Abstract
The present study employs critical race theory in a critical discourse analysis of intercollegiate athletic departmental directives for high-profile National Collegiate Athletic Association member programs. Consideration of institutional integrity from critical perspectives can advance a nuanced understanding and gain further insight into the sociocultural issues and move toward eliminating inequities relevant to black student athlete stakeholders in the arena of intercollegiate athletics. The purpose of this research was to investigate the implicit function and perpetuation of contemporary racism in intercollegiate athletic organizations’ as they strategically address institutional integrity. A discussion of the findings are organized by two emergent themes: (a) Little skin in the game; and (b) Run-of-the-mill colorblindness. This paper concludes with implications for college sport and future research of intercollegiate athletics at the intersection of higher education.
Following the July 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman in a shooting death of African American teen Trayvon Martin in Florida, there spawned a widespread movement across the United States known as Black Lives Matter (BLM). The BLM movement pointedly called into question the function and operation of deeply rooted systemic and structural inequities that critically impact persons of color, particularly blacks, in America. The overall movement soon permeated even collegiate athletics as subsequent high profile deaths of African Americans Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and John Crawford III ignited the movement’s momentum and captured national and global attention regarding the matters of race in a post-civil rights era of US society. Accordingly, in support of the BLM movement, both the women’s basketball teams at the University of Notre Dame and the University of California, Berkley wore t-shirts during warm-ups at their respective games with popular mantras associated to the BLM movement printed on the front. These student athletes’ thoughtful demonstrations of support for BLM underscored how intercollegiate athletics and issues of race are not inseparable.
A scan of the sociocultural landscape of college sport leadership in the modern era reveals glaring racial disproportions and inequities that persist in college sport leadership. Lapchick (2012) highlights the leadership at Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) national collegiate athletics association (NCAA) member institutions remains racially dominated by whites. Specifically, Lapchick reports from The Institute of Diversity and Ethics in Sport that the campus presidency, director of athletics and conference commissioner leadership roles at FBS institutions are occupied by 90%, 87.5% and 100% whites, respectively. Black student-athletes represent another key stakeholder group within the modern day enterprise of intercollegiate athletics (Singer, 2013). As such, blacks represented 51.8% of the student-athlete population during the 2012–2013 season (Lapchick). These said racial demographics in college sport speak volumes in illustrating the disparate disproportions in comparison to the nearly 75% whites and 14% blacks of the entire US population as reported in census data (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2010a, 2010b).
The existing racial inequities in college sport leadership have likely implications regarding the strategic leadership for addressing historic and contemporary issues of race in athletic departments. Considering the above demographics and prevailing racial climate, directives and strategic policy within athletic departments are plausibly subjected to the racial consciousness of leadership or to the extent thereof. NCAA member institutions feasibly capitalize on the disproportionate black student-athlete participation in higher revenue-producing sports to bolster institutional notoriety, while maintaining racial inequities between stakeholders in athletics. Such maintenance of racial inequity within the industry of college sports raises concern for how contemporary racism is functioning within college sport organizations.
Organizational directives and strategic aims in intercollegiate athletics can be viewed as a window into an organization and thereby set the viable tone for the inner workings and policy development. A central aim for governing directives (i.e. mission statements, departmental philosophies) is to communicate the identities and purposes of an institution to its stakeholders (Bart, 1996; Bart and Tabone, 1998). The discourse of organizational directives and strategic aims serves an important role toward managing the organization–stakeholder relationship (Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997). Strategic directives can serve as living artifacts that introduce the stakeholders and the broader base of constituents to the character, personality and focus of the organization. The lack of a nuanced understanding of racial inequities perpetuated by the strategic discourse constructed at the organizational intersection of higher education and the exponentially increasing enterprise of intercollegiate athletics (Ward and Hux, 2011) exposes a significant knowledge gap in the study of the sociocultural issue of race in college sport. The present research endeavors fill this void by investigating the discourse within the strategic directives of elite intercollegiate athletic programs through the lens of critical race theory (CRT) to advance a greater understanding of their role in managing historical and contemporary linkages to issues of race.
The elements of strategic directives (i.e. missions, visions, goals and objectives) can offer a guide for stakeholder management (Bartkus and Glassman, 2008) and strategic programing to conduct affairs (Bart et al., 2001; Ward and Hux, 2011) as well as enhance student-athletes’ development and welfare. In the context of intercollegiate athletics, governing directives can lead to enhancing substantive student-athlete development. Mission and visioning statements are rife across athletic programs of NCAA member institutions representing how organizations construct their external and internal identities (Dunbar, 2006). An organization’s external and internal identities are essential toward developing an understanding for an organization’s guiding commitments to stakeholders and audiences within the organization as well as those on the exterior of organizational operations.
Institutional integrity
Exploring the organizational directives (e.g. policies and strategic aims) of intercollegiate athletic programs related to the experiences of black student-athletes is germane to a discussion of institutional integrity. The concept of institutional integrity is characterized as “the institution’s degree of consistency between their rhetoric and their behavior relative to stated commitments to the development of all students’ intellectual and social development, including student-athletes” (Daniels, 1987: 155). Daniels argues that striving for the highest degree of institutional integrity is essential to effectively support intercollegiate student-athletes. The guiding directives (i.e. mission, values, goal statements) of NCAA member institutions of higher education reflect one’s “stated commitments” to the development of student-athletes (Singer, 2009).
Sack (2011) contends the NCAA and its member institutions’ organizational missions and strategic objectives serve far from a superfluous role; instead they are at the core of American higher education. The NCAA’s purported goal is to establish student-athletes’ educational experience as paramount in relation to all other experiences during one’s intercollegiate tenure (Singer, 2013). This mission is realized, in large part, through an alignment of commitments of institutional integrity across the NCAA’s member institutions. Sack contends that further analysis and evaluation of how intercollegiate athletic organizational directives are being accomplished has implications for the educational and development needs of student-athletes. Sack argues that discussions, including that of race and sport, must begin with an evaluation of intercollegiate athletic directives and strategic initiatives. Providing effective support and enhancing the developmental initiatives (personal, intellectual and social development) for black student-athletes during their collegiate experiences is a critical issue confronting NCAA member institutions. Consequently, many scholars have explored how college sport environments and other significant factors such as stereotypes, issues of alienation and isolation, academic under-preparedness and racism continue to uniquely impact and construct the experiences, development and outcomes for black student-athletes (Beamon, 2008; Benson, 2000; Bimper, 2014; Daniels, 1987; Donner, 2005; Carter-Francique, Hart and Steward, 2013; Harrison, 2011; Hawkins, 1999; McCormick and McCormick, 2010; Singer, 2005b). Research carved from the consciousness of a critical race perspective examining the content of intercollegiate athletic missions as they are associated with issues of race and racism, are scarce. Through this perspective, research can further examine and carefully scrutinize the ways in which athletic organizational directives, that are intended to guide the structural composition and operations of athletic departments, construct and recondition marginalizing discourses that directly and covertly impact the experiences of black student-athletes.
Using CRT to explore institutional integrity issues, Singer (2009) investigated a case of student-athletes’ perceptions of institutional integrity or the lack thereof and productive strategies to address the integrity needs of college athletics. The case study participants articulated a need for an increased presence of color in the athletic leadership of their historically white institution, greater financial support, and the support and opportunity for black student-athletes to voice concerns regarding their experiences. Singer (2013) posits the issues of race and manifestations of racism continue to influence the management and practices of intercollegiate sport. Specifically, Singer (2013) draws upon existing literature to illustrate how the functionality and operations of athletic departments, akin to other organizational enterprises, are built upon a system of relationships among and between primary stakeholder interest groups with varying agendas (see Clarkson, 1995; Mitchell et al., 1997; Trail and Chelladurai, 2000). In this vein, black student-athletes represent a primary stakeholder and beneficiary group of intercollegiate sport due to their collective possession of key claims – power, legitimacy, and urgency – necessary for establishing stakeholder salience (Preble, 2005; see Singer, 2013).
Stakeholder management effectiveness may be reflected in how sociocultural issues are recognized and addressed by guiding directives pertaining to an organization’s structure, functionality and operations (Bartkus and Glassman, 2008; Singer, 2013). As such, organizations’ directives and subsequent strategies, priorities and goals play a significant role toward implementing supportive programing aligned with institutional integrity that purposefully addresses the holistic development and serves the welfare of black student-athletes. Framed within the context of college sport, this research will investigate how modern racism functions as athletic organizations strategically plan to promote institutional integrity. Hence, the aim of this study is to engage a race conscious lens to (re)examine the discourse construction of guiding policies and other relevant documents intended to direct the structure, functions and initiatives of intercollegiate athletic departments.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framing of this study draws on CRT to investigate and critically scrutinize issues of race and racism embedded in organizational policies that direct the management of primary stakeholders within US intercollegiate athletic programs. A hallmark of CRT is the position that social construction of race directly and indirectly influences both peoples’ lives by way of the functioning and operations of society and its social institutions (Delgado and Stefancic, 2012; Harris, 1992; Ladson-Billings, 2013). Critical race scholarship emerges, in part, from the work of critical legal scholars to (re)examine race beliefs and racism endemic to societal institutions. Scholars have appropriated CRT approaches in other disciplines such as education (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995; Solórzano, 1997; Yosso, 2002), intercollegiate sport (Bimper, 2014; Bimper et al., 2013; Carter and Hart, 2010; Donner, 2005; Singer, 2005b), and sport management (Singer, 2005a, 2009) as an effective means to examine how race and functions of racism influence the schooling and experiences of persons and communities of color.
Similarly, a growing body of international CRT scholarship has emerged, broadening its global reach to critically explore and purposefully problematize issues of race, including liberalist ideology, which factor into the sociocultural functioning of societies beyond the US context (Burdsey, 2007; Hylton, 2009, 2010, 2012). In the context of US education, Solórzano (1997) argued the aim of CRT is to account for the role of race and racism embedded in schooling policy and practices and make possible the eradication of racism as part of a larger goal toward eliminating all forms of subordination in education. Intercollegiate athletics exists at the interface of the institutions of higher education and sport and displays an expanding global reach far beyond the US market. In this regard, Singer (2013) contends the employment of CRT can authorize a nuanced understanding of how organizational policies, structures and practices impact black student-athletes, and ultimately, be utilized to eliminate racial policies within collegiate athletics that covertly engineer negative impacts on the educational experiences of black student-athletes.
Dunbar (2006) argues the utility of CRT provides researchers an analytical frame and toolset for examining the archival contents, intellectual organization, and organizational policy discourse, to raise a critical consciousness about sociocultural constructs such as race. The application of a CRT approach in this study is situated in two essential tenets. One is that race and racism are deeply engrained within the systemic operation of mainstream US institutions (e.g. education, sport). Here, CRT situates an existing permanence of racism (Bell, 1992) in the functioning of society legally, culturally, and psychologically. In this regard, Harper (2012) defines racism as:
…actions (both intentional and unconscious) that engender marginalization and inflict varying degrees of harm on minoritized persons; structures that determine and cyclically remanufacture racial inequity; and institutional norms that sustain White privilege and permit the ongoing subordination of minoritized persons. (p. 10)
Using Harper’s definition of racism, CRT serves as a viable mechanism to examine operations of racism in intercollegiate athletics of higher education (i.e. the structure) through strategic planning (i.e. institutional discourse).
The second tenet elicited in this study is a raised skepticism and critical analysis of social discourses of objectivity, neutrality, colorblindness, and meritocracy (Matsuda et al., 1993; Tate, 1997). This particular tenet is characterized as a critique of liberalism and liberalist ideology (DeCuir and Dixon, 2004). The prevalence of colorblind ideology permeates current dominant ideology with regard to racialized societal systems and institutions, such as higher education and sport (Bimper, 2014). Colorblindness is broadly defined by imagined perceptions and assertions of sameness appropriated to mask creations and persistent reproductions of inequity between racial and ethnic groups at macro and micro levels of society (Bonilla-Silva, 2001; Feagin, 2006). In this regard, notions of colorblindness are constructed for the means and interests of persons to defensibly ignore and dismiss systemic and structural perpetuations of racial inequity and forms of oppression (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Gallagher, 2003).
Colorblind ideology is parceled within a “discursive repertoire” that presents an interpretive matrix to fundamentally understand and critique colorblind racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Gallagher, 2003; Hylton, 2012; Rodriquez, 2006). The present research emphasizes a critique of the notion of colorblindness as an avenue to expose how modern racism manifests at the interface of intercollegiate athletics and institutional integrity. Drawing from CRT’s critique of the liberalism tenet, particularly a critical examination of the manifestation of colorblindness, this study assesses the power structures and policy norms that maintain privilege and a protective armor for whiteness, while prolonging the marginalization of persons of color. Accordingly, the purpose of this research is to further consider this issue of institutional integrity concerning black student-athletes by examining how race discourse is situated within the texts of departmental directives of Division I-FBS member institutions.
Methodology
Data collection
The evident racial and ethnic group disproportions of the Division I-FBS subdivision (Lapchick, 2010) offers compelling context for data analysis and interpretations. A composite list of NCAA member institutions was downloaded from the NCAA’s official website to identify all recognized institutions participating in Division I (DI) intercollegiate athletic competition. This initial list of DI member institutions was narrowed to only those institutions whose programs participated in automatic qualifier conferences associated with the bowl championship series of the FBS. As such, a total of N=62 meeting this criteria during the 2012–2013 season were sampled in this study. Relevant literature on black student-athletes and diversity issues in sport commonly recognize DI athletic programs as high profile (Donner, 2005; Singer, 2008). The decision to set the parameter of this study to include only the automatic qualifying DI-FBS competing athletic programs was made to capture institutions that represent, arguably, the most commercialized, high profile sector of intercollegiate athletics.
Early in the process of searching through athletic department websites, it appeared quite common for athletic departments to use various labels when referring to their organizational directives and strategic plans as well as elements within said plans. Therefore, data collection included searches for a range of labels such as strategic plans or strategic vision. Similarly, the search through departmental websites for data sources reflecting their organizational directive such as mission statements also included a search for labels like vision statements, statement of philosophy, purpose statements, guiding objectives and foundation statements. These searches led to other data including departmental goals, aims and respective objectives to achieve department missions. The multiple elements to the departments’ organizational directives enabled better triangulation of athletic departments’ policy data. Data from each institution’s website was first copied to an electronic Excel file organized by conference affiliations for researchers to conduct several readings of data. Notes were taken in reference to the arrangement of policies and where and how race was situated in the overall directives respective to each organization. The organizational directives, including goals, aims and objectives were mined for any statements referring to the race or ethnicity of staff, student-athlete, and other stakeholder group populations. These statements were then aggregated and copied to the Excel file by institutional affiliation.
Data analysis
The present study draws upon the analytical framing of CRT to center race in pursuit of deeper understandings of the role by which race and racism play in athletic departments’ institutional integrity toward primary stakeholders, particularly black student-athletes. The aforementioned analytical tenets of CRT are utilized to critique how race is positioned in the contexts of organizational directives that guide athletics departments. Akin to the central interests that underscore CRT, critical discourse analysis (CDA) echoes an interest in understanding, uncovering, and transforming conditions that produce and maintain inequities (Rogers et al., 2005). Fairclough (1995) defines CDA as a form of analysis targeting a systematic exploration of often opaque relationships between discursive practices and broader sociocultural issues influencing society and persons’ lives as a means to investigate the shaping of power relations while exploring how the translucence of such relationships themselves factor into the creation and maintenance of power and hegemony. The utility of CDA enables one to advance mere descriptions and interpretations of discourse to explain the systemic nature that sociocultural discourse plays in constituting social arenas, such as intercollegiate athletic student development environments.
While utilizing a CRT lens, data were further analyzed from a three-tiered framework outlined by Fairclough (1992). The three dimensions of the frame include analysis of: (a) the text; (b) the discursive practice; and (c) the sociocultural implication. The descriptive analysis concerned coding the “presences as well as absences” of race in texts and the organized structuring of text. Here, a particular focus on the organizational directives was given to code all text explicitly referencing race and issues related to equity as well as codifying the absence of race pertaining to organizational directives. In this regard, the organizational directives ranged from the rhetoric in the mission and vision statements to operative goals outlined to achieve the departmental purposes set forth. The analysis of sociocultural implications involved coding text at a macro-level in relation to the contexts of broader social issues, institutional context, and production and maintenance of power relations (Fairclough, 1992, 1993). Huckin (1997) posits that CDA is best characterized as an attitude toward textual analysis rather than by the rigidity of a sequential method. A fundamental element of CDA holds that all texts carry sociopolitical baggage while some texts function to buttress hegemonic forces and inequities in power relations of society (Brabham, 2012).
The process of data analysis included a constant comparative method (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) to permit a consistent reading of how race and equity related discourse was rendered throughout the data. The process of CDA in this study began with the selection of a corpus of aforementioned texts. Then, the researcher and research assistants engaged the texts in a first-level reading to experience and first establish an understanding of the text and the preferred reading as was intended (Hall, 2000) and to locate potentially manipulative elements of the texts. The employment of multiple researchers was a key aspect in the analysis process to check biases and affirm interpretations. The second level readings consisted of the reading from a critical stance, in this case, CRT, to dissect the corpus of texts into smaller incremental elements – paragraph, sentence, bulleted points, and words – with a broader sociocultural context in mind. Researchers triangulated data by constantly referencing the various sources within the corpus of texts that fundamentally make up and drive departmental efforts to support student-athletes’ experiences and development. Lastly, findings were coded to illuminate and critically expose how race and racism play a role in the institutional integrity of athletic programs with regard to the experiences and development of black student-athletes. The data did not vary by conference, so all data were considered together as a whole.
Analysis and findings
The data analysis revealed influential, direct, and indirect relationships between the race consciousness and management of the organization–stakeholder relationship occurring within the contexts of college sport in higher education settings. The following discussion of findings is outlined by two emergent themes described as: (a) little skin in the game; and (b) colorblind lens.
Little skin in the game
The findings in this section collectively illustrate how the athletic strategic planning discourse reflect programs’ brazen neglect to offer much, if any, skin or institutional sociopolitical commitment in the game or social discourse concerning the factors of race and racial inequities. These high profile institutions appear to refuse to make any substantive commitment to specifically address the obvious racial hierarchy evident in most athletic departments. Nor do they acknowledge or make any mention of efforts to address the evident imbalance of power in their organizations. One’s mission naturally conveys the benchmark that is instituted by these organizations. The strategic philosophies of the institutions in the present study appeared comparatively lucid about arenas that they had an interest in serving as role players. In general, athletic missions commonly expressed principal attention and concerns centered on establishing organizations that operate with senses of integrity, pursuit of highly competitive and winning athletic cultures, and student development. The following programs’ missions reflect these delineated concerns:
…providing a nationally competitive intercollegiate athletics program that attracts, nurtures, and graduates student-athletes who, under the guidance of a high-quality staff, pursue excellence in their respective sports… The mission of…is to provide a superior experience for all of our student-athletes and create the highest quality athletic program that will support and enhance their ability to compete for championships…
Consequently, these targeted areas that occupy the attention and concern of athletic programs reflect the arenas for which programs articulate their vested interest. The glaring omission from such athletic program missions serves as a declaration of their role in the sociocultural arena of race considering their diverse student-athlete and staffing populations. Sack (2011) posits mission statements stipulate the fundamental reasons why an organization exists. The condensed nature of such statements to communicate a program’s focus was commonplace across all programs in the present study. However, well-articulated and demarcated policy statements serve as operative measuring sticks to communicate the direction and values that a program not only embraces, but is committed too. Thus, the omission of race-specific discourse in well-defined statements of purpose suggests matters of race are of little concern among the tier of program priorities. Consequently, historic and contemporary issues of race rarely make the cut to be included in the fundamental reasons why these athletic programs exist despite the racial inequities that persist in intercollegiate athletics. In this context, nearly 86% of athletics missions illuminate how guiding polices serving as stated commitments (Singer, 2009) systemically omit race and the unique needs of black athletes. This serves as an underscored priority arena to focus and direct organizational energies away from an elevated racial consciousness toward elevating organizational prominence. The following mission illustrates the notion of pursuing organizational and institutional prominence:
Collectively aspiring to win championships – both athletically and academically – we will engage and inspire all constituencies to support the broader University pursuit of preeminence.
This common thread throughout the athletic missions represents an organizational pursuit of super-ordinate goals related to elite competition and organizational notoriety across the nation of sport consumers. Athletic directives constructed as super-ordinate goals at institutions of higher education often identify positive societal, moral qualities that stakeholders might personally identify with such as behaving with integrity, engaging in community service, and functioning with character. To illustrate such qualities, Program D’s philosophy states:
The [Program D] athletic department aims is to serve our student-athletes, coaches, staff and fans by: Displaying integrity in every decision and action, building and maintaining trust with others, giving respect to each person we encounter, pursuing unity of purpose through teamwork, maintaining loyalty to student-athletes, co-workers, fans and the University…
Commonly, almost 92% of programs echoed a narrative similar to the prior, broadcasting altruistic goals with regard to respecting others and fostering inclusive environments that unify stakeholders and constituencies while evasively ignoring the uniqueness of stakeholder needs. Essentially, this approach to addressing stakeholder diversity with such a broad stroke offers a simplified, diluted approach to dealing with the obvious but complex issues of race and/or ethnicity issues. Furthermore, this broad approach to diversity impedes approaches to effectively address the intersectionality of other compounding elements of diversity and inequities linked to race. The industry of sport culture functions as a microcosm of our broader societal beliefs (Coakley, 2001; Eitzen and Sage, 2003) in a post-civil rights era. Consequently, social norms, racial beliefs, and subsequent narratives embedded in the modern and escalating industry of intercollegiate athletics also manifest as a microcosm of the American post-civil rights society and deserve ardent attention.
Bonilla-Silva (2010) argues racial norms that evolved out of post-civil rights preclude an openness of expression and specificity of racial views. He articulates that whites’ racial views are commonly concealed in a subversive discourse to evade confronting the lived realities of persons of color and lasting effects of racial beliefs embedded within our society. The strategic plans in this study engage a subversive discourse for managing persisting inequities and marginalizing environments by suggesting stakeholders and constituencies embrace concealing, superficial perspectives with regard to respect, unity, and loyalism. For example, athletic Program F couches specificity of diversity issues in its objective statements, such as, “…promote respect for others, teach sportsmanship, entertains our constituents and emphasizes championship behavior.” The semantic maneuvers avoid the lived realities of black participants and the racial inequities present within intercollegiate athletics and institutions of higher education by concealing significantly complex issues, regarding race and racism, within a seductively non-racial discourse of relatable moral qualities between athletic programs and their key stakeholders. While such language may appear comforting to white stakeholders, it may not hold the same meaning for black administrators, athletes and fans. The simplified discourse of respect avoids the challenging, complex conversation of racism, historic and persisting inequities founded and structured by racial beliefs and colorblind ideology (Bonilla-Silva, 2010). Such adverse and semantic maneuvers reflect how intercollegiate athletic programs offer up little to no committed skin in the game with regard to racial inequities and advancing inclusive excellence, particularly related to issues of race. While most mission statements claim to promote respect for others, their strategic discourse disrespects an important aspect of the black stakeholders’ identity by not acknowledging their lived realities, experiences, culture, contributions or concerns.
Run-of-the-mill colorblindness
Athletics’ discourse around strategic aims and organizational policy often function, consciously or unconsciously, as policy armor safeguarding whiteness considering the inequitable disparity favoring white representations (see Lapchick, 2010, 2012) and whiteness throughout administrative leadership roles in NCAA member programs. Such discourse with regards to race preserves and reproduces the inequitable conditions of institutions and sociocultural environments of intercollegiate sport. The inadvertence of asserting race discourse in strategic aims and organizational policy suggests the organizational philosophies, purpose statements and delineated objectives can serve as a layer of implicit manifestations of colorblind racism that undergirds intercollegiate sport culture. The following policy suggests programs aim to offer equitable opportunities, while attempting to systematically disregard how diversity – diversity of race, gender, color, disability, etc. – significantly matter in the outcomes and effectiveness of one’s job performance and employment experience.
…provide equitable opportunities without regard to race, gender, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin or disability unrelated to job performance.
A key focus point in the previous statement of Program D is the phrase “without regard”. The use of “without regard” following their stated commitment to “provide equitable opportunities” indicates the provision of opportunities will be free of any kind of negative discriminatory practices toward members of the listed populations. Unfortunately, the statement appears to also suggest their pursuit of equity without committing to having to recognize and compensate for certain existing realities associated with issues of race and other historically marginalizing indicators. A principle tenet of CRT and innumerable research studies recognizes that race and racism are so deeply ingrained within the structuring and function of American society that one might hastily interpret societal actions without acknowledging their impact. But more concisely put, Cornell West (1994) argues “Race Matters.” Thus, avoidance of race reflected in such nebulous narratives as “provide equitable opportunities without regard to race…” advances the abstract ideology of colorblindness. However, the use of policy statements and objectives that embody colorblind ideology function as complex protective mechanisms to shield institutions and athletic programs from having to take responsibility for their perpetuation of racial inequity and unjust practices. Principally, the tenuous verbiage in athletic policies concerning racial equity practices and beliefs illustrated by Program D undercuts the persisting realities of modern institutional racism and operate partly as evasive strategies to support and maintain racially inequitable environments and practices within intercollegiate athletics.
A discourse framed around the concepts of equal opportunity was identified as a common issue in this analysis of athletic strategic aims and organizational policies. In most cases, the emphasis on equal opportunity was situated in the context of access opportunities to participate in roles germane to intercollegiate athletes such as being a student-athlete, coach, or an administrative staff member. For example, the following depicts how seemingly equal opportunities were displayed with regard to relevant stakeholders:
The [Program E] is dedicated to the principle that the pursuit of excellence in intercollegiate athletics must be accomplished within the framework of an academic community committed to providing equitable opportunities for all student-athletes, students, and faculty.
The equal opportunity discourse in strategic aims and policies appeared bounded to targeting the attention of external audiences to announce the program’s compliance to equitable access. Oftentimes, the concept of equal opportunity was immediately preceded or followed by referencing legal mandates for non-discriminatory practices.
[Program F] is also committed to nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action. The University provides equal opportunity to education, employment, and participation…without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, age, citizenship, and veteran status in accordance with federal and state law.
While this university takes a step forward to espouse “affirmative action,” it remains vague and non-specific as to what the action will be and how it is carried out. Thus, the athletic organization policies suggest programs are staying comfortably “inbounds” concerning equity as their mission rhetoric suggests equal access opportunities. Drawing from a CRT lens, the bounds of equal opportunity discourse mask the reality that black student-athletes are disproportionately represented in revenue sports while there is a corresponding disproportionate under-representation of blacks in central athletic administrative roles across NCAA member institutions (Lapchick, 2010, 2012). Although maybe well intentioned, analysis of the intercollegiate organizational policies and their institutional integrity sheds light on how run-of-the-mill organizational discourse can promote and mask persisting injustices that go relatively unnoticed on the sidelines.
Discussion
Althouse and Brooks (2013) unambiguously state that any discussion of intercollegiate athletics be initially situated in the much broader context of the sociocultural issues that have historically and continuously pervade society. As indicated at the beginning of this paper, the overall enterprise and the individual NCAA member institutions that make up intercollegiate athletics in the US are far from impervious to the sociocultural issues of race that shape our modern post-civil rights era. Bimper (2014) contends the presence of an inconspicuous veil of colorblind racism advances post-racial narratives, artificial accounts and artifacts of progress that covertly influence student athlete experiences as well as their development. Beneath such a veil, intercollegiate athletic programs are challenged to strategically align their claims of institutional integrity with a focused cognizance and deliberateness toward addressing the sociocultural issues of race that impact primary stakeholders, such as black student-athletes. Singer (2013) encourages scholars to consider a critical race analysis of pertinent policies and organizational directives that fashion the structures, functions, and activities in college sport. Hence, the present research sought to critically explore how the organizational directives of intercollegiate athletic departments, as mechanisms of institutional integrity, reflect a cognizance and deliberateness toward addressing sociocultural issues of race.
The management of organization–stakeholder relationships is strongly influenced by the construction of organizational directives (Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997). Inquiry, such as “Are we committed to issues of race?”, can channel athletics leadership to productively construct nuanced departmental directives, such as mission, philosophies, and strategic aims, used to implement mechanisms to better address the educational interests and holistic development of black student-athletes. Engaging in exercises to critically question departmental directives within intercollegiate athletic programs offers unique windows of opportunity to examine how racial inequities are maintained in systemic and institutionalized manners, and eventually, can avail tools with which to change policy and practices that conceal detrimental influences toward black student-athlete experiences.
CRT points out the many ways that race and racism are deep-seated in the fabric of society (Ladson-Billings, 1998; López, 2003; Tate, 1997). Utilizing this tenet, the present research situates the post-racial narratives of athletic departments within the institution of sport as part of the larger cultural context of a post-civil rights American society. Not being mutually exclusive, the other tenet of CRT channeled in this study was the critique of liberalism and liberalist ideology (DeCuir and Dixon, 2004). Specifically, this tenet enables a critique of the notions of colorblindness embraced by liberal legal ideology that manifests through the corpus of directive texts. The institutional fabric of sport arguably represents a dynamic sociopolitical and sociocultural force that historically and presently, in part, shapes and recycles the racial ideologies and racial consciousness of American society (Brooks and Althouse, 2013; Coakley, 2009). Findings from this study illustrate that many departmental directives take an overwhelming mute stance avoiding conversations of persistent racial inequities.
The corpus of athletic departmental directives principally lacked the unequivocal language necessary in addressing the implications of race, its effect on disproportionate leadership, programming and student-athlete educational experiences. Consequently, the large extent to which race was unacknowledged signals a widening fissure between directive policy and accountability mechanisms to authorize guidance for athletic leadership, coaches and support staff to proficiently attend to and manage the educational and experiential interests of student-athlete stakeholders, including all races. Rather, the occasional presence of commonplace language to indicate altruistic, aspirational aims to the extent of respect and equal opportunity discursively ignore a history of deep racism in the US that continues to impact the sociocultural experiences and development of black student-athletes. Bonilla-Silva (2010) characterizes colorblindness as an abstract ideological frame that, at face value, suggests a promotion of racial equality and goal for racial equity, yet inherently camouflages racist beliefs ranging from a minimization of minoritized persons’ life chances to an abstract denial of inequitable conditions and realities that chronically impact the lives of persons of color. The colorblind department directives of intercollegiate athletics can be interpreted as minimizing the historical significance as well as relevance for which race plays a role in the post-civil rights era of sport culture. To this point, the adoption of colorblind directives suggests race and racism are marginally germane, at best, to the strategic leadership of intercollegiate athletics departments and their organization–stakeholder relationships.
Relevant to the context of this study, López (2003) warns of the perils linked to minimizing race in educational discourses, explaining that a “decontextualized and deracialized narrative” cultivates “an inability to critically confront racism and racist educational policy” (p. 72). Likewise, the decontextualized and deracialized discourse ingrained and recycled by athletic departmental directives can preclude the critical adeptness necessary to combat racism and racist directive policies of athletic programs. Accordingly, CRT locates the pervasiveness of racism, which engineers and preserves racial inequities that shape group privileges and normative beliefs impacting the marginalization and systemic subordination of persons of color (Solórzano, 1997; Tate, 1997; Yosso, 2002). From this perspective, CRT sport scholars collectively concede that racism is endemic to society, thus endemic within sport (Agyemang et al., 2010; Bimper, 2014, 2015; Cooper and Hawkins, 2014; Donner, 2005; Carter-Francique et al., 2013; Hylton, 2010; Lawrence, 2005; Singer, 2005b, 2009), therefore race-neutral, even colorblind athletic department directives serve ineffective roles toward dismantling forms of modern racism.
Conclusion and future directions
The present research uses CRT as a race conscious lens to problematize the construction of departmental directives and strategic policies of NCAA member institution athletic programs. Here, this study extends and departs from existing CRT scholarship by critically examining the abstract appropriation of contemporary racist discourse in intercollegiate athletics under the guise of athletic organizations’ directives to strategically address institutional integrity. Situated in this critical perspective, this paper exposes hidden, colorblind discourses that might negatively influence and impact the educational development and interests of black student-athletes as a key stakeholder group in intercollegiate athletics.
Some limitations should be considered in this study. A review and analysis of guiding policy statements represents only the beginning stages in this line of race conscious inquiry of intercollegiate athletic departmental directives and policies. An extended assessment of how athletic programs fully operationalize their directives and stated commitments associated with diverse hires, culturally conscious student development programming (Bimper, 2015), and collaborative institutional initiatives related to improving matters of race was outside of the scope of this study’s purpose. However, future directions in related research should consider following up with in-depth stakeholder interviews and focus groups to assess how athletic programs are actually enacting their stated commitments to the broad scope of improving racial and ethnic diversity, eliminating racial inequities, and further enabling equal opportunities within and beyond the contexts of athletic competition. In this regard, capturing athletic administrators’ perspectives of how they employ missions and strategic initiatives may advance understandings of the impact of race-neutral, colorblind directives and their overall leadership. Similarly, employing an instrument to capture quantitative data that may elucidate trends and generalizable findings should be explored in future studies. These next steps in future research will offer greater understandings of the relationship between policies, actual practices and organizational as well as institutional effectiveness.
Some existing research signals a limitation of examining mission statements and to some extent, departmental directives, because of the intended brevity in the crafting of such statements. However, the degree of brevity of mission statements and other departmental directives can be underscored as a contributing factor to the absence of addressing racial inequalities. Athletic programs at NCAA member institutions should invest energies, such as departmental think tanks or visioning retreats with department leadership, to constructively problematize, reconstruct and reposition departmental directives to effectively communicate the salience and priority of their organization–stakeholder relationships. Engaging in such critical dialogue may lead to improved mutually beneficial outcomes that may better serve the interests of black student-athletes. As a result, future scholarship should then explore how key stakeholder groups interpret and otherwise internalize issues of intercollegiate athletic institutional integrity as an avenue to improve the equitable climates of athletic programs versus contributing to prevailing stagnant ideologies of colorblindness that maintain a status quo (Bimper, 2014; Singer, 2009, 2013). Hopefully, this and related research will stimulate both external and introspective conversations and evaluations of the missions and relevant policy developed by the NCAA and its member institutions to be proactive, perceptive and act with greater consideration of black student-athlete needs and interests.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.