It seems clear now that NKU is going to take the road toward reclassification as an NCAA Division I institution. We should learn soon whether our bid for joining a Division I conference has been accepted, and upon receiving an invitation we can then petition the NCAA for reclassification. Here are a few of my reflections on the matter.

I've been watching this process unfold now for several years. It's not a new idea; in fact it was considered and studied and rejected (or postponed) at least twice in recent history. Faculty might express displeasure now over not being part of the process, but it was a multi-year process that was never secretive, with plenty of invitations for input. A concerned, critical, persistent Faculty Senate could have been at the center of this decision making process all along. The Senate should own up to that, not blame the administration.

That's not to say complete and accurate information was easy to come by from the administration. As a member of the Athletic Council I and others had a chance to encourage the President to make the case to faculty and the university community. He took this seriously. I personally wanted to know that if we were going Division I athletically, we would also be aiming at becoming a Division I academic institution. Understanding that could mean lots of things, I wanted us to define what it meant in advance. I didn't just want to hold academic affairs harmless in the new venture, I wanted to see how academic affairs would be strengthened. How would this improve the central mission of the institution to educate? I suggested creating a document, analogous to the documented plan I knew would have to created for Intercollegiate Athletics, that would describe in detail the proposed changes including budgetary commitments and expected benefits for academics. Such a document for athletics is prepared in the application process for a conference invitation and it does include details about the academic integrity and productivity of the institution. But just as we ought to be able to say in detail what we expect the costs and benefits for athletics would be when moving to Division I, we ought to be able to say the same for academic affairs. While the Athletic Council was kept informed about the process all along the way (our relationship with Athletics and the administration is very strong and positive), this level of documentation regarding academics was never available to the Council or the faculty. I personally regret not being more persistent, though it is not too late.

My suggestion for a plan to outline Division I academics was initially met with some interest, which eventuated only in a change in public rhetoric. It seems we already are a Division I academic institution and athletics is lagging behind. So what does it mean to be Division I academically?

1. Excellence. Division I connotes something better than Division II. In athletics it is about skill and athletic ability, a higher level of competition, and so connotes something like a four-star rating; but that is not to say it is intrinsically better. For one division or one conference to be better than another you need to specify the relevant dimensions. Division II or III might be better for certain schools with certain missions or values or objectives. If you are only concerned about the level of competition, that's one thing. But there are other dimensions along which an athletic program can excel. There are outstanding DII and DIII athletic programs. (NKU, for example, has had an outstanding DII program for years.)

What about academics? Specifically, what are those dimensions along which we measure academic excellence? The idea is to point to something like high academic achievement, faculty expertise or quality programs. We need to be able to say more, however, and to say how it is measured. But more specificity here still leaves open the question of how academic excellence is related to athletic excellence. Is it possible for a school to be considered DI academically without being DI athletically? Is DI athletics required for DI academics? Is this the only way to fund quality or inspire a campus and community to academic greatness? I doubt it, but we haven't explored these questions fully as an institution.

2. Profile. Mostly the rhetoric has been that we already do or aspire to resemble other DI schools (in our preferred conference). Resemble how? Publicly the president is pointing to breadth of curriculum, size and quality of student body, stature of faculty, centers for research and creative excellence, community engagement, and our impact on region. This is our "Division I profile." It's not clear why this is not consistent with a Division II profile.

What about academic values like performance? Workload? Expectations? Achievement? We need to look closely at these. And before we rush to become part of the DI academic profile we should remember the other side, which is a less than flattering picture in which academic integrity and performance takes a back seat to athletic success. We currently have a graduation rate of 34%. We would leave the GLVC with its average graduation rate of 54%. Would moving to the OVC, with an average graduation rate of 44%, better fit our own profile, or establish a better aspirational model? So we say we want to fit a Division I academic profile, but we should be careful what we wish for.

Thinking critically, we should be asking whether those DI schools acquired their dreamy academic profiles by being DI athletically? Do we know? Don't some DII and DIII schools also have dreamy academic profiles? I would point out that trying to be like someone else means we are looking backward: they got where they are from past endeavors in past environments. How do we chart our way into the future? How do we anticipate future changes in the higher education landscape? Is Division I athletics (and the branding it brings) the best path to realize our aspirations in today's or tomorrow's economic and educational environment? For example, is the DI branding argument still as viable today as it was yesterday? Even if we grant that in the past going DI has resulting in rich branding opportunities for universities (like ours) and improved retention and recruitment, will this be the case in the future? Increased public and legislative scrutiny on the relationship between education and athletics suggests we should think about this carefully. I think a key question is whether there are ways to become DI academically without becoming DI athletically? Are there alternative branding options that would fit our mission and values but require a different kind of investment? Some schools even move from DII to DIII to better serve their mission.

I have confidence that the key people involved in implementing our move to Division I have the desire and competence to get it done right. We are fortunate to have an administration and an athletic staff with a lot of integrity, a strong work ethic, and a wealth of competence. Still, it would be a shame if faculty sat back and watched, only to look up once in a while, and just long enough, to complain.

I've raised lots of questions and I'm not ready to argue that we should not go Division I. Perhaps we should. I would argue that we--as a faculty, as an institution--should define what it means to be DI academically before others, or unforeseen circumstances, define it for us.

TrackBack