The diversity plan, which guides Guilford’s efforts in bettering campus diversity, calls for quantitative understanding of progress regarding retention rates involving black and white students and student-athletes. Very few Division III institutions have collected this data, primarily because many have not considered the need to do so. Due to the latest growth of Division IIIs and Guilford athletics’ competitive nature, Guilford has undertaken the collection of graduation rates of black and white student-athletes.

“I only think it’s important (to find data) if there is a perceived problem, or a perceived challenge,” said Bob Malekoff, assistant professor of sports studies. “If people think that (a certain group) is struggling . . . then I think it’s worthwhile to actually get data to know that there is a problem.”

In 1973, the NCAA divided its members into three divisions. Depending on a college’s size, its athletic program was placed in either Division I, II or III. Although Guilford didn’t join the ranks of the NCAA until 1991-92, after a switch from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), Guilford’s small size landed its athletic program in Division III.

By doing so, Guilford escaped the ultra-competitive threshold of Division I. Division I athletics has received criticism for its competitive nature, which critics claim has distracted institutions from their academic mission.

The biggest difference between Division I and Division III athletics is that athletes of Division I can receive athletic scholarships, while athletes in Division III cannot. Because of athletic scholarships, elite athletes have generally migrated to Division I.

As colleges saw potential benefits from athletic success from a financial and marketable standpoint, athletic programs fought for a competitive edge in recruiting. More colleges set higher standards for a student-athlete’s athletic ability rather than the student-athlete’s academic ability. Other issues emerged as elite student-athletes remained eligible to compete, despite poor academic standings.

Because of the negative attention that Division I was receiving, the NCAA began collecting data in the mid-1980s to find trends for graduation rates for athletes and non-athletes. What they found was that graduation rates of black athletes were much lower than white athletes, and that they were declining.

“I think that one of the reasons that Division I started to track this data was to see how they were doing, and if they were doing poorly, (they thought) ‘we got to figure out a way to do better,'” said Malekoff.

Although the graduation rates for black athletes have improved since the 1980s, and in recent years, according to the 2009 annual report done by the University of Central Florida’s (UCF) Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, there is still clear evidence that the trend of black athletes having lower graduation rates at Division I schools continues today.

In 2008, a study by UCF’s Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport revealed that 19 out of 67 Division I football teams had a graduation rate of less than 50 percent for their black football players. In 2009, 21 out of 67 teams showed this rate. On the other hand, 57 of the 67 of those football programs had graduation rates of white players greater than 66 percent.

In another high-profile sport, 25 out of the 64 teams in the NCAA basketball tournament bracket had gaps of 20 percent or higher between the graduation rates of white players and black players.

The question is, do these trends also exist in Division III?

“The general belief is that the problems and the challenges that exist from an academic standpoint related to Division I athletics don’t exist in Division III, and I think that in some cases, that they probably do,” said Malekoff.

Neither Division III nor Guilford has collected data for retention rates, but both have shown interest in gathering this data.

According to a Jan. 15 release by The NCAA News, the NCAA recently agreed to conduct a two-year pilot program to gather data regarding graduation rates and trends from volunteering institutions.

“A discussion (by NCAA Division III members) . . . suggested that (compiling and reporting academic data at Division III), will produce a richer view of the role of athletics in education institutions and generate more respect for student-athletes,” wrote Jack Copeland associate director of the NCAA News.

Malekoff confirms that collecting this data would be useful in light of the increased attention to Division III championships.

“People all of a sudden start to look at things like, who’s in your school, how did you get that kid in (to your school), how did they do,” said Malekoff. “And so, I think it has brought a lot more attention to (the question), ‘well, are we really living by this Division III philosophy?'”

Malekoff also mentioned institutional autonomy in Division III, which is the idea that there is an underlying trust among its member institutions that every school does what is best for their school. The possible outcomes of institution autonomy is that members would try to compete in ways that go against the “academics first” mentality of the NCAA.

Associate Professor of Sports Studies Lavon Williams approves of Division III’s decision to collect data.

“I think that it’s worthwhile to do, because there are groups in society who have historically suffered from discrimination in many different ways and in many different forms – and as a result, have been disenfranchised, marginalized and disadvantaged because of that.”

Williams’ main focus in her Sociology of Sport and Exercise class is that sports are a reflection of society.