oppression is dominated by a Black–White dichotomy, African
Americans are not the only people of color affected by White supremacy.
This obscures non-Black people of color and places their oppression in
the shadows of Black oppression. Delgado and Stefancic explain, “That
paradigm, a Black-White binary, effectively dictates the non-Black minor-
ity groups must compare their treatment to that of African Americans to
222 D.D. BROWN
redress their grievances.”23 The treatment of people of color holds both

similar as well as unique forms of oppression. In addition, among Blacks,
there are varying experiences of racism based on skin tone, geographical
location, sexuality, class, education, and so on.
Delgado and Stefancic argue, “Race and races are products of social
thought.”24 Therefore, the demarcation of Black people as a racial group
came at the hands of Whites (Europeans). In order to assure such separa-
tion in the context of a Black and White binary society, the one-drop rule
was constructed out of the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case of 1896.25
While specific definitions of “Black” varied from state to state, the seminal
case involving Homer Plessy, who was merely of one-eighth Black descent,
declared, “An African American was anyone with any amount of African
American traceable descent.”26 In 1983, a Louisiana court case, Jane Doe v.
State of Louisiana, redefined the legal classification of Black as anyone with
1/32 Black ancestry.27 Because of the historical continuity of the one-drop
rule, Black players in the NFL are still discriminated against, regardless of
skin tone. Integration has blurred the racial lines that are based on skin
tone and other physical features. Racial distinction has become increas-
ingly more complex with the increase of “mixed race” children being
born. Colin Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, has a
relatively light skin complexion, in comparison to other Blacks, but holds
various physical characteristics associated with Blacks. In 2012, his image
was criminalized when a Journalist David Whitley wrote, “Kaepernick
is going to be a big-time quarterback. That must make the guys at San
Quentin (State Prison) happy.”28 Whitley referred to Kaepernick’s arm-
length tattoos in the article. But, Whitley’s criminalization of Kaepernick
is consistent with a more general White perception of Black male. In a
2005 study, Taylor L. Dixon and Keith B. Maddox stated, “A number
of recent investigations have concluded that news programs systemically
misrepresent Black Americans as the perpetrators of crime…”29 Whitley’s
degrading analysis of this image of Black masculinity perpetuated the same
criminalizing stereotype of Black males found in Dixon and Keith’s study.
And, although Kaepernick’s light skin tone places him visually closer to
Whiteness on the racial spectrum than other Blacks with darker skin tones,
it did not shield him from being viewed as a representative of criminals.
Yet, with that being said, some people argue that US society has moved
past racism. Others argue that sports are the rare institution that is merit
based and void of racism. Harry Edwards offers an antithesis to that by
arguing that sports are not void of racism; sports advance it. He contends,
Recreation and athletics have totally been billed as essential therapeutic

measures—measures that cure faulty or deterioration characters, that weaken
prejudice, and that bind men of all races and nationalities closer together.
The evidence does not support the theory. Athletic and recreational centers
set up in high-crime or delinquency areas have become merely convenient
meeting places for criminals and delinquents…As for eliminating prejudice,
Whites may grudgingly admit a Black man’s prowess as an athlete, but will
not acknowledge his equality as a human being. In athletics, where the
stakes are position, prestige, and money, where intense competition prevails
and a loser is anathema, a White racist does not change his attitude towards
Blacks; he merely alters his inclination to abuse him or discriminate against
him overtly…at an athletic event, by no means are all the bigots and racists
sitting in the stands. They also are on the field of play.30
Black males face a gender-specific experience of racial oppression, also

described as intersectional oppression.31 More specifically, Black NFL
players are subjected to a specifically crafted form of racism that functions
to appropriate Black masculinity through Eurocentric interpretations of
Black male images in the NFL. This specific racism has been constructed
and advanced through White supremacy ideology and long history of rac-
ism in the USA.
OMNIPRESENT RACISM IN THE NFL

According to White supremacist logic, the two anchoring ends of the
racial hierarchy have continued to be Black and White. Making Black the
epitome of everything bad and wrong allows for White to represent every-
thing good and right. Thus, for Whites, there are benefits for promoting
negative images of Black masculinity. This action allows for the creation
and maintenance of a positive White masculinity that is based on a distinc-
tion from its Black counterpart. The dialectical relationship between Black
and White masculinities delivers the motive for Whites to couch all things
distinctly associated with Black masculinity in negative terms. As a result,
the thought and actions of the dominant White group has become socially
accepted as “normal.” Therefore, in the NFL, Black images are presented
as abnormal or “super-human,” especially when regarding physical abil-
ity.32 Whites’ attraction to the incredible athleticism of Black athletes is
similar to their attraction to the circus. White commentators have often
termed athletes, who are big, strong, and fast, as “freakish athletes.” David
Daniels, an online columnists, titled his article “Freak Show: The Top 10
224 D.D. BROWN
Players on Paper in the 2010 NFL Draft” to describe a talented group of

NFL prospects.33 Out of the ten players highlighted, nine appeared to be
Black.
White owners in the NFL have complete control over the league and
allow racism to run rampant so much so that it often goes unnoticed.
Thus, people have become adjusted and desensitized to racial injustice
targeting Black male NFL players. In addition, creating an institution
of racism ensures that Whites continue to enjoy the privilege and ben-
efits of White privilege, while not having to engage in blatant forms of
racial oppression. Institutionalization allows for a hands-off approach to
ensure White privilege. Diversity and Sports Professor Kevin Hylton says,
“The problematic [sic] of ‘race’ thinking for many in sport is its endemic
omnipresent discourse.”34 Joe Feagin adds, “The central White framing of
systemic racism is deeply rooted in institutionalized structures of White-
created racial oppression of people of color.”35 Throughout sports, team
owners work steadily to structure leagues in ways that will maintain control
over players.36 Like the enslavement of African people and their extraction
out of African for their labor, contemporary institutions, especially sports,
demonstrate major components of colonialism from top to bottom.
Some theorists further argue that the form of integration establish as
a result of Brown vs. The Board of Education (1954) brought an end to
racial segregation but not racial discrimination.37 Integration was initiated
as a conscious maneuver to influence rather than equalize.38 This form of
integration, which operated more like assimilation, allowed the already
existing complexities of White superiority and Black inferiority that mani-
fest in a segregated society to continue in an integrated format. As a result,
the integrated system is a one-way operation, with Whites imposing their
culture and ideology onto Blacks.39 In addition, the migration of Blacks
to White spaces and institutions allowed Whites to better control Blacks.
After all, a smart slave master was aware that any self-respecting human
being would resist the dehumanization of slavery. Therefore, the slave
master would systemically create a sense of inferiority in Africans in order
to keep them mentally subservient.40 The same operation has continued to
impact the psyche of contemporary Black football players.
Colonization in particular has altered the traditional African display of
masculinity and left Blacks suffering from the symptoms of oppression.
Black masculinity, even that displayed in the NFL, is constructed out of
a history of oppression during enslavement, slavery, Jim Crowism. Black
males, inside and outside the NFL, experience nihilism, sub oppression,
self-hate and lack self-love. As a result contemporary Black males display

new cultural forms of masculinity. While such formations such as institu-
tional racism constrict the opportunities of Black males, it has not suc-
ceeded in eliminating Black men’s expression of creativity. Major says:
In fact, Black men often cope with their frustration, embitterment, alien-
ation, and social impotence by channeling their creative energies into the
construction of unique, expressive and conspicuous styles of demeanor,
speech, gesture, clothing, hairstyle, walk, stance, and handshake.41
Although slavery did not eliminate Black masculinity, it appropriated

it through a foreign Western lens that degrades all things Black. The
Western framework for masculinity is based on patriarchy and defined by
qualities that are distinct and “normal” to White males. Black males have
often found themselves in a dilemma because they often attempt to exhibit
Western-based behaviors of masculinity but are unable to due to various
social ills. This has resulted in the Black male’s inability to hold the same
advantages afforded to White males. According to Staples, “In the case
of Black men, their subordination as a racial minority has more than can-
celled out their advantages as males in the larger society.”42 What Majors
and Staples are describing is “intersectionality.” According to Delgado and
Stefancic, “‘Intersectionality’ means the examination of race, sex, class,
national origin, and sexual orientation and how their combination plays
out in various settings…Individuals like these operate at an intersection of
recognized sites of oppression.”43 The intersectionality of race and gender
in the form of gendered racism has pushed Black males to construct new
qualities of masculinity that are distinct to Black males.
According to Richard Major, a distinct performance of masculinity was
developed through what he calls the “cool pose,” a form of Black mascu-
linity that consists of characteristics different from those of Western mas-
culinity.44 The cool pose is used not only as a coping mechanism, but also
as a creative way for Black males to affirm their masculinity and manhood.
The cool pose redefines Black masculinity and is present in many of the
images of Black males in the NFL. Major explains how cool pose functions
in the context of sports by saying:
Moreover, the demonstration of cool pose in sports enables Black males to

accentuate or display themselves (i.e., “Here I am, world; watch me, see me,
hear me, I’m alive”), obtain gratification, released pent-up aggression, gain
226 D.D. BROWN
prestige and recognition, exercise power and control, and express pride,
dignity, and respect for themselves and for their race.45
This creativeness has constructed new characteristics of Black masculinity

and manhood including unbreakable will, and acting tough and fearless.
More critically, the cool pose rests on the bravado of unemotional and
unaffected carelessness toward their social degradation. Unfortunately,
the White gaze often misappropriates the masculinity that the cool pose
constructs. The cool-pose posture has been associated with violence and
anti-intelligence. Therefore, when sports media outlets focus on the nega-
tive aspects of the cool pose in the NFL, rather than its original function, it
perpetuates negative characteristics of Black male identity. Consequently, it
has become somewhat detrimental to the Black male group and Black peo-
ple as a community. Black males eventually internalize and self-perpetuate
the negative characteristics. The image of Black masculinity as a tough guy
who holds material richness but lacks emotion is a way of masking one’s
true feelings. The cool pose, as portrayed in the public sphere, trains Black
men to be self-deceptive and can lead to becoming out of touch with one’s
own emotions. It affects the way Black men interact with loved ones. They
begin to believe they can only love with things and status. The masking
of their emotions also makes it hard for Black men to love themselves.46
Another major contributor to the negative social construction of Black
masculinity is the subtle form of racisms found in micro-aggressions. This
method of racial oppression often goes unnoticed by the oppressed and
involves unconscious acts by the oppressor.
Micro-Aggressions
Although racism in the USA has perennially existed, the overt forms of
racism present in the antebellum and Jim Crow eras have become socially
rejected. Whites learned to adapt their treatment of Blacks by employing
more sublet forms of racism. These “micro-aggressions” are described by
Delgado and Stefancic as “stunning small encounter[s] with racism, usu-
ally unnoticed by the members of the majority race.”47 These unconscious
attacks include the ignorant and racially motivated labeling of Black NFL
players. For example, in 2009, NFL commentator Gus Johnson described
Chris Johnson, a Black running back for the Tennessee Titans, by saying,
“He’s got getting-away-from-the-cops speed.”48 Associating a Black man
with a person running from the police is a discreet way of criminalizing the
image of a Black male NFL player. In addition to micro-aggressive attacks,

White ideology continues to attribute the athletic abilities of Black NFL
players to their “natural” or “animalistic” physical prowess rather than
their work ethic, socialization into sports, or intellectual abilities. This rac-
ist thinking has traditionally obstructed Blacks from holding “thinking”
positions such as quarterback.49 Instead, they were limited to “speed” or
“non-thinking” positions. However, since Blacks have managed to play on
the same teams as Whites, it has jeopardized the physical images of White
superiority. Thus, the demonization of Black NFL players has created a
more social degradation of Black masculinity, which manifests the image
of “The “bad ni**er.”
The “Bad Ni**er”

Regarding intersectionality, “gendered racism” is a form of oppression
that is racially based and gender-specific. It is perpetuated by racist percep-
tions, stereotypes, and images of certain gender groups. During the Jim
Crow era, gendered racism shaped the social understanding and treatment
of Black masculinity, and dictated which form of Black athlete would be
tolerated in an American society of White supremacy. In a seminal text,
Black Masculinity: The Black Male’s Role in American Society, Robert
Staples writes a sociological examination of the plight of Black men in
contemporary society. He argues that Black males are socialized into det-
rimental gender roles. Those who avoided or defied the restrictive gender
role were viewed a sinister.
The “bad ni**er” is a term used to describe the perception of Black
male athletes that challenges White supremacy by refusing to conform to
the social pressures that called for a Black athlete to “stay in [his] place.”
For example, Jack Johnson became the first Black heavyweight-boxing
champion in 1908. While Johnson sported the championship crown
and beat any and all White competitors, he was a threat to the White
supremacy ideology. It was difficult to argue that White boxers are supe-
rior to Black boxers with Johnson emphatically proving otherwise. It was
the boisterous, confident, and unapologetic form of Black masculinity
Johnson displayed that resulted in his arrest as a way to stifle his cham-
pionship reign. He was eventually found guilty of violating the “Mann
Act” for openly engaging in interracial relationships and was essentially
stripped of his boxing title through a series of events.50 The criminal case
228 D.D. BROWN
against him exemplified the intolerance Whites have for the “bad ni**er,”
especially in athletics.
We see this type of characterization ascribed to many Black males in the
NFL. Billy Hawkins says the “bad ni**er” is associated with the savage
athlete and is characterized as untamed, violent, and with superior physical
abilities.51 The representation of Black NFL players in media outlets such
as television shows, commercials, and films shows a caricature of the “bad-
ni**er” style in which they are creative and heavily talented, but play by
their own rules. Thabiti Lewis describes the style of the Black quarterback
in the movie Any Given Sunday as “a direct affront to Coach D’amato
and to tradition; his presence as a quarterback threatens all that is good
and correct about football and America.”52 Yet, the NFL and media com-
modify, market, and sell the style of Black masculinity as a clownish spec-
tacle. Most of the negative stereotypes placed on Black men in the NFL
stem from a failure to understand the dynamics of masculinity in Black
culture.53 Whiting and Lewis’ criticism of the “bad ni**er” image is that
it exudes hyper-masculinity and violence that is often commodified and
sold without being placed in the context of a “resistance to oppression,
or as a response to, or attempted compensation for, a perceived loss of
power, potency, and manhood in the wake of the real and perceived White
power that controls their worlds.”54 In other words, stereotyping Black
masculinity as hyper-aggressive, without acknowledging the context of
anti-Black racism, is a tactic for maintaining White hegemony and control.
Another way of controlling the images of Black masculinity in the NFL is
by perverting Black players’ expressions and socially scrutinizing them as
bad-mannered. It is common for Black players to be labeled arrogant by
the White gaze as a result of their expressions.
Arrogance
It is important to state that Black expression of spiritual joy often erupts
in stylistic dancing and spontaneous celebrations. However, according to
Phillip Cunningham, there is a double standard based on race regarding
celebration dances among NFL players.55 White players are not faced with
fines or scrutinize as arrogant. According to CRT, this is an example of
“Whiteness as property,” which is defined as the “Notion that whiteness
itself has value for its possessor and conveys a host of privileges and ben-
efits.”56 Blacks are not afforded this privilege. To many White onlookers,
this type of spirited celebration is interpreted as arrogance and self-praise.
This was the case in 2015 when images of Cam Newton, quarterback for
the Carolina Panthers, showed him dancing after every touchdown. That
year, a letter was written to Newton by a fan who argued his celebrations
were a display of arrogance and not becoming of an NFL quarterback. A
few months later, a survey was conducted of 705 people. It asked them
if they like the celebration rituals of players like Newton. The results of
the survey indicated that 85 percent of Black respondents like celebra-
tions compared to only 51 percent of Whites.57 This supports the claim
that when images are displayed of Black males expressing themselves in
ways that are culturally unique, Whites often view them as unacceptably
arrogant.
This was also apparent in the responses to a 2014 interview with
Seattle Seahawk cornerback, Richard Sherman. In this interview, minutes
after making the game-saving play to go on to the Super Bowl, Sherman
shouted, “I’m the best corner in the game!” The response to this spirited
display of emotion and confidence was racist outrage. Many people on
social media, overwhelmingly White, flung claims that Sherman is a “thug”
and “arrogant.”58 This is another example of how Whites continuously
view the images of Black masculinity that land outside of White cultural
norms as negative and defiant to the behavioral standards set by White
culture. Therefore, any form of dancing, speaking with self-affirmations,
or verbalizing confidence is seen as arrogance.
Hyper-Aggression and Violence
Another critique of Sherman’s interview was the “aggressive manner” in
which he made his comments. To the White gaze, images of aggressive
Black males in the NFL advance the stereotypes that hyper-aggression is
a natural trait of Black masculinity. This is another double standard. On
the one hand, the NFL has traditionally rewarded violent orientation in
which fans cheer at the sight of violent play. For White players, the physi-
cal toughness is cast as a positive aspect of masculinity and interpreted
by the dominant society as manly. On the other hand, the Black male
image is socially vilified based on a similar association with violence. The
defamation of Black males as overaggressive and violence-prone contrib-
utes to the dominant narrative and justifies the excessive and sometimes-
fatal force used against them outside of sports.59 Ironically, the record of
the American military, physical dehumanization of enslaved Africans, and
the brutal murder of Sean Bell, Amadou Diollo, and Trayvon Martin, in
230 D.D. BROWN
addition to the beating of Abner Louima and Rodney King, make it appar-
ent who the violent group is. Blacks have seen their oppressors deploy
violence on them for over 400 years. Because of the violence of the domi-
nant group, the oppressed groups now imitate the violent actions of their
oppressor.60
In contrast, the negative image of Black masculinity is softened by
the presence of more controllable figures, just as it was by the emer-
gence of Joe Louis a decade after Jack Johnson’s reign. Louis defended
his title against the German, Max Schmeling, during the reign of Adolf
Hitler and the Third Reich.61 Louis became the first major Black ath-
lete cheered by Whites. He demonstrated how Black athletes could
conduct themselves in a way that allowed them the benefits of White
acceptance and gain privileges by taking on Whiteness as property, as
CRT terms. Just as athletics can be used to “liberate” Black males, it
can also be used to perpetuate the images of Black masculinity that
supported the stereotypes imposed by Whites. While Johnson exhib-
ited the type of Black masculinity that would not be affirmed by the
dominant White society, Louis exemplified the type of manhood that
was tolerated by Whites. In the NFL, the more controllable Black
players are presented in a positive light. Black NFL players such as
Russell Wilson, a Black quarterback for the Seattle Seahawks, are not
associated with many traditional traits ascribed to Black NFL players.
Because of this, Whites often socially accept these players in a limited
but public fashion. Wilson, who has a relatively light skin complexion,
has been criticized by his teammates for embracing the “non-Black”
persona that privileges him and provide cultural acceptance by Whites,
specifically the all-White ownership of the Seattle Seahawks.62 When a
Black player like Wilson does not show characteristics associated with
other Black players, such as engaging in celebration dancing, project-
ing an “urban-Black” slang/dialect, or even having a darker skin tone,
he becomes more palatable to the dominant race that look to maintain
their own superiority. By celebrating the Black NFL players who have
conformed to White culture rather than those who enjoy Black cultural
traditions is to engage in social micro-aggressions that elevate White
culture over Black. Historically, one of the most damaging stereotypes
that maintain the belief of White supremacy and Black inferiority has
been the promotion of intellectual inequality that assumes Black males
are less intelligent than Whites.
Lack of Intelligence: The “Dumb Black Brute”

The perception of Black NFL players as unintelligent commodities of
aggression has advanced the historical portrayal of Black males as “brutes.”
Hawkins characterizes the image of the “Black brute” as “an unembrace-
able image” and a “direct threat to the system of White supremacy.”63 He
goes on to say, “Characteristics of this image represented the untamed
sambo, a savage controlled by his violent and sexual impulses.”64 This is
displayed in the NFL combine, which is one of the biggest spectacle of
Black male commodification. This televised assessment of Black male bod-
ies exhibit strong similarities to slavery. For instance, after the slaves were
selected and paid for at the auction, they traveled to their new homes.65 As
well, after an NFL team selects players, they immediately fly to the team’s
facility. The similarities of the NFL Draft and the Slave Auction Block
are endless and visually displayed to the world. This event promotes the
ownership of Black male bodies for their physical abilities and diminishes
Black males’ intellectual aptitude. Through the White gaze Black males
are relentlessly stereotyped as unintelligent, born with physical stature,
and therefore animalistic. This depiction encourages the belief that Black
males are suited for performing physical work without defiance. From this
idea, the stereotype of “the dumb Black brute” was birthed and can be
linked to the image of the “dumb Black football player.” In other words,
there is a White supremacist continuum that spans from the images of
male slaves to the images of NFL players.66
Other direct comparisons can also be made between the NFL com-
bine and a slave auction block. Black players’ physical abilities and ath-
letic prowess have become the emphasis of the NFL’s selection process.
The three-day scouting combine is televised and covered heavily by the
media. Players dress in skintight clothing in order to both perform well
and expose their muscular structure to NFL representatives. Likewise at
action blocks, male slaves were stripped half or entirely naked. They were
coated with grease in order to make their skin shine and appear healthy.67
In an article, Back on the Chain Gang: Why the Eighth Amendment and
the History of Slavery Proscribe the Resurgence of Chain Gangs, one ex-
slave mentions, “They examine you just like they do a horse; they look at
your teeth, and pull your eyelids back and look at your eyes, and feel you
just like you was a horse.”68 In the NFL drafting process, players’ intense
efforts are in hopes of being drafted into the NFL: a socio-athletic con-
struct that will heavily reward them, financially, for performing well.
232 D.D. BROWN
In an article entitled Race and the NFL Draft: Views from the Auction
Block, Mikaela J. Dufur and Seth L. Feinberg highlighted Black players
that were quoted making statement similar to those of slaves:
They were referred to as “young bucks” and “work horses,” and noted
that coaches and general managers were constantly coming up to them to
touch and evaluate their bodies in passing at the hotel. Players used terms
like “poke” and “prod” to describe their medical evaluations, and said the
exclusively White medical staff did not even ask permission prior to inserting
fingers into their mouths to examine their teeth.69
To simply state the matter, many people disregard the ways in which NFL
scouts devalue the academic achievements of Black athletes during the
recruiting process. While it is arguably valuable, it is not necessary for
an NFL player to academically excel in order to be successful at foot-
ball. Regardless, the perpetuation of dumb, athletic Black males resonates
through younger generations. This effect is heavily felt when considering
the percentage of players who fall short of the NFL. The number of col-
lege football players drafted into the NFL is 1.7 percent.70 The chance
of a high school player reaching draft success is astronomically low, 0.08
percent.71 Not to mention, most players that make it to the NFL only
play for an average of 3.5 years,72 just over the required three years play-
ing time needed to receive a pension that most players will not reach.73
While football is a great vocation for a few, it is not the main source of
income for most Black males who seek financial stability. Yet, the images
of Black masculinity perpetuated by the NFL influence the identity of
most Black males. Indoctrinated by the glamorized, yet anti-intelligence
and anti-education, image of Black masculinity in the NFL, Black males
are too often left unprepared to compete for viable employment or move
on to a higher level of education. However, instead of recognizing the
role of racism in creating derogative images, there is a constant claim that
race does not play a part in the portrayal of Black masculinity. In CRT,
interpreting images without regarding race is an approach termed “color
blindness.”74 This is an effort to move past racism without addressing it.
However, because of the already existing formations of racial stereotypes,
the avoidance of race merely helps excuse the negative imaging of Black
masculinity in the NFL.
COLOR BLINDNESS AND THE INTEREST OF THE NFL

Many people believe that anti-Black racism, for the most part, no lon-
ger exists.75 Patricia Hill Collins says, “They believe that the passage of
civil rights legislation eliminated racially discriminatory practices and that
any problems that Blacks may experience now are of their own doing.”76
Therefore, common claims of color blindness are used in combination
with racial micro-aggressions. Author of Racism without Racists, Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva, argues that color-blind racism “has become a formidable
political tool for the maintenance of the racial order as the ideological
armor for a covert and institutionalized system [of racial oppression] in the
post-Civil Rights era.”77 Using a color-blind shield allows Whites to avoid
being deemed racist while still participating in and benefiting from subtle
forms of racial oppression. Sociologist Abby L. Ferber claims, “Color-
blind racism is part of the defense of a culture of privilege and contem-
porary White supremacy.”78 She goes on to argue that White supremacy
and White male superiority attribute racial inequality to the deficiencies of
Black culture. In other words, individuals themselves, not race or racism,
are to blame for their own shortcomings.
A color-blind lens also counters the public success of Black NFL play-
ers by ascribing them a non-Black identity. Michael Jordan is an iconic
athlete and a revolutionary in the athletic-marketing industry. Journalist
and sports historian, William Rhoden, describes Jordan as a “dream come
true for the NBA [National Basketball Association].”79 Rhoden explains
the NBA was trying to figure out how to take the style and showman-
ship of the growing Black population in the NBA and leave behind their
“inconvenient” Black features. Michael Jordan became the poster boy for
the ideal behavior of Blacks in sports. The NBA, and other marketers,
bottled his smooth style of play, muscularly lean body, youthful look, and
kind smile; and they sold it to America for a great profit. The key for the
NBA was to promote the great athletic prowess Jordan showcased while
silencing the projection of his natural personality.
The NFL adopted the Jordan model in the marketing and expecta-
tions of Black NFL players. Black NFL players have been discouraged
from talking politics, speaking out against racial injustice, or even read-
ing books for cultural development. In the film Third and Long: African
Americans in Pro Football 1946–1989, Walter Beach III recounts his time
in the NFL. He tells, “We were on a plane, and I was reading a book,
234 D.D. BROWN
Message to the Black Man. And, the owner says, ‘Well, I don’t want you
to read that.’”80 This type of depoliticizing of Black men turns them into
bodies with no voice; they are economically valuable yet socially feeble.
The goal of capitalism is maximum profit regardless of whether it encour-
ages detrimental moral character. The apolitical Black male images are
non-threatening to the White social framework; and therefore, allow for
maximum profitability. By “muzzling” NFL players’ voices, it weakens
the social influence they have and transfers it to the White team owners
and sports agents who control their image. Hence, the commodification
of Michael Jordan heavily perpetuated the benefits for White NFL team
owners to treat Black players as profitable goods.
There are those, however, whose image stand outside the category of
“marketable” and have a more cultural and social consciousness. These
players convey a different form of Black masculinity that falls outside
socially structured categories. However, bell hooks, a writer on Black mas-
culinity, cautions, “Black males who refuse categorization are rare, for the
price of visibility in the contemporary world of White supremacy is that
Black male identity be defined in relation to the stereotype whether by
embodying it or seeking to be other than it.”81 In other words, it is prob-
lematic for Black male identity to be aligned with the stereotypes. But, it
is also problematic for Black male identity to be based on opposing those
stereotypes, as it too is centered on racist assumptions.
INVESTIGATION OF INTEREST CONVERGENCE

Although Blacks have experienced progress over time, Derrick Bell
warns us that much of this progress can be attributed to the interests
of Whites converging with the interest of Blacks. Bell defines “Interest
Convergence” as when the dominant group’s interests match those of the
oppressed groups.82 It is a way for the dominant group to give off the illu-
sion of generosity and have their actions appear to be serving the interest
of the oppressed groups. When in actuality, they are ultimately benefiting
from these actions, most times more than the oppressed groups. This is
often the case in contemporary sports.
The Black community reveres Black NFL players as cultural heroes.
The visibility and celebration of Black masculinity in the NFL produces
cultural pride among Blacks. Simultaneously, the racist agenda of sports
media outlets exploits Black masculinity for financial gain and take advan-
tage of the opportunity to perpetuate social stereotypes and assumption of

Black males that is often filtered through a White gaze. The popularity of
Cam Newton and Colin Kaepernick, coupled with the racism they expe-
rienced as Black males, exemplifies the simultaneous benefit for the Black
community and the agenda of White supremacy.
What has continued to benefit the NFL is the lack of opportunities
afforded to Black males outside of sports. Many Black males see football
as one of the only areas of Black male success, which is convenient for
those looking to exploit their labor. As previously mentioned, Black play-
ers numerically dominated the NFL. What has attracted Blacks to football
has been a combination of things. First, the fixation comes from an exclu-
sion of Blacks from other areas that resulted in a malnourishment of Black
cultural heroes. Athletes are one of few images of “successful” Black male
seen present in the Black community. Second, sports are on a short list of
spaces where Blacks feel superior and gifted.83 Sports embody the belief
of Black physical superiority. While this is detrimental in some aspects, it
also brings a level of self-esteem to Black males who are looked at as infe-
rior in many other aspects of society. Third, sports have produced hope,
confidence, and prosperity in the nihilistic Black community.84 Sports offer
substantial financial reward to a proportion of the population who often
has limited social and economic opportunities. In addition to wealth, it
also provides an opportunity to acquire and display other characteristics
deemed valuable for manhood such as strength, visibility, and indepen-
dence. Many Black males believe the NFL is one of the very few paths
that will provide them with the opportunity to acquire characteristics of
manhood.85 Therefore, regardless of the racist treatment they receive and
the negative manner in which Black masculinity is portrayed, Black males
continue to participate in the NFL drafting process at relatively high rates.
In order to reach the NFL, they embrace and emulate the images that are
promoted. Often times, players refer to themselves and each other using
animalistic terms such as “beast.” This perpetuates an image of Black mas-
culinity that is similar to the one produced by the racial lens of white
supremacy. But, because feeding into this image has resulted in some
Black males reaching “success,” many others attempt to do the same, in
hopes that they too will reach the NFL. Therefore, the interest of many
Black males who want to be in the NFL and the interest of the White
social agenda both have an interest in the portray Black NFL players with
stereotypical qualities, but for somewhat different reasons.
236 D.D. BROWN
CONCLUSION
It must be understood that there is a difference between racialization and
racism. CRT often interchanges the two, and while they are well associ-
ated with each other, they carry distinct functions. The racialized society
of sports helps shape our identities and the identity’s of others by making
race the primary component of one’s identity. The America sports indus-
try is established on the same foundation of racism that American was
built on. Like the Western definitions of Black masculinity, Western racial
ideology derives from an attempt to justify the imperialism of Whites and
the oppression of others, including Blacks.
Throughout history, the image of Black masculinity has transitioned
from the brute, stud, and “bad ni**er” of the Reconstruction Era to the
irresponsible, dumb jock of the Jim Crow days, followed by the contem-
porary images of Black masculinity that include all of the aforementioned
characteristics with the addition of rich, flashy, individualistic, womanizer,
and anti-intellectual. The NFL and various media outlets displays, per-
petuates, and advances these images of Black masculinity. The attraction
of NFL-driven forms of Black masculinity is amplified by the material-
istic climate of contemporary capitalism. Ending the negative portrayal
of Black masculinity in the NFL requires the NFL and media outlets to
promote authentic images and appropriate interpretations of Black play-
ers. However, it is very optimistic to imagine an institution that is not
connected to the anti-Black racism that pervades mostly all of US society.
Therefore, it is important for those truly committed to racial equity to
shift the pendulum—the degree to which images of Black masculinity are
portrayed—to a just and positive position. This is accomplished by over-
emphasis the positive aspects of Black masculinity, especially those found
in high-profile arenas like the NFL. In other words, those who care about
changing the way Black masculinity is portrayed in the NFL must cre-
ate a new and extremely positive image whenever possible to combat the
negative rhetoric often used to describe Black players. CRT calls this the
“counter story” and describes it as “Writing that aims to cast doubt on
the validity of accepted premises or myths, especially ones held by the
majority.”86 This is important not only to humanize the NFL players, but
also to reflect healthier images of Black masculinity to Black males and
those around them. As it stands, the current portrayal of Black masculinity
in the NFL provides some sense of dignity and self-esteem to many Black
males, but it will not help save them from facing racism, occupying jails, or
being unemployed; in many ways, the current portrayal contributes to it.
NOTES
1. Gilman W. Whiting and Thabiti Lewis, “On Manliness: Black
Masculinity Revisited,” AmeriQuests 6, no. 1 (2008), 1.
2. Richard Majors and Janet Mancini Billson, Cool Pose (New York:
Lexington Books, 1992), 2.
3. George Yancy, “Walking While Black in the White Gaze” (The
New York Times, 2013).
4. Billy Hawkins, “The White Supremacy Continuum of Images for
Black Men,” Journal of African American Studies 3, no. 3 (1998),
7–18.
5. Jay Coakley. Sports in Society. 9th Edition (New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill), 2007.
6. William C. Rhoden, Forty Million Dollar Slaves (New York: Three
Rivers Press, 2006).
7. Lewis, Ballers of The New School, 203.
8. Robert Staples, Black Masculinity: The Black Male’s Role in
American Society (San Francisco, CA: The Black Scholar Press,
1982), 11.
9. “ESPN Media Zone,” ESPN, Inc. Fact Sheet, 2016. http://espnme-
diazone.com/us/espn-inc-fact-sheet/ (accessed 01 05, 2016).
10. “TV Ratings.” 2016, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/topic/
tv-ratings (accessed 01 05, 2016).
11. “Top 15 Most Popular News Websites,” eBizMBA Inc., http://
www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites (accessed 01 10,
2016).
12. Richard Lapchick, et al., “The 2012 racial and gender report card:
National Football League,” UCF (Institute for Diversity and Ethics
in Sport. 09 10, 2014), http://nebula.wsimg.com/1e912077d1fd
5c5c7ee7c4633806cfb5?AccessKeyId=DAC3A56D8FB782449D
2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1.
13. S.R. Bird, “International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.”
Masculinity studies (2008), 2nd ed.; Michael S. Kimmel, Amy
Aronson, and David Alan Sapp, Men & Masculinities: A Social,
Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio
238 D.D. BROWN
Press, 2003), L. Norman, “Masculinity” Encyclopedia of Sex and

Gender, (2007).
14. Harrison, C. Keith. “The assassination of the Black male image in
sport.” Journal of African American Studies 3, no. 3 (1998):
45–56.
15. Na’im Akbar, Visions for Black Men (Tallahassee: Mind Productions
& Associates, 1991); Billy Hawkins, “The White Supremacy
Continuum of Images for Black Men” (1998); bell hooks, We Real
Cool: Black Men and Masculinity (New York: Routledge, 2004);
Andrea G. Hunter and James Earl Davis, “An Exploration of Afro-
American Men’s Conceptualization of Manhood.” Gender and
Society (Sage Publications Inc.) 6, no. 3 (1992), 464–479; Haki
Madhubuti, Black men: Obsolete, single, dangerous? The Afrikan
American family in transition. Vol. 4. (Chicago: Third World Press,
1991); Majors and Billson, Cool Pose. Michael A. Messner,
“Masculinity and Athletic Careers: Bonding and Status Differences.”
In Sport, Men, and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives,
edited by Michael A. Messner and Donald F. Sabo, 97–108.
(Human Kinetics Publishers, 1990); Staples, Black Masculinity.
16. Krystal Beamon, “Are Sports Overemphasized in the Socialization
Process of African American Males? A Qualitative Analysis of
Former Collegiate Athletes’ Perception of Sport Socialization.”
Journal of Black Studies (Sage Publications) 41, no. 2 (2010):
281–300; Krystal Beamon, “‘I’m a Baller’: Athletic Identity
Foreclosure among African-American Former Student-Athletes.”
Journal of African American Studies 16 (2012), 195–208; Scott
N. Brooks and Michael A. McKail, “A Theory of the Preferred
Worker: A Structural Explanation for Black Male Dominance in
Basketball.” Critical Sociology (Sage Publications) 34, no. 3 (2008):
369–387; Ben Carrington, “Fear of a Black Athlete: Masculinity,
politics.” new formations: a Journal of Culture, Theory, and Politics,
no. 45 (2002); John C. Gaston, “The Destruction of the Young
Black Male: The Impact of Popular Culture and Organized Sports.”
Journal of Black Studies (Sage Publications, Inc.) 16, no. 4 (1986):
369–384; Lewis, Ballers of The New School; Majors, Richard. “Cool
Pose: Black Masculinity and Sports.” In African Americans in
Sports, by Gary A. Sailes, 15–22 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers, 1998).
17. Ibid.
18. “Opportunity for Black Men and Boys: Public Opinion, Media
Depictions, and Media Consumption,” The Opportunity Agenda
(New York, 2011). Retrieved from https://opportunityagenda.
org/files/field_file/2011.11.30%20%7C%20Report%20%7C%20
Oppor tunity%20for%20Black%20Men%20and%20Boys%20
%7C%20FINAL.pdf
19. Shaun R. Harper, “Niggers No More: A Critical Race Counternarrative
on Black Male Student Achievement at Predominantly White
Colleges and Universities.” International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education 22, no. 6 (2009): 697–712; Lance Williams,
“Cultural Interventions for Reducing Violence Among Young,
African American Males.” In Social Work with African American
males: Health, Mental Health, and Social Policy, edited by Waldo
E. Johnson, 265–292. (Oxford University Press, 2010), 273.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., 4.
22. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An
Introduction (New York: NY, New York University Press, 2012), 3.
23. Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 75.
25. Joe Feagin, Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future
Reparations. (New York: Routledge, 2000), 51.
26. G. Reginald Daniel, More Than Black: Multiracial Identity & New
Racial Order. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010), 5
27. Ibid. 20.
28. David Whitley, Colin Kaepernick Ushers in an Inked-up NFL
Quarterbacking Era. 11 30, 2012. http://www.sportingnews.
com/nfl-news/4351417-colin-kaepernick-tattoos-49ers-qb-start-
alex-smith-stats-contract-draft (accessed 01 11, 2016).
29. Travis L. Dixon and Keith B. Maddox, “Skin Tone, Crime News,
Social Reality and Judgment: Priming the Darker and Dangerous Black
Criminal.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35, 8 (2005), 1555.
30. Harry Edwards, The Revolt of the Black Athlete (New York: Free
Press, 1969), xiv–xv.
32. Ben Carrington, Race, Sport and Politics: The Sporting Black
Diaspora (London: Sage, 2010).
33. David Daniel, “Freak Show: The Top 10 Players on Paper in the 2010
NFL Draft.,” 3 3, 2010. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/
240 D.D. BROWN
356098-freak-show-the-top-10-players-on-paper-in-the-2010-nfl-
draft (accessed 2 3, 2014).
34. Kevin Hylton, ‘Race’ and Sport: Critical Race Theory (New York ,
NY: Routledge, 2009), 3.
35. Joe Feagin, White Party White Government: Race, Class, and
U.S. Politics (New York: Routledge, 2012), viii.
36. Drew Brown, “Race, Colonization and the NFL Draft: A Fanonian
Analysis of the Interviewing of Black NFL Prospects.” In Race in
American Sports: Essays, edited by James L. Conyers, 254–266
(Jefferson, NC: McFarlan & Company, 2014).
37. Derrick A. Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of
Racism. New York: Basic Books, 1992; Biko, Steve. I Write What I
Like: Selected Writings. University of Chicago Press, 2002; Delgado
and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory.
38. Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well.
39. Ibid., 20.
40. Akbar, Visions of Black Men, 23.
41. Majors, “Cool Pose: Black Masculinity and Sports.”
42. Staples, Black Masculinity, 7.
44. Majors, “Cool Pose: Black Masculinity and Sports.”
45. Ibid., 21.
46. hooks, We Real Cool, xi.
48. MJD, Gus Johnson sorry for ‘Getting-away-from-the-cops speed’
remark. 11 04, 2009. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shut-
down_corner/post/Gus-Johnson-sorry-for-Getting-away-from-
the-cop?urn=nfl,200191 (accessed 01 11, 2016).
49. Lewis, Ballers of teh New School; Rhoden, Forty Million Dollar
Slaves.
50. Rhoden, Forty Million Dollar Slaves.
51. Hawkins, “The white supremacy continuum of images for black
men.”
52. Lewis, Ballers of teh New School. 232.
53. Staples, Black Masculinity, 8.
54. Whiting and Lewis, “On Manliness: Black Masculinity Revisited,”
8.
55. Phillip Lamarr Cunningham, “Please Don’t Fine Me Again!!!!!”

Black Athletic Defiance in the NBA and NFL.” Journal of Sport &
Social Issues 33.1 (2009), 39–58.
57. ESPN, “Survey: Fans Think Cam Newton Faces Criticism More for
On-field Actions than Race.” ESPN.com. ESPN Internet Ventures.
Feb 3, 2016. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14703203/
fans-believe-carolina-panthers-qb-cam-newton-criticized-more-
field-actions-race (accessed Feb 3, 2016).
58. Cindy Boren, Richard Sherman Frustrated by Reaction, Equates
“Thug” with Racial Slur. 01 23, 2014. https://www.washington-
post.com/news/early-lead/wp/2014/01/23/richard-sherman-
frustrated-by-reaction-equates-thug-with-racial-slur/ (accessed 02
10, 2016).
59. Abby L. Ferber, “The Construction of Black Masculinity: White
Supremacy Now and Then.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues (Sage
Publications Inc.) 31, no. 1 (2007), 11–24.
60. Lewis, Ballers of teh New School.
61. Rhoden, Forty Million Dollar Slaves.
62. Glasspiegel, Ryan. Russell Wilson isn’t “Black Enough,” Seahawks
Players Allegedly Say. 27 2014, 10. http://thebiglead.
com/2014/10/22/russell-wilson-is-black-enough-seahawks-
players-allegedly-say/ (accessed 11 2016, 1): 10.
63. Hawkins, “The White Supremacy Continuum of Images for Black
Men,” 9.
64. Ibid., 9–10.
65. Tessa M. Gorman, “Back on the Chain Gang: Why the Eighth
Amendment and the History of Slavery Proscribe the Resurgence
of Chain Gangs.” California Law Review 85, no. 2 (March 1997),
441–478.
66. Lewis, Ballers of the New School.
67. Frederic Bancroft, Slave-trading in the Old South (New York:
Ungar Publishing Company, 1959), 282.
68. Gorman, “Back on the Chain Gang:” 446.
69. Mikaela J. Dufur and Seth L. Feinberg. “Race and the NFL Draft:
Views From the Auction Block.” Qualitative Sociology 32, no. 1
(2009), 66.
70. Clint Newlin, ed., National Collegiate Athletics Association. 2010,
11-Nov. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_
242 D.D. BROWN
GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Academics+and+
Athletes/Education+and+Research/Probability+.
71. Ibid.
72. Ryan Guina, Sports Pensions. 2007, 13-April. http://webcache.
googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KMOp_ob_
BxIJ:cashmoneylife.com/sports-pensions/+nfl+pension+requirem
ents+of+4+years&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.
google.com (accessed 2011, 1-April).
73. Ibid.
74. Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 7–8.
75. William N. Spencer, Why Can’t We All Just Get Along: A Study of
Interpersonal Relationships In The American Workplace. Xlibris,
(2011).
76. Patricia Hill Collins,. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans,
Gender, and the New Racism (Routledge, 2004): 5.
77. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism
and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States.
(Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 3.
78. Ferber, “The Construction of Black Masculinity,” 14.
79. Rhoden, Forty Million Dollar Slaves, 204.
80. Third and Long: African Americans in Pro Football 1946–1989.
Produced by Theresa Moore. Performed by Walter III Beach.
2012.
81. hooks, bell. We Real Cool, x.
83. John Hoberman, Darwin's Athletes: How Sports Has Damaged
Black American and Preserved the Myth of Race (New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997), 5.
84. Ibid., 5.
85. Drew Brown, “Race, Colonization and the NFL Draft.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akbar, Na’im. 1984. Chains and images of psychology slavery. Jersey City: New
Mind Productions.
———. 1991. Visions for Black men. Tallahassee: Mind Productions & Associates.
Asante, Molefi. 1987. The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple Press.
Ball, Jared A. 2011. I mix what I like!: A mixtape manifesto. Oakland: AK Press.
Bancroft, Frederic. 1959. Slave-trading in the old south. New York: Ungar
Publishing Company.
Beamon, Krystal. 2010. Are sports overemphasized in the socialization process of
African American males? A qualitative analysis of former collegiate athletes’
perception of sport socialization. Journal of Black Studies 41(2): 281–300
(Sage Publications).
———. 2012. ‘I’m a Baller’: Athletic identity foreclosure among African-American
former student-Athletes. Journal of African American Studies 16: 195–208.
Bell, Derrick A. 1992. Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism.
Bernal, Martin. 1987. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization.
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Biko, Steve. 2002. I write what I like: Selected writings. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bird, S.R. 2008. International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Masculinity
studies, 2nd ed.
Black, Daniel P. 1997. Dismantling black manhood: An historical and literary
analysis of the legacy of slavery. Taylor & Francis.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the
persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Boren, Cindy. Richard Sherman frustrated by reaction, equates “Thug” with racial
slur. 01 23, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/
wp/2014/01/23/richard-sherman-frustrated-by-reaction-equates-thug-
with-racial-slur/. Accessed 02 10, 2016.
Brooks, Scott N., and Michael A. McKail. 2008. A theory of the preferred worker:
A structural explanation for black male dominance in basketball. Critical
Sociology 34(3): 369–387 (Sage Publications).
Brown, Drew. 2014. Race, colonization and the NFL draft: A fanonian analysis of
the interviewing of black NFL prospects. In Race in American sports: Essays, ed.
James L. Conyers, 254–266. Jefferson: McFarlan & Company.
Carrington, Ben. 2002. Fear of a black athlete: Masculinity, politics. New
Formations: A Journal of Culture, Theory, and Politics 45: 91–110.
———. 2010. Race, sport and politics: The sporting black diaspora. London: Sage.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2004. Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and
the new racism. New York: Routledge.
Cunningham, Phillip Lamarr. 2009. “Please Don’t Fine Me Again!!!!!” black ath-
letic defiance in the NBA and NFL. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 33(1):
39–58.
Daniel, David. 2010a. Freak show: The top 10 players on paper in the 2010 NFL
draft. 3 3, 2010. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/356098-freak-show-
the-top-10-players-on-paper-in-the-2010-nfl-draft. Accessed 2 3, 2014.
244 D.D. BROWN
Daniel, G. 2010b. Reginald. More than black: Multiracial identity & new racial
order. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2012. Critical race theory: An introduction.
Dixon, T.L., and K.B. Maddox. 2005. Skin tone, crime news, social reality and
judgment: Priming the darker and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 35(8): 1555–1570.
Dufur, Mikaela J., and Seth L. Feinberg. 2009. Race and the NFL draft: Views
from the auction block. Qualitative Sociology 32(1): 53–73.
eBizMBA. Top 15 most popular news websites. eBizMBA Inc. 01 2016. http://
www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites. Accessed 01 Oct 2016.
Edwards, Harry. 1969. The revolt of the black athlete. New York: Free Press.
ESPN. 2016a. ESPN media zone. ESPN, Inc. fact sheet. http://espnmediazone.
com/us/espn-inc-fact-sheet/. Accessed 01 May 2016.
———. 2016b, February 3. Survey: Fans think cam newton faces criticism more
for on-field actions than race. ESPN.com. ESPN Internet Ventures. http://
espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14703203/fans-believe-carolina-panthers-qb-
cam-newton-criticized-more-field-actions-race Accessed 3 Feb 2016.
Feagin, Joe. 2000. Racist America: Roots, current realities, and future reparations.
———. 2012. White party white government: Race, class, and U.S. politics.
Ferber, Abby L. 2007. The construction of black masculinity: White supremacy
now and then. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 31(1): 11–24.
Gaston, John C. 1986. The destruction of the young black male: The impact of
popular culture and organized sports. Journal of Black Studies 16(4): 369–384
(Sage Publications Inc.).
Gigante, Shelly. 2011. Yahoo Sports. йил 31-Jan. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/
news?slug=ys-cnbcnflbankruptplayers013111. Accessed 2011 йил 01-March.
Glasspiegel, Ryan. 2014, October 27. Russell Wilson isn’t “Black Enough,” Seahawks
players allegedly say. http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/22/russell-wilson-is-
black-enough-seahawks-players-allegedly-say/. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
Gorman, Tessa M. 1997. Back on the chain gang: Why the eighth amendment and
the history of slavery proscribe the resurgence of chain gangs. California Law
Review 85(2): 441–478.
Guina, Ryan. 2007. Sports pensions. йил 13-April. http://webcache.googleuser-
content.com/search?q=cache:KMOp_ob_BxIJ:cashmoneylife.com/sports-
pensions/+nfl+pension+requirements+of+4+years&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&
gl=us&source=www.google.com. Accessed 1 Apr 2011.
Harper, Shaun R. 2009. Niggers no more: A critical race counternarrative on black
male student achievement at predominantly white colleges and universities.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22(6): 697–712.
Harrison, C. Keith. 1998. The assassination of the black male image in sport.
Journal of African American Studies 3(3): 45–56.
Hawkins, Billy. 1998. The white supremacy continuum of images for black men.
Journal of African American Studies 3(3): 7–18.
Hoberman, John. 1997. Darwin’s athletes: How sports has damaged Black American
and preserved the myth of race. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
———. 2000. The price of “Black Dominance”. Society 37(3): 49–56.
Hooks, bell. 2004. We real cool: Black men and masculinity. New York: Routledge.
Hunter, Andrea G., and James Earl Davis. 1992. An exploration of Afro-American
men’s conceptualization of manhood. Gender and Society 6(3): 464–479 (Sage
Publications Inc.).
Hylton, Kevin. 2009. ‘Race’ and sport: Critical race theory. New York: Routledge.
Kimmel, Michael S., Amy Aronson, and David Alan Sapp. 2003. Men & mascu-
linities: A social, cultural, and historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio
Press.
Lapchick, Richard et al. 2014. The 2012 racial and gender report card: National
Football League. UCF Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 09 Oct 2014.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/1e912077d1fd5c5c7ee7c4633806cfb5?AccessKey
Id=DAC3A56D8FB782449D2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1.
Lewis, Thabiti. 2010. Ballers of the new school. Chicago: Third World Press.
Madhubuti, Haki. 1991. Black men: Obsolete, single, dangerous? The Afrikan
American family in transition, vol 4. Chicago: Third World Press.
Majors, Richard. 1998. Cool pose: Black masculinity and sports. In African
Americans in sports, ed. Gary A. Sailes, 15–22. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Majors, Richard, and Janet Mancini Billson. 1992. Cool pose. New York: Lexington
Books.
Messner, Michael A. 1990. Masculinity and athletic careers: Bonding and status
differences. In Sport, men, and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives,
ed. Michael A. Messner, and Donald F. Sabo, 97–108. Champaign: Human
Kinetics Publishers.
Messner, Michael A., Michele Dunbar, and Darnell Hunt. 2000. The televised
sports manhood formula. Journal of Sport and Social (Sage) 24: 380–394.
MJD. Gus Johnson sorry for ‘Getting-away-from-the-cops speed’ remark, 11
Apr 2009. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Gus-
Johnson-sorry-for-Getting-away-from-the-cop?urn=nfl,200191. Accessed 01
11, 2016.
NFLsalaries.org. 2011. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=
cache:nlZVEUED-MYJ:nflsalaries.org/+total+salaries+of+nfl&cd=6&hl=en&
ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com. Accessed 1 Mar 2011.
Norman, L. 2007. Masculinity. Encyclopedia of sex and gender.
246 D.D. BROWN
Opportunity for Black Men and boys: Public opinion, media depictions, and media
consumption. New York: The Opportunity Agenda. 2011. Retrieved from
https://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2011.11.30%20%7C%20
Report%20%7C%20Opportunity%20for%20Black%20Men%20and%20
Boys%20%7C%20FINAL.pdf
Pyne, Daniel, John Logan, and Oliver Stone. 1999. Any given Sunday. Directed
by Oliver Stone. Performed by Al Pacino and Jamie Foxx.
Rhoden, William C. 2006. Forty million dollar slaves. New York: Three Rivers
Press.
Spencer, William N. 2011. why can’t we all just get along: A study of interpersonal
relationships in the American Workplace. Indiana, IN: Xlibris, Corp.
Staples, Robert. 1982. Black masculinity: The black male’s role in American society.
San Francisco: The Black Scholar Press.
Third and long: African Americans in pro football 1946–1989. Produced by
Theresa Moore. Performed by Walter III Beach. 2012.
TV Ratings. 2016. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/topic/tv-ratings.
Accessed 01 05, 2016
Whiting, Gilman W., and Thabiti Lewis. 2008. On manliness: Black masculinity
revisited. AmeriQuests 6(1).
Whitley, David. Colin Kaepernick Ushers in an Inked-up NFL Quarterbacking Era.
11 30, 2012. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4351417-colin-
kaepernick-tattoos-49ers-qb-start-alex-smith-stats-contract-draft. Accessed 01
11, 2016
Williams, Lance. 2010. Cultural interventions for reducing violence among young,
African American males. In Social work with African American males: Health,
mental health, and social policy, ed. Waldo E. Johnson, 265–292. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Yancy, George. 2013. Walking while black in the white gaze. The New York Times.
CHAPTER 10
Critical Race Theory and Intercollegiate

Athletics at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities
Joseph N. Cooper, Geremy Cheeks,
and Jafus Kenyatta Cavil
Introduction
Throughout the history of the USA, a majority of the social institutions
(e.g., educational, economic, political, religious, and judicial) were estab-
lished for and maintained by Whites.1 Therefore, these institutions were
(and continue to be) governed by White normative values and all non-White
groups such as Blacks encountered various forms of discrimination, includ-
ing enslavement, lynching, incarceration, disenfranchisement, marginal-
J.N. Cooper (*)

University of Connecticut (UConn), Storrs, CT, USA
e-mail: joseph.cooper@uconn.edu
G. Cheeks
Department of Health and Human Performance, Alabama A&M University,
Normal, AL, USA
J.K. Cavil
Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas Southern University,
Houston, TX, USA

248 J.N. COOPER ET AL.
ization, and exclusion.2 Within the context of postsecondary institutions

and intercollegiate athletic programs, the ideology of White supremacy has
been embedded and promulgated in numerous ways ranging from the ini-
tial exclusion of Blacks from enrollment at Historically White Colleges and
Universities (HWCUs) and/or participation in the NCAA to the historical
and contemporary disparity in access to financial rewards from both the
government (federal and state level) as well as within the current struc-
ture of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Bowl
Championship Series (BCS) corporate sport business model.3
As mentioned earlier, the NCAA was established by a group of leaders
from Ivy League HWCUs in 1906 with the exclusion of HBCUs and Black
representatives (e.g., Black college/university presidents, athletic direc-
tors, coaches, and athletes).4 Consequently, structural arrangements such
as postseason tournament formats, bowl games, and multimillion-dollar
television contracts5 for a comprehensive historical overview of NCAA’s
evolution) primarily benefitted HWCUs and either excluded and/or
significantly disadvantaged limited-resource institutions (LRIs) such as
HBCUs.6 Even today, the NCAA March Madness Tournament and BCS
postseason bowl game formats privilege larger well-funded HWCUs who
can allocate significant sums of money to their recruiting budgets, coaches’
salaries, and state-of-the-art facilities, which greatly contribute to the suc-
cess of their athletic teams and subsequent bids for revenue-generating
slots in these lucrative postseason games.7 Furthermore, both the NCAA
March Madness Tournament and the BCS structure provide more oppor-
tunities for historically White athletic conferences (e.g., Atlantic Coast
Conference [ACC], Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific Athletic Conference [PAC] 12,
Southeastern Conference [SEC], Big East, Conference USA, etc.) largely
due to their strength of schedules (SOSs), whereas LRIs such as HBCUs
are often limited to a single slot (in the case of the NCAA March Madness
Tournament) or none at all (in the case of the BCS bowl game structure).8
This inequitable arrangement (discussed in greater detail in the meso-level
challenges section of this chapter) underscores the prevailing ideology of
White supremacy whereby larger well-funded HWCUs that have benefit-
ted from unjust enrichment continue to reap the benefits of societal and
institutional structures that disregard and exacerbate the systemic racism
and unjust impoverishment facing HBCUs and their athletic programs.9
Thus, in order to engage in a comprehensive analysis of this inequitable
relationship between HBCUs and the NCAA, it is useful to incorporate
critical race theory (CRT) as an analytic tool.10 Originating from the field
of critical legal studies, pioneer CRT scholars Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman,
CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS... 249
and Richard Delgado created a framework that challenged and magnified

the pervasiveness of racism within the US legal system.11 A core premise
of CRT is that race and racism are deeply embedded in US history and
contemporary social institutions, arrangements, and practices. Hence, the
USA and its social institutions were established in and continue to per-
petuate the ideology of White supremacy.12
Decuir and Dixson outlined the core tenets of CRT: (a) (counter) sto-
rytelling, (b) the permanence of racism, (c) Whiteness as property norm,
(d) interest convergence, and (e) the critique of liberalism.13 (Counter)
storytelling is a methodological approach designed to highlight and
empower the voices of individuals who have been historically ignored or
marginalized within discussions or narratives associated with race.14 This
method is also designed to counter and deconstruct dominant narratives
that privilege White normative values, ideas, and beliefs.15 Bell outlined
the permanence of racism tenet when he explained how racism has been
and will continue to be a mitigating factor in the structure of social rela-
tions within the USA.16 The author argued in order to attain racial equity,
stakeholders must first embrace the reality that race and racism are perma-
nent aspects of US society and culture.
The Whiteness as property norm refers to the structural arrangements
of property interests in the USA and focuses on who controls access to
various forms of property such as land, political positions, economic
resources, intellectual property, educational opportunities, and so on.17
The Whiteness as property norm is evident in the fact that Whites consti-
tute a majority of the leadership positions in the USA ranging from con-
gressional positions to postsecondary administrative positions to athletic
director positions in US intercollegiate athletics.18 Interest convergence
posits that dominant groups do not provide benefits or gains to marginal-
ized groups without having their needs or wants met within the arrange-
ment.19 In other words, any advancement of minority groups in the USA
such as Blacks was only made when the interests of dominant Whites
converged with these gains. The integration of talented Black athletes
into large HWCUs in the mid-twentieth century is a prime example of
interest convergence whereby talented Black athletes’ interest in receiving
increased exposure and prospects of attaining a professional sport career
converged with large HWCUs’ interests with exploiting them for ath-
letic revenue generation and institutional prestige.20 CRT also challenges
notions of color blindness, neutrality, and objectivity within the critique
of liberalism tenet.21 Consistent with its basic premise that race and racism
are deeply embedded in the US society, CRT theorists reject any notions
of a postracial society. Within the current analysis, the authors will use the
permanence of racism, Whiteness as property norm, interest convergence,
and the critique of liberalism tenets as analytic tools to examine the rela-
tionship of the macro-, meso-, and micro-level challenges facing HBCU
athletic programs.
Multilevel Challenges Facing HBCUs

The challenges facing HBCU athletic programs in the twenty-first cen-
tury are complex and multilayered, including macro-level/societal (e.g.,
systemic racism, unjust impoverishment, and economic deprivation),22
meso-level/structural inequalities within the current NCAA and BCS
structure (e.g., limited power, influence, financial support),23 and micro-
level/intra-institutional (e.g., high administrative turnover, poor financial
management, limited human resources, and low academic progress rates
[APRs]).24 Within this section, each level of challenges will be outlined
and explained.
Macro-Level Challenges
The Permanence of Racism Since 1619, when the first Black Africans were
brought to the USA and enslaved, racism has been an integral part of
the fabric and interworking of the US culture and structures.25 Feagin
described the historical context and evolution of racial-ethnic relations in
the USA when he said,
… the reality of this whole society being founded on and firmly grounded
in, oppression targeting African Americans (and other Americans of color)
now for several centuries. Given that deep underlying reality of this society,
all racial-ethnic relationships and events, past and present, must be placed
within that racial oppression context in order to be well understood.26
Hence, Feagin argues that systemic racism is at the root of racial inequali-
ties throughout the USA, whereby the culture is shaped by the Eurocentric
worldviews and superior status at the expense of African Americans and all
people of color.27 Feagin also explained how White-controlled institutions
in the US society acquired their wealth and sustainability through unjust
acts of “oppression, genocide, and slavery.”28 Given the fact that Blacks
were viewed as three-fifths of a human when the US constitution was
drafted, it is clear to see the founding fathers of the USA viewed Blacks as
forms of property rather than humans and thus not deserving of having
access to vital resources such as citizenship, ownership of land, political
representation, or economic freedom.29 Feagin explained how this process
manifests itself in the form of unjust enrichment:
The social inheritance mechanisms are disguised to make the intertemporal

inheritance of resources, power, and privilege appear to be fair, when in fact
the white resources, power, and privilege typically represent the long-term
transmission of unjust enrichment across numerous generations of oppres-
sors and oppressed.30
As a result, White-controlled institutions such as postsecondary HWCUs

have been unjustly enriched and Black institutions such as HBCUs have
been unjustly impoverished since their inceptions due to the prevailing
racialized hierarchy in the USA and the social reproduction of inequitable
social, economic, educational, and political relationships.31 Lee and Jones
further articulated this point of unjust impoverishment and the continual
challenges facing HBCUs in the twenty-first century:
Institutions that have been underfunded and underresourced for over 100
years do not just wake up overnight and have what they need in facilities,
infrastructure, and capital to catch up with institutions that have had a 100-
year head start. It would be like running the 100 yard dash with one com-
petitor starting in the locker room while the other starts right at the finish
line.32
Currently, there are 105 HBCUs in the USA and Virgin Islands.33
Between 1998 and 2013, 29 HBCUs have been placed on warning, 20
placed on probation, and 4 have lost their accreditation by the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Despite constituting only
13 % of SACS membership, HBCUs accounted for 25 % of SACS sanc-
tions. Loss of accreditation means students cannot receive federal financial
aid, which in turn negatively impacts HBCU enrollment numbers and
total operating budget. In other words, accreditation has become a tool
in which the White normative standards of success are utilized to measure
HBCUs and thereby perpetuate systemic oppression in higher education.
Hence, the financial challenges facing HBCUs are intricately connected

to the practice of systemic racism in the USA dating back to the early
seventeenth century and continue to manifest in their perpetual unjust
impoverishment.
The Whiteness as Property Norm Even today, HBCUs continue to face a

host of challenges related to their unjust impoverishments such as “dispro-
portionate budget cuts, anemic enrollment figures, a financial aid crisis,
inequitable federal research appropriations and the mere fact that gifted
African-American students have many university options.”34 Using a CRT
approach, the relationship between the predominantly White government
(congressional representatives and governmental officials) and the dispa-
rate impact of federal government cuts on HBCUs reflects the Whiteness
as property norm in action.35 More specifically, consistent with the histori-
cal racial hierarchy in the USA, the White-controlled government contin-
ues to hold the power to determine which institutions have the right to
federal support.
Even though these budget cuts affect limited-resource HWCUs as

well, the lack of representation or regard for HBCU stakeholders in the
decision-making process of these cuts reflects how Whites continue to
perpetuate the Whiteness as property norm. For example, the stricter
standards on credit history for securing Parent Loan for Undergraduate
Students (PLUS) has contributed to over 16,000 students at HBCUs
having to leave school or seek other sources of funding, which in turn
negatively impacts HBCUs bottom line.36 The financial loss from these
changes in PLUS loan standards resulted in an estimated $168 million in
reduced funds to HBCUs.37 These changes coupled with decreasing sup-
port for Title III funding exacerbates the financial challenges for HBCUs
and also contributes to their high presidential and administrative turnover
at HBCUs.38
Along the same lines, alumni giving at HBCUs has been lower than
HWCUs, but this trend can also be attributed to systemic racism whereby
Blacks have had and continue to have limited access to wealth acquisi-
tion (land, home ownership, upward career mobility, etc.) compared to
Whites.39 Only 3 out of the 105 HBCUs in the USA (Howard University,
Spelman College, and Hampton University) have endowments that rank
among the top 300 among US postsecondary institutions.40 Benjamin
Jealous, former president of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP), explained how the closing of St. Paul’s

College was a result of the fact that like many HBCUs they lacked the
wealthy donor-based and extensive endowments.41 The collective impact
of systemic racism in the USA has had a significant impact on the historical
and current financial state of HBCUs.
Critique of Liberalism HBCUs were established with the unique mis-

sion of providing quality educational opportunities to Black Americans
and those who have been historically disadvantaged and excluded from
access to larger well-funded HWCUs.42 Despite claims that the USA is
in a postracial society, the current status of HBCUs highlights how race
and racism continue to stagnate the progress of non-Whites in the USA.43
For example, Gasman described the economic challenges facing HBCUs
as a by-product of their “commitment to serving disadvantaged students
and from the history of underfunding and discrimination that disad-
vantages HBCUs themselves.”44 Using data from the US Department
of Education’s Postsecondary Education Data System, Gasman found
that 90 % of students who attended HBCUs received financial aid in
2006–2007.45 Given their unique mission to provide quality educational
opportunities for underserved populations, they receive less tuition dollars
compared to their more well-funded HWCU peers, which translates into
less operating funds. Gasman also pointed out HBCUs “have received less
funding than other colleges and universities from state and federal govern-
ments, foundations, and corporations,”46 which challenges any notions of
color blindness or neutrality within the US society in terms of equitable
resources for postsecondary institutions irrespective of race.
Meso-Level Challenges
The Whiteness as Property Norm From a historical context, it is important
to recall that the same year the NCAA was founded in 1906, the first Black
athletic conference called the Inter-Scholastic Athletic Association of the
Middle Atlantic States (ISSA) was established.47 Hence, in concert with
arguments from previous race scholars,48 it is clear the NCAA like many
White-controlled institutions in the USA was not created nor currently
structured to benefit Black athletes or HBCUs, but rather designed to
disregard, subjugate, and exploit them. Dr. Dennis Thomas, Mid-Eastern
Athletic Conference (MEAC) Commissioner, captured the sentiment
shared among many HBCU athletic program stakeholders about the cur-
rent state of HBCU athletic programs when he said: “I don’t think if

Alabama or Texas or LSU had been under-funded for a century, they would
be in the position that they are.”49 The history of unjust enrichment of
HWCUs and the unjust impoverishment of HBCUs in a US society that
privileges Whiteness has greatly contributed to the current inequities that
exist today between the institutional types and their athletic programs.50
Within the current NCAA March Madness Tournament and BCS bowl
game structures, there is an inherent inequitable structural arrangement
that situates HBCUs among other non-BCS conference schools and
LRIs as dependent on larger well-funded Division I HWCUs for funding
sources.51 Due to the lack of revenue, several members of the Division
I HBCU conferences have subjected themselves to “guarantee games”52
with the top Division I BCS schools. Lillig defined guarantee games as
“nonconference matches, usually between high-profile, high-ranking
Division I schools from BCS conferences and low-profile, low-ranking
schools from non-BCS conferences.”53 The structure of these guaran-
tee games allows Division I BCS schools to guarantee home victories for
both football and men’s basketball teams by defeating lower-tier Division
I teams such as HBCUs. These games are usually extremely lopsided and
an embarrassment for HBCUs while also serving as a form of entertain-
ment for audiences at the HWCU venues through the performances of
the famous HBCU bands. In exchange, the HBCU athletic programs are
guaranteed a sum of money, which these schools rely on to support the
operation of their athletic programs.54
Despite the conspicuous financial upside of these arrangements, these
guarantee games also create a host of negative outcomes for HBCUs. For
one, this inequitable relationship creates a level of dependency among
HBCUs and ensures that these programs remain disadvantaged compared
to larger and better-funded Division I HWCUs.55 For example, these
big-margin losses lower the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) of the par-
ticipating HBCUs, which further contributes to their struggles in terms
of competing for profitable postseason tournaments. For example, the
MEAC and the Southwestern Athletic Conference (SWAC) (the only two
HBCU Division I conferences) are consistently among the conferences
with the lowest RPIs in the NCAA’s Division I level.56 In fact, the SWAC
had the lowest RPI among all Division I schools for three consecutive
seasons during the mid-2000s. This low RPI decreases the chances of mul-
tiple MEAC and SWAC teams earning higher than a 16th seed for the
multibillion-dollar NCAA March Madness Tournament and thus reduces
the chances of the one or two teams that do secure a birth of advancing
in the tournament, which ultimately minimizes the revenue generating
potential for these schools. Even worse, the RPIs are so low for HBCU
football teams due to their lack of SOS that even if a HBCU football team
went undefeated, they would still not be considered for one of the lucra-
tive BCS bowl games.57
Another consequence of these guarantee games is the psychologi-
cal impact on the players and coaches.58 Former Alcorn State University
basketball player Troy Jackson described in an interview with the
Entertainment and Sport Programming Network (ESPN)’s Dana O’Neill
the team’s psyche after a blowout loss: “You just get beat up mentally … .
You start believing, ‘Man, we can’t win. We’re never going to win a game,’
and it carries over into the conference season. The losing, it just eats at
you.”59 These embarrassing losses not only affect the players temporarily
but also can have a lingering effect on their performance the remainder of
the season as well as the public perception of the institution.60 The trou-
bling arrangement surrounding these games along with the discouraging
outcomes represent a stark contrast from the success and vitality of HBCU
athletic programs pre-assimilation efforts.61
Thus, the structure of the NCAA and BCS is designed to benefit
the top Division I HWCUs, which have benefitted from years of unjust
enrichment compared to the unjust impoverishment experience by
HBCUs.62 From a CRT perspective, the leaders of the NCAA (Presidents
and Athletic Directors at Division I HWCUs) and the BCS (corporate
stakeholders) as a group of dominant Whites in the racial hierarchy in
the USA have a vested interest in persevering their property (also known
as the multibillion-dollar college sport industry, which has largely been
funded on the backs of Black athletes),63 limiting the rights of economic
profitability to a select number of Division I HWCUs’ athletic depart-
ments and corporate stakeholders, and denying access to various smaller
LRIs such as HBCUs.
Interest convergence As stated earlier, prior to the 1960s, a majority of

Black athletes attended HBCUs.64 Bill Hayes, former Athletics Director
at NCCU, described the trend when he said: “There was no such thing
as a top black student-athlete going to North Carolina, South Carolina or
Clemson or Virginia Tech.”65 The decline in athletic prowess at HBCUs
can be attributed to what CRT theorists describe as interest convergence.66
Rather than fully integrating or collaborating with Black-operated sport
organizations such as the famous Negro Leagues and HBCU athletics

programs, larger well-funded predominantly White organizations like US
professional sport organizations and the NCAA began to extract talented
Black athletes away from these Black-operated entities.67 Instead of true
integration taking place, forced assimilation and athletic exploitation were
established as the normative protocol for Blacks and Black-operated insti-
tutions. In fact, a predominantly White intercollegiate athletic governing
body, the National Association for Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), did
not begin admitting HBCUs until 1953.68 It took over a decade after this
effort for the NCAA to follow suit in 1965.69 Thus, reflecting the notion
that these organizations primarily sought the talent of Black athletes and
were less interested in creating a more equitable and symbiotic relation-
ship with HBCUs (both economically and athletically).
Moreover, the primary interest for assimilating talented Black athletes

to HWCUs and away from HBCUs had little to do with the betterment
of Black athletes’ educational opportunities or personal development.
Rather, these recruitment efforts were primarily driven by HWCUs’ inter-
est in producing successful athletic teams, increasing athletic revenue, and
enhancing institutional prestige.70 It is suggested that without the stand-
out accomplishments of Black athletes such as the all-Black starting five
for the Texas Western College (now the University of Texas El Paso) 1966
national championship team that defeated Adolph Rupp’s University of
Kentucky Wildcats and Sam “Bam” Cunningham’s (Black running back
for the University of Southern California [USC]) miraculous two touch-
downs and over 100 yards in the team’s win against Bear Bryant’s formida-
ble all-White University of Alabama football team in 1970, many HWCUs
would have continued to overlook talented Black athletes.71 Furthermore,
the impetus of recruiting Black athletes was primarily focused on exploit-
ing their athletic abilities with no regard for the impact these efforts would
have on HBCUs. Since HWCUs began recruiting and successfully retain-
ing talented Black athletes, HBCUs have struggled to compete with their
new competitors who possess more facilities, scholarship dollars, recruit-
ing budgets, and television exposure.72
The Permanence of Racism The fact that the NCAA is largely managed by
White males who have ties to large Division I HWCUs and the seemingly
“color blind” or neutral academic standards have had a disparate impact
on HBCUs reflects the permanence of racism with the NCAA structure
and organizational practices. For example, HBCU athletic programs per-
sistently post the lowest APRs and graduation success rates (GSRs) among
Division I institutions.73 In 2009–2010, HBCUs accounted for nearly
one-third (33 of the 103) of the Division I institutions penalized for low
APRs.74 In 2012, HBCUs accounted for nearly 50 % (13 out of 27) of the
institutions that received level-one and level-three APR penalties (NCAA
2012). Mississippi Valley State University (men’s basketball), University
of Arkansas Pine Bluff (men’s basketball), Hampton University (football),
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (football),
and Texas Southern University (football) were all banned from postseason
play for the 2012–2013 season due to low APRs.75 In addition, the fact
that the NCAA’s academic standards do not take into account the unique
educational missions of institutions such as HBCUs or fully take into con-
sideration the reasons why some student athletes leave an institution76 is
problematic and reveals the lack of awareness of the perpetual impacts of
systemic racism, seemingly color-blind policies, and widespread inequities
among US institutions of higher education.
Micro-Level Challenges
The Permanence of Racism Within the NCAA, HBCUs constitute a dis-
proportionate number of LRIs.77 For example, citing data from a USA
Today report, Gaither highlighted how seven of the ten Division I public
schools ranked at the bottom of total operating dollars for athletic depart-
ment rankings were HBCUs.78 An example of this disparity is the differ-
ence between the revenue generated over a five-year period by Coppin
State University (Division I HBCU) and the University of Texas (Division
I PWI), $3.5 million and $150 million, respectively.79 In fact, for the 2006
fiscal year, Delaware State was the only HBCU that ranked in the top
200 (out of 331) for Division I athletic budgets and the median ranks
for athletic and recruiting budgets for Division I HBCUs was 278 and
282, respectively.80 As mentioned earlier, the structural arrangement and
revenue allocation process with the NCAA and BCS exacerbates the per-
sistent economic disparity between larger Division I HWCUs and smaller
Division I HBCUs and reflects the permanence of racism tenet.
The limited financial resources and inadequate support for athletic

facilities and programs has forced college athletes and institutional leaders
to take drastic steps to bring about change. For example, the poor ath-
letic facilities at many HBCUs were brought to the national forefront in
October 2013 when members of the Grambling State University football

team decided not to attend practice or participate in the team’s next sched-
uled game versus Jackson State University in an effort to bring attention
to the school’s dilapidated athletic facilities, poor traveling conditions, as
well as the team’s discontent with the firing of their previous head coach
(Coach Doug Williams).81 In other instances, some HBCUs have decided
to cut their entire athletic programs to improve their financial status. For
example, Paul Quinn College (TX) discontinued their football program
in September 2007 to cut expenses. After the football program was dis-
solved, the school transformed the football field into an agricultural farm,
which over a two-year period converted a $600,000 football expense into
a six figure plus revenue generator for school due in large part to major
food clients such as the Legends Hospitality group at the Dallas Cowboys
Stadium.82 The revenue generated from the “WE over Me Farm”83 con-
tributes to academic scholarships for Paul Quinn students. Spelman
College is another example of an HBCU that chose to dissolve its athletic
program due to financial pressures.84 Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum, Spelman
College President, decided to use the $1 million spent on their athletics
program that served roughly 4 % of their student body (80 students) for
a campus-wide health and fitness facilities and program. Since HBCUs
only account for roughly 3 % of US institutions of higher education and
less than 10 % of NCAA member institutions, it is alarming that the few
HBCUs that do offer athletic programs (which have been found to benefit
Black college athletes’ academic outcomes)85 are struggling to keep their
programs afloat largely due to the disparate racial inequities within the
USA and the NCAA.86
Interest Convergence Along the same lines, several HBCU leaders, includ-
ing presidents and athletic directors, cite a lack of resources (fiscal, finan-
cial, and human) and high administrative turnover at their institutions
among the primary reasons for their persistently low APRs.87 Duer Sharp,
SWAC Commissioner, described the unique challenges facing HBCUs in
regard to the high administrative turnover when he said,
To effect change, there has to be a directive from the president or chancel-

lor. But with the turnover, you never get that directive … It really makes
it difficult when you don’t have that constant voice from the top asking,
‘Where are we on APR?’ When you get a new president coming in, they’ve
got 800 things on their plate.88
In response to these challenges, the NCAA’s Committee on Academic

Performance (CAP) has instituted two large academic support initiatives
for LRIs such as HBCUs.89 One of these initiatives is the NCAA Division
Academic Performance Program Supplemental Support Fund (SSF). The
SSF is a competitive grant proposal program that awards funds to LRIs
that present innovative solutions to enhancing the student athlete reten-
tion rate and progress toward degree rates at their institutions. Eligible
LRIs must be in the lowest 10 % of resources as measured by per capita
institutional expenditures, per capita athletics department funding, and
per capita Pell Grant Aid for the student body. The SSF allows funds to
be used for professional development opportunities for academic support
staff, student athlete financial aid support for summer bridge and sum-
mer school programs, among a host of other student athlete academic
support-related causes.
Another NCAA-issued program is the LRI Pilot Program. This pro-
gram offers up to $300,000 of funding for schools that present a com-
prehensive APR improvement plan and meet benchmarks over a period
of three years. Similar to the SSF, awarded LRIs can use these funds for
various student athlete academic support efforts ranging from hiring aca-
demic support staff to purchasing academic support equipment. Awarded
LRIs for the pilot program must also fulfill a list of requirements including
attendance to the annual NCAA convention, provide routine program-
matic audits, present annual financial reports, participate in monthly con-
ference calls, receive regular campus visits by NCAA, among other similar
tasks to ensure funds are being spent appropriately and benchmarks are
being met.90
The creation of both the SSF and the LRI Pilot Program illustrate the
interest convergence tenet whereby the NCAA’s interest of enhancing
their public perception, in wake of increasing scrutiny over their educa-
tional purpose and athletic commercialization practices,91 intersect with
HBCUs’ desire to receive financial support to meet their academic and
athletic goals. Despite the benefits associated with these efforts, the funds
allocated through the SSF and LRI Pilot program pale in comparison to
the multibillion dollar profits generated and awarded to larger HWCUs
for their participation in the NCAA March Madness Tournament and BCS
bowl games.92 As a result, the well-intentioned efforts associated with the
SSF and LRI Pilot programs fall significantly short of leveling the playing
field for HBCUs and HWCUs and disrupting the economic inequalities
between the two institutional types as produced by years of unjust enrich-

ment and unjust impoverishment.93
In light of these multilevel challenges, the authors posit the best way to
address these issues is to learn from the rich history and legacy of HBCU
athletic programs, which provides a guide for a way forward for HBCUs
to retain their vitality and prominence as successful self-sustaining inter-
collegiate athletic programs. More specifically, the subsequent section pro-
vides a detailed overview of the unique role of HBCU athletic programs
as sites of Black cultural empowerment. Following the aforementioned
section, the authors will introduce Dr. J. Kenyatta Cavil’s Ten Pillars for
Active Engagement for Sport Leadership & Administration in Creating
Athletic Organizational Success & Sustainability and a proposed secession
plan for HBCUs to be liberated from the current oppressive structure of
the NCAA.
Dr. Cavil’s Ten Pillars

Dr. J. Kenyatta Cavil’s Ten Pillars for Active Engagement for Sport
Leadership & Administration in Creating Athletic Organizational Success
& Sustainability is based on ten years of academic research, empirical stud-
ies, and practical application.94 The Ten Pillars are strategies for organiza-
tional transformation with a specific analysis of HBCU athletic programs.
The Ten Pillars are aligned with Charles McClelland’s study on identifying
variables athletic directors perceived as determinants for an HBCU ath-
letic program’s potential for effectiveness in the current NCAA Division I
Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) structure through their leader-
ship.95 The instruments used in the aforementioned study assess learning,
leadership, and perception of the effectiveness that may assist in the iden-
tification of relationships in active engagement for sports leadership and
administration relative to athletic organizational strengths and weaknesses
for success and sustainability.96
Although many studies of organizational leadership have been con-
ducted, the organizational leadership being analyzed is so complex that
it is necessary to explore perceptions of effectiveness, success, and sus-
tainability beyond the work that has been done to this point. Cavil and
McClelland’s work on predictive cognitive scores and leadership percep-
tion of variables determining the effectiveness of administering HBCU
athletic programs in leaders and organizations expands understanding of
success and sustainability building.97 The authors emphasize the impor-
tance of revenue-generating leaders who, because of their leadership per-

ception, develop relationships inside and outside their organizations. The
Ten Pillars are strategies that may be useful to athletic directors and oth-
ers engaged in planning for the success and sustainability of athletics at
HBCUs.98 Dr. Cavil consolidates his work on the Ten Pillars into two pri-
mary domains—five under internal pillars of engagement and five under
external pillars of engagement:
Internal Pillars of Engagement

• Academic alignment
• Athletic compliance
• Corporate fundraising/Capital campaigns
• Media solutions/Event management
• Alumni activation/Community engagement
External Pillars of Engagement

• Critical evaluation/Continuous improvement
• Strategic planning /Tactical analytics
• Shared vision/Shared governance
• System thinking/Operational practices
• Personal mastery/Team building
The internal and external pillars of engagements are current business

concepts amalgamated into strategies for sport business leaders in an
extremely competitive, resource deprived, and highly regulated organi-
zations such as HBCU athletic programs. In this model, the first of five
internal pillars of engagements is academic alignment, which is the match-
ing of educational and athletic components that strengthens the goals of
the overall organization’s mission, vision, values, goals, and indicators for
leadership brand opportunity. Athletic compliance is a component of rules
and bylaws for operating procedures with the organization based on ath-
letic competition governance.
Corporate fundraising and capital campaign are the connection
between organizational current operational costs and forecasting needs
for athletic goals. Media solutions and event management are the partner-
ship between production services to maximize exposure and the process of
creating, planning, and orchestrating the direction of athletic events. The
final internal pillar of engagement is the alumni activation and community

engagement components that are defined as establishing the relationship
between the process of validating relationships among alumni constituents
and the process of consistently working with community groups for ath-
letic initiatives.
The Ten Pillars model also includes the five external pillars of engage-
ments. The critical evaluation and continuous improvement components
are defined as the development of tools that provide the ability to con-
tinuously improve on key athletic process indicators with critical evalu-
ation of the enterprise and individuals within the organization. Another
component involves strategic planning and tactical analytics, which are
concepts that involve understanding the long range objectives and the
actions needed to make progress in an athletic department as well as the
ability to analyze data to discover meaningful patterns to create decision
criteria. Shared vision is discipline along with shared governance, which
is the partnership between individuals within the athletic organization of
envisioning possibilities of future opportunities for all stakeholders. The
concepts of system thinking and operational practices are additional plat-
forms that provide alignment of interrelated components and the ability
to conform to processes in the athletic organization. The final external
pillar of engagement is personal mastery and team building discipline
components that are the partnership between individuals and teams that
include the ability of an individual to maintain their internal stability while
understanding the current athletic organizational climate regarding mem-
bers operating in interdependent teams for athletic success and sustain-
ability. The pillars are not designed to be followed in any particular order.
In a sport organization, the framework can be thought of as similar to the
foundation of a building. It is necessary for all the areas of support to be
established and reinforced to make the building strong and not collapse
when internal or external forces are involved. Therefore, the goal of Dr.
Cavil’s Ten Pillars framework is to focus the organization’s attention on
the areas that are key components to success and sustainability after ana-
lyzing the current status of HBCU athletics programs.
HBCU Secession as a Pathway to Success

Building on Dr. Cavil’s Ten Pillars framework, the aim of the proposed
secession plan seeks to address what Floyd Kerr, legendary coach and
current Athletic Director at Morgan State University, suggested as the
need for smart business models that allow HBCU athletic programs to
fund themselves rather than depend on donors or state legislatures.99
Kerr has credibility given his track record of increasing sponsorship dol-
lars and building a $2.4 million video system at A.W. Mumford Stadium
at Southern University (LA).100 Given the dismal financial trends experi-
enced by Division I HBCUs, many HBCU stakeholders have argued that
HBCU athletic programs are better suited for Division II, which does
not require schools to sponsor as many sports as Division I as well as they
can operate with smaller budgets rather than competing in the seemingly
endless arms race found at the Division I level.101 In other words, the
authors share the sentiments of the previous Alabama Agricultural and
Mechanical (A&M) University Men’s Basketball Coach, Vann Pettaway,
when he described his feelings about SWAC teams participating in embar-
rassing guarantee games: “If all of us need money that bad, then maybe
we shouldn’t be Division I.”102
Building on this idea as a starting point, the authors propose a two-step
secession plan for enhancing the sustainability, collectivism, and vitality of
HBCU athletic programs. The first step of the secession plan would involve
the MEAC and the SWAC relinquishing their current Division I status and
moving to the NCAA’s Division II level. Once this transition occurs, the
49 schools and 62 athletic teams that make up the MEAC, SWAC, SIAC,
and CIAA should coalesce to increase the number of inter-HBCU athletic
contests. For example, each of these conferences already hosts a plethora
of classics (e.g., Bayou Classic, Atlanta Classic, Aggie-Eagle Classic, etc.)
and basketball tournaments (e.g., CIAA, MEAC, SIAC, and SWAC tour-
naments) that generate significant revenues for their programs.103 These
contests could be held at current HBCU classic locations such as Houston
(TX), Atlanta (GA), Charlotte (NC), Memphis (TN), New Orleans, (LA),
Orlando (FL), and Washington (DC). Additional locations such as St.
Louis (MO), Chicago (IL), New York (NY), Richmond (VA), and various
cities throughout the USA could be considered as host sites. These events
could also be coordinated and/or dually promoted with other major
African Diaspora events such as annual Pan-Hellenic anniversary celebra-
tions, the famous Essence Festival in New Orleans (LA), the New Orleans
Jazz Festival, and so on. Armstrong (2008) identified the following five
themes associated with Blacks’ attendance to HBCU athletic events: (a)
Black cultural symbolism, (b) family appeal, (c) social interactions, (d)
promotions, and (e) entertainment. HBCU athletic events today are filled
with various social activities connected to the event such as pageants,
step shows, music concerts, and band competitions.104 Collectively, these

events reflect the unique connection between “school pride, cultural cel-
ebration, and athletic tradition.”105
Moreover, the goal would be to build a collective brand associated with
these HBCU athletic events to enhance the revenue generation for all
participating institutions through ticket sales, sponsorships, business-to-
business transactions, multimedia rights, merchandise sales, and television
contracts. Lillig offered a series of ideas such as the hosting of an annual
preseason HBCU Invitational Basketball Tournament in November and
December, increasing the number of third-party HBCU sporting events
(e.g., classics, tournaments, etc.), and expanding contract strategies asso-
ciated with these events.106 Regarding the HBCU Invitational Basketball
Tournament, Lillig suggested this tournament could be held in the begin-
ning of basketball season November and December similar to the cur-
rent preseason National Invitation Tournament (NIT) held in Madison
Square Garden in New York City.107 However, the HBCU Invitational
Tournament could be held in a traditional HBCU classic location such as
Atlanta (GA), New Orleans (LA), or Houston (TX). The author recom-
mended this event be coordinated on the same weekends as the HBCU
football classics that take place during the month of November. These
games would replace the current guarantee games HBCU basketball
teams participate in to secure funds for their athletic programs. These
events could also have their own identities such as “The HBCU National
Championship” or “The HBCU Final Four.”108
In addition, Lillig cited the Big Apple Classic (basketball) in New York
City and the Circle City Classics (football) in Indianapolis, Indiana, as
contract models for HBCU athletic programs to build upon.109 Within
these contracts, third-party promoters assist with the organization, pro-
motion, and hosting of the event. Additional stipulations on the con-
tract for these athletic contests include the third party’s support of the
traditional HBCU homecoming/classic events or cultural programming
(e.g., cultural empowering workshops, step shows, battle of bands events,
community outreach, etc.) as well as monies earmarked for specific pro-
grams (e.g., athletic teams, scholarships, academic support programs,
general university funds, etc.). In contrast to the disparaging outcomes
of guarantee games, these HBCU controlled events would return these
programs back to their rich legacy of pride and success as well as enhance
their “image, educational missions, and goodwill.”110 Another major com-
ponent of these arrangements could include mandatory pre-event, dur-
ing the event, and post-event meetings among participating institutions,

conference leaders, sponsors, and organizers to ensure maximum collabo-
ration, communication, and consistency. Pre-event meetings could consist
of discussions regarding the order of events and logistical plans. During
the event, meetings could focus on short-term evaluations and managing
any emerging issues. Post-evaluation meetings could focus on maintain-
ing, strengthening, and expanding partnerships to ensure the longevity
and expansion of these annual events.
Along with the increased revenue streams, improved facilities and
resources could lead to more successful recruiting. Attracting the elite-
level athletes was a formula for success prior to the 1960s for HBCUs. It
currently serves as the life line for large HWCUs in the BCS era, and could
also serve as a foundation for revitalization and sustainability for HBCU
athletic programs in the twenty-first century.111 Furthermore, with the
four major HBCU conferences competing at the same level, they could
arrange their own postseason tournaments such as the legendary Prairie
View Bowl and Orange Blossom Bowl of the early and mid-twentieth cen-
tury.112 If non-HBCU conferences wanted to compete, then they would
be able to compete since segregation is not the aim of this plan. However,
the organizing body of this structure would be HBCU presidents and
athletic directors rather than Division I HWCU presidents and athletic
directors who are content with maintaining and exacerbating the NCAA
status quo, which disadvantages LRIs like current Division I HBCU mem-
ber schools.113
The second and final step of the secession plan would involve HBCU
athletic programs breaking off to form their own governing body. Similar
to the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) or even
the idea of the BCS schools breaking off to form their own association,
the authors believe HBCUs and other LRIs with similar missions should
form their own governing body with a structure and policies that cater to
their unique educational missions and institutional needs. We argue that
there is enough strength among the number of HBCU athletic programs
between the four major HBCU athletic conferences as well as the host of
HBCUs who are not affiliated with the current HBCU athletic confer-
ences114 to attain self-sustainability. Although the authors recognize com-
prehensive economic feasibility studies would need to be conducted prior
to carrying out this plan such as the one outlined in Cavil’s study,115 the
proposed idea is a starting point for HBCU leaders to consider moving
forward. The significant challenges facing HBCUs are as pressing in the
twenty-first century as ever, and the threat to dissolve athletic programs

is increasing within the current economic climate (e.g., Paul Quinn and
Spelman College examples provided earlier). Hence, HBCU leaders,
including presidents, athletic directors, and conference commissioners,
must engage in creative and innovative business strategies to improve the
financial plight of their athletic programs. It is our hope the proposed
secession plan generates even more meaningful and substantive dialogue
on this important issue and serves as a blueprint to the path of liberation
from the oppressive structure of the NCAA to a place of self-sustainability,
uplift, and collective interdependence among HBCU athletic programs.
Notes
1. DuBois, W. E. B., The Souls of Black Folk (New York: Dover, 1994);
Carter Goodwin Woodson, The Mis-education of the Negro
(Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1990).
2. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk; Derrick A. Bell, Faces at the Bottom
of the Well: The Permanence of Racism (New York, NY: Basic
Books, 1992); John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, From
Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans (New York, NY:
Alfred A. Knolf, 1988); Woodson, The Mis-education of the Negro.
3. Othello Harris, “African American Predominance in Sport” in
Racism in College Athletics: The African American Athlete’s
Experience, ed. by Dana Brooks and Ronald Althouse, 2nd ed.
(Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2000),
37–52; S. R. Hodge, R. A. Bennett III, and F. G. Collins,
“Historically Black Colleges and Universities’ Athletes and Sport
Programs: Historical Overview, Evaluations, and Affiliations,” in
Racism in College Athletics, ed. Dana Brooks and Ronald Althouse
(Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2013),
63–104; S. R. Hodge et al., “Brown in Black and White—Then
and Now: A Question of Educating or Sporting African American
Males in America,” American Behavioral Scientist 51, no. 7
(2008): 928–52; John Lillig, “‘Magic’ or misery?: HBCUs,
Guarantee Contracts, and Public Policy,” Journal of Sports Law &
Contemporary Problems 6, no. 41 (2009): 41–71; Patrick B. Miller,
“To Bring the Race Along Rapidly: Sport, Student Culture, and
Educational Mission at Historically Black Colleges during the
Interwar Years,” History of Education Quarterly 35 (1995):
111–33; David K. Wiggins, “Critical Events Affecting Racism in

Athletics,” in Racism in College Athletics: The African American
Athlete’s Experience, ed. Dana Brooks and Ronald Althouse, 2nd
ed. (Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2000),
15–36; David K. Wiggins and Patrick B. Miller, The Unlevel
Playing Field: A Documentary History of the African-American
Experience in Sport (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2003).
4. Walter Byers, Unsportsmanship Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes
(Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Chicago Press, 1995); Hodge,
Bennett, and Collins, “Historically Black Colleges.”
5. Byers, Unsportsmanship Conduct.
6. Wiggins, “Critical Events.”
7. Lillig, “‘Magic’ or Misery.”
8. Ibid.
9. Joe R. Feagin, Systematic Racism: A Theory of Oppression (New
York: Routledge, 2006); Wiggins, “Critical Events”; Wiggins and
Miller, The Unlevel Playing Field.
10. Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well; Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping
the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence
against Women of Color,” in Critical Race Theory: The Key
Writings That Formed the Movement, ed. Kimberle Crenshaw, Neil
Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas (New York, NY: The
New Press, 1995), 357–83; Jessica D. Decuir and Adrienne
D. Dixson, “‘So When It Comes Out, They Aren’t That Surprised
That It Is There’: Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis
of Race and Racism in Education,” Educational Researcher 33, no.
5 (2004): 26–31; Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic, Critical
Race Theory: An Introduction (New York, NY: New York University
Press, 2001); Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate IV,
“Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education,” Teachers College
Record 97, no. 1 (1995): 47–68.
12. Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well; Crenshaw, “Mapping the
Margins.”
13. Decuir and Dixson, “So When It Comes Out.”
15. Daniel G. Solórzano and Tara J. Yosso, “Critical Race Methodology:
Counter-storytelling as an Analytical Framework for Education
Research,” Qualitative Inquiry 8, no. 1 (2002): 23–44.

17. Decuir and Dixson, “So When It Comes Out”; Harris, “African
American Predominance in Sport.”
18. Joseph N. Cooper, “Personal Troubles and Public Issues: A
Sociological Imagination of Black Athletes’ Experiences at
Historically White Colleges and Universities in the United States,”
Sociology Mind 2, no. 3 (2012): 261–71.
20. Cooper, “Personal Troubles and Public Issues”; Jamel K. Donnor,
“Towards an Interest-Convergence in the Education of African-
American Football Student Athletes in Major College Sports,”
Race, Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 1 (2005): 45–67; Harry
Edwards, “Crisis of Black Athletes on the Eve of the 21st Century,”
Society 37, no. 3 (2000): 9–12; Harris, “African American
Predominance in Sport”; Hodge, Collins, and Bennett, “The
Journey of the Black Athlete”; Hodge et al., “Brown in Black and
White.”
21. Decuir and Dixson, “So When It Comes Out.”
22. Feagin, Systematic Racism; Marybeth Gasman, “Historically Black
Colleges and Universities in a Time of Economic Crisis: How
Have HBCUs Responded to the Current Crisis?,” American
Association of University Professors, http://www.aaup.org/arti-
cle/historically-black-colleges-and-universities-time-economic-
crisis#.U2JxV00U-Uk (accessed May 23, 2014); Dianne Hayes,
“HBCU Presidents at a New Crossroads,” Diverse Issues in
Higher Education, http://diverseeducation.com/article/57130/
(accessed May 23, 2014); John Michael Lee and Sumaad Keys,
Repositioning HBCUs for the Future: Access, Success, Research, &
Innovation, APLU Office of Access and Success Discussion Paper
2013-01 (Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities, 2013).
23. Steven J. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides, HBCUs and NCAA-
recognized Athletic Conferences Face Challenges,” Diverse Issues
in Higher Education, http://diverseeducation.com/arti-
cle/50844/ (accessed May 23, 2014); Hodge, Bennett, and
Collins, “Historically Black Colleges”; Hodge et al., “Brown in
Black and White”; Michelle Brutlag Hosick, “NCAA Working
with HBCUs to Clear APR Barriers,” NCAA, http://fs.ncaa.org/
Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2011/may/ncaa%2Bworking%2Bwit
h%2Bhbcus%2Bto%2Bclear%2Bapr%2Bbar riersdf30.html
(accessed May 23, 2014); Melvin Norman Johnson, “Financial
and Related Issues among Historically Black Colleges and
Universities,” Journal of Intercollegiate Sport 6 (2013): 65–75;
Lillig, “‘Magic’ or Misery”; Charles Franklin McClelland, “Athletic
Directors’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of HBCU Division
I-AA Athletic Programs” (PhD diss., Texas A&M University,
1995); Lacy Reynolds, Dwalah Fisher, and Javus Kenyatta Cavil,
“Impact of Demographic Variables on African-American Student
Athletes’ Academic Performance,” Educational Foundations 26,
no. 3 (2012): 93–111; Wiggins, “Critical Events.”
24. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides”; Hosick, “NCAA Working with
HBCUs”; Johnson, “Financial and Related Issues.”
25. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk; Feagin, Systematic Racism;
Woodson, The Mis-education of the Negro.
26. Feagin, Systematic Racism, 7.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., 9.
29. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk; Woodson, The Mis-education of
the Negro.
30. Feagin, Systematic Racism, 37.
31. Feagin, Systematic Racism.
32. Lee and Keys, Repositioning HBCUs, 29.
33. U.S. Department of Education, “White House Initiative on
Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” U.S. Department of
Education, http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/whhbcu/one-hundred-
and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ (accessed
May 23, 2014).
34. Hayes, “HBCU Presidents,” 1.
35. Decuir and Dixson, “So When It Comes Out”; Harris, “African
American Predominance in Sport.”
36. Lee and Keys, Repositioning HBCUs.
37. Ibid.
38. Gasman, “Historically Black Colleges and Universities”; Hayes,
“HBCU Presidents”; Lee & Keys, Repositioning HBCUs.
40. Gasman, “Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”
41. Hayes, “HBCU Presidents.”
42. Walther Recharde Allen and Joseph O. Jewel, “A Backward Glance

Forward: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives on Historically
Black Colleges and Universities,” Review of Higher Education 25,
no. 3 (2002): 241–61; Louis B. Gallien Jr. and Marshalita
S. Peterson, Instructing and Mentoring the African- American
College Student: Strategies for Success in Higher Education (Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005).
43. Lee and Keyes, Repositioning HBCUs.
44. Gasman, “Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” 1.
45. Ibid.
46. Gasman, “Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” 1.
47. J. Borican, “The Role of the Negro Colleges,” In Negro Firsts in
Sports, ed. A. S. Young (Chicago, IL: Johnson Publishing
Company, Inc., 1963), 88–97.
48. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk; Feagin, Systematic Racism;
Woodson, The Mis-education of the Negro.
49. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides,” 1.
51. (Johnson, “Financial and Related Issues”; Lillig, “‘Magic’ or
Misery.”
52. Lillig, “‘Magic’ or Misery,” 46.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
58. O’Neil, “Alcorn State Facing Constant Battles as Division I Have-
not,” ESPN, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?
columnist=oneil_dana&id=3221302 (accessed May 23, 2014)
59. Ibid., 1.
61. Hodge, Collins, & Bennett, “The Journey of the Black Athlete”;
Dan Klores, Black magic [Documentary] (United States:
Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) and
Shoot the Moon Productions, 2008); Wiggins and Miller, The
Unlevel Playing Floor.
63. Billy Hawkins, The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports,
and Historically White Colleges/Universities (New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
64. Miller, “To Bring the Race Along”; Wiggins, “Critical Events.”
65. Bomani Jones, “Progress, Yes But HBCUs Paid the Price for it,”
ESPN, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blackhistory2007/
news/story?id=2780876 (accessed May 23, 2014), 1.
67. Hodge, Collins, and Bennett, “The Journey of the Black Athlete”;
Hodge et al., “Black in Brown and White”; Wiggins, “Critical
Events.”
68. Hodge, Bennett, and Collins, “Historically Black Colleges”; Roger
B. Saylor, “Black College Football,” College Football Historical
Society XIII, no. III (2000): 4–7.
69. Hodge, Bennett, and Collins, “Historically Black Colleges.”
70. Donnor, “Towards an Interest-Convergence”; Edwards, “Crisis of
Black Athletes”; Hodge et al., “Brown in Black and White.”
71. Hodge, Collins, and Bennett, “The Journey of the Black Athlete.”
72. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides”; Jones, “Progress, Yes”; Lillig,
“‘Magic’ or Misery?”; Wiggins, “Critical Events.”
73. McClelland, “Athletic Directors’ Perceptions”; Reynolds, Fisher,
and Cavil, “Impact of Demographic Variables on African-American
Student Athletes’ Academic Performance,” Educational
Foundations 26, no. 3 (2012): 93–111.
74. Hosick, “NCAA Working with HBCUs.”
75. NCAA, “Most Division I Teams Deliver Top Grades,” NCAA,
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/
most-division-i-teams-deliver-top-grades (accessed May 23,
2014).
76. It has been well documented as a primary reason why students do
not finish at HBCUs is due to a lack of financial resources (Gasman,
“Historically Black Colleges and Universities”; Hayes, “HBCU
Presidents”; Johnson, “Financial and Related Issues”; Lee & Keys,
Repositioning HBCUs) as opposed to a lack of interest in graduat-
ing or experiences with a negative campus climate as identified
with Black college athletes at HWCUs (Cooper, “ Personal
Troubles”; Donnor, “Towards an Interest-Convergence”;
Hawkins, The New Plantation).
77. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides”; Hosick, “NCAA Working with

HBCUs”; Johnson, “Financial and Related Issues.”
78. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides.”
79. Ibid.
80. Jones, “Progress, Yes.”
81. Sean Isabella and Daniel Uthman, “After Grambling Player Revolt,
Game at Jackson State Canceled,” USA Today, http://www.usa-
today.com/story/sports/ncaaf/swac/2013/10/18/grambling-
tigers-bus-jackson-state-game-boycott/3010079/ (accessed May
23, 2014).
82. Eric Adelson, “Saying No to Football Paid Off for One Small
Texas College Thanks in Part to the Cowboys,” Yahoo Sports,
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--how-one-small-texas-
college-made-money-by-saying-no-to-football-065751785.html
(accessed May 23, 2014).
83. Ibid., 1.
84. The Associated Press, “Spelman College Chooses Fitness over
Athletics,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/
college/2012/11/01/spelman-college-ncaa-division-iii-
dispands-athletics-for-wellness/1676311/ (accessed May 23,
2014).
85. Joseph N. Cooper and Billy Hawkins, “A Place of Opportunity:
Black Male Student Athletes’ Experiences at a Historically Black
University,” Journal of Intercollegiate Sport 5 (2012): 170–88;
Joseph N. Cooper, “A Culture of Collective Uplift: The Influence
of a Historically Black College/University on Black Male Student
Athletes,” Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 6 (2013):
306–31; Hodge, Collins, and Bennett, “The Journey of the Black
Athlete”; Klores, Black Magic.
86. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides”; Jones, “Progress, Yes.”
87. Hosick, “NCAA Working with HBCUs.”
88. Ibid., 1.
89. Johnson, “Financial and Related Issues.”
91. Byers, Unsportsmanship Conduct; Hawkins, The New Plantation.
92. Hawkins, The New Plantation; Lillig, “‘Magic’ or Misery?”
94. McClelland, “Athletic Directors’ Perceptions”; Javus Kenyatta
Cavil, “The Case for Tennessee State University as an Expansion
Member of the SWAC: Economic Impact,” in Essays on Race and

Sports, ed. J. L. Conyers, Jr. (McFarland & Company, Inc., 2013);
Javus Kenyatta Cavil and C. F. McClelland, “Athletic Directors’
Leadership Perceptions of Variables Determining the Effectiveness
of Administering HBCU Athletic Programs,” Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the 2013 TSU Research Week (Houston,
TX, 2013).
95. McClelland, “Athletic Directors’ Perceptions.”
96. Ibid.; Cavil, “The Case for Tennessee State University”; Cavil and
McClelland, “Athletic Directors’ Leadership Perceptions.”
97. Cavil and McClelland, “Athletic Directors’ Leadership
Perceptions.”
98. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Gaither, “Despite Great Strides.”
102. Andy Glockner, “SWAC Schools Tired of Guaranteed-game

Blowouts,” ESPN, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/
story?id=2987875 (accessed May 23, 2014), 1.
103. Ketra L. Armstrong, “Black Consumers’ Spending and Historically
Black College Events: The Marketing Implications,” Sport
Marketing Quarterly 10, no. 2 (2001): 102–11; Ketra
L. Armstrong, “Consumers of Color and the “Culture” of Sport
Attendance: Exploratory Insights,” Sport Marketing Quarterly 17
(2008): 218–31.
104. Eric Moore, “Black College Football Classic Games: A Taste of the
HBCU Athletic Experience,” http://www.collegeview.com/arti-
cles/article/black-college-football-classic-games (accessed May
23, 2014).
105. Lillig, “‘Magic’ or Misery?,” 45.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid.
108. Lillig, “‘Magic’ or Misery?,” 68.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid., 71.
112. Saylor, “Black College Football.”
114. See Hodge Bennett, and Collins, “Historically Black Colleges” for
an extensive list.
115. Cavil, “The Case for Tennessee State University.”
Bibliography
Adelson, Eric. Saying no to football paid off for one small Texas college thanks in
part to the cowboys. Yahoo Sports. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--
h o w - o n e - s m a l l - t e x a s - c o l l e g e - m a d e - m o n e y - b y - s a y i n g - n o - t o -
football-065751785.html. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Allen, Walter Recharde, and Joseph O. Jewel. 2002. A backward glance forward:
Past, present, and future perspectives on fistorically black colleges and universi-
ties. Review of Higher Education 25(3): 241–261.
Armstrong, Ketra L. 2001. Black consumers’ spending and historically black col-
lege events: The marketing implications. Sport Marketing Quarterly 10(2):
102–111.
———. 2008. Consumers of color and the “Culture” of sport attendance:
Exploratory insights. Sport Marketing Quarterly 17: 218–231.
Bell, Derrick A. 1992. Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism.
Borican, J. 1963. The role of the negro colleges. In Negro firsts in sports, ed.
A.S. Young, 88–97. Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.
Byers, Walter. 1995. Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Cavil, Jafus Kenyatta. 2013a. Predictive minimum cognitive scores, organizational
leadership and student success: Preliminary evidence from an HBCU doctoral
education program. Journal of Research Association of Minority Professors.
16(1): 1–22.
———. 2013b. The case for Tennessee State University as an expansion member
of the SWAC: Economic impact. In Essays on race and sports, ed. J.L. Conyers
Jr. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Cavil, Javus Kenyatta, and Charles Franklin McClelland. 2013. Athletic directors’
leadership perceptions of variables determining the effectiveness of administer-
ing HBCU athletic programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
2013 TSU Research Week, Houston, TX.
CIAA. 2014. The history of the CIAA. CIAA. http://www.ciaatournament.org/
about/ciaa-history. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Cooper, Joseph N. 2012. Personal troubles and public issues: A sociological imagi-
nation of black athletes’ experiences at historically white colleges and universi-
ties in the United States. Sociology Mind 2(3): 261–271.
———. 2013. A culture of collective uplift: The influence of a historically black

college/university on black male student athletes. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics 6: 306–331.
Cooper, Joseph N., and Billy Hawkins. 2012. A place of opportunity: Black male
student athletes’ experiences at a historically black university. Journal of
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1995. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity poli-
tics, and violence against women of color. In Critical race theory: The key writ-
ings that formed the movement, ed. Kimberle Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary
Peller, and Kendall Thomas, 357–383. New York: The New Press.
Decuir, Jessica T., and Adrienne D. Dixson. 2004. So when it comes out, they
aren’t that surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analy-
sis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher 33(5): 26–31.
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefanic. 2001. Critical race theory: An introduction.
Ethnicity and Education. 8(1): 45–67.
DuBois, W.E.B. 1994. The souls of black folk. New York: Dover.
Edwards, Harry. 2000. Crisis of black athletes on the eve of the 21st century.
Society 37(3): 9–13.
Feagin, Joe R. 2006. Systematic racism: A theory of oppression. New York: Routledge.
Franklin, John Hope, and A. Moss Alfred. 1988. From slavery to freedom: A history
of negro Americans. New York: Alfred A. Knolf.
Gaither, Steven J. Despite great strides, HBCUs and NCAA-recognized athletic
conferences face challenges. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. http://diverse-
education.com/article/50844/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Gallien, Louis B. Jr, and Marshalita S. Peterson. 2005. Instructing and mentoring
the African-American college student: Strategies for success in higher education.
Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gasman, Marybeth. Historically black colleges and universities in a time of eco-
nomic crisis: How have HBCUs responded to the current crisis? American
Association of University Professors. http://www.aaup.org/article/historically-
black-c olleges-and-universities-time-economic-crisis#.U2JxV00U-Uk.
Accessed 23 May 2014.
Glockner, Andy. SWAC schools tired of guaranteed-game blowouts. ESPN.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2987875. Accessed 23 May
2014.
Harris, Othello. 2000. African American predominance in sport. In Racism in col-
lege athletics: The African American athlete’s experience, 2nd edn, ed. Dana
Brooks, and Ronald Althouse, 37–52. Morgantown: Fitness Information
Technology.
Hawkins, Billy. 2010. The new plantation: Black athletes, college sports, and histori-
cally white colleges/universities. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hayes, Dianne. HBCU presidents at a new crossroads. Diverse Issues in Higher
Education. http://diverseeducation.com/article/57130/. Accessed 23 May
2014.
Hodge, Samuel R., Louis Harrison Jr., Joe Burden Jr., and Adrienne D. Dixson.
2008. Brown in black and white—then and now: A question of educating or
sporting African American males in America. American Behavioral Scientist
51(7): 928–952.
Hodge, Samuel R., Robert A. Bennett III, and Frankie G. Collins. 2013a.
Historically black colleges and universities’ athletes and sport programs:
Historical overview, evaluations, and affiliations. In Racism in college athletics,
ed. Dana Brooks, and Ronald Althouse, 63–104. Morgantown: Fitness
Hodge, Samuel R., Frankie G. Collins, and Robert A. Bennett III. 2013b. The
journey of the black athlete on the HBCU playing field. In Racism in college
athletics, ed. Dana Brooks, and Ronald Althouse, 105–134. Morgantown:
Fitness Information Technology.
Hosick, Michelle Brutlag. NCAA working with HBCUs to clear APR barriers.
NCAA. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2011/may/ncaa%2B
working%2Bwith%2Bhbcus%2Bto%2Bclear%2Bapr%2Bbarriersdf30.html.
Isabella, Sean, and Daniel Uthman. After grambling player revolt, game at Jackson
state canceled. USA Today Sports. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/
ncaaf/swac/2013/10/18/grambling-tigers-bus-jackson-state-game-boy-
cott/3010079/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Johnson, Melvin Norman. 2013. Financial and related issues among historically
black colleges and universities. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport 6: 65–75.
Jones, Bomani. Progress, yes but HBCUs paid the price for it. ESPN. http://
sports.espn.go.com/espn/blackhistor y2007/news/stor y?id=2780876.
Klores, Dan. 2008. Black magic [Documentary]. United States: Entertainment
and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) and Shoot the Moon Productions.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and William F. Tate IV. 1995. Toward a critical race the-
ory of education. Teachers College Record 97(1): 47–68.
Lee, John Michael, and Samaad Wes Keys. 2013. Repositioning HBCUs for the
future: Access, success, research, & innovation. APLU Office of Access and
Success Discussion Paper 2013-01. Washington, DC: Association of Public and
Land-grant Universities.
Lillig, John. 2009. ‘Magic’ or misery?: HBCUs, guarantee contracts, and public
policy. Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems 6(41): 41–71.
McClelland, Charles Franklin. 1995. Athletic directors’ perceptions of the effec-

tiveness of HBCU division I-AA athletic programs. PhD diss., Texas A&M
University.
Miller, Patrick B. 1995. To bring the race along rapidly: Sport, student culture,
and educational mission at historically black colleges during the interwar years.
History of Education Quarterly 35: 111–133.
Moore, Eric. Black college football classic games: A taste of the HBCU athletic
experience. http://www.collegeview.com/articles/article/black-college-
football-classic-games. Accessed 23 May 2014.
NCAA. 2012. Most division I teams deliver top grades. NCAA. http://www.
ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/most-division-i-teams-
deliver-top-grades. Accessed 23 May 2014.
O’Neil, Dana. Alcorn State facing constant battles as division I have-not. ESPN.
http://spor ts.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/stor y?columnist=oneil_
dana&id=3221302. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Reynolds, Lacy, Dwalah Fisher, and Jafus Kenyatta Cavil. 2012. Impact of demo-
graphic variables on African-American student athletes’ academic performance.
Educational Foundations 26(3): 93–111.
Saylor, Roger B. 2000. Black college football. College Football Historical Society
XIII(III): 4–7.
Solórzano, Daniel G., and Tara J. Yosso. 2002. Critical race methodology:
Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research.
Qualitative Inquiry 8(1): 23–44.
The Associated Press. Spelman college chooses fitness over athletics. USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2012/11/01/spelman-
college-ncaa-division-iii-dispands-athletics-for-wellness/1676311/. Accessed
23May 2014.
U.S. Department of Education. White house initiative on historically black col-
leges and Universities. U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/
edblogs/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-
universities/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Wiggins, David K. 2000. Critical events affecting racism in athletics. In Racism in
college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience, 2nd edn, ed. Dana
Brooks, and Ronald Althouse, 15–36. Morgantown: Fitness Information
Technology.
Wiggins, David K., and Patrick B. Miller. 2003. The unlevel playing field: A docu-
mentary history of the African-American experience in sport. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Woodson, Carter Goodwin. 1990. The Mis-education of the negro. Trenton: Africa
World Press.
CHAPTER 11
Social Responsibility/Accountability
Addressing Constructs of Critical Race
Theory
Fritz G. Polite and Jeremai E. Santiago
INTRODUCTION
Critical race theory (CRT) is a form of scholarship that is rooted in the
Civil Rights Movement and derived from Critical Legal Studies (CLS).
Though this movement was primarily grounded in the discipline of law,
CRT has now spread to other disciplines within higher education. CRT
was originally introduced in the 1970s by Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman,
Kimberle Crenshaw, Angela Harris, Charles Lawrence, Mari Matsuda, and
Patricia Williams Taylor.1 These scholars-activists recognized that CLS
failed to address the challenges that people of color endured. A person of
color is primarily described as a person who is not white. These scholars
F.G. Polite ()

Harry F. Byrd, Jr. School of Business, Shenendoah University,
Winchester, VA, USA
e-mail: fpolite@su.edu
J.E. Santiago
Shenendoah University, Winchester, VA, USA

280 F.G. POLITE AND J.E. SANTIAGO
developed CRT as a prescription for the marginalization and dehumaniza-

tion of people of color.2
CRT is framed within several tenets. Race and racism as socially created,
racism being a part of everyday life, and racism moves forward the agenda
of elite whites. Another tenet is interest convergence, which is defined as
attaining racial equality only when those interests unite with the interests
of those who hold the power. Lastly, counter storytelling is stories aimed
to confront the validity of accepted myths, specifically the values, prin-
ciples, and norms related with a majority group.3
This “oppositional” scholarship encompasses race, racism, and power
while challenging Eurocentric value systems accepted as norm in the
United States. CRT is pivotal as it addresses race, racism, and power,
which all have become perpetual elements of American life and society.
CRT and the Black Male Athlete

In higher education, the black college athlete endures many challenges
that are often neglected or unaddressed.3 Unfortunately, although this
population is celebrated for their athletic prowess, often this same popula-
tion is forgotten about concerning the challenges that these athletes face.
There is a paradox that is formed: black male athletes are overvalued for
physical gifts and abilities and at the same time undervalued when chal-
lenges arise. The variables associated with black male athletes include lack
of academic preparedness, low retention, low persistence, low graduation
rates, discrimination, isolation, and alienation.4 Not only do athletes face
these issues in higher education, many black students who are in college
based on strictly academia are also challenged with similar issues.
In addition, athletes, overall, encounter challenges of practice obliga-
tions, injuries, missed opportunities (internships), training and nutrition
obligations, and frequent travel. With the aforementioned challenges—
academic, social, and athletic—we would contend the black male athlete
is more likely to be academically unsuccessful than their white counter-
parts because of some of the social and athletic challenges. Many of the
challenges include racial and social isolation, alienation, and assimilation
or acculturation. Correspondingly, there are clear data and research that
indicate black male athletes and black males who are nonathletes perform
poorly in regard to grade point average and graduation rates. In addition,
there is a growing body of scholarship on race, racism, power, and how
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY ADDRESSING CONSTRUCTS... 281
these variables influence the performance of black male athletes academi-

cally, socially, and athletically.
There are prescriptions and solutions to address these challenges of
black male athletes. However, there are also barriers when addressing their
challenges. Interest convergence states that dominant elite whites will sup-
port racial progress for blacks and different racial and ethnic groups of
color only when they are able to gain from it.5 Therefore, there is ample
opportunity to educate and engage others in conversation about the
issues of race, racism, and power, as it relates to the black male athlete.
Accountability and responsibility then becomes the vehicle in which we
move forward, only after others are educated. Education will assist to
inform and enlighten those who are not conscious of race and racism as it
relates to black college athletes.
CRT and National Collegiate Athletic Association Institutions

CRT examines existing power structures and identifies that these power
structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which per-
petuates the marginalization of people of color.6 There is strong suggestion
of this in American college sport. When analyzing black males’ participa-
tion in college sport, it is evident that this population is the overwhelm-
ing majority of those in revenue-generating sports (football and men’s
basketball), especially at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
division 1 institutions.7 These college athletes are, however, not being
supported off of the playing fields and courts. They are creating revenue
for their institutions, but are not provided the needed resources to be
successful. Resources that would benefit these athletes included reformed
academic support systems, mentorship, and opportunities to engage in
internships.
The governing body (NCAA), along with member institutions, gen-
erates billions of dollars of revenue, with large participation from black
college athletes. We contend this is a form of racial inequality of under-
representation in the undergraduate programs and overrepresentation in
revenue-generating NCAA division 1 sport programs.8 Moreover, black
male athletes continue without a fair share of resources, meaning there
are resources in place; however, these college athletes, especially division
1 football and basketball, do not have the time to access these resources
because of time spent within their sport. This could potentially support
the building of programs that could address many of their documented
challenges. While there are some programs being implemented and many
being valuable, many of these programs are deficient of cultural signifi-
cance and lack the capability to engage black male athletes in meaning-
ful ways. These programs do not have the understanding of what their
athletes value socially, spiritually, or culturally.9 Yet, coaches and athletic
administrators earn millions of dollars while these athletes have provided
the labor without long-term benefits. These types of power structures
must be addressed. Sadly, they will not be addressed if the oppressors do
not understand or see the issues as beneficial unto themselves.10
THE PARADOX OF SPORT AND CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY
As the NCAA goes into its 109th year, the current model has been scruti-
nized via lawsuits, media, and the academy. Policies, services, techniques,
and programs of the NCAA have reached the point of institutionalism.
However, the current model is being challenged in terms of its ability
to maintain legitimacy. Meyers and Rowan concluded organizations must
maintain social endorsement or, at minimum, acceptance from social actors
regarding the organization’s rationality, reasonableness, and validity.
Organizations often strive to become institutionalized in order to
cultivate or maintain legitimacy.11 Legitimacy allows for better access of
resources necessary for the survival and growth of the company.12 One ini-
tiative that firms are developing for organizational legitimacy is corporate
social responsibility (CSR) programs. In this context, this chapter aims to
probe the impact CSR initiatives have on the NCAA’s legitimacy model in
relationship to the CRT paradigm and black male athletes.
As the business of college sport continues to grow at an alarm-
ing rate, there is a need to remain concerned with CSR in sport. In the
United States, collegiate sport is a complex and thriving enterprise. This
multibillion-dollar enterprise has escalated itself as a major player within
our educational systems. At the forefront of the business of college sports
is the NCAA and its member colleges and universities. CSR has been
reviewed extensively in the realm of professional sports, but scholarship
related to CSR and its application in collegiate sports is lacking. For the
plethora of good the NCAA has done over the years, it is also an entity
filled with negative paradoxes. Stakeholder theory serves as the founda-
tion for discussing CSR. The purpose of expanding on these constructs is
to discuss the concept of CSR and its relationship to college sports. This
chapter examines the organizational structure of the NCAA, its function-
ality, and the trappings of its fiscal operations. In addition, it analyzes the
role CSR plays in the shaping of social responsibility and accountability as
it relates to the CRT paradigm.
Collegiate sports are deeply engrained into the culture of our academic
institutions. College sports are extremely popular on both regional and
national scales, in many cases competing with professional organiza-
tions for prime broadcast and print coverage. Universities are also travel-
ing globally to entertain and compete internationally. This includes the
Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Jamaica, to name
a few. The average university participates in approximately 20 different
competitive sports. In total, during the 2013–2014 academic year, nearly
460,000 student-athletes competed in the NCAA. The budgets of many
NCAA, division 1 athletic departments, soar well beyond $100 million
annually and some coaches are earning more than $7 million annually.
College sports have grown from friendly competitions between rivals to
a major conglomerate of major corporate sponsors, major media outlets,
and covering multiple modes of revenue streams.
One could make a strong case that sport in the United States has taken
on a role deeply entrenched within the fiber of the society. The hiring of
coaches in the National Football League (NFL) with salaries of multimil-
lion dollars per year, as well as amateur coaches in the NCAA Power five
conferences with salaries of 4–7-million dollars per year, speaks volumes
to the value placed on the services of these coaches. From a professional
perspective, these salaries are congruent with market value swings and
demands. The challenges within the confines of the NCAA and its self-
defined amateur status are that it operates within or in conjunction with
academic institutions. With this rising emphasis in collegiate athletics,
there is a need to investigate the constructs related to social responsibility
and social accountability. College football (American) coaches make as
much as ten times what a faculty member does in salary and benefits and
five times what a president makes. Coaches are many times the highest
paid employee on campuses of institutions of higher learning and often
the highest paid state employees within their respective states. Although
there has been a recent push for more civic involvement, service, and stu-
dent participation, it has historically been the responsibility of higher edu-
cation to teach the principles of a democratic society.13
Launching off of conceptual models within the business literature, the

notion of strategic management, corporate responsibility, and stakeholder
management have become critical links to past and current business mod-
els.14 CSR is an increasingly pervasive phenomenon on the European
and North American economic and political landscape.15 CSR has been
addressed from multiple angles.16 Friedman offered the view that the main
goal of corporations is profit and meeting the needs of shareholders.17
Others contend that organizations have to be more socially conscious to
the impact of social contributions to general society in conjunction with
profits.18 The role of leadership, students, athletes, and athletic adminis-
trators within the scope of CSR has been limited, and research in this area
is void of contributions within the field of sport business management,
race, and economic justice. The role of leadership in conjunction with the
constructs of ethics and moral decision-making are crucial elements in
addressing the quagmire of sport in our society.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

There is a vast amount of literature on CSR. Most of the research has
focused on the determinants of CSR and examined the effects of various
aspects of corporate financial performance.19 Galaskiewicz research indi-
cated that corporations tend to act in socially responsible ways if norma-
tive or cultural institutions are in place that creates proper incentives.20
Another important aspect is the notion of stakeholder theory. Stakeholder
theory defines why corporations attend to the interests of stakeholders
along with their immediate corporate interests.21 This very mindset may
cause some corporations to implement moral and ethical values within
the structures to ensure the balance between corporate stakeholder inter-
ests does not damage or fringe upon the general welfare of society. The
concept of CSR, often referred to as “CSR,” is the commitment of an
organization to be ethical and accountable to the needs of their society as
well as to their stakeholders.22 As the topic of CSR has been in the fore-
front of the media as organizations are pressed to make right and wrong
turns regarding their commitment to various stakeholders in society, it is
important to examine which components are necessary to creating effec-
tive CSR programs.
The concept of CSR can be traced back to the 1930s and over the years
has been discussed in the field of business as well as others such as law,
economics, and politics.23 It is most common within the areas of business
and economics, but has filtered into multiple avenues and areas of study.
However, Bowen’s book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman is con-
sidered as the academic foundation for this field of work. Bowen, often
referred to as the “father” of CSR, emphasized that CSR is based on the
understanding that
• Businesses exist at the pleasure of society and that their behavior and
methods of operation must fall within the guidelines set by society,
and
• Businesses act as moral agents within society.24
Further studies on CSR continued in the 1960s with the work of Davis,
which centered on what is now known as the “Iron Law of Responsibility.”
Davis pointed out that if corporations are unable to self-regulate their
actions, then the law should step in.25 The 1970s are characterized by the
work of Preston and Post, who analyzed two key issues: (1) the scope of
the businessperson’s social obligations, and (2) the criteria for assessing
whether a businessperson was behaving responsibly.26 In the 1980s, CSR
made a shift, with the contribution of Jones, who viewed CSR as a process
and not a static concept.27 This expanded the understanding of CSR and
led to the development of Carroll’s well-known hierarchical model of cor-
porate responsibility, in which philanthropy is viewed as the highest level
of social responsibility.28
Numerous scholars and writers have addressed the frameworks for
CSR.29 Friedman offered the view that the main goal of corporations is
profit and meeting the needs of shareholders.30 Others contend that orga-
nizations have to be more socially conscious to the impact of social contri-
butions to general society in conjunction with profits.31 Leaders in sport
must be cognizant of the past templates within the business and soci-
ology literature that has forced companies and corporations to consider
the social accountability and social responsibility aspects of a capitalistic
system. As many corporations have accumulated large amounts of capital,
profits, and financial windfalls, they have also been obligated by socially
conscious groups as well as individuals to commit resources to worthy
and needy social causes. These corporations have also been directly or
indirectly involved with sport. Sport has always shared a unique relation-
ship with corporations. Corporations came to view sport as a platform
or lens in which the product could gain maximized exposure via sport-
ing events. Utilizing the basis of ethical business imperative, companies
should be looking for opportunities for business to expand constructs of

social accountability and responsibility.
THE NCAA, AMATEUR SPORTS, AND SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY
The NCAA has evolved since its creation in the mid-1800s. Since the emer-
gence of intercollegiate sport, corporations (media corporations, sport shoe
companies, etc.) have become entrenched in the competition by infusing
corporate support. The interrelation among student-athletes, educational
institutions, and corporate interest has raised concerns over issues such as
athlete’s rights, the proper role of a “college-athlete,” and various other
related issues associated with the balance that exists between the struggle
between pure competition and the commercial tie-ins that abound.
Collegiate sport, and most specifically the NCAA, has evolved, par-
ticularly in regard to commercialization and media exposure. With this,
concerns arise concerning increasing integrity in the governance of college
athletics. Backlash has existed as the NCAA has come under scrutiny for
alleged unfairness in the exercise of its enhanced enforcement authority.
As the NCAA faces several major challenges, including its structure, esca-
lating coaches’ salaries, the facilities “arms race,” and the compensation
of amateur athletes, the billions of dollars in revenue generated from col-
legiate sports creates a paradox between amateur athletics and professional
athletics. The increased commercialization and public pressure will cause
the NCAA to adopt and change the rules and regulatory systems. Overall,
the NCAA has evolved from a small organizational body to one of the
largest governance groups in the nation. Millions of dollars are generated
within athletic departments via tickets, merchandise sales, media rights,
sponsorships, donors, and naming rights. Additionally, television compa-
nies are locked into bidding wars for the right to own the rights to televise
the biggest and best games in college sports. The NCAA has the difficult
task of adjusting itself to the continually growing industry that is collegiate
athletics and the mega-million-dollar enterprise.
These issues present forums for discussion regarding the role of sport in
academic institutions and more importantly the responsibility and account-
ability of sport. Furthermore, the massive amounts of revenues that are
generated by universities raise the question of corporate accountability
and social responsibility. These numbers are direct reflections of the effects
of various aspects of extreme corporate financial performances. Based on
the early research around social responsibilities, businesses exist for the
pleasure of the society and their actions and methods of operation must
fall within the guidelines of the society itself.32 The governing body for
the NCAA is caught in a perplexing situation. How do they attempt to
reconcile a multibillion-dollar industry as still be of amateur status? How
do you attempt to justify the mega salaries of coaches on college cam-
puses while top scholars that conduct research, teach, and provide a noble
profession to the institutions of higher education makes a small fraction
of these coaches’ salaries? Does the NCAA hold true to college athletes
as legitimate stakeholders? If the construct of social responsibility encom-
passes the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary actions of the orga-
nization in relationship to the society, the NCAA is negligent and guilty of
the commoditization and counterfeiting of sports as an amateur product.
The continued corporate support of amateur collegiate athletics will con-
tinue to be a major topic of discussion. As we face a financially challenging
global society, leaders must confront the issues of strong corporate support
for sports while neglecting basic social needs such as youth education, health
disparities, poverty, and crime. How can a society consider itself socially
accountable and responsible to the people, while paying amateur coaches
millions of dollars per year while esteemed faculty struggle for resources
to train and prepare the minds of the future? Corporations support the
erection of million dollar sport facilities that get minimal use, while elemen-
tary schools remain dilapidated. Powerful companies purchase milliondol-
lar suites to entertain and host other corporate entities, while millions are
unemployed and living in poverty. These moral and ethical discussions must
take place in a Socratic forum so that we can begin to modify the leader-
ship behavior and begin the process of exercising true responsibility and
accountability in amateur and professional sports. The implementation of
a CSR strategy with constructs of integrity and honesty can limit discourse
as it relates to negative perceptions. While focusing on the CSR platform,
leaders must account for and balance the CRT paradigm as a key construct
INTERSECTION OF CRT AND CSR

The paradigm focusing on the intersections of race and social responsibility
is clear. Black athletes generate tremendous amounts of revenue for major
athletic program. The business literature reflects that as these profits are
made, social and business imperative is to return portions of the profits back
to functional aspects of the business. Many black athletes are challenged and
struggle with the constant battle to maintain the balance between academic
success, competitive success, and social acclimation at their respective institu-
tions. The current discussions surrounding the lucrative multibillion-dollar
enterprise, massive coaching salaries, and the facility arms race, along with
the billion-dollar media rage, leave a void as they relate to the foundations of
CRT and the marginalization, dehumanization, and degradation of not only
the black athlete but also black athletic administrators. The black athlete is
the major contributor and participant in the production and attainment of
the huge financial windfall that is being reaped upon many white benefac-
tors. The sweat, blood, and tears of black males in primary sports (football/
basketball) are the driving engine of this economic machine. The infusion
or intersection of CRT would allow these issues to be viewed from a lens
that is inclusive of race and racism as a factor in the framework for under-
standing these occurrences. This would include the interpretation of history
and the past roles of the black athlete in contrast to today. Historically, the
black athlete was relegated to participate in Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) and their talents were not a part of the general busi-
ness model. Fast-forward today, and the black athlete is the mule for carry-
ing other non-revenue-generating sports enjoyed by many white students
and administrators.
The paradox of the black athlete as a major commodity often replicates
the role of black labor and its contributions to many whites who capitalized
on this labor. The infusion and application of CRT in direct correlation with
the CSR platforms would require a sense accountability and responsibility
in addressing the challenges of the black male athlete. This is not to disre-
gard the plight of the black female athletes and the vast struggles that they
also incur. The picture is clear; the major player in the billion-dollar game
is the black athlete as a commodity and not as a student. In other words,
black male athletes are valued as a source of revenue and not as a scholar or
potential employee with certain attained skill sets that will prepare them for
a changing complex global economy. The intersection of the CSR/CRT
platform must be utilized to ensure social justice for the black male athlete.
NOTES
1. Edward Taylor. “Critical race theory and interest convergence in
the desegregation of higher education,” In L. Parker, D. Deyhle, &
S. Villenas (Ed.), Race is—race isn’t: Critical race theory and quali-
tative studies in education (pp. 182–201). Boulder, Co: Westview

Press, 1999).
2. Kevin Brown & Darrell. D. Jackson. “The history and conceptual
elements of critical race theory,” In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson
(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 9–22).
New York, NY: Routledge, 2013); Daniel Solórzano. G. & Tara
J. Yosso. “Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-
storytelling. Chicana and Chicano graduate school experiences.”
Qualitative Studies in Education, 14 no. 4 (2001): 471–495;
Christine A. Stanley. “Coloring the academic landscape: Faculty of
color breaking the silence in predominantly White colleges and uni-
versities.” American Educational Research Journal, 43 no. 4
(2006): 701–736; Edward Taylor. “The foundations of critical race
theory in education: An introduction.” In E. Taylor, D. Gillborn,
& G. Ladson-Billings (Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in
education (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routledge, 2009); Tara
Yosso. “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion
of community cultural wealth.” Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8
no. 1 (2005): 71–93.
3. Shaun Harper, R., C. D. Williams, & H. W. Blackman. Black male
student-athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division I college
sports. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the
Study of Race and Equity in Education, 2013).
4. Rhonda Hyatt. “Barriers to persistence among African American
intercollegiate athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive vari-
ables.” College Student Journal, 37 no. 2 (2003): 260–276.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Richard Lapchick. The 2012 racial and gender report card: College
sport. (University of Central Florida: The Institute for Diversity and
Ethics in Sport, 2013).
8. Ibid.
9. John N. Singer. “Understanding racism through the eyes of African
American male student-athletes.” Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8
(2005): 365–386.
10. Ibid.
11. Paul J. DiMaggio, & W. W. Powell. “The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-
tional fields.” American Sociological Review, 48 (1983): 147–60;
Lynne. G. Zucker. “The role of institutionalization and cultural

persistence.” American Sociological Review, 42 (1977): 726–743.
12. Monica A. Zimmerman & G. J. Zeitz. “Beyond Survival: Achieving
new venture growth by building legitimacy.” Academy of
Management Review, 3 (2002): 414–431.
13. Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate.
(Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, 1990).
14. Takis Katsoulakos & Y. Katsoulacos. “Strategic management, cor-
porate responsibility and stakeholder management.” Corporate
Governance. 7–4, (2007): 355–369.
15. Jonathan P. Doh & T. R. Guay. “Corporate social responsibility,
public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States:
An institutional-stakeholder perspective.” Journal of Management
Studies, 43 no. 1 (2006): 47–71.
16. Katherine Babiak & R. Wolfe. “More than just a game? Corporate
social responsibility and super bowl XL.” Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 15 no. 4 (2006): 214–444.
17. Milton Friedman. Capitalism and freedom (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1962); Milton Friedman. Capitalism and freedom
(40th anniversary ed.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2002).
18. Stewart Lewis. “Reputation and corporate responsibility.” Journal
of Communication Management, 7 no. 4 (2003): 356–394.
19. Brad Brown &, S. Perry. “Removing the financial performance
halo from Fortune’s “most admired” companies.” Academy of
Management Journal, 37 (1994): 1347–1359.
20. Joseph Galaskiewicz. “Making corporate actors accountable:
Institution-building in Minneapolis-St. Paul.” In W. W. Powell &
P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis; pp. 293–310. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1991).
21. R. Edward Freeman. Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. (Boston, MA: Pitman, 1984).
22. Cheri L. Bradish & J. J. Cronin. “Corporate social responsibility in
sports.” Journal of Sport Management, 23 no. 6 (2009): 691–697.
23. James W. McKie. Social Responsibility and the Business
Predicament. (Brookings Institution: Washington DC, 1974).
24. Howard R. Bowen. Social responsibilities of the businessman (New

York: H&R, 1953).
25. Keith Davis. “Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities?”
California Management Review, 2 no. 3 (1960): 70–76.
26. Lee E. Preston & J. E. Post. Private management and public policy.
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975).
27. Thomas Jones. “Corporate social responsibility revisited, rede-
fined.” California Management Review, 22 no. 3 (1980): 59–67.
28. Archie B. Carroll. “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:
Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.”
Business Horizon, 34(4), July–August, (1991): 39–48.
29. Katherine Babiak & R. Wolfe. “More than just a game? Corporate
social responsibility and super bowl XL.” Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 15 no. 4 (2006): 214–444; Brad Brown & S. Perry.
“Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s “most
admired” companies.” Academy of Management Journal, 37,
(1994): 1347–1359; Joseph Galaskiewicz. “Making corporate
actors accountable: Institution-building in Minneapolis-St. Paul.”
In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism
in organizational analysis; pp. 293–310. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1991).
30. Milton Friedman. Capitalism and freedom. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1962); Milton Friedman. Capitalism and freedom
(40th anniversary ed.). (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2002).
31. Stewart Lewis. “Reputation and corporate responsibility.” Journal
of Communication Management, 7 no. 4 (2003): 356–394.
32. Howard R. Bowen. Social responsibilities of the businessman (New
York: H&R, 1953).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Babiak, Katherine, and R. Wolfe. 2006. More than just a game? Corporate social
responsibility and super bowl XL. Sport Marketing Quarterly 15(4): 214–444.
Bowen, Howard R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York:
H&R.
Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate.
Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bradish, Cheri L., and J.J. Cronin. 2009. Corporate social responsibility in sports.
Journal of Sport Management 23(6): 691–697.
Brown, Kevin, and D.D. Jackson. 2013. The history and conceptual elements of
critical race theory. In Handbook of critical race theory in education, ed. M. Lynn
and A.D. Dixson, 9–22. New York: Routledge.
Brown, Brad, and S. Perry. 1994. Removing the financial performance halo from
Fortune’s “most admired” companies. Academy of Management Journal 37:
1347–1359.
Carroll, Archie B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward
the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizon 34(4)
(July–August): 39–48.
Davis, Keith. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California
Management Review 2(3): 70–76.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and W.W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review 48: 147–160.
Doh, Jonathan P., and T.R. Guay. 2006. Corporate social responsibility, public
policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-
stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 47–71.
Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.
Boston: Pitman.
Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
———. 2002. Capitalism and freedom (40th anniversary ed). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Galaskiewicz, Joseph. 1991. Making corporate actors accountable: Institution-
building in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis, ed. W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio, 293–310. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Harper, Shaun R., C.D. Williams, and H.W. Blackman. 2013. Black male student-
athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division I college sports. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in
Education.
Hyatt, Rhonda. 2003. Barriers to persistence among African American intercolle-
giate athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive variables. College Student
Journal 37(2): 260–276.
Jones, Thomas. 1980. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined.
California Management Review 22(3): 59–67.
Katsoulakos, Takis, and Yannis Katsoulacos. 2007. Strategic management, corpo-
rate responsibility and stakeholder management. Corporate Governance. 7(4):
355–369.
Lapchick, Richard. 2013. The 2012 racial and gender report card: College sport.
Orlando: University of Central Florida: The Institute for Diversity and Ethics
in Sport.
Lewis, Stewart. 2003. Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of
Communication Management 7(4): 356–394.
McKie, James W. 1974. Social responsibility and the business predicament.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Preston, Lee E., and J.E. Post. 1975. Private management and public policy.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Singer, John N. 2005. Understanding racism through the eyes of African American
male student-athletes. Race, Ethnicity and Education 8: 365–386.
Solórzano, Daniel G., and T.J. Yosso. 2001. Critical race and LatCrit theory and
method: Counter- storytelling. Chicana and Chicano graduate school experi-
ences. Qualitative Studies in Education 14(4): 471–495.
Stanley, Christine A. 2006. Coloring the academic landscape: Faculty of color
breaking the silence in predominantly White colleges and universities. American
Educational Research Journal 43(4): 701–736.
Taylor, Edward. 1999. Critical race theory and interest convergence in the deseg-
regation of higher education. In Race is –race isn’t: Critical race theory and
qualitative studies in education, ed. L. Parker, D. Deyhle, and S. Villenas,
182–201. Boulder: Westview Press.
———. 2009. The foundations of critical race theory in education: An introduc-
tion. In Foundations of critical race theory in education, ed. E. Taylor,
D. Gillborn, and G. Ladson-Billings, 1–13. New York: Routledge.
Yosso, Tara. 2005. Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education 8(1): 71–93.
Zimmerman, Monica A., and G.J. Zeitz. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new
venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review 3:
414–431.
Zucker, Lynne G. 1977. The role of institutionalization and cultural persistence.
American Sociological Review 42: 726–743.
PART III
Athletic Representation
and Leadership
CHAPTER 12
Black Male Intercollegiate Athletic

Administrators: Ascending the Career
Ladder
Keith Michael Champagne
INTRODUCTION
During the last several decades, there have never been more than 12 Black
male sitting intercollegiate athletic directors at the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I level at predominantly White
institutions of higher education (PWIHEs). The current demographics of
the nation’s intercollegiate athletic departments in terms of leadership and
who ascends to leadership positions are not reflective of the current racial
and ethnic diversity of college athletes participating in college athletics.
For instance, according to the Race 2014 Racial and Gender Report Card
(RGRC) from The Institute for Diversity and Race in Sports (IDRS), 87.7
percent of the nation’s intercollegiate athletic directors were White. In
intercollegiate athletic director positions across the three NCAA Divisions
I, II, and III, 87.7 percent, 91.5 percent, and 94.5 percent of these positions
were held by White men, respectively. In comparison, African Americans
K.M. Champagne ()

Associate Dean for Student Development, Central Washington University,
Ellensburg, WA, USA
e-mail: champagn@cwu.edu

298 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
held 8.0 percent, 3.4 percent, and 4.2 percent of the intercollegiate athletic
director positions in Divisions I, II, and III, respectively.1 In addition, at
the associate director level, White men comprised 87.2 percent, 90.1 per-
cent, and 93.6 percent at Divisions I, II, and III, respectively, and African
Americans held 8.7 percent, 6.1 percent, and 4.0 percent of the associate
athletic director positions across the three divisions.
Moreover, as of January 2016, there were 12 African American inter-
collegiate athletic directors at the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) insti-
tutions, and of the 128 intercollegiate athletic directors who oversaw
FBS football programs, 111 (86.7 percent) were Whites and 12 (9.4
percent) were African Americans. The 12 African Americans included
Ray Anderson, Arizona State University; Michael Williams, University
of California, Berkley; Warde J. Manuel, University of Michigan;
Stan Wilcox, Florida State University; Kevin Anderson, University of
Maryland; Sean Frazier, Northern Illinois University; Eugene Smith, The
Ohio State University; Bernard Muir, Stanford University; Kevin Clark,
Temple University; Derrick Gragg, Tulsa University; David Williams, II,
Vanderbilt University; and Craig Littlepage, University of Virginia.
DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP IN INTERCOLLEGIATE

ATHLETICS: AN ILLUSION
Intercollegiate athletic leaders are responsible for overseeing one of the
most precious areas of a major university. The possible risks associated
with being part of a Division I NCAA Intercollegiate Athletic Program
are very high, and when university presidents and/or boards of trustees
conduct national searches for intercollegiate athletic leaders, they always
widely purport to seek the most talented and qualified candidate for the
position. However, as evident in the most recent RGRC published by Dr.
Richard Lapchick’s IDES, a completely different story unfolds. Black men
are not being hired in increasingly large numbers to lead and oversee major
intercollegiate athletic programs. In fact, the numbers of Black men hired
in any intercollegiate athletic position remains low, and many of the Black
men who are fortunate to be hired do not progressively move from one
position to another in comparison to their White colleagues. There appears
to be a “glass-ceiling” that is preventing the successful progression and/or
advancement from one intercollegiate position to the next for Black men.2
Furthermore, modern intercollegiate athletics have been transformed
by “big money” and the participation rates of increasingly large numbers
BLACK MALE INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATORS: ASCENDING... 299
of young Black male college athletes in the major revenue producing

sports such as football and men’s basketball. This, in turn, has financially
transformed intercollegiate athletic departments into small professional
sports franchises.3
Consequently, this underrepresentation of Black men in leadership
positions in the athletic departments at our nation’s colleges and universi-
ties will continue to be a major issue confronting boards of trustees and
presidents at NCAA Division I PWIHEs. The issue of diversity and inclu-
sion has been, and will continue to be, a major problem facing college and
university leaders in the remainder of the twenty-first century—if persons
from diverse racial and ethnic populations continue to call for and demand
changes at PWIHEs.4
REAL REASONS FOR THE UNDERREPRESENTATION

IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
It is sine qua non that the real and specific reasons for the underrepresen-
tation of Black male leaders in modern successful Division I intercollegiate
athletic departments (that are purportedly committed to diversity, inclu-
sion, and social justice on their campuses) be diligently addressed. Young
Black men have become and will continue to be major contributors to the
multibillion-dollar “economic” engine that drives today’s intercollegiate
athletic programs at the nation’s largest college and university athletic
departments. Yet, qualified Black men in the field of intercollegiate athletic
leadership and administration are not being hired for senior leadership
positions at the same rate as their White colleagues at these institutions.5
In 1996, a prominent legal scholar, Kenneth Shropshire, wrote, “In the
harshest terms, the sports industry resembles a Black-bottomed pyramid:
large numbers of African-American athlete-participants, but few African-
Americans in non-playing positions at the highest levels.”6 The disparity
in African American representatives in coaching and managerial positions
might be due to racism at the institution, and unconscious or “old boy”
sponsored mobility philosophy at the next level, thus excluding ethnic
minorities from leadership positions in sports.7
Additionally, Brooks and Althouse concluded head coaching and
administrative career paths of African Americans differ from those of White
coaches and administrators, and factors such as “old-boy networks”, “iso-
lation on campus”, “stereotyping”, “racism”, and “tokenism” have an
impact on hiring decisions.8
300 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
We are well into the twenty-first century of intercollegiate athletics

at our nation’s colleges and universities and presidents are still adhering
to all of the myths, biases, and stereotypes of the twentieth century as
reasons for not hiring African Americans for leadership positions in their
intercollegiate athletic departments. Hence, the world of sports man-
agement and the profession of intercollegiate athletics are not entirely
exempt from and/or are devoid of racism, and PWIHEs are truly not
color-blind organizations. There is more than meets the eye operating
within the world of NCAA Division I Intercollegiate Athletics regard-
ing higher education institutions’ hiring of Black men and their career
advancement that is not based solely on qualifications and merit. For
example, during my six-year sojourn in intercollegiate athletic adminis-
tration, the following quotes regarding the low numbers of Black men
leading intercollegiate athletic programs at PWIHEs were prevalent
among Blacks in lower sport administrative jobs: (1) “African Americans
are not qualified and/or intelligent enough to lead big-time intercol-
legiate athletic programs”; (2) “White men are a better fit than Black
men to oversee a major athletic program”; (3) “They [Black men] do not
have the skills and networks that are required to fundraise because per-
sons with money do not want to give their money to Blacks in intercol-
legiate athletic leadership positions”; (4) “ Influential White alumni are
not comfortable with Blacks in leadership positions in college athletics”;
and (5) “A Black man has a better chance of becoming a University’s
President than its Athletic Director.”
The following section reviews theories concerning the underrepresen-
tation of Black men in intercollegiate athletic leadership and administra-
tive positions at NCAA Division I PWIHEs, how Black men advance to
leaderships positions in a setting and profession dominated by White men,
and what strategies they utilized to limit actual and/or perceived barriers
that impact their career success.
THEORIES ON TO THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF BLACK

MEN IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
In order to comprehensively understand the underrepresentation of Black
men in intercollegiate athletic positions at NCAA Division I PWIHEs,
critical race theory (CRT) and social cognitive career theory (SCCT)
offer numerous possibilities for understanding this issue confronting the
nation’s colleges and universities.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY: PREMISES AND FOUNDATIONAL

IDEAS
CRT is a theoretical position that challenges the mainstream notions of
race, racism, and racial power in American society. Ladson-Billings argued
that an epistemology is the nature, status, and production of knowledge,
the way one knows and understands the world, but it is also a “system of
knowing” that is linked to worldviews based on conditions under which
people live and learn.9 In essence, racism is evident in all social institutions
and cultural practices within our society, including sports and the media.
CRT began as a movement of activist legal scholars whose goal was
to expose and resist the workings of racism in our society. It began in
the nation’s law schools with groundbreaking research and scholarship of
individuals who were disenchanted with the stalled process of traditional
civil rights litigation to produce meaningful racial reform.10
There are several principles and tenets of CRT, which are embraced and
adhered to by scholars, including:
1. Racism is endemic in American society: deeply ingrained legally, cul-

turally, and even psychologically. In short, racism is still a part of our
society and it is in many social institutions including intercollegiate
athletics. Even though CRT advances a strategy to the foreground
and accounts for race and racism in social institutions, it works
toward the elimination of racism as a part of a larger goal of oppos-
ing and/or eliminating other forms of subordination based on gen-
der, class, language, and race.11
2. CRT is an interdisciplinary approach to issues of race, previously
used in many traditions such as feminism, and critical legal studies to
provide a deeper and comprehensive analysis of people and color,
and their experiences. This element of CRT allows researchers to
question the appropriateness and potential of their theoretical
frameworks to explain the experiences of people of color.12
3. CRT poses a challenge to the prevailing legal claims of neutrality,
objectivity, color blindness, and meritocracy; and affirms that these
claims are covers for the self-interest of the power institutions and
organizations that make up our society.13
4. CRT informs that Whites will tolerate and/or encourage racial
advances for people of color only when they promote White
self-interest.14
302 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
5. CRT challenges history and necessitates a historical examination of

law and the acknowledgment of the experiences, stories, and per-
sonal narratives of people of color. CRT scholars continue to discuss
the importance of “voice” and how personal narratives and stories of
people of color can be used to challenge the “prevailing narrative”
and/or “discourse” and add necessary contextual contours to the
seemingly “objectivity” of positivists perspectives.15
CRT scholars have affirmed that any examination of race and racism
must begin with the understanding that “Whiteness” has been positioned
as the optimal status criterion in our society. That is the present and pre-
vailing social order where Whites have created a system of human domi-
nation or a constellation of institutions, ideas, and practices, which have
successfully enabled “Whites” to achieve and maintain power and privilege
over other racial groups and people of color.16
EMERGING COMMUNITY OF CRITICAL RACE THEORISTS

IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Over the past several years, an emerging small community of sports-

researchers has utilized CRT to examine the current state of racism, diver-
sity, exclusion, and discrimination in intercollegiate athletics, and college
and professional sports. In studying these salient and provocative issues
and problems, researchers have applied the constructs, tenets, and ele-
ments of CRT to make sense of the state of affairs in college athletics and
other sports organizations. Through observations, focus groups, inter-
views, surveys, and case studies, these researchers have pinpointed that
racism and discrimination are having a significant negative impact on the
experiences of Black men at various levels in intercollegiate athletics and
professional sports.
Several scholars have used race-based epistemologies in conducting
their research in intercollegiate athletics, applying CRT as a framework to
examine, analyze, and understand issues and problems.
First, Singer, Harrison, and Bukstein applied the tenets of CRT to the
five grading components used by the Black Coaches’ Association (BCA)
Hiring Report Card, including communication with the BCA, time frame,
search committee demographics, candidates interviewed, and affirmative
policies to assess the hiring process of NCAA Division I college football
programs from 2004 to 2009.17 Upon concluding their analysis, they
found that “race” does indeed matter and that it is an important consider-
ation as we attempt to understand and address the dearth of racial minori-
ties in the head coaching ranks of NCAA college football programs at FBS
and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) levels.18
Second, Agyemang and DeLorme also sought to understand the under-
representation and paucity of Black head coaches at the NCAA Football
Bowl-subdivision level utilizing CRT. They specifically analyzed the Report
Cards on Collegiate Demographics and Hiring Practices (RCCDHP) and
found that although head coaching opportunities come open each year,
White coaches are the ones who are actually hired for these head coaching
roles as more Black coaches are passed over.19
Third, in a case study which included a single focus group and in-
depth interviews with four African American male football players in
high-profile college sports program at a PWIHE in the Midwestern
United States, Singer elucidated the experiences of these students. He
observed that these students felt that racism manifested itself in terms
of African Americans (1) being denied access to leadership and major
decision-making opportunities in college and professional sports; (2)
being treated differently than their White counterparts; and (3) having to
impress the White power brokers with their athletic prowess on the fields
of play before they are even considered for opportunities to be in high-
level management positions of leadership and authority in professional
and large college organizations.20
It is only recently that scholars have been utilizing CRT as an analytic
and explanatory tool for providing insights into the current state of affairs
in intercollegiate athletic leadership and college sports regarding issues
and problems such as the underrepresentation of Black men in intercol-
legiate athletics in highly visible positions, such as intercollegiate athletic
directors and major sports head coaches.
In summary, through the application of CRT, research on racism, dis-
crimination, and the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in intercollegiate
athletic leadership has elucidated that racism in intercollegiate athletics
operates similarly to that of the greater society. It is systemically and insti-
tutionally inherent in the world of college sports and in the profession of
intercollegiate athletic leadership. The Black male is a primary stakeholder
group in sports (particularly athletes and students of color). In essence,
CRT is a framework from which to explore and examine how racism in
our society privileges “Whiteness” as it disadvantages others because of
their “Blackness”.21
304 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CAREERS OF BLACK

ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATORS
In a qualitative study of eight Black men in intercollegiate athletic posi-
tions at the NCAA Division I at PWIHEs, I concluded that the advance-
ment of Black men to leadership positions in a setting dominated by White
men was influenced by the following personal, social, and institutional
factors: (1) mentoring, (2) networking, (3) commitment to diversity and
inclusion, and (4) institutional racism.
Mentoring
Mentoring was important to the early and continued success of Black
men entering the profession of intercollegiate athletics. Their mentors sig-
nificantly influenced their professional lives. For example, mentoring and
continuous mentoring influenced their pursuit of graduate degrees fol-
lowed by their career success in intercollegiate athletic administration and
leadership. The Black men that are highlighted in this study moved into
intercollegiate athletic administration at the conclusion of their college
athletic careers, which was facilitated by their mentors. The career paths
taken by these men were guided by purposeful and meaningful mentoring
and career tracking on the part of the mentor who supported them. Thus,
they were encouraged and influenced to seek employment in the field
by mentors who had contact with them during their undergraduate col-
lege athlete years. This is in line with Bandura’s SCCT, which recognizes
and acknowledges the mutual interacting influences between people, their
behavior, and their environment. Bandura identified this interaction as
“triadic reciprocality”, in which personal attributes such as internal cog-
nitive and affective states, physical attributes, external factors, and overt
behaviors or actions all operate as interlocking mechanisms that affect one
another bi-directionally as a causative agent in the process.22
Networking
Having access to a powerful network and networking were important to
Black men’s career success in the profession of intercollegiate athletics,
and being a part of a powerful network had a definite influence in the
career development and/or advancement of Black men in the profes-
sion over an extended period. These powerful networks of intercollegiate
athletic leaders provided opportunities, guided and facilitated the career

development and advancement, and the success of Black men in the pro-
fession. For example, all of the intercollegiate athletic leaders and admin-
istrators interviewed noted how their powerful mentors helped them to
understand and grow with in the profession of intercollegiate athletic and
college sports and paved their roads’ to success in the profession. These
intercollegiate athletic leaders’ experiences and positions they hold today
illustrate the importance of a powerful network with influential intercolle-
giate leaders, and it also illustrate how these networks have truly facilitated
the career development and advancement of Black men in the profession.
These men were able to leverage the traditional White intercollegiate net-
working structure as a result of interest convergence. For example, accord-
ing to Lopez, interest convergence centralizes the belief that Whites (in
this case powerful men in college athletics and higher education) will tol-
erate and advance the interest of people of color (up and coming Black
intercollegiate athletic administrators) only when it promotes the self-
interest of Whites.23
Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

University presidents at NCAA Division I PWIHEs who demonstrated
commitment to diversity and inclusion have greatly influenced the hir-
ing of Black men in intercollegiate athletic leadership positions at their
respective institutions. For example, the current sitting Black intercol-
legiate athletic directors at NCAA Division I PWIHEs were hired by
University presidents whose personal commitments to diversity and inclu-
sion meshed with those of the institutions where they serve as presidents.
These presidents perceived the hiring of Black men in intercollegiate ath-
letic leadership positions as a great thing on their campuses and it truly
demonstrated their commitment, and the institution’s commitment, to
diversity and inclusion as a real core value and achieving a desired univer-
sity goal.
In addition, for these university presidents and Black intercollegiate
athletic directors, we are seeing the “merging of their self-interests” or
an “interest convergence”. For example, a tenet of CRT states, “Whites
will tolerate and/or encourage racial advances for people of color only
when they also promote White self-interest”.24 Thus, there are powerful
university presidents in our society who preside over powerful and presti-
gious institutions making racial advances for Black men in the profession
306 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
of intercollegiate athletic leadership, which is dominated by White men

because of their self-interest, their core values, their institutional commit-
ment to diversity, and inclusion being realized.
Moreover, as evidenced in the case, the Black men who were hired by
these university presidents to lead their intercollegiate athletic programs
are some of the most educated and qualified men in the profession. Many
of the current Black intercollegiate athletic directors hold professional and
advanced degrees such as a Masters of Business Administration (MBA),
Juris Doctorate (JD), and/or Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). They hold
leadership positions in professional organizations and serve on many of
the NCAA’s most prestigious committees. For Black intercollegiate ath-
letic leaders, possessing the proper academic and professional credentials is
an important aspect of this narrative and discourse. For example, there is a
belief among Black college athletes that in order to be able to successfully
compete for leadership and management positions in college sports in the
future they have to dominate and excel on the playing field as well.25
There is a “prevailing narrative” in the Black community/ that states,
in order for Black people to be considered and hired for positions of lead-
ership in both the public and private sector, they must possess the proper
academic and professional credentials along with expertise and experience,
or must be twice as qualified and better than Whites who are seeking
and being hired for the same positions. Having academic and professional
credentials such as an MBA, JD, and/or Ph.D. are the Black commu-
nity’s response to systemic and institutionalized racism, and discrimina-
tory and exclusionary hiring practices in America. This is certainly the
case for Black intercollegiate athletics leaders who are seeking to advance
in the profession. Therefore, university presidents who have a demon-
strated commitment to diversity and inclusion, and who also feel a sense
of responsibility to wealthy and influential boosters, are in a much better
position to justify the hiring of a Black intercollegiate athletic director
when that Athletic Director possesses outstanding academic and profes-
sional credentials such as an MBA, JD, and/or Ph.D. compared to a White
candidate who may not possess similar credentials.
Institutional Racism
The main challenge and/or obstacle to career success that Black men
encountered and experienced along their career path is institutional rac-
ism and its manifestations. According to one Black intercollegiate athletic
leader, who is a long-standing member of the profession, institutional rac-

ism is the main obstacle and challenge that are confronting Black men
today in intercollegiate athletics. For example, “Whites are comfortable
or appear to be comfortable with people like them, other white people”.
People hire and bring in people to work with whom they are comfort-
able. These are the institutional barriers that are serving as the obstacle to
keep Blacks out of athletics in general. What we are witnessing—based on
the experiences of Black men in intercollegiate athletics, is “Whiteness”.
According to CRT scholars, any examination of race and racism must
begin with the understanding that “Whiteness” has been positioned as the
optimal status criterion in our society.26 That is the present social order
where Whites have created a system of human domination or constellation
of institutions, ideas, and practices that have successfully enabled those
(Whites) to achieve and maintain power and privilege over other racial
groups and people of color.27
This is certainly on point with what appears to be happening in intercol-
legiate athletics with Black men as they continue to develop and advance
in the profession. The factors, conditions, and/or processes that have
truncated the career development and advancement of Black men in inter-
collegiate athletic leadership centered on institutional racism. The inter-
collegiate athletic leaders mentioned in this study shared their experiences
regarding institutional racism, saying it stunted their career advancement
along their path. For example, one Black intercollegiate athletic leader
shared his experiences with race, racism, and institutional racism based
on how university boosters viewed and referred to him and his president.
For example, there was a donor who referred to this Black intercolle-
giate athletic administrator as a “black boy” and his president who is Asian
American as the “Chinaman”. According to one intercollegiate athletic
administrator, there are still some White boosters who are afraid of Black
intercollegiate athletic administrators and their ability to make decisions
for major intercollegiate athletic programs.
In addition, a respected Black intercollegiate administrator who has
worked in the profession for a very long time and has been an adminis-
trator at two major universities in the Big Ten and Southeastern Athletic
Conferences shared his experience regarding race and racism in college
sports. He remarked,
You are in a lonely profession; it is not that people are not nice to you. They
just appear to be more comfortable with people who look like them. I go to
308 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
conference meetings and they are always two noticeable things: there are no
women and I am the only Black person in the room.
Black intercollegiate athletic administrators are often in a room at a con-

ference meeting discussing vast amounts of revenue to be divided among
its members and that money is generated by sports such as football, which
is often played by close to 70 percent Black college athletes.
Further, another Black intercollege athletic administrator shared his
experience of his attempt to move from an athletic director’s position at
a smaller university to a larger institution. For example, he interviewed at
nine major universities before he landed his first position at a large ath-
letic program. There were often times during some of these interviews,
that after the introductions, he knew the university president interview-
ing him was not going to offer him the position. These intercollegiate
athletic administrators’ experiences inform us that after extensive search
processes “race” does matter. It appears to be an important consideration
as we attempt to understand the underrepresentation of Black men in
senior intercollegiate athletic leadership positions at many NCAA Division
I PWIHEs.
The comments emanating from these intercollegiate athletic adminis-
trators support the theme of institutional racism and clearly demonstrate,
in accordance with previous research applying the tenets of CRT, that
universities’ recruitment and hiring processes and practices are based on
race. This becomes an exclusionary practice in intercollegiate athletics
grounded in institutional racism and Whiteness.
Summary
CRT helps us to understand the findings from this study in the following
manner: First, analyzing and advocating for and/or changing those struc-
tures and cultural aspects of intercollegiate athletics that maintain subor-
dinate and dominant racial positions in intercollegiate athletic leadership.
Second, helping to make sense of and to better understand how these
exclusionary structures and practices negatively affect Black men in inter-
collegiate athletics and college sports, and what needs to be done to either
eliminate and/or dismantle these exclusionary structures and practices.
Third, including the “voices” and narratives of Black men in intercollegiate
athletics and college sports who are and continue to be the victims of insti-
tutional racism and/or others forms of discriminatory practices in college
sports.28 Fourth, assisting in understanding how Whites will tolerate and/

or encourage and facilitate racial advances for Black men in intercollegiate
athletics and college sports only when they also promote self-interests of
White university presidents.29 Fifth, understanding Whiteness as property
in intercollegiate athletic and college sports and the role it plays in exclud-
ing Black men from ascending to intercollegiate athletic senior leadership
positions enables us to understand what progressive change is slowly com-
ing about in intercollegiate athletic leadership and in college sports.30
GOING FORWARD
It is critically important that all who believe in and are invested in col-
lege sports solve this problem. That is the underrepresentation of Black
men in leadership positions in the nation’s major NCAA Division I level
PWIHEs. Moreover, the only way this vexing problem can be solved is
to fully converge the interests of Black men aspiring to these high-level
athletic leadership positions with those of the powerful White men who
control college sports. Thus, the way to get more Black athletic directors
is for those in powerful leadership positions in college sports to completely
diversify intercollegiate athletics at all levels in terms race and ethnicity.
Whites will have to realize that the advancement of persons of color in
college sports is indeed in their own self-interest. Until this happens, race,
racism, and power will always be factors that matter in college sports for
years to come.
If more university presidents and provosts had been intentional, pur-
poseful, and strategic in the recruitment and hiring of Black men in
intercollegiate athletics leadership positions, the career development and
advancement narratives that this study revealed might be less a matter of
good fortune and more a matter of intention and strategy. Therefore, the
following are recommendations for moving forward:
1. University presidents may want to be more intentional and aggres-

sive in seeking Black men for intercollegiate athletic senior leader-
ship positions at their institutions, basing their hiring on a person’s
qualifications, expertise, and experience (and not solely on dipping
into the same wells of former athletic directors, the majority of
whom are White).
2. University presidents and intercollegiate athletic directors may want
to create a Leadership Development and Training Institute to grow,
310 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
develop, and create the next generations of Black intercollegiate ath-

letic directors, which will greatly assist in truly transforming the
profession.
3. University presidents need to know that by hiring Black men as
intercollegiate athletic directors on their campuses they can success-
fully move pass the status quo and eliminate institutional racism and
“Whiteness” (White privilege) in college sports regarding who is
hired to lead their intercollegiate athletic programs presently and in
the future. They have the authority and power to change college
athletics for years to come.
4. University presidents, as evidenced by this study, who have a dem-
onstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion should always have
the hiring of Black men as a part of their leadership agendas in the
same manner in which they have the hiring of other Black university
administrators such provosts, vice presidents, deans, and other
senior administrators.
5. Establish a sincere open and honest conversation about the under-
representation of Black men in senior leadership positions in the
athletic departments of PWIHEs that sponsor Division I athletic
programs.
6. Educate and inform governing boards or boards of trustees, and
university presidents, that they actually possess the authority and
power to change the current landscape and ecology of college sports
by systemically and institutionally applying the same strategies and
initiatives to address the lack of diversity and inclusion in other areas
of the university.
7. Encourage universities to engage in innovative and bold decision
making in terms of recruiting, hiring, and retaining Black men for
intercollegiate athletic administrative positions in the same manner
that they pursue Black college athletes for their intercollegiate sports
programs.
8. Encourage the creation of an institute similar to the Sports
Management Institute (SMI) to specifically develop and train aspir-
ing Black athletic directors who were not college athletes in
college.
9. Encourage young Black men and women who are aspiring to
become athletic directors to demonstrate their interest in intercol-
legiate athletics early in their academic careers and assist them in
gaining the proper internships and positions that will provide them
with the requisite skills and experiences which will enable them to
gain entry into the profession at an early age.
Furthermore, if we are truly going to change and/or completely over-

all intercollegiate athletics and college sports, thus eliminate Whiteness
and eradicate institutional racism and discriminatory practices, Whites in
power and Black men who are seeking powerful leadership positions in
college sports need to allow their respective interests to converge. Whites
in essence need to share their property interests with Black men, therefore
ensuring that intercollegiate athletics and college sports are the property
of all men, both Black and White, who are seeking to play major roles in
this social institution.
NOTES
1. Lapchick, R., Little, E., Lerner, C., & Matthew, R. (2009 & 2010).
Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport. Orlando: The
Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, University of Central
Florida, 1, 1.
2. Lapchick, R. (2003). Racial and gender report card. Orlando, FL:
The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.
3. Brooks, D. D., Althouse, R. C., & H, S. G. (2007). Diversity and
social justice in college sports: sport management and the student
athlete. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
4. Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2001). Do differences
make a difference? Managing diversity in Division 1A intercollegiate
athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 10–50.
5. 5 Hawkins, B. (2010). The new plantation: black athletes, college
sports, and predominantly white Institutions. New York: New York
St. Martin’s Press.
6. Shropshire, K. L. (1996). In black and white: race and sports in
America. New York: New York University Press.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what
is it doing in a nice field like education? Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11(1), 7–24.
10. Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, the-
ory, and implications. Review of Research in Education
312 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
(pp. 191–243). Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.
11. Morris, A. (1993). Centuries of clack protest: Its significance for
America and with world. Race in America: The struggle for equality
(pp. 19–69). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
12. Ibid., 191–243.
13. Ibid., 191–243.
14. 14 Bell, D. A. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education
and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
15. Ibid., 7–24.
16. Ibid., 19–69.
17. Singer, John N., Harrison, C.K., & Bukstein, S. J. A critical race
analysis of the hiring process for head coaches in NCAA football.
Journal of Intercollegiate Sports, 3, 270–296 (2010).
18. Ibid.
19. Agyemang, K., & DeLorne, J. (2012). Examining the dearth of
black head coaches at the NCAA football bowl subdivision level: A
critical race theory and social dominance theory analysis. Journal of
Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 35–52.
20. Singer, J. N. (2009). African American football athletes’ perspectives
on institutional integrity in college sport. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 80(1), 102–116.
21. Hylton, K. (2009). ‘Race and Sport’: Critical Race Theory.
New York: Rutledge.
22. Ibid.
23. Lopez, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A
critical race theory perspective. Educational Administrative Quarterly,
39(1), 68–94.
24. Bell, D. A. (2004) Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education
and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
25. Ibid., 102–116.
26. Donnor, J.K. (2011). Whose compelling interest? The ending of
desegregation and the affirming of racial inequality in education.
Education and Urban Society, 20(10), 1–18.
27. Ibid., 19–69.
28. Singer, J. N. (2005). Addressing epistemological racism in sport

management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4),
464–479.
29. Bell, D. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-
convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533.
30. Ibid., 1–18.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agyemang, Kwame and Joshua DeLorme. 2012. Examining the dearth of black
head coaches at the NCAA football bowl subdivision level: A critical race the-
ory and social dominance theory analysis. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Bell, Derrick. 1980. Brown v. Board of education and the interest-convergence
dilemma. Harvard Law Review 93(3): 518–533.
Bell, Derrick A. 2004. Silent covenants: Brown v Board of Education and the unful-
filled hopes for racial reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, Dana D. and Ronald C. Althouse, and H, S. G. 2007. Diversity and social
justice in college sports: Sport management and the student athlete. Morgantown:
Fitness Information Technology.
Donnor, Jamel K. 2011. Whose compelling interest? The ending of desegregation
and the affirming of racial inequality in education. Education and Urban Society
44(5): 1–18.
Fink, Janet S., Donna L. Pastore, and Harold A. Riemer. 2001. Do differences
make a difference? Managing diversity in Division 1A intercollegiate athletics.
Journal of Sport Management 15: 10–50.
dominantly white institutions. New York: New York St. Martin’s Press.
Hylton, Kevin. 2009. ‘Race and sport’: Critical Race Theory. New York: Rutledge.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1998. Just what is critical race theory and what is it doing
in a nice field like education? Qualitative Studies in Education 11(1): 7–24.
Lapchick, Richard. 2003. Racial and gender report card. Orlando: The Institute
for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.
Lapchick, Richard, Eric Little, Colleen Lerner, and Ray Matthew. 2009 & 2010.
Racial and gender report card: College sport. Orlando: The Institute for
Diversity and Ethics in Sport, University of Central Florida, 1,1.
Lopez, Gerardo R. 2003. The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race
theory perspective. Educational Administrative Quarterly 39(1): 68–94.
Morris, Aldon. 1993. Centuries of black protest: Its significance for America and
with world. In Race in America: The struggle for equality, 19–69. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press.
314 K.M. CHAMPAGNE
Shropshire, Kenneth L. 1996. In black and white: Race and sports in America.
Singer, John N. 2005. Addressing epistemological racism in sport management
integrity in college sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(1):
102–116.
Singer, John N., C.K. Harrison, and S.J. Bukstein. 2010. A critical race analysis of
the hiring process for head coaches in NCAA football. Journal of Intercollegiate
Sports 3: 270–296.
Tate, Willaim F. 1997. Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and
implications. Review of Research in Education 22(1): 195–247. Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association
PART IV
Best practices and leadership

CHAPTER 13
Conclusion
Billy Hawkins
The chapters in this volume only graze the surface of the research being con-
structed using critical race theory (CRT) and its application to the sporting
experiences of Blacks in the USA. The majority of the chapters in this volume
focused on Black athletes’ intercollegiate sporting experiences; however, this
does not negate the attention that is needed in applying CRT to a broader con-
text of Black sporting experiences, specifically, and the sporting experiences of
other historically marginalized racial groups. The chapters that engaged the
female athlete experiences, professional Black athlete experiences, and inter-
collegiate Black athletic administrators are examples of applying CRT to the
broader sport practices of Blacks in the USA. Further application of CRT to
the sporting experiences of Black women sporting experiences and Black ath-
letes sporting experiences at the youth, interscholastic, and professional levels
(on the field experiences and their experiences as administrators and coaches)
is also needed. The goals of these critical examinations are to expose and
depose of racial injustices that inhibit progress to a postracial society.
As a site of resistance, sport can be a platform where Blacks are not
only using their athletic labor to generate revenue, but their administrative
B. Hawkins (*)
Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: hjbilly@central.uh.edu

318 B. HAWKINS
and leadership expertise can also be employed to make these corporate

structures (i.e., university administration, team ownership, coaching, ath-
letic administration, conference administration, etc.) racially and culturally
relevant in their representation and practice, as well as emancipatory. The
historical assumptions about Black athletic prowess and intellectual inferi-
ority can no longer be sport’s modus operandi, where access to leadership
and ownership opportunities is limited for Blacks. Thus, using sport as a
site of resistance, Black athletes must resist the dominant narrative that
all they can do is play for these universities and professional teams, and
begin broadening the pipelines to administrative and leadership positions
in sport at the interscholastic, intercollegiate, and professional levels.
The racial imbalance in the athletic labor class and the ruling class
who are benefiting the most from this arrangement further reinforces the
prevalence of race in this country and its persistence in arranging out-
comes that support notions of White supremacy and privilege. Sport, in
general, and intercollegiate athletics, cannot be absent in the discussion
on race. Mainly because this current arrangement is perpetuating socially
entrenched patterns of wealth transfer, where, once again, Blacks are vol-
untarily and involuntarily being dispossessed of their wealth and labor. The
colonization of Africa, the slave trade, slavery in the USA and Caribbean,
the system of sharecropping, the system of ghettoization, are historical
examples of racial imbalances that resulted in patterns of wealth transfer
that benefited Whites while Africa and the Caribbean were underdevel-
oped and Blacks were dispossessed and disenfranchised in the process.
The current configuration of intercollegiate athletics at Power Five
conference institutions also is an example of racial imbalance where, once
again, wealth transfer is the outcome. Black males are predominantly
represented in the revenue-generating sports of football and basketball,
and the revenue from these sports provide scholarship opportunities for
non- revenue-generating sports that are predominantly white athletes.
Table 13.1 highlights percentages of racial demographics in several of the
sports sponsored by NCAA Division I Institutions. The table does not list
all of the sport sponsored by NCAA Division I Institutions, but it gives
an idea of the racial imbalance that exist in the revenue-generating sports
of football and men’s basketball and some of the non-revenue-generating
sports that benefit from these revenue-generating sports. Table 13.2 fur-
ther denotes the racial demographics of men’s basketball and football at
the Power Five Conferences, the conferences with the greatest wealth
accumulation.
CONCLUSION 319
Table 13.1 Racial demographics percentages at NCAA Division I: revenue-

generating vs non-revenue-generating sports (2014–2015)
Sport White males White females Black males Black females
Baseball 80.7 0.0 5.1 0.0

Basketball 25.2 32.2 58.3 51.0
Cross country 72.2 73.4 9.7 9.5
Equestrian 0.0 87.5 0.0 0.5
Field hockey 0.0 77.4 0.0 1.4
Football 40.2 0.0 47.1 0.0
Golf 70.6 59.4 2.7 3.0
Gymnastics 69.1 70.2 5.3 8.6
Lacrosse 84.2 87.0 2.8 2.5
Soccer 55.8 72.6 9.8 6.4
Softball 0.0 71.6 0.0 7.5
Swimming 76.3 78.0 2.0 1.6
Tennis 44.0 42.9 4.6 5.8
Track—Indoor 55.4 56.1 27.8 27.4
Track—Outdoor 55.3 56.2 27.0 27.0
Volleyball 69.4 67.5 3.5 13.9
Wrestling 77.1 0.0 6.9 0.0
Data source: 2014–2015 Division I figures. NCAA sport sponsorship, participation and demographics
search. http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/displayResultsPercents
Table 13.2 Power Five conferences racial demographics percentages in revenue-

generating sports
Conference White males Black males White males Black males
football football basketball basketball
ACC 38.7 51.3 25.3 62.6

Big 12 41.1 50.0 25.9 60.2
Big Ten 48.6 41.5 34.9 51.2
Pac-12 35.6 37.5 31.1 49.2
SEC 37.0 57.6 19.0 67.0
Data source: 2014–2015 Division I figures. NCAA sport sponsorship, participation and demographics
search. http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/displayResultsPercents
Despite this reproduction of racial imbalance and wealth transfer,

this country has experienced cosmetic racial progress in the representa-
tion of Blacks at Southern Historically White Institutions of Higher
Education, specifically, that once vehemently denied Blacks access. Many
of these southern educational institutions had to be forced by the federal
320 B. HAWKINS
overnment to allow Blacks admission. Now, the athletic teams, especially

g
football and men’s basketball, at schools like Ole Miss, Mississippi State,
Alabama, Georgia, and so on, are demonstrable contradictions to the
practice of racial segregation these institutions were founded upon and
practiced for many years. Furthermore, in the esteemed quarterback posi-
tion, where whites solidified their intellectual superiority and dominance
as leaders, we are witnessing an increase in Black athletes at the collegiate
and professional levels. More so, in positions beyond the playing fields at
the collegiate and professional administrative and coaching levels, there
has also been an increased representation of Blacks. As stated earlier, there
is still progress to be made in making sport racially and culturally relevant
in representation and practice at all levels. Despite these baby steps that
have been made toward cosmetic racial progress, there are giant strives to
be made in achieving equity and equality in the sport industry for Blacks,
specifically, women, and other marginalized groups.
To assist in the racial reform, the works of sport scholars, specifically,
must be germane to movements for racial and social justice. For exam-
ple, the Black Lives Matter movement, cannot devoid itself of theoretical
assumptions and the historical teachings and wisdom of racial and social
movements that predates their existence. Nor, can scholars disconnect
from the movement and isolate themselves with an elitist Ivory Tower
mentality, discrediting these movements to be misguided agitation among
uneducated and socially frustrated Blacks. We must remember that his-
torical movements were often undergird by philosophical, theological,
sociological, and so on, doctrines, for example, embedded in the Marcus
Garvey and Black Power Movements was the Pan African philosophy, or
the theory of nonviolence was embedded in the Civil Rights Movements
during the 1950s and 1960s. Thus, a collective effort is necessary among
scholars and activist, where theory and praxis provide a revolutionary force
that produces substantive and sustainable racial reform.
Connecting with the energy of these movements can draw attention
to the injustices that have become commonplace in sport. Exposing these
injustices through the use of CRT is one step in arming these movements.
Data, theory, or intellectualizing alone will not depose White supremacy,
but an informed conscious among those who are willing to sacrifice all by
standing up for justice, or sitting down, like Rosa Parks, or sitting in like
the many nonviolent civil rights soldiers before us, will alter the effective-
ness of White supremacy.
Index
A Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical

Abigail Fisher, 126 (A&M) University, 50n57, 86,
academic capitalism, 12, 15, 35, 38, 113n47, 178, 263, 269n23
45n5 Alabama Crimson Tide, 70
academic clustering, 98, 153, 155–6, Alabama State University, 159
163n10, 163n15, 163n17, Alcorn State University, 255
164n18 Ali, Muhammad, 27
academic fraud, 4, 123–47 All Players United, 75
academic progress rate (APR), 17, 40, Althouse, Ronald, 13, 46n19, 46n20,
74, 250, 257–9, 268n23 47n29, 48n35, 164n22, 165n35,
academic reform, 14, 15, 17, 18, 41, 266n3, 299, 311n3
45n10, 59, 104, 131, 141, 156, amateurism, 3, 5, 14, 15, 33, 35, 58,
172, 184 76, 140, 195–201, 203, 205, 208
activism, 4, 22, 27, 37–40, 42, 43, Amendment 14th, 66, 94, 126, 129,
45n6, 50n54, 58, 61–5, 75, 130, 177
78n12, 86, 90, 96, 100, 104, Amendment 15th, 177
109n16, 162n2, 194, 196, 208, American Association of University
210, 290n15 Professors (AAUP), 59
Adams, Maurianne, 19, 46n15 American College Test (ACT), 16, 73,
affirmative action, 19, 66 173, 174, 182, 183, 197
African American Studies, 99, American Dream, 45n3, 193, 194,
103 196, 208, 210
Note: Page numbers with “n” denote footnotes.

United States, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60038-7
322 INDEX
American Indian/Alaskan Native, 93 Black masculinity, 5, 137, 217–42

American slavery, 13 Black Power Movement, 101, 318
Anderson, Kevin, 298 Black scholar-activists, 90, 96, 104,
Anderson, Ray, 298 105
anti-intellectual, 5, 236 Black Staff Organizations, 97
Apple, 194 Black Star Project, 99
Arizona State, 73, 298 Bok, Derek, 182
Arnold, Benedict, 136 Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo, 233, 242n77
Article 12, 195–7 Bowl Championship Series (BCS), 3,
Asian Pacific Islander, 93 6n2, 34, 68–9, 70, 248, 250,
Association of Governing Boards 254, 255, 257, 259, 265
(AGB), 59 Bradley, Bill (Senator), 183
athletic gladiators, 7 Brooks, Dana D., 13, 299, 311n3
athletic industrial complex, 12, 34, 38, Brown, Drew D., 217–42
129, 133–9 Brown, Jack, 78n14
Atlantic Coast Conference [ACC], Brown, Jim, 27
6n2, 77n1, 155, 163n15, 248 Brown, John, 27
Auburn Tigers, 70 Brown, Michael, 2, 3
Auriemma, Geno, 200 Brown, Tony N., 79n27
Brown v. Board of Education, 21,
31, 93, 109n22, 111n29–32,
B 173
Banner, David, 137 Bruening, Jennifer, 42
Beh, Hazel Glenn, 181, 187n46 Buckley Amendment, 73
Bell, Derrick, 19, 21, 23, 30, 66, 93, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 194
144n13, 234, 248, 279 Bush, George W. (President), 62
Bernal, Dolores D., 154, 162n1 Bush, Reggie, 198, 199, 211n22
Bethea, Rodney, 136 Butler, Jonathan, 64
Big 12, 6n2, 69, 77n1, 155, 206, 248, Byers, Walter, 15, 46n11, 267n4,
317 267n5, 272n91
Big Apple Classic, 264 Bylaw 12.1.2.1.1, 207
Big East, 6n2, 69, 77n1, 155, 248 Bylaw 12.1.2.4, 206
Big Ten, 6n2, 69, 77n1, 138, 155, Bylaw 12.1.4.5, 202
248, 307, 317 Bylaw 12.4.2.1, 204
Bilas, Jay, 44 Bylaw 12.4.4, 203
Bimper, Dr. Albert, 50n56, 103, 104, Bylaw 12.5.1.1, 203
112n4 Bylaw 12.5.1.8, 203
Black Coaches’ Association (BCA) Bylaw 12.6.1.5, 202–3
Hiring Report Card, 302 Bylaw 12.6.1.6, 204
Black dumb jocks, 36
Black faculty, 86–91, 94–101, 103–6
Black Lives Matter, 22, 63, 86, 318 C
Black male initiatives (BMIs), 162 Canseco, Jose, 133
INDEX 323
Carmelo Anthony, 137 Cooper, Joseph N., 1–6, 144n17,

Carmichael, Stokely, 23, 44n1, 247–74
114n55 Cornell University of Law school, 134
Carnegie Foundation for the corporate social responsibility (CSR),
Advancement of Teaching, 58 6, 282–8
Carter-Francique, Alikah R., 1–6, Creighton, 5, 171–88
85–115, 142n4, 145n28 Crenshaw, Kimberlé, 18, 25, 46n14,
Cavil, J.K., 123–47, 164n20, 247–74 47n24, 142n1, 146n38, 267n10
CBS, 68–70, 175, 202 Critical Legal Studies (CLS), 18, 33,
CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, 3, 65, 93, 126, 248, 279, 301
58 critical theory, 33
champion, 63, 70, 103, 227 Cunningham, Phillip, 228
Cheeks, Geremy, 247–74 Cunningham, Samuel Lewis (“Bam”),
Circle City Classics, 264 92
civil rights movement, 18, 27, 61, 75,
196, 279, 318
Claremont McKenna College, 63 D
Clarke, John Henrik, 31 Dame, Notre, 62, 86
Clark, Kevin, 298 Daniels, David, 223
CNN, 129, 138 Dareus, Marcell, 199, 212n25
Coach Doug Williams, 258 Davis, Timothy, 20, 46n19, 46n20,
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, 48n40
17, 59 Declaration of Independence, 177,
Cole, J. L., 126, 127 193
College Athletes Rights and Delgado, Richard, 19, 65, 79n25,
Empowerment, 17 79n28, 79n29, 110n27, 110n28,
College Sport Research Institute 111n29, 111n34, 130, 142n1,
(CSRI), 35, 44 144n13, 144n19, 146n38,
Collegiate Licensing Company, 205 162n3, 186n1, 221, 222, 225,
Collins, Marva, 175, 176, 185, 226, 239n22–4, 239n31,
186n16 240n37, 240n43, 240n47,
Collins, Patricia Hill, 233, 242n76 241n56, 242n74, 242n86, 249,
colonialism, 13, 43, 68, 224 267n10, 267n11, 267n14
color blindness and color-blind, 20–1, Denver Nuggets, 137
26, 127, 172, 177, 184, 221, Diollo, Amadou, 229
232–4, 249, 253, 257, 300, 301 Division Academic Performance
Colter, Kain, 39, 158 Program Supplemental Support
Columbia University, 62 Fund (SSF), 259
Conference USA, 6n2, 248 Division I Athletics Directors
Congress, 177, 183 Association, 60
The Constitution, 177 Division I Committee on Infractions
cool pose, 225, 226 (COI), 125, 198, 211n18
324 INDEX
Division I Faculty Athletics Faculty Athletics Representatives

Representatives (Division Association (FARA), 59
I-FARs), 59 Farrakhan, Louis, 217
Division I Football Bowl Subdivision Feagin, Joe, 11, 22, 224
(FBS), 12 Federal District Court Judge John
Dixon, Taylor L., 222 A. Nordberg, 178
Donnor, Jamel, 22, 32 Feinberg, Seth L., 232, 241n69
Douglass, Frederick, 57, 76, 82n64 Ferber, Abby L., 233, 241n59
The Drake Group, 17, 60 Fields, Sarah K., 171–88
Dropbox, 194 Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,
DuBois, W.E.B., 25, 44n1, 266n1, 126
266n2, 269n25, 269n29, 270n48 Florida, 2, 73
Dudziak, Mary, 21, 47n22 Flowers, Courtney L., 123–47, 142n4,
Dufur, Mikaela J., 232, 241n69 143n7
Duke University, 62, 155 Football College Subdivision (FCS), 85
dumb jocks, 36 Fourteenth Amendment, 66, 94, 126,
Duncan, Jonathan F., 125 129, 130, 177
Frankenberg, Ruth, 20
Frazier, Sean, 298
E Freeman, Alan, 248, 279
Edwards, Harry, 13, 16, 27, 37, 44, Free Speech Movement, 61
45n6, 45n9, 46n13, 50n51, Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, 177
50n57, 86, 90, 100, 106,
109n15, 109n18, 112n40,
115n61, 163n8, 183, 184, 222, G
239n40, 268n20 Garner, J.R., 11–50
Eitzen, Stanley, 29, 36, 40, 48nn35, genocide, 2, 251
165n30 Gerraughty, Robert J., 174
Electronic Arts (EA) Sports, 205 Gill, Emmett, 27, 85–115
entrepreneurship, 5, 193–213 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
epistemologies, 34, 43, 302 (GEM), 194
ESPN, 44, 69, 124, 125, 127, 131, Goldberg, Bernard, 124
135, 241n57, 255 Goldrick-Rab, Dr. Sara, 90, 109n16
eurocentric, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, Good Old Boy network, 26
44, 223, 250, 280 Google, 194
exploitation, 13, 20, 32, 33, 35–8, grade point average (GPA), 16, 39,
40, 41, 75, 76, 87, 95, 130–3, 162, 172, 174, 175, 182, 183, 280
140, 153, 157–8, 160, 206, 208, graduation success rate (GSR), 17,
256 159, 257
Gragg, Derrick, 298
Grambling State University, 2258
F Gray, Freddie, 137, 138
Facebook, 194 Greek Life Organizations, 97
INDEX 325
Green, A.J., 204 221, 234, 235, 249, 250, 255,

Guinier, Lani, 22 258, 259, 280, 281, 305
Gumbel, Bryant, 124 Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 204
Inter-Scholastic Athletic Association of
the Middle Atlantic States (ISSA),
H 253
Hamilton, Charles, 23, 114n55 intersectionality, 25, 43, 47n24, 225,
Hampton University, 252, 257 227
Hans Gieng’s 1543 statue in Berne, Ithaca College, 63
Switzerland, 176 Ivy League, 248
Harrison, C. Keith, 219
Hart, Algerian, 85–115
Harvard and Yale Regatta, 14 J
Hawkins, B., 1–6, 36, 40, 57–82 Jack Roosevelt “Jackie” Robinson,
HBO, 124 92
Henderson, Markesha McWilliams, Jackson, Phillip, 99
193–213 Jackson State University, 258
hip-hop, 123–47 Jackson, Vanessa P., 153–66
Hispanic/Latino, 93 James L. Knight Foundation, 59
Hitler, Adolf, 230 Jane Doe v. State of Louisiana, 222
Hornung, Paul, 86 Jay-Z, 130, 131
Howard Savage, 14 Jealous, Benjamin, 152–3
Howard University, 159, 252 Jim Crow, 23, 187n31, 226, 227,
Huma, Ramogi, 27, 60 236
Hylton, Kevin, 50n55, 93, 163n5, Johnson, Chris, 226
224, 240n34 Johnson, Gus, 226
Johnson, Jack, 227
Jones, Cardale, 39
I Jordan, Michael, 233, 234
Imus, Don, 101, 102, 161
Indianapolis Colts, 103
Indiana University, 63 K
The Institute for Diversity and Ethics Kaepernick, Colin, 222, 235, 239n28,
in Sports, 159 247
institutional racism, 23, 27, 32, 33, Kanne, Michael S., 179
225, 304, 306–8, 310n3, 311 Kansas State, 62
intercollegiate athletics, 3, 4, 35, Keith Michael Champagne, 297–313
57–60, 67, 92, 113n46, 135, 139, Kerr, Floyd, 262, 263
158, 194–8, 200, 203, 247–74, Kevin Ross v. Creighton University, 5,
298, 300–4, 306–11, 316 171–88
interest convergence, 4, 21, 26, 30, Killer Coke, 62
31, 47n23, 57–82, 93, 94, King, Rodney, 230
100–3, 106, 111n34, 129, 130, Kline, Steve, 176
326 INDEX
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate marginalized, 18, 21, 23, 30, 34, 58,
Athletics, 17, 59, 156 93, 95, 100, 106, 123, 125–7,
130, 136, 141, 142, 160, 162,
249, 315, 318
L Martin, Trayvon, 2, 229
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, 22, 30, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
46n17, 142n2, 211n7 (MIT), 62
Lamar, Kendrick, 138, 146n45 Matsuda, Mari, 18, 279
Lapchick, Richard, 12, 27, 109n19, Mayo, Ovinton J’Anthony, 199
110n26, 112n39, 165n38, 201, McBride, Sheila, 185
212n31, 237n12, 289n7, 298, McCants, Rashad, 124, 125, 134,
311n1, 311n2 135, 143n8, 147n50
Leadership Development and Training McGuirk, Bernard, 101
Institute, 309 media revenue, 69
LGBT, 22 meso-level, 29, 33–6, 44, 248, 250,
limited-resource institutions (LRIs), 253–7
248, 254, 255, 257, 259, 265 Michigan state, 73
Littlepage, Craig, 298 micro-aggressions, 86, 105, 131, 141,
Loftin R. Bowen (Chancellor), 75 226–7, 230, 233
Lorde, Audre, viin1 micro-level, 6, 25, 29, 36–8, 44, 250,
Louima, Abner, 230 257–60
Louis, Joe, 230 Microsoft, 194
Loyola, 62 Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
LSU Black Male Leadership Initiative, (MEAC), 253, 254, 263
162, 166n51 Million Man March of 1995, 22
Lynn, Marvin, 19, 46n15, 48n36 minority, 13, 18, 21, 24, 62, 63, 88,
89, 95, 105, 138, 155, 225, 249,
156221
M Mississippi Valley State University,
Macalester, 62 257
macro-level, 29–33, 44, 250–3 Missouri Valley Conference (MVC),
Maddox, K.B., 222, 239n29 174, 177, 178
Madison Square Garden in New York Morgan State University, 262
City, 264 Mount Holyoke College, 88
major league baseball (MLB), 21, 67, Muir, Bernard, 298
207 multicultural services, 97
Major League Soccer (MLS), 207 multi-year scholarship, 73
Major, Richard, 225, 237n2 Muslims, 2
Mann Act, 227 Myles Brand, 15
Manning Marable, 1
Manziel, Johnny, 199
marginalization, 19, 93, 94, 280, 281, N
288 Napier, Shabazz, 39, 64, 198, 211n16
INDEX 327
National Association for College organizational theory, 33

Athletic Reform (NAFCAR), 60 Oriard, Michael, 14–18, 45n10
National Association for the Owens, James Cleveland “Jesse”, 92
Advancement, 252
National Association of Academic
Advisors for Athletics (N4A), P
59–60 Pacific Athletic Conference [PAC] 12,
National Center for Educational 248
Statistics (NCES), 88, 89 Pan African, 318
National College Players Association, Parent Loan for Undergraduate
27, 60 Students (PLUS), 252
National Collegiate Athletic Paterno, Joe, 167
Association (NCAA),, 3–6, 13, 57, Paul Quinn College (TX), 258
86, 123, 156, 171, 193–213, 248, Pell Grant Aid, 259
281–2, 286–7, 297, 316, 317 Penn State, 16, 62
National Football League (NFL), 4, 5, Pettaway, Vann, 263
39, 156, 201, 207, 217–42, 283 Plessy v. Ferguson, 222
National Hockey League (NHL), 207 Polite, Fritz G., 112n41, 279–91
National Invitation Tournament post-Civil Rights era, 233
(NIT), 264 postracial, 2, 127, 250, 253, 315
National Labor Relations Board postracial society, 2, 250, 253, 315
(NLRB), 64, 158 Prop 48, 182, 183
National Letter of Intent (NLI), 71, 72 Proposition 42, 16
NC State, 73 Proposition 48, 16, 182
Newton, Cam, 229, 235, 241n57 Pryor, Terrelle, 199
Nike, 63
The 1929 Carnegie Foundation
Report, 14 R
North Carolina Agricultural and Racial and Gender Report Card 2014
Technical State University, 257 (RGRC), 12, 297, 298
North Carolina Central University, 98 racial ideologies, 3–5, 24, 40
Northwestern, 39, 63, 64, 76, 158 racism,, 3, 11–50, 65, 86, 127,
153–66, 172, 196, 218, 223–32,
248, 280, 299, 306–8
O Rating Percentage Index (RPI), 254,
Obama, Barack (President), 1 255
O’Bannon, Edward, 199, 205, 206 Reebok, 63
Offenburger, Dan, 174, 175 reform, 3, 4, 11–50, 57–82, 104,
Ohio State, 73 105, 131, 141, 142, 156, 172,
Ohr, Peter, 64, 158 181–4, 186, 200, 208, 281, 301,
Oklahoma A&M, 178 318
Oliver, Melvin, 26, 48n33 revenue-generating sports, 13, 67,
Operation Desert Storm, 62 140, 196, 197, 281, 316, 317
328 INDEX
reverse discrimination, 19 Snapchat, 194

Rhoden, William, 233, 237n6, 240n49, South Africa, 27
240n50, 241n61, 242n79 Southall, Richard, 35, 49n46, 49n47,
Rick Ross, 133 77n3
Robert Staples, 218, 227, 237n8 Southeastern Conference (SEC), 6n2,
Robeson, Paul, 27 69, 77n1, 138, 155, 248, 317
Roosevelt, Theodore, President, 58 Southern Association of Colleges and
Rosenberg, Sid, 161 Schools (SACS), 251
Ross, Kevin, 5, 171–5, 180, 181, Southern Methodist University, 85
185 Southern Mississippi, 63
Rucker Park, 136 Southern University (LA), 263
Russell, Bill, 27, 63 Spellman, Mary, 63
Rutgers University, 101, 161 Spelman College, 252, 258, 266
Sports Management Institute (SMI),
310
S standardized test scores, 182
Sack, Allen L., 15, 38, 45n5, 46n11 Stefancic, Jean, 65, 110n27
Sage, George, 23, 109n17 structural arrangements, 6, 13, 33, 36,
Sanity Code, 14, 15 38, 40, 44, 248, 249, 254, 257
San Jose State University, 86 Student Athletes Human Rights
Santiago, Jeremai ‘J’, xvii–xviii Project, 27, 98
scholastic aptitude test (SAT), 16, 17, Supreme Court, 21, 23, 66, 93, 126,
73, 129, 182, 183, 197 177, 199, 222
Scott, Dred, 177 Swarthmore College, 88
Seventh Circuit of the US Court of sweatshops, 62, 63
Appeals, 179 Synder, James, 160
Shapiro,Thomas, 26, 48n33 systemic racism, 4, 6, 11–50, 90–2,
sharecropping, 76, 138–42, 316 224, 248, 250, 252, 253, 257
Sharp, Duer, 258
Sherman, Richard, 229, 241n58
Shropshire, Kenneth L., 18, 299, T
311n6 Tate, Bill, 30
Sigma Alpha Epilson, 63 Tatum, Dr. Beverly Daniel, 258
Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 63, 101 Tennessee Titans, 226
Singer, John N., 11–50, 80n39, Ten Pillars, 6, 260–2
80n40, 110n25, 112n40, 162n2, terrorists, 2
164n28, 289n9 Texas A&M University, 50n57, 86,
slave auction block, 231 113n47
slavery, 13, 23, 26, 76, 77, 224, 225, Texas Southern University, 257
231, 251, 316 Thabiti Lewis, 228, 237n1
Smith, Earl, 12, 45n3, 146n48 Three-Fifths Compromise, 24
Smith, Eugene, 298 Title VI, 183
INDEX 329
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of V

1964, 20 Vaccaro, Sonny, 87
Topeka Board of Education, 91 Van Rheenen, Derek, 32
Torres, Gerald, 22 Varsity Blues, 123, 124
Tulsa University, 178, 298 Vesey, Denmark, 136
Turner Broadcasting, 202
Turner Sports, 68
W
Walter Beach III, 233
U Warde J. Manuel, 298
United Negro College Fund (UNCF), Wardell Johnson, 153–66
106, 107 Watkins, William, 31, 48n37
United States Olympics Committee wealth transfer, 76, 316, 317
(USOC), 207 Weems, A.J., 4, 11–50
United Students Against Sweatshops Wesleyan University, 63
Chapters, 63 West, Cornell, 41, 50n53
University of Alabama, 85, 199, 256 Westside Preparatory Academy
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, 257 in Chicago, Illinois, 171,
University of California at Berkeley, 175
61–3, 298 Whistleblower Protection Act, 134,
University of California at Riverside, 62 136, 145n31
University of California Los Angeles, White gaze, 218, 226, 228, 229, 231,
92, 199 235
University of Connecticut, 39, 63, 64, White hegemony, 217, 218, 228
198, 200 White male patriarchy, 13
University of Georgia, 199 whiteness,–4, 19–20, 23–5, 34, 129,
University of Kentucky, 159, 256 222, 228, 230, 249, 250, 252,
University of Maryland, 161, 298 302, 303, 307–11
University of Miami, 3, 58 white supremacy, 5, 12, 13, 19, 25, 38,
University of Michigan, 62, 298 40, 45, 221, 223, 227, 230, 233–5,
University of Missouri, 39, 64, 74, 76, 248, 249, 281, 316, 318, 2231
85, 104, 105 Whitley, David, 222, 239n28
University of North Carolina (UNC), Wilcox, Stan, 298
3, 5, 58, 72, 98–100, 124, 125, Williams College, 88
127, 129, 131, 133–5, 158, 181 Williams, David, II, 298
University of Oklahoma, 63, 85, 101 Williams, Michael, 298
University of Southern California, 92, Williams, Patricia, 18, 279
198, 256 Willingham, Mary, 99, 114n51, 125,
University of Tennessee, 3, 58, 161 127, 133–5
University of Texas, 126, 206, 256, Wilson, Darren, 3
257 Wilson, Russell, 230, 241n62
US Census Bureau, 220 Wolfe, Tim, 75
330 INDEX
Woodson, Carter G., 30, 31, 44n1, Y

48n38, 266n1, 266n2, 269n25, Yahoo, 194
269n29, 270n48 Yale University, 63
Yancy, George, 218
Yosso, Tara, 95, 108n10,
X 112n44, 144n13, 267n15,
X, Malcolm, 140, 143n12 289n2

Critical Race Theory - Black Athletic Sporting Experiences in The Us

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Critical Race Theory - Black Athletic Sporting Experiences in The Us

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CRITICAL

BLACK ATHLETIC SPORTING EXPERIENCES

ISBN 978-1-137-60037-0 ISBN 978-1-137-60038-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016958843

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover illustration: © Aurora Photos / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

Critical Race Theory and American Sport

Part I Theoretical Practices, Reform, and Advocacy9

2 Fraternal Twins: Critical Race Theory and Systemic

3 Interest Convergence: A Revolutionary Theory for

4 Converging Interest: Black Scholar-Advocacy

Part II Academic Experiences, Challenges, and Legislation121

5 Sports and Hip-Hop, the “Winning at All Costs”

6 Race and Racism: The Black Male Experience in Sports153

7 The Presence and Absence of Race: Ross v. Creighton

8 NCAA Bylaw 12: The Double Standard of Promotion

9 The Portrayal of Black Masculinity in the NFL: Critical

10 Critical Race Theory and Intercollegiate Athletics at

11 Social Responsibility/Accountability Addressing

Part III Athletic Representation and Leadership 295

12 Black Male Intercollegiate Athletic Administrators:

Part IV Best practices and leadership 315

Drew D. Brown, Ph.D. is a scholar of race, gender and sport. He is currently an

Algerian Hart, Ph.D. is the Sport Management Graduate Coordinator in the

Leadership from Shenandoah University (VA) and a bachelor’s degree in Media

Fig. 2.1 CRT and SRT Comparison 28

Table 3.1 Student protests 63

Although elated from the symbolic empowerment that two-term elected

© The Author(s) 2017 1

• Keith Lamont Scot—Charlotte, North Carolina (September 20, 2016)

some fostering peaceful protests, while others provoking disorderly behav-

Theoretical Practices, Reform, and

Fraternal Twins: Critical Race Theory

John N. Singer, Anthony J. Weems, and Justin R. Garner

© The Author(s) 2017 11

radical intellectual tradition of scholars and activists who fought against

To be sure, some scholars, activists, and educators, particularly from

First, we provide a historical background on the college sport reform

OVERVIEW: HISTORY OF COLLEGE SPORT REFORM

principles focusing on academic standards and eligibility. However, shortly

Amateurism, according to Myles Brand, ‘defines the participants, not the

In essence, many of the academic reforms proposed by the NCAA in the

high school core courses required for eligibility to participate in college

• “SAT Gaps” between athletes and non-athletes (i.e., athletes had

• The need for athletes to choose a major immediately rather than

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND SYSTEMIC RACISM THEORY:

The Social and Legal Construction of Race and Endemic Nature

Whiteness as a Property Interest and Norm

According to Ruth Frankenberg, author of the book White Women, Race

Critique of Color Blindness, Meritocracy, and Objectivity

and advantages many Whites have gained and maintained throughout

Experiential Knowledge and Counter-Narratives

Critical Reflection and Action by Cross-Race Coalitions

SYSTEMIC RACISM THEORY

White Racism as Foundational and Systemic

Whites’ Unjust Enrichment and the Unjust Impoverishment

parallels to this foundational tenet of SRT. For example, the enslavement

The White Racial Frame

Socioracial Hierarchy with Divergent Group Interests

Alienated Social Relations

minorities that is passed down from generation to generation in various

Part I Theoretical Practices, Reform, and Advocacy9

2 Fraternal Twins: Critical Race Theory and Systemic

3 Interest Convergence: A Revolutionary Theory for

4 Converging Interest: Black Scholar-Advocacy

Part II Academic Experiences, Challenges, and Legislation121

5 Sports and Hip-Hop, the “Winning at All Costs”

6 Race and Racism: The Black Male Experience in Sports153

7 The Presence and Absence of Race: Ross v. Creighton

8 NCAA Bylaw 12: The Double Standard of Promotion

10 Critical Race Theory and Intercollegiate Athletics at

11 Social Responsibility/Accountability Addressing

Part III Athletic Representation and Leadership 295

12 Black Male Intercollegiate Athletic Administrators:

Part IV Best practices and leadership 315

Fig. 2.1 CRT and SRT Comparison 28

Table 3.1 Student protests 63

Converging Interests: Black Scholar-

Understandably, some may disagree with the distinction between scholar-