Two Academic Senate committees charged with exploring the budgetary and the academic implications of a possible move from Division II to Division I-AA athletics have posted their findings on the Senate’s special Web address, www.mrak.ucdavis.edu/senate/ divisionI.htm.
The site was created to help inform Senate faculty who will cast advisory ballots on the proposed transition. Ballots are to be distributed by Feb. 12 and are due back in the Senate’s office by Feb. 21.
"The proposed transition appears feasible with the funding model developed by the Athletics Department and the Office of Student Affairs," says the report drafted by the Senate’s Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review (CAPBR). "The proposed budget plan should have minimal consequences on campus state or discretionary funds."
The bulk of the athletic budget would be funded through fee increases approved by students in four ballot initiatives during the past 10 years.
The committee, chaired by pomology professor Ted DeJong, agreed that the campus’s "student scholar-athlete culture" can best be maintained through a student-funded athletic program, but worried that rising student fees are placing a greater burden on students than anticipated at the time of their vote.
CAPBR recommended that the Senate be provided the opportunity to provide comment to the Associated Students of UC Davis and to the student body before future votes on fee-funded initiatives.
The committee also advised that athletic grants be distributed among teams based on team grade point average and graduation rate.
"Teams that fall short of either academic performance indicator would have their grants-in-aid budget reduced according to a prescribed formula and that money could be reallocated to teams with the highest academic performance indicators," the report says.
"Pegging team grants-in-aid funding to team academic performance could increase the academic legitimacy of the UC Davis grants-in-aid program, encourage coaches to recruit students both on the basis of academic and athletic talent, encourage student mentoring by coaches, encourage scholarly performance by student athletes and discourage the interest of potential new coaches who are not committed to the student scholar-athlete concept."
The Special Athletics Committee of the Senate, headed by civil and environmental engineering chair Debbie Niemeier, concluded that "deciding whether the transition to Division I-AA is the right thing to do is a matter of individual opinion and we do not make a recommendation."
The committee noted that many faculty "have confused potential membership in Division I-A, which includes institutions like Ohio State, University of Texas and University of Michigan, with actual membership in Division I-AA, which includes, among others, the University of California, Irvine, University of California, Santa Barbara, and potentially UC Davis."
The distinction is important, the report says, because most DI-A athletic programs operate largely independent of the academic mission in an entertainment-industry-like environment.
In contrast, most DI-AA programs are strongly connected to the academic mission and have smaller, non-self-supporting budgets.
Some tangible benefits are likely if the campus moves to DI-AA, the committee says, but care must be taken to avoid exploiting student-athletes.
The committee recommends:
• an amendment of the UC Davis Athletics Mission Statement to clearly commit to the graduation of student-athletes;
• that the mission statement be amended to include a commitment to Title IX philosophy independent of the legislative mandate;
• the creation of a separate and independent mechanism for annual Senate review of admissions decisions and student-athlete academic progress;
• the appointment of additional Senate members to the Athletics Administrative Advisory Committee;
• that the strong connection to the university’s educational mission be maintained by continuing to require 50 percent lecturer appointments for coaches and that the chief compliance officer and physical education director continue to be tenure-eligible; and that
• a formula be created for returning a portion of revenues generated by the athletics program to non-athlete student aid.
"It is clear that the current athletic program is one of high quality in terms of academic integrity, and that it fits well with the overall mission of the campus," the committee says.
"We do not see the transition to Division I-AA jeopardizing that position."
Noting that there are likely to be unanticipated consequences in the practical implementation of a transition, the committee recommends "that the Senate take a more active role in monitoring and guiding the interface between athletics and academics.
"This is truly an area where shared governance is imperative, and it is the responsibility of the members of the faculty to make sure it is realized."