Yes, the NCAA has done it again -- call it "Proposition 48 Part 11, This Time We Mean Business." Proposition 42 has become the buzzword of college athletics in 1989. My question is why must American Society always close doors for the underprivileged?

Proposition 48 has affected 600 athletes in the two years since it has been implemented, 90 percent of those athletes are black. Therefore, one can very strongly make a case that the rule is racially biased. It is not the fault of the NCAA that students cannot score 700 on a culturally and racially biased test such as the SAT. But it is the NCAA's fault if they make such an exam a criterion for admittance to college. Proposition 42 has taken this injustice one step further by denying these students an opportunity to prove themselves in the classroom. Many of these students are not "dumb" as the expert on these matters, Freshman Tony Sacca seems to believe (The Daily Collegian, Monday January 16, 1989). Mr. Sacca fails to realize that many of these students are underprivileged and their school systems were lacking the revenue and man / woman power in order for them to be properly educated. Once given the chance, with tutoring, these students may leave their chosen academic institution with degrees.

John Thompson, coach of the Georgetown Hoyas, has been protesting this rule the last two weeks. His institution, one of the top ones in the nation, is hardly affected by these rules. Under these rules, Thompson himself says he would have not had the opportunity to prove himself and attend Providence College in the 1950's. Would Mr. Sacca refer to Mr. Thompson as "dumb." It is up to the university itself to enforce its own rules. If the university admits an underqualified student, it is up to the university to ensure that if that player is playing, he is upholding the standards of the university and not just there to score baskets or throw touchdowns. Coach Thompson is a perfect-example of this. His Hoyas played for two National Championships in the mid 1980's, -- anchored by someone who would have been affected by Prop 48 / 42, Patrick Ewing. Mr. Ewing went on and obtained his degree from Georgetown in four years, something many Penn Staters not under either Proposition can do.

Penn State voted for Prop. 42, a mistake. Though Penn State may not admit students who fall under these guidelines it should not stop other schools, such as the predominantly black institutions from giving whomever they want the chance to prove themselves., Dr. Coyle and President Jordan should reevaluate their stance. The University of Maryland on Tuesday decided to change their vote to "no." Maryland does not accept Prop 48 / 42 athletes but feels that it is an injustice to the underprivileged. Will schools like Penn State follow suit? Or is Penn State upset of the so called advantage institutions like Temple get by by admitting Prop 48 / 42 athletes? I don't believe the NCAA had racist intent when it brought up and passed (on the second ballot) the rule. But after hearing the opposition to the rules and their effect on the underprivileged a non-reversal of the rule would lead me to believe that the NCAA and institutions like Penn State do not understand and sympathize with American Society as it is.