“Diversity” and Theories of Softball

The official inquiry into the Binghamton University basketball scandal has revealed rafts of damning new information. We already knew that, in its eagerness to make the jump to Division I, the university admitted a bunch of academically unqualified players who eventually brought down the program in wave of academic misconduct and criminality, including assault, thievery, and sale of crack cocaine. Now we learn that assistant coaches helped players plagiarize, illegally gave one cash to pay off a court fine incurred for stealing condoms from Wal-Mart, and prepped players on how to answer questions from the police. Failing grades were changed to passing, players dropped regular courses for “independent study,” and some were allowed to transfer in courses with titles like “Bowling I” and “Theories of Softball.” The athletics department’s stated position on this was, “Why do you care if we take six players who don’t attend classes?” President Lois DeFleur has resigned to “take care of her sick mother.” Incredibly, head basketball coach Kevin Broadus has not been fired. It’s like Binghamton bought a handbook titled “How to Degrade Your University in Pursuit of Fleeting Athletic Glory” and followed it page by page.

In a conference call with reporters, SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher said, “I am disappointed that a great institution like Binghamton University would, in any way, because of its athletic program, compromise its terrific academic reputation.” We all know why a university would want to prostitute its academic reputation by buying a Division I basketball team — get on national TV, win a few NCAA tournament games, and suddenly people all over the country know who you are and you’re one step closer to becoming the Berkeley of Broome County. The more interesting question is: Why, for the most part, do universities get away with it?  Binghamton just happened to get caught. Most universities are a little more discrete.

I think the answer lies with the nature of academic reputations. Binghamton, like nearly all well-regarded colleges and universities, owes its reputation to two–and only two–things. First is the faculty. Binghamton is home to many distinguished scholars who conduct important work in their fields. Second is admissions selectivity. Binghamton accepts only 40 percent of applicants, nearly half of whom graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class. The median SAT score is close to 1300. Terrific students + terrific faculty = terrific reputation.

The problem is that neither factor has anything to do with the university’s academic standards for teaching and the awarding of credit. You can funnel athletes into the “Human Development Department,” help them plagiarize their papers, pressure instructors to change grades, award credit for “independent study” and Theories of Softball and all the rest, and none of that changes the number of distinguished professors or students with 1400 SATs. The same is true for liberal AP credit policies and awarding four credits for three hours of teaching. You can make undergraduate teaching an important part of tenure review or not, provide high-quality academic counseling or not–it doesn’t make any difference. As long you keep your basketball players out of prison, you can have your cake and it eat it too.

This is also merits discussion:

Binghamton admitted one player with an arrest record and others from academically suspect high schools. Some transfer students brought coursework that had “limited, if any, academic content,” the report said. When objections were raised, Ms. DeFleur reasoned that Binghamton was undergoing an “experiment,” the report said, and she cast the lower admission standards as part of the university’s effort for more diversity.

Diversity in higher education is really important.  As institutions with strong public obligations, colleges have a responsibility to serve as vehicles of social mobility and to provide educational opportunities to people who historically have been under-served. Diversity is also an inherent value–the educational environment at a college benefits from enrolling students from all walks of life. Yet for a not-insignificant number of people, “diversity” has become synonymous with P.C. excess. Why? Because of cynical things like this. When people of high standing like President DeFleur use “diversity” to excuse the exploitation of athletic workers in pursuit of their own warped ambitions, they cast a pall on the entire enterprise. People who truly value diversity should be the first to denounce this kind of awful, cynical use of the word.