Student-Athletes: Academics and Identity for Black Male College Students in Revenue-Generating Sports – A Literature Review

Gordon Maples, Nina Berger, Candace Collins, and Michelle Healey
Vanderbilt University

Abstract

This literature review delves into the documented social and academic experiences of Black student-athletes competing at the highest level of competition in the most high-profile, revenue-generating sports (most typically defined as football and men’s basketball) for university athletics in the United States. Black student-athletes as a whole have lower graduation rates than their fellow student-athlete peers, and social commentators and researchers have suggested that they are widely and uniquely exploited by the institution of collegiate athletics. Issues such as “dumb jock” and “dumb negro” stereotype threats, inequitable social treatment by peers and professors, insufficient academic support for athletes, the imposed social isolation of athletes on campus, and the roles of institution type and student identity development are discussed in how they affect the experiences of Black male student-athletes in college, specifically those participating in revenue-generating, high-profile sports. Likewise, the dual nature of the identity of student-athlete is analyzed, and the various hardships and social stigma faced by these competitive males in football and basketball on college campuses are explored in depth.

Keywords: Black college students, higher education, stereotype threat, student-athlete, university athletics

For the greater population, the most salient feature of higher education institutions is their revenue-generating sports – typically defined as men’s football and basketball teams (Bates, 1997). However, this enterprise goes beyond March Madness brackets and bowl season when dissecting the lives of student-athletes off the court or field. Saffici and Pellegrino (2012) defined “student-athlete” as a term indicating that being a student is first priority, and being an athlete is second. However, as the literature reveals, this prioritization is not always upheld. While athletic programs were initially introduced to supplement the academic experience by adding school spirit, personal development opportunities, and institutional visibility, the literature illustrates that college athletics has actually led to mixed or adverse outcomes for student-athletes (Saffici & Pellegrino, 2012). This literature review highlights the experiences of Black male student-athletes in revenue-generating sports at the Division 1 level – the highest tier of competition in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) – by focusing on their unique identities and academic achievement as they must navigate being both a student and an athlete (Thelin & Wiseman, 1989).

Identities: Black, Student, and Athlete

Among student-athletes, personal identity development is rooted in a struggle for balance between the identities of student, athlete, and other prominent identities like race. Within the literature, it is revealed that student-athletes endure all of the challenges experienced by non-athlete students in college, in addition to the tribulation inherent to their sport-related activities, which is further magnified for Black students facing additional pressures and discriminatory treatment due to their race (Melendez, 2009; Singer, 2016; Steinfeldt, Reed, & Steinfeldt, 2010; Watt & Moore, 2001). The challenges posed by participating in collegiate sports create unique issues for development among Black students in higher education, particularly in regards to their identity development – being an athlete creates additional racial identity tensions, along with the inherent conflicts in navigating the complicated dual identity of student-athlete (Melendez, 2009).

Blackness Among Male Student-Athletes. The realm of revenue-generating collegiate athletics (men’s football and basketball) does not exist within a vacuum of outside politics – thus, external identities play a powerful role in the experiences of student-athletes. Racial identity, in particular, has a dramatic effect on the experience of student-athletes – some have referred to the experience of Black student-athletes in NCAA Division I sports as “akin to the merchandising of human beings” (Griffin, 2017, p. 354) and “21st century Jim Crow” (Jackson, 2018). Black student-athletes, in contrast to their athletic peers, have the lowest six-year graduation rates of any racial group – 55.2%, compared with 69.3% for studentathletes on the whole – while constituting roughly half of all NCAA Division I football and basketball teams (Beamon, 2014; Griffin, 2017; Harper, 2018). This not only further feeds into stereotypes of Black student-athletes lacking intellectual capabilities, but the existence of such categorizations has been shown to influence the thoughts and behaviors of those who are targeted by them, creating an ouroboros-like self-perpetuating cycle of prejudice and marginalization (Griffin, 2017; Steinfeldt et al., 2010). Socially, Black student-athletes consistently report being negatively viewed and treated on their campuses compared to their fellow, non-Black student-athletes, which includes discriminatory actions from faculty members (Beamon, 2014; Edwards, 1984; Griffin, 2017; Harper, 2006; Melendez, 2009; Sailes, 1993; Singer, 2016; Steinfeldt et al., 2010). Given the negative experiences of so many Black student-athletes, some have come to question whether access to higher education is worth the physical and social hardships endured as part of the Black male student-athlete experience in sports like football and basketball (Griffin, 2017). Research on the specific disenfranchisement of the significant subgroup of Black male student-athletes in revenue-producing college sports continues to be at the forefront of academic discussions on the role and treatment of studentathletes in higher education.

Student-Athlete as a Singular Identity. Beyond racial identity, the identity of ‘student-athlete’ itself carries a degree of stigma on many college campuses. Partially due to a history of deliberate isolation from the rest of the student body via housing assignments and rigid scheduling (Carodine, Almond, & Gratto, 2001; Melendez, 2009; Miller & Kissinger, 2009; Watt & Moore, 2001), campuses are rife with negative stereotypes and preconceptions about the high-profile population of competitive student-athletes, regardless of ethnicity or culture, from both non-student-athletes and staff/faculty members (Griffin, 2017; Melendez, 2009; Sailes, 1993). The disconnection to campus life often results in a negative experience for the student-athlete resulting in personal isolation, which worsens if removed from their sport by injury or other extenuating circumstances (Carodine et al., 2001). Not only are studentathletes aware of these negative views, but some have reported attempting to hide their athletic status, going so far as to avoid dressing in ways that clearly mark them as athletes – wearing large, over-ear headphones and university-sponsored sweatpants are instant indicators of student-athlete status on many campuses (Griffin, 2017). The most prominent of the stereotypes levied at student-athletes is that of the “dumb jock” – a belief that students who are athletically gifted must be intellectually lacking, and given less rigorous coursework than their non-athletic peers to, above all, retain eligibility (Griffin, 2017; Howard-Hamilton & Watt, 2001; Miller & Kissinger, 2009; Sailes, 1993; Steinfeldt et al., 2010). However, it is important to note how this particular prejudice correlates to a common stereotype that is levied at Black students, sometimes referred to as the “dumb negro” stereotype, that traces its origins to Jim Crow racist caricatures (Jardim, 2016; Steele, 1997; Steinfeldt et al.; 2010).

Student-Athlete as Dual Identity. The identity of student-athlete is, by nature, a hybridization of identities. Student-athletes are presented with a majority of the challenges typical of any college student (reading, studying, group projects, homework, presentations, etc.), with the additional pressures and responsibilities of being a competitive amateur athlete (training, traveling, practices, etc.) (Griffin, 2017; Watt & Moore, 2001). For all students, there are issues with making decisions about careers, identifying personal values, forming interpersonal relationships, developing integrity, and achieving independence and autonomy (Carodine et al., 2001). Due to the duality of the student-athlete designation, there is a gap in personal development. Difficulties of role conflict, role strain, value alienation, and exploitation all contribute to a gap in personal development; this absence suggests that the student-athlete faces additional challenges attached to their multiple roles (Carodine et al., 2001; Harper, 2006). This degree of conflict between the dual identities of ‘student’ and ‘athlete,’ often causes a more prominent connection to one over the other, especially given the greater perceived opportunities one aspect may present over the other (Knott, 2016; Steinfeldt et al., 2010). However, there have been indications from the literature that each identity can develop concurrently and without conflict when both are encouraged and catalyzed by effective college personnel (Knott, 2016; Steinfeldt et al.; 2010). The Black student-athlete takes on multiple, challenging identity roles, which are forced by necessity to coexist – this forced adaptation can cause conflicts of personal development in the absence of such effective guidance and support (Steinfeldt et al.; 2010).

Academic Issues

The literature reveals that for student-athletes at Division I institutions, the academic component of their college experience can have a myriad of advantages and disadvantages for their learning outcomes. It is occasionally argued that an institution’s focus to maintain a strong athletic program in reputation and performance has taken precedence over the scholastic quality provided to student-athletes, as was the case with the academically nonrigorous “dummy courses” offered to student-athletes at the University of North CarolinaChapel Hill (Ganim & Sayers, 2014; Harper & Donnor, 2017; Saffici & Pellegrino, 2012). Hence, they argue, there is documented evidence of lowered academic standards for studentathletes in the admission process and even “preferential treatment” for student-athletes once they are enrolled (Saffici & Pellegrino, 2012). As previously mentioned, Black student-athletes face inequitable grading from their professors, likely based, in-part, on the professors’ belief in the academic advantages offered to student-athletes, or their adherence, consciously or not, to the racist belief in the lack of academic worth of Black students compared to their peers (Beamon, 2014; Edwards, 1984; Griffin, 2017; Sailes, 1993). The literature stresses the dire nature of focusing on the academic development of student-athletes, as a 2016 study revealed that 45% of Football Bowl Subdivision School football players are not receiving degrees, while only 2% of Division I football players are expected to make it to the National Football League (Jayakumar & Comeaux, 2016). Graduation rates for Black student-athletes are consistently lower than their already low-graduating peer student-athletes, according to 2018 data (Harper, 2018).

Time Commitment. The concept of excelling in both academics and athletics begins with the recruitment process, as promises of the prioritization of academics are often elicited to parents and interested students (Jayakumar & Comeaux, 2016). Student-athletes then transition to higher education within what has been termed a “Magic Kingdom” period where it seems that the possibilities are truly endless for them in the classroom and with their team (Jayakumar & Comeaux, 2016, p. 502). However, this mindset is dangerous because, as a result, it is far too common for student-athletes to develop unrealistic expectations of their academic abilities and intense schedules. So, when these student-athletes are inevitably faced with adversity and the sometimes harsh reality of college courses, they often begin to lose confidence, self-efficacy, and academic motivation as they become fearful of the “dumb jock” stereotype that has already begun to actualize in their minds and identities (Edwards, 1984; Griffin, 2017; Howard-Hamilton & Watt, 2001; Miller & Kissinger, 2009). As previously mentioned, this stereotype threat is two-fold for Black student athletes, who also have the “dumb negro” stereotype to contend with (Edwards, 1984; Jardim, 2016; Owens & Massey, 2011; Sailes, 1993; Steele, 1997). The way this stereotype manifests in higher education is astonishing, as the literature notes that even professors are guilty of expressing microaggressions towards student-athletes concerning their academic abilities (Jayakumar & Comeaux, 2016; Sailes, 1993). While there have been efforts to limit the amount of time these student-athletes can spend on their sport, the literature emphasizes the toll that mental and physical exhaustion, injury, and recovery can take on the ability to focus on academics, let alone make it a priority (Carodine et al., 2001).

Academic Support. Given this challenging balance, academic support of student-athletes is a vital concern; however, the literature presents mixed opinions about whether or not the structures currently in place are best suited for supporting student-athletes, let alone Black student-athletes. For student-athletes at Division I institutions, there is often a silo effect created when support services for academics are housed within the athletic department, rather than externally in other areas of the university structure (Miller & Kissinger, 2009). Additionally, the literature emphasizes that housing academic programming within athletic facilities has implied to student-athletes that their academic needs are substantially different from non-athletes, and thus has created the perception that the general campus academic cultural environment is unsuitable for students of their caliber (Miller & Kissinger, 2009). This then “subtly encourage[s] student-athletes to view themselves less as students and more as athletes” (Miller & Kissinger, 2009, p. 57). Subsequently, if academic performance begins to decline as the emphasis shifts more towards athletics, Jayakumar and Comeaux (2016) argue that because these facilities and support services exist, the decline is perceived to be solely the fault of the student-athlete. Coaches claim that struggling student-athletes are simply unable to manage their time or avoid social commitments, deflecting any blame they might be responsible for (Jayakumar and Comeaux; 2016). While some sources highlight positives regarding the existence of internal resources within athletics departments as being more convenient and relevant to student-athletes and their specific NCAA eligibility requirements, others articulate that this policy has major negative consequences (Jayakumar & Comeaux, 2016; Navarro, 2015). Two of the greatest consequences are shifting the blame of poor academic performance onto student-athletes, and placing too much emphasis on maintaining their academic eligibility rather than academic flourishing (Jayakumar & Comeaux, 2016; Navarro, 2015). This is evident, in part, in the selection of academic majors by studentathletes. One study revealed that student-athletes, who chose majors based on ‘fit,’ in regards to interests and career aspirations, were typically non-revenue generating student-athletes who received advice from campus professionals outside of athletics (Navarro, 2015). In contrast, the revenue-generating student-athletes who either consulted exclusively or primarily with athletic-housed advisors were less concerned about ‘fit’, which led many of these studentathletes to subsequently feel remorseful toward their major choice (Navarro, 2015).

Given these differing perspectives on the advantages and disadvantages of internal athletics resources, it appears that a greater focus must be placed on the organizational culture of athletic departments, and how appropriately student-athletes are being supported through their academic journeys (Jayakumar & Comeaux, 2016). Overall, there is a “consistent body of research suggesting student-athletes, particularly football and basketball players, may not be achieving the [same] cognitive outcomes from college as their non-athletic peers” (Miller & Kissinger, 2009, p. 202), in part because of the insufficiency of academic support services located within athletics departments. Thus, the insufficient academic structures and services provided by many athletic departments, coupled with the extensive time commitments placed on student-athletes, can result in harmful, unfavorable effects on academic performance for student-athletes (Miller & Kissinger, 2009). It can be extrapolated, due to the lower graduation rates and academic performances for Black student-athletes, that this sub-group is likely experiencing additional hardship in regards to academic performance, in part due to internal stereotype threats as well as inequitable treatment by members of the academic community on their campuses (Griffin, 2017; Harper, 2006; Steele, 1997).

Black Student-Athletes at Black Colleges

Because of the similarities between Black-targeted forms of stereotype threat and the challenges often faced by Black athletes, one might assume that Black student-athletes at predominantly Black colleges, like Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), are able to circumvent many of the challenges faced by their Black student-athlete peers at Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs), as Black institutions have a rich history of successfully educating Black males to postsecondary matriculation (Gasman, Nguyen, & Commodore, 2017). However, while there are indications that Black student-athletes at Black colleges enjoy more positive relationships with professors and less isolation from the social functions of their campuses than their Black student-athlete peers at PWIs, there are still indications that they face comparable levels of negative social stigma and low public regard from their campuses as a whole (Cooper & Hall, 2016; Steinfeldt et al., 2010). While race can significantly contribute to the negative experiences of college student-athletes – and that interplay merits serious academic discussion – student-athlete stigma inarguably exists beyond the bounds of race as well.

Conclusion

Past scholarship on college student-athletes in revenue-generating sports have documented a number of consistent patterns within the institution of American higher education: a pervasiveness of negative identity stereotypes, chaotic scheduling, a history of isolation from the general student population, and a struggle to exceed the socially-imposed, low academic expectations of them – many of which are effects dramatically and negatively enhanced for Black student-athletes. Taken together, these findings paint a portrait of a hostile and generally inhospitable landscape within higher education for Black student-athletes in revenuegenerating sports. However, future research must be conducted to understand the elements of bias and prejudice shown to exist among faculty and non-student-athletes towards their Black student-athlete peers, in order to identify a remedy for their current stigmatization. Likewise, much work needs to be completed to examine the efficacy and potential deleterious effects of the well-intentioned academic support services for student-athletes offered at various higher education institutions: it is debatable whether these implementations are inequitably applied or effective along racial lines. If, as some studies suggest, numerous currently-employed athletics academic support services significantly hinder the academic performance and identity development of Black student-athletes, then serious reassessment must be applied on behalf of higher education institutions to improve the misguided and counterproductive academic services offered to student-athletes.

Gordon Maples (’19), Nina Berger (’19), Candace Collins (’19), and Michelle Healey (’19) are M.Ed. candidate graduate students in the Higher Education Administration program at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education and Human Development.

References

Bates, B. J. (1997). Sheepskin, pigskin, and thickskin: Power, leadership, and pedagogy in African American student-athletes’ curricular experiences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University Peabody College of Education, Nashville, TN.

Beamon, K. (2014). Racism and stereotyping on campus: Experiences of African American male studentathletes. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(2), 121-134.

Carodine, K., Almond, K., & Gratto, K. (2001). College student athletes’ success both in and out of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 19-33.

Cooper, J. & Hall, J. (2016). Understanding Black male student-athletes’ experiences at a historically black college/university: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 46-63.

Edwards, H. (1984). The Black “dumb jock”: An American sports tragedy. College Board Review, 131(1), 8-13.

Ganim, S. & Sayers, D. (2014, October 23). UNC report finds 18 years of academic fraud to keep athletes playing. CNN. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/ index.html

Gasman, M., Nguyen, T. & Commodore, F. (2017). Advancing Black male success: Understanding the contributions of urban Black colleges and universities. Urban Education, 52(9), 1129-1139.

Griffin, W. (2017). Who is whistling Vivaldi? How Black football players engage with stereotype threats in college. International Journal in Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(4), 354-369.

Harper, S. R. (2006). Black male students at public universities in the U.S.: Status, trends and implications for policy and practice. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Harper, S. R. (2018). Black male student-athletes and racial inequities in NCAA division I college sports. Los Angeles, CA: USC Race & Equity Center.

Harper, S. R., & Donnor, J. K. (2017). Scandals in college sports. New York, NY: Routledge.

Howard-Hamilton, M.F., & Watt, S.K. (2001). How college affects student athletes. In M.F. HowardHamilton & S.K. Watt (Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: Student Services for Athletes (pp. 35-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, V.L. (2018, January 11). Take it from a former division I athlete: College sports are like Jim Crow. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-collegesports-20180111-story.html

Jardim, S. (2016). Recognizing racist stereotypes in U.S. media. Medium. Retrieved from: https://medium. com/@suzanejardim/reconhecendo-esteri%C3%B3tipos-racistas-internacionais-b00f80861fc9

Jayakumar, U. M. & Comeaux, E. (2016). The cultural cover-up of college athletics: How organizational culture perpetuates an unrealistic and idealized balancing act. The Journal of Higher Education 87(4), 488-515.

Knott, S. E. (2016). The impact of dual identities of college student-athletes on academic performance. Teaching & Learning Theses & Dissertations. Retrieved from ODU Digital Commons.

Melendez, M. C. (2009). Psychosocial influences on college adjustment in division I student-athletes: The role of athletic identity. Journal of College Student Retention, 11(3), 345-361.

Miller, M. T., & Kissinger, D. B. (2009). College student-athletes: Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Implications. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Navarro, K. M. (2015). An examination of the alignment of student-athletes’ undergraduate major choices and career field aspirations in life after sports. Journal of College Student Development, 56(4), 364-379.

Owens, J. & Massey, D. (2011). Stereotype threat and college academic performance: A latent variable approach. Social Science Research, 40(1), 150-166.

Saffici, C., & Pellegrino, R. (2012). Intercollegiate athletics vs. academics: The student-athlete or the athlete-student. The Sport Journal, 19.

Sailes, G.A. (1993). An investigation of campus stereotypes: The myth of Black athletic superiority and the dumb jock stereotype. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10(1), 88-97.

Singer, J. N. (2016). African American male college athletes’ narratives on education and racism. Urban Education, 51(9), 1065-1095.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.

Steinfeldt, J., Reed, C., & Steinfeldt, M. (2010). Racial and athletic identity of African American football players at historically black colleges and universities and predominantly white institutions. The Journal of Black Psychology, 36(1), 3-24.

Thelin, J. R., & Wiseman, L. L. (1989). The old college try: balancing athletics and academics in higher education. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Watt, S.K., & Moore, J.L. (2001). Who are student athletes? In M.F. Howard-Hamilton & S.K. Watt (Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: Student Services for Athletes (pp. 7-18). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.