This month the University of Maryland became the latest in a list of universities — including Michigan State, Ohio State, and Pennsylvania State — to be rocked by athletics scandals.
Each of these universities is a land-grant institution, established by the Morrill Act of 1862, which was sponsored by Vermont Senator Justin Morrill and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. Their guiding vision was to offer the highest quality of teaching, research, and service to communities across the country. These institutions have given our nation the greatest public-university system in the world.
How, then, did some of them stray so far off course when it came to their athletics programs?
Michigan State is reeling from the conviction of Larry Nassar, the sports doctor who molested countless numbers of student-athletes. Ohio State is embroiled in a series of investigations involving alleged sexual assaults committed by a former athletics physician, as well as improper relationships between a diving coach and members of the team he oversaw, and mishandling by the head football coach of domestic-abuse allegations against an assistant coach. At Maryland, which has placed its head football coach on administrative leave, the university president’s future is in doubt as investigations continue amid allegations of negligence in the death of a football player. And Penn State is perhaps just now emerging from the shadow cast by the trial and imprisonment of Jerry Sandusky for rape and sexual abuse.
In our forthcoming book on land-grant universities, E. Gordon Gee and I suggest that these institutions are at significant risk of losing portions of their core identity. The historical roots of America’s first public universities should not be forgotten. Among other things, land-grant universities were intended to provide access to a practical college degree that was affordable to the working classes, would generate research to helped solve pressing problems, and remain closely connected to the needs of the communities they were designed to serve. In short, they were founded as the people’s universities.
Over time, however, various issues have placed enormous pressures on land-grant universities to dilute this identity. For example, the pursuit of federal research funding has skewed the reward system inside many of them so significantly that many faculty members are hired and promoted on the basis of their research credentials, typically relegating teaching skills and service excellence to the level of secondary considerations.
In turn, chasing ever-higher status in university ranking systems has given land-grant institutions an incentive to become more selective in their admissions processes. An unintended result has been the crowding out of many students from working-class backgrounds.
The current scandals within the athletics programs of these universities are symptoms of another enormous pressure: the big-business aspect of college sports. Billions of dollars are at stake each year involving television rights and advertising revenue, obscuring the vision and original intent of the Morrill Act.
It’s time for these institutions to return to their heritage and mission as the people’s universities — and a key part of that is making those land-grant ideals more clearly visible in the athletics departments and on the playing fields. While perhaps easier said than done, there are steps that these universities can take to return to their land-grant roots. And these steps require culture changes in the well-being of their student-athletes.
Historically, sports were brought to campuses to create well-rounded students, which implied some sort of balance. But today such balance in the lives of college athletes is questionable, especially in revenue-generating sports. Returning to some better equilibrium regarding the place of college sports on public land-grant campuses demands a recognition that athletes, just like all other students, represent the hearts and minds of the people of the state.
This means there should be a “one university” orientation toward the highest standards of student conduct both on and off the field. And, of course, adherence to these principles of excellence should be expected of all those who touch the lives of the students, including coaches and faculty and staff members.
All too often, university presidents have adopted a laissez-faire approach toward the conduct of their athletics departments. Land-grant leaders should adopt a stance more akin to that of President Lincoln, who was quoted as saying that “you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
Leaders of the people’s universities now must declare that students’ well-being is going to take precedence over the winning of games. What could be more in keeping with the original land-grant purpose than an institution that runs sports programs focusing on the personal growth and development of all students, including athletes? That hires coaches because they are great teachers and role models, and not for their won-lost records?
Such a notion may sound far too optimistic, if not downright impossible. But consider the alternative, as evidenced by very recent history. Surely it’s time for real leadership, and a return to the principles and purpose envisioned by Justin Morrill and Abraham Lincoln.
Stephen M. Gavazzi is a professor of human development and family science at Ohio State University and a co-author of Land Grant Universities For the Future: Higher Education for the Public Good (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018).
