and Summary: Cureton's main bone of contention was the Division I NCAA
eligibility requirements for entering college freshmen. (See NCAA Academic Requirements table, below).
These eligibility requirements are known as NCAA Proposition 16.
plaintiffs, Cureton, et al, maintained that Proposition 16 constituted illegal racial
discrimination because federally-protected minorities with inadequate academic preparation
failed to meet the requirements more often than non-protected whites.
Under the so-called "disparate impact" standard, it was not necessary to prove
that the defendant, NCAA, engaged in actual or intentional racial discrimination.
Amazingly, the "disparate impact" theory unilaterally states that any
test or academic requirement on which federally-protected races perform more poorly than
whites constitutes de facto illegal racial discrimination.
In Cureton v. NCAA, the plaintiffs alleged that the NCAAs Division I eligibility
requirements disqualified too many incoming black college freshmen whose high school
academic performance and SAT scores were below the cutoffs established by the NCAA.
The plaintiffs never had to argue that they were academically qualified or that their
academic qualifications were deliberately disregarded for racial reasons. Disparate
impact makes that kind of tedious, time-consuming proof unnecessary.
Philadelphia, March 1999:
U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter ruled for the minority students and against
NCAAs academic standards.
March 30, 1999: The 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the order by U.S. District Judge Ronald L.
December 22, 1999:
Buckwalter's 1999 ruling is overturned on appeal. A three judge panel for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled 2-1 that the NCAA is not a
direct recipient of federal funds and therefore cannot be sued under civil rights laws.
Thus, for the time being the rules requiring incoming students to meet minimum
scores on standardized tests and a minimum grade-point average will remain in effect.
May 5, 2000: The
U.S .Department of Education re-writes the law specifically to defeat the NCAA and to make
sure no one else can escape the long arm of the "disparate impact" follies.
The Dept. of Eds proposed anti-NCAA rule was published in the Federal Register on
May 5, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 88, page 26464) and public comments are due by July 5, 2000.
The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are seeking to undermine the
NCAA's successful appeal in Cureton, and have drafted specific new rules for this
The proposed rule from the Department of Education also states that this rule is designed
to conform to the proposed rule published in October 1999 expanding Title IX to all
federally conducted and supported education programs. Essentially, this proposed
rule states its intention to codify disparate impact and different treatment amendments
from the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 into all regulations governing Title VI and
Title IX. (The Justice Department's proposed rule has not been published yet,
but sources report that it is very close to publishing this as a joint rule to cover Title
[It would seem that the DOE and DOJ want to make
sure that such troublesome concepts as academic ability do not stand in the way of
protected minorities ability to play in college sports. Gosh, who would want
something as irrelevant as academic standards and learning to get in the way of a college
freshmans ability to play sports? Editor.]
An update on the expansion of Title IX
Regulations: Decreed by His Majesty, the King of America, Bill Clinton
On Friday June 23, 2000 at 7:00 PM EDT, democracy was struck another blow by President
Bill Clinton. Proving his desire to redefine the presidency as a monarchy, Clinton issued
an Executive Memorandum implementing the proposed rules on expanding Title IX which has
been dubbed the "Gender Quota Mega-Reg." First issued in
October 1999, the proposed rules laid out a scheme to expand Title IX's non-discrimination
mandate to every federally funded or conducted educational program in all agencies and
The Independent Womens Forum, a non-profit group dedicated to a color-blind and
gender-blind society, enlisted the help of great legal minds in the civil rights arena to
dissect the proposed rules and then produced a report analyzing the impact on the private
sector. From all angles, things do not look good for anyone involved with one of the
700+ educational programs in all federal departments.
But now it is law by the wave of Clinton's scepter on June 23, 2000. This executive
order, combined with the new proposed rules codifying the Cureton decision, will make
disparate impact the law of the land, and males -- especially Caucasian males -- are the
After signing his disparate impact decree into law on Friday 6/23/00, Clinton further
decreed that all federal agencies work together to get most children involved in physical
activity. However, his first decree will render it nearly impossible to get more
boys out to play with government programs, as with all gender equity proposals, these
programs will be for girls first and foremost. He wants to start a new non-profit
foundation to work with the President's Physical Fitness Award program to get kids
moving. Clintons Rainbow Cabinet of Federal Agencies now have 90 days to come
up with a plan to implement his Global Anti-White-Male, Disparate Impact rule.
The Education Department is fighting a pitched battle to force racial preferences
into institutions of higher learning. They have had some phenomenal setbacks and
reversals which the Clinton administration has vowed to overcome. The appellate
reversal of the Cureton decision against the NCAA is only the most recent setback for the
1. The famous Hopwood decision in Texas outlawed
the use of race in college admissions.
2. California's Proposition 209 outlawed the use
of race in California college admissions.
3. Washington State's Initiative 200 outlawed the
use of race in Washington college admissions.
4. The latest defector from the racial preference
bandwagon is the State of Florida, where Governor Jeb Bush has instituted his "One
Florida" plan which seriously limits the use of race in state educational
institutions and contracting.
These factors also led directly to last year's (May 1999) release of the now infamous
Department of Education policy paper "Non-Discrimination in High-Stakes Testing: A
Resource Guide" in which they effectively proposed making the use of standardized
test scores illegal in college admissions decisions! (See also http://www.adversity.net/FRAMES/ed_testing_main_frame.htm)
NCAA Division I Academic Eligibility Requirements which allegedly "disparately
impacted" the federally-protected minority plaintiffs:
Below is the text of the NCAA's allegedly "racially insensitive" academic
eligibility requirements, also known as NCAA Proposition 16:
If your school's prospective student-athlete is first entering a Division I college on
August 1, 1996, or thereafter, in order to be considered a "qualifier," he or
she is required to:
- Graduate from high school.
- Successfully complete a core curriculum of at
least 13 academic courses:
- This core curriculum includes: at least four years
in English, two in Math, one year of Algebra and one year of Geometry (or one year of a
higher-level math course for which Geometry is a prerequisite), two in Social Science, two
in Natural or Physical science (including at least one laboratory class, if offered by
their high school); one additional course in English, Math or Natural or Physical Science;
and two additional academic courses which may be taken from the already-mentioned
categories, e.g., Foreign Language, Computer Science, Philosophy or Nondoctrinal Religion.
- Have a grade point average (based on a maximum of
4.000) combined score on the SAT verbal and math sections or a sum score on the ACT based
on the following qualifier index scale:
NCAA Qualifier Index Scale:
|2.500 or up
the ACT score was calculated by averaging four scores. New standards are based on the sum
v. NCAA Academic Standards Background