Running Header: Developmental Synthesis Project 1

Developmental Synthesis Project: The Division I Student Athlete College Experience

Patrick D. Randolph

Loyola University Chicago

In 2015, there were roughly 179,690 student athletes on Division I college campuses. On
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 2

the 346 NCAA Division I college campuses, one in every 25 students is a student athlete

(NCAA, 2015b). While this is a small minority of the students at these institutions, this is a

population that has added stress in an already stressful college environment (Etzel, 2006,

Melendez, 2009). Athletes are expected to perform at a high level in extremely competitive

physical competitions, while also maintaining an academic achievement level that allows them to

participate in their chosen sport. Many athletes spend 20 hours per week honing their craft,

which does not include the additional independent work a student athlete completes to excel.

Athletes also face a negative stereotype of being disengaged from the campus and not caring

about their academics (Melendez, 2008, Melendez, 2006; Brown et al., 2003; Bimper, 2012;

Howard-Hamilton et al., 2001). Add in the struggle with athletic identity, it is obvious to see

why student athletes have different challenges and needs than their non-athlete counterparts.

(Gayles, 2009; Howard-Hamilton et al., 2001; Etzel et al., 2006; Comeaux 2013)

All of the added variables that collegiate student athletes face has led to a gap within

student developmental theory. The lack of theory specifically addressing the student athlete

experience poses a problem for student affairs professionals. Being a college athlete is a difficult

world to comprehend without having taken part in it. The subculture developed within an

athletic department is complex and, as discussed above, creates challenges that many student

affairs professional did not experience themselves. Primarily, I found two common themes that

revolve around student athletes and student development theory. The two themes are the black

vs. white dichotomy and athletic identity. This paper seeks to analyze the theory and its

usefulness when working with student athletes, specifically addressing the themes listed above.

It will also analyze where the theories fall short and areas that need further research to better
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 3

serve this population of students. To effectively consider the relevance of theory and ways

further research can benefit, we must first understand who is the Division I student athlete.

Population Demographics of Division I Student Athletes

It is difficult to analyze the student athlete population due to lack of identity data

collected by the NCAA. The only available demographic information pertains to race. The

NCAA has not collected formal data on socio economic status, gender identity (other than man

or woman) and has only recently started to collect data on sexual orientation (A. Kerns, personal

communication, March 26, 2016). We have a very good breakdown of the racial identities of

Division I student athletes, but the breakdown may be surprising to some. The largest group is

that of white athletes; white athletes make up 59.9% of the athletic population. The next largest

group is black athletes at 20.6% with international students (referred to by the NCAA as non-

resident alien) at 5.2% and Hispanic/Latino closing out the top four at 4.5% (NCAA, 2015b).

Men comprise 54% of Division I college athletics and women make up 46%. The largest group

when broken down by race and gender is white men at 30% of Division I student athletes

followed closely by white women at 29.9%. Black men are the next largest by making up 13.5%

of the athlete population and black women trialing them by a significant amount, comprising

7.1% of student athletes (NCAA, 2015b). The only sports where athletes of color outnumber

white athletes are Football and mens and womens basketball. 52.9% of football players are

black, 61% of women basketball players are black, and 69.8% of men basketball players are

black. It is also important to note who hold leadership positions in Athletic Departments. White

men hold 77.6% of all Football Bowl Subdivision (Schools with a Division I Football team)

athletic director positions. Of the 126 head football coaches in Division I, only 13 identified as

black men, with only an additional three coaches being from a different persons of color group
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 4

(Lapchick, 2015). These numbers paint a limited picture of the student athlete population. In

order to fully understand who this population is, more diversified data, including socioeconomic

status, gender identification, and sexual orientation are needed.

Athletic Identitys Cognitive Influence

Today, there are many identities a person can choose to distinguish themselves. The

identities cover a broad spectrum including race, gender orientation, gender expression, sexual

orientation, religious affiliation, ethnicity, class, among others. These identities are an important

and salient part of our lives; each can bring their own challenges along with their own rewards.

Finding a strong sense of identity is one of the important developmental stages in our lives

according to developmental theorists Erickson (1980) and Chickering (Chickering & Reisser,

1993) (as cited in Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001). Chickering (Chickering & Reisser, 1993),

and Ericson (1980) believe developing a strong identity allows us to move further down the

developmental path towards things such as finding purpose in our lives and becoming happy

with that purpose (as cited in Evans et al., 2010: as cited in Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001).

Athletic identity could potentially hinder the development of other identities due to the

salience of the identity for many college athletes. (Melendez 2009; Melendez, 2008; Melendez,

2006; Singer, 2013; Brown et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2010). This concept will be discussed at

length later.

A question one might be asking, what is athletic identity? Brewer, Van Raalte, and Linder

(1993) defined athletic identity as being made up of the cognitive, affective, behavioral, and

social obligations associated with identifying with the athletic role. (as cited in Beamon, 2013, p

196) Athletes at the highest levels of competition, such as college athletes, have been put onto to

a pedestal by society because of their physical and intellectual gifts for sport. Due to this
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 5

constant reinforcement, much of a college athletes identity stems from seeing themselves as

athlete (Beamon, 2013). Along with the self identity of athlete, there are experiences and

stressors athletes are exposed to their non-athlete counterparts are not. These stressors can

include injury due to sport, lack of playing time, media scrutiny, training commitments, highly

competitive environment, low performance on the field and in the classroom, added pressure to

perform from friends, family, coaches, and society, among other things (Etzel, 2006). All of

these factors contribute to a students athletic identity.

Just as religious or gender identity effect how a person experiences the world, so does

athletic identity. One area we can see athletic identity impact is cognitive development. The

main purpose of cognitive theory is to explain how people think, reason, and make meaning of

their experiences. (Evans et al., 2010, p 43) Three prominent theories within the realm of

cognitive structural theory are Perrys (1981) theory of intellectual and ethical development,

Kohlbergs (1984) theory of moral development, and Baxter Magoldas (2001) theory of self-

authorship. In Perrys (1981) theory, he examines the differences in the cognitive meaning-

making process. The theory consists of three positions. First, duality is a right or wrong type of

meaning making often relying on authority to give correct answers. Second, multiplicity is a

position that considers peoples diverse ideas and appreciates them when the correct answers are

not able to be found. Third, relativism is defined by the support you give your opinion along

with being able to disagree with someone on certain matters. There are also ways for people to

deflect development and regress into a position along Perrys theory (as cited in Evans et al.,

2010). Kohlbergs (1984) theory describes how a persons moral development is relational to

their understanding of themselves within societys expectations. The theory consists of three

levels. At the first level, the person has yet to comprehend their place within societies
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 6

expectations; they only realize themselves. In the second level, a person conforms to the rules of

society and are especially conscious of authority. The final level is where a person has created a

moral code based on their self-chosen principles. (Evans et al., 2010, p 103) Finally, Baxter

Magoldas (2001) theory on self-authorship centers around answering the questions, How do I

know? Who am I? and How do I want to construct relationships with others? (as cited in

Evans, 2010, p 184) The questions are answered through four phases: following formulas,

crossroads, becoming the author of ones life, and internal foundation. The four phases take a

person from following the plans and expectations laid out by authority figures, to the realization

that they want to be more authentic with themselves. Then into the ability to develop concreate

beliefs as well as defend them and finally to a place where they are grounded in their self-

determined belief system, in their sense of who they are, and in the mutuality of relationships.

(as cited in Evans et al., 2001, p 186) All of the topics within these theories (e.g. reasoning skills,

moral code, and defining yourself) could be effected by athletic identity.

One of the biggest inhibitors of cognitive development for student athletes is the constant

structure of their lives (Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001; Gayles et al., 2012; Gayles, 2009). One

of the key ways for students to progress through their cognitive development is to be challenged

about how to think. Within athletics, student athletes are told how to think by coaches and other

authority figures (e.g. athletic trainers, academic advisors, NCAA compliance officers, etc.).

These strict guidelines set by the authority figures do not give the student athlete much challenge

or support needed to progress through cognitive development. In the case of Perrys (1981)

theory, student athletes are required to look to the authority figure for answers on what is right or

wrong. This could condition students to create their reasoning in a dualistic nature. Others

opinions do not matter because the only one that will make a difference in their athletic lives is
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 7

their coachs. Also, if a student athlete did progress in Perrys (1981) positions, a deflection may

occur due to athletic stresses. A defection that could be common for student athletes is retreat.

In this regression, an athlete could retreat back to dualism because of overwhelming challenges

or intense stress. For example, if an athlete is not performing in their sport and is threatened to

be replaced by another player, the struggling athlete may retreat back to dualism (Howard-

Hamilton & Sina, 2001). The dualistic retreat would allow the student to find a less challenging

frame of mind while also appeasing the coach (e.g. many coaches value the ideal of

coachablitiy, which could be understood as how well a student athlete does what the coach

tells them) and conditioning an athlete to remain in a dualistic state of reasoning. These added

stresses may not only come from the playing field, but also from added pressures to perform put

on them by media, family members, or the school body (Etzel, 2006; Melendez, 2008; Melendez,

2009).

Student athletes could be placed in the conventional level, of Kohlbergs (1984) theory,

specifically within stage four, social system morality. Within this stage, people view the social

system as made up of a consistent set of rules and procedures applying equally to all people.

(Evans et al., 2010, p 104) Strict rules within the athletic department allow student athletes to

progress to this stage, but make it difficult to continue any further. Another example of an

unyielding set of rules could be the sports themselves. Athletes cannot break the rules set within

their sport or else there are negative consequences. Once again, athletes are conditioned to

follow the rules and continue the status quo.

Even Baxter Magoldas (2001) theory about meaning making could be effected by this

inflexible structure. The stage I argue many athletes are operating in is the first phase, following

formulas (as cited in Evans et al., 2010). Within this first phase, students follow the plans laid
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 8

out for them by external authorities about what they should think and how they should

accomplish their work. (as cited in Evans et al., 2010, p 184) Also, students within this phase

allow the expectations of others to define how they view themselves. Athletic identity is largely

based on how others see you as an athlete. You are built from a young age to identify with your

athletic prowess and base your identity off of how good others perceive you at your chosen sport

(Beamon, 2013). They do not become disenfranchised from how others see them, because

society views athletes in such a positive light. This archetype of meaning making does not allow

self-authorship, as described by Baxter Magolda (2001).

While these theories seem to apply, they cannot account for all identities held by the

student athletes. Evans et al., (2010) may have said it best, The complexity of multiple

identities and their growth and change over time enrich and deepen the conversation about social

identity and make the boundedness of a generalized single theory of identity seem outdated. (p

250) The biggest gaps in these theories are that they do not take into account the athletic identity.

The athletic identity, like all identities, comes with many challenges as well as rewards. These

experiences, both good and bad need to be taken into account with the theories to have more

salience to the student athlete population.

More research needs to be dedicated to understanding how the athletic identity can effect

a student athletes cognitive development. Many studies have been done to research cognitive

learning outcomes such as reading and writing, but the ones that have been done on the cognitive

development of student athletes have yielded mixed results and are inconclusive (Gayles, 2009).

Until more research can be done on the athletic identity, professionals need to continue to push

student athletes in their development. Providing the challenges directed towards this type of

development will give student athletes a taste of the development they must go through to get a
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 9

better sense of themselves and be better equipped to handle the world after sports. Athletic

departments could also provide a more cognitively challenging environment, instead of the

tradition rigidness associated with sport. If student athletes can have these engaging experiences

and really challenge their own perspective, they will be better off for it.

Athletic Identitys Psychosocial Influence

Athletic identity is not inherently a negative identity for young college students, but if not

managed properly, it can hinder a students psychosocial development. Both Ericksons (1980)

and Chickerings (Chickering & Reisser 1993) theories are staples when talking about

psychosocial student development. Each focus on the motifs of independence, building intimate

relationships, developing a strong self-identity, a strong sense of purpose, and becoming at peace

with that purpose (Evans et al., 2010). Due to these similarities in the theories, I will be focusing

on Chickering (Chickering & Reisser 1993) in the following paragraphs.

Within Chickerings theory, there are seven vectors: developing competence, managing

emotions, moving through autonomy towards interdependence, developing mature interpersonal

relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. These vectors,

named because of Chickerings (Chickering & Reisser 1993) image of all seven stages having

direction and magnitude, are what people theoretically should go through for complete

development. Also, each vector builds upon one another and students often find themselves

dealing with difficulties found in multiple vectors. Chickering (Chickering & Reisser, 1993)

took into account environmental influences on the seven vectors. Those influences are

institutional objectives, institutional size, student-faculty relationships, curriculum, teaching,

friendships and student communities, and student development programs and services (as cited

in Evans et al., 2010). While Chickerings theory was based off of research done on white,
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 10

middle class men, it is reasonable to think the spirit of his theory, students develop within

themselves and with the environment around them to find an almost inner peace, can still apply

to many different students holding different identities. With this, comparing the theory laid out

by Chickering to the experiences of college athletes could tell us much about how to help these

athletes to grow.

The first vector, developing competencies, is centered around developing intellectual,

physical, and interpersonal competencies. Appropriately, athletes have no trouble with this

vector because of their extreme athletic talent. Their teammates and adoring fans ensure they

develop the interpersonal portion of the vector and even if an athlete falls into the stereotype of

not excelling in academics, it is disenfranchised because of the outstanding physical

competencies. This is all reinforced by outside influences (e.g. parents, friends, media)

(Howard-Hamilton et al., 2001; Beamon, 2013; Melendez, 2009; Melendez, 2006). It is also

reasonable to assume that athletes can learn to manage emotions due to the importance of that

within their sport. While it may not always seem like it, athletes suppress a lot of their true

emotions (e.g. frustration with another player, referee, or coach) on the field or court. Where

athletes start to have trouble within Chickerings theory of identity development is the vector

moving through autonomy towards interdependence.

In the third vector, it is important that students start to move away from relying on an

authority figure, such as their parents. Why athletes struggle with this is because another

authority figure, their coach, acts as an authority in lieu of the parents. Many athletes view their

coaches as mentors and a second parent. This visceral parental relationship is only reinforced

with the rigid structure of college athletics (e.g. meetings, practice, workouts, study halls, rehab,

etc.). Thus they may experience a delay becoming comfortable with an independent state of
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 11

mind because there is little emotional or physical space to develop autonomy (Harris, 1993, p.

5). (as cited in Howard-Hamilton et al., 2001, p) Establishing interpersonal relationships may

not be hard within the team or athletic setting, but moving to the non-athletic world is difficult

for some athletes because of the intense subculture that is developed in an athletic department.

Values and norms may be different in the athletic facility than on the rest of campus (Howard-

Hamilton et al., 2001; Gayles et al., 2012; Melendez, 2009; Melendez, 2006; Umbach et al.,

2006; Etzel, 2006; Martin & Harris, 2006). But the biggest challenges for student athletes who

have a strong salience to athletic identity are the final three vectors of Chickerings (Chickering

& Reisser, 1993) theory.

Chickerings (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) vector establishing identity, is made up of

seven pieces, but one piece particularly stands out when talking about athletic identity. This

piece is sense of self in a social, historical, and cultural context. (Chickering & Reisser, 1993,

p 49) When athletic identity can become detrimental is when athletes only identify as athlete. A

term for this is identity foreclosure (Beamon, 2013, p 196) and it is defined as when a person

commits to an identity without any diligent exploration of other identities available. This is very

troubling because only 1% of college athletes go on to become professional athletes, meaning

99% will have to retire from the sport after their college experience. Losing such a large part of

your identity is not easy for many college athletes. In study done by Beamon (2013), researchers

found:

Many [athletes] continued to have foreclosed athletic identities even after retirement.

They are unable to redefine themselves and feel that society makes it difficult to do so

The respondents expressed that their transitions were hindered not only by career issues,

but by a loss of status, a loss of self, and difficulty seeing themselves as a regular
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 12

person as opposed to a great athleteThey [athletes] find themselves wrestling with the

reality that the manner in which they have always identified themselves is no longer a

part of their lives. They experience an identity crisis, but are ill-equipped to create new

identities. (Beamon, 2013, p 205)

The responses from the research subjects in Beamons study sound as if they have lost a sense of

self in a social, historical, and cultural context. While Beamons study included a small sample

of black male participants, athletic identity can be salient to any athlete (Beamon, 2013;

Melendez, 2009). This is important because when athletes lose such a large part of their identity,

they struggle to continue their development. Without a strong establishment of identity, these

students do not progress to develop a sense of purpose (Gayles, 2009) for their lives nor develop

the integrity needed to obtain, as Chickering (Chickering & Reisser 1993) described it, the

enlightenment of consciousness. (p 51) These are final vectors necessary to obtain the desired

place in a persons developmental journey.

Chickerings Theory of Identity Development is not all encompassing. It was not created

for the diverse population of student athletes, nor does it take into account any additional

environmental factors that athletes must face such as teammate/coaching relationships, the

competitiveness atmosphere, or the risk of physical harm, just to name a few. So one must be

careful when using this theory to assess development of athletes.

Being an athlete can effect so many developmental aspects besides the psychosocial

development discussed above. Athletic identity can effect both racial identity development

(discussed below) (Brown et al., 2003; Melendez, 2008; Melendez, 2009; Bimper et al., 2012;

Henry & Closson, 2012) and cognitive development (Howard-Hamilton, 2001; Melendez 2009;

Melendez, 2008; Melendez, 2006; Singer, 2013; Brown et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2010). The
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 13

research into how athletic identity effects student development is incomplete and needs to be

examined to understand fully how being an athlete can effect a students overall development.

Until then, professionals need to be aware of how much added stress can be put upon student

athletes. They need to help shorten the gap between athletes and their non-athlete counterparts

as well as help student athletes integrate into the general population of students. Lastly, student

athletes need to be challenged to build and explore more than just their athletic identity.

Encouragement is needed when athletes show interest in something outside of their physical

gifts. If athletes are allowed the chance to explore other identities before foreclosing on one, it

might help them transition after retirement, hence continuing their developmental progression

instead of destroying it.

Black vs. White Dichotomy in College Athletics

Race in sports is not a new topic. Monumental achievements in racial equality have been

made from the breaking of the color barrier in baseball by Jackie Robinson, Ernie Davis being

the first black man to win the Heisman Trophy. Race and racism in sports is even addressed in

pop culture. One example is in the cult football classic Varsity Blues. In the film, a Texas

high school coaching legend does not intentionally allow his star, black running back to score

touchdowns. In the movie, the only person to notice this is the black running back, all too

realistically one might say (Gale & Robbins, 1999). As this continues to be an aspect covered by

the media, it has also been explored by researchers.

Throughout the research conducted in the area of race relations in college sports, a couple

themes are apparent. The first is that black student athletes still experience racial tension and

racism on their campus and even within their own team (Melendez 2008; Henry & Closson,

2012; Singer 2005, Bimper et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2010). The other theme is while black
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 14

athletes seem to engage in the racial development laid out by Helms (Helms & Cook, 1999),

their white teammates are not involved to the same extent (Brown et al., 2003; Comeaux, 2013).

There is a divide between black and white athletes because of the lack of equal racial identity

development.

Racial Identity theory is an integral step in the development of students and the

population in general. This is no different for student athletes on college campuses. The two

most widely used Racial Identity Theories are the Cross theory of psychological nigrescence

(Evans et al., 2010) and Helms Racial Identity Theory (Helms & Cook, 1999). While many see

Crosss theory as the best to use when talking about black identity development (Evans et al.,

2010), Helms Theory (Helms & Cook 1999) becomes the better tool for guiding development

when analyzing the black and white identities together. The theory allows for the interaction of

these two groups and frames development as people of color and whites taking separate journeys

towards the same goals.

According to Helms (Helms & Cook 1999), race is a sociopolitical creation and therefore

signals the existence of a socio-hierarchy in which people from the non-dominant group lack the

same access to resources as others who are higher in the hierarchy. This reality has negative side

effects, with the most relevant being internalized racism. The end goal of students racial

development is to overcome this internalized racism to achieve a self-affirming and realistic

racial group or collective identity. (Helms & Cook, 1999, p 244) While the goal is the same for

both people of color (POC) and white identified groups, the journeys through the woods are

different.

For Helms POC model, there are six ego statuses (Helms & Cook, 1999, p 247) that

one would progress through to obtain the healthy sense of self identity; the ego statues are
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 15

conformity, dissonance, immersion, emersion, internalization, and integrated awareness. At the

beginning of the theory, POC internalize racism due to the societal systems of oppression. POC

either try to assimilate into white America or perpetuate stereotypes they understand as their

groups behavior. The theory progresses through the realization that they do not fit into all

categories of white culture, the need to find positive representation of their racial identity,

resentment towards the dominate culture, and a surrounding of a strong community who share

the same identities as you. The two most advanced ego statues according to Helms (Helms &

Cook 1996) are internalization and integrated awareness. Internalization is a positive outlook of

your social group accompanied with internal self-defined qualities of your racial identity. This

stage is defined by being capable of weighing and integrating complex racial information

(Helms & Cook, 1999, p 247). Integrated Awareness furthers the complex thinking that allows a

positive racial image of ones self and the capacity to recognize and avoid the ways society

continues to socialize a homogenous system (Helms & Cook, 1999). While there are some

similarities, white identity development forces whites to find ways they have participated in the

systems of oppression and realize how to break away from this societal organism.

White identity development does not center around an internal racism element like those

of in their POC counterpart, but rather breaking away from the societal conditioning of white as

racial superiority and privilege. Helms seven ego statuses for White Racial Identity (Helms &

Cook, 1999) include contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence, immersion,

emersion, and autonomy. The theory follows white individuals from ignorant bliss regarding the

racial inequalities of society to their epiphany of the unescapable reality of race, and through

frustration and intolerance of other groups. The end goal of this theory is to come to a place of

autonomy, or as Helms and Cook (1999) define it, Informed positive socio-racial group
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 16

commitment, use of internal standards for self-definition, capacity to relinquish the privileges of

racism. (p 251) Much like POC Racial Identity, the final stage allows a white person to think

more critically and process more complex racial material. When the white identified reaches this

state, real progress can be made in the dismantling of racial hierarchy (Helms & Cross, 1999).

The first sign of this dichotomy between white and black athletes is the presence of racial

tension and perceived racism from white teammates, coaches, and other athletic department

officials. In a study done by Melendez (2008) that focused on the experiences of six black

footballs players between the ages of 19 and 20, the author found general issues that all revolved

around trust. When the research team analyzed the data, they concluded the central themes of

mistrust encompassed judgment, double standards, values, integration, stigma of the black

athlete, living in an inhospitable city, and unwritten rules. Similar themes emerged in a study

done by Singer (2005). Singer interviewed four black football players from a large Midwestern

predominantly white institution (PWI) and found players experienced a lack of opportunity for

leadership positions on the field of play (e.g. quarterback) or within the athletic administration

(e.g. coaches). Singer (2005) also found, as did Melendez (2008), the black players felt they

were treated differently than their white counterparts.

The negative experiences that these athletes are having, from the feelings that their

coaches have different standards for their white teammates, the racial stereotypes that follow a

black athlete, or the feeling the athletic department does not have their best interests in mind

(Melendez, 2008; Singer, 2005; Martin et al., 2012; Bimper, Jr, et al., 2012) can be both

detrimental and progressive instances in the development of the black student athlete. Following

Helms theory (Helms & Cook, 1999), a black student athlete can internalize these negative

experiences and hence try to conform to the perceived white as good or coincide with the

socially conditioned norms of the black group. This could be seen in several studies (Melendez,
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 17

2008; Singer, 2005; Martin et al., 2012; Bimper, Jr, et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2003) by coaches

perpetuating a team atmosphere and expecting athletes to perform a certain way, usually based

on the coaches own morals and sense of right. Since 87.3% (Lapchick, 2015) of head football

coaches in the NCAA are white men, that sense of right is created from a privileged perspective.

The negative experiences could also push black students into a further statues of development,

dissonance, due to a better understanding of the lack of fit in the white world. This then sets in

motion more advanced statues such as emersion and immersion. These statues rely on a strong

community of like identified people to lean on, which is readily available for some black athletes

in revenue generating sports (Melendez, 2008; Singer, 2005; Martin et al., 2012; Bimper, Jr, et

al., 2012; Henry & Closson, 2012). This almost forced development could cause frustration, lack

of understanding, and a sense of mistrust of whites by black athletes.

The second piece of this puzzle is that white identified athletes are not forced into the

same development that their black teammates. A study done by Henry and Closson (2012)

researched the racial identity development when whites were the minority on a football team;

they found that white players did not experience any sort of outward prejudice and, unlike the

black teammates that were interviewed, did not say anything to acknowledge the greater societal

problem of racism. They also found that players were at various stages of Helms (Helms &

Cook, 1999) white racial identity theory, but the differences were slight. Henry and Closson

(2012) discovered some of the white athletes were still in the most primitive status, contact, and

did little if anything to acknowledge the large societal problems that race created. Few had

advanced, although some achieved the second status, disintegration. These white athletes were

keenly aware of the impact of race and its effects within and beyond the locker room. (Henry &

Closson, 2012, p 28) While this is a step in the right direction, it is a minimal one in the greater
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 18

quest to come to terms with ones whiteness and then be able to actively disengage from the

racial hierarchy. White athletes are not forced to engage in this development like their black

teammates. They do not experience the feelings of mistrust towards their athletic department,

coaches, or teammates, and much like the rest of white America, are socialized into

contentedness of the status quo.

In the studies reviewed for this paper, Helms (Helms & Cook, 1999) Theory of Racial

Identity Development works well. Many of the athletes, both persons of color and whites, fell

into the ego statues that Helms (Helms & Cook, 1999) described as the main racial development

tropes. The largest problem though, is that almost all of the athletes researched were white or

black men playing a revenue generated team sport at a large PWI. It does make sense why

people would study primarily football players. It is the largest sport within the NCAA, is racially

diverse in the terms of black and white athletes, and is the largest revenue generating sport. The

literature selected also reflects the individual biases of the author. Based on personal interests,

past experiences, and common identities, I as a learner was drawn to these particular studies due

to their relation to football and men. I am aware this could cause a gap in the content of the

paper.

The challenges faced in college athletic departments and on racially diverse college teams

are the same challenges faced by everyone in society. It is surprising due to the access both

groups have to a white and black racially diverse community. In 2007, Potuto and OHanlon

examined student athletes from 18 Division I institutions, to better comprehend their experiences

with racially diverse populations. Overall, 60.5% of the student athletes reported that their

athletic participation had significantly contributed to their understanding of people of racial or

ethnic backgrounds different from their own (as cited in Comeaux, 2013, p 40). Even though
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 19

studies have shown that the interactions of white and black teammates are good for racial

interactions and relations (Brown et al., 2003; Comeaux, 2013) I will argue that this perception

actually does harm. While it is true that interacting with someone of a different group will

humanize that group and cause you to have less personal prejudice towards them, it does nothing

to fix the problem of systematic oppression. As researchers Dixon, Durrheim, and Tredoux

(2005) found, increased interracial contact between Blacks and Whites seems to improve the

acceptance of blacks by whites, does not make whites mobilize towards social action (as cited in

Henry & Closson, 2012). The colorblind, or theres no race on the playing field (Brown et al,

2003, p 165) approach will only maintain the status quo. An invisible problem will not be seen

as needing a solution. It seems college sports are merely a microcosm of society as a whole.

While student affairs professionals can do their best to implement these conversations

and developmental tools, it is up to the universitys athletic department to implement change to

close the black vs. white dichotomy. Athletic departments, specifically the athletic directors,

should require this type of education for all of its employees. If the professionals within the

department can comprehend these issues, they will hopefully be able to pass down the

knowledge and development to the athletes they interact with. Another way to foster this

development is to have programming specifically aimed towards racial identity development,

both within racial groups and sports teams. This kind of in-depth education has the opportunity

to create even stronger bonds within a team other than the traditional we are family method.

Lastly, universities need to be more intentional about bringing in POC into positions of

leadership. I do not think, or at least hope, it is a premeditated attempt to keep POC out of

positions of power within an athletic department, but rather the ramifications of the good ol

boys club. More commonly known as its about who you know, the networks of coaches and
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 20

officials in athletic departments is disproportionately white (Singer, 2006). Since we as humans

are drawn to people who hold similarities to us, white officials seem to give more opportunities

to student athletes that emulate how they view a student athlete should be. All of these examples

only scratch the surface of what athletic departments could do with concentrated efforts to help

their student athletes develop.

Conclusion

The college student athlete is unique group of student. The population holds a

cornucopia of different identities, some of which have not been addressed by the athlete

population (e.g. LGBTQ). On top of the social identities, the athletes also have athletic identity

to navigate. It is challenging to perform athletic feats at a high level along with figuring out true

identities. It is a wonder that student athletes can cope with this lifestyle. To benefit this largely

misunderstood population, we must continue to research the effects of being a student athlete on

cognitive/moral, psychosocial, and identity development. An increased understanding of this

population is needed to tailor the current theory around the athlete. With enough research,

specific theories can be created to directly address athletes. Athletic departments must also strive

to create programming and intentional initiatives to incorporate this necessary development.

While it will be challenging to respect all identities brought to the table, the reward will be well

worth the hardship. Until then, the best thing higher education professionals can do is challenge

a student athlete developmentally whenever possible. While the contact with professionals

outside of the athletic department may be limited, the little challenge we can provide might be

enough to jump start the development of a student athlete.

References
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 21

Beamon, K. (2012). Im a baller: Athletic identity foreclosure among African-American

former student-athletes. Journal of African American Studies,16(2), 195-208.

Bimper, A. Y., Harrison, L., & Clark, L. (2012). Diamonds in the rough: Examining a case of

successful Black male student athletes in college sport. Journal of Black psychology,1-24.

DOI: 10.1177/0095798412454676

Birrell, S. (1987). The woman athlete's college experience: Knowns and unknowns. Journal of

Sport & Social Issues, 11(1-2), 82-96.

Brown, T. N., Jackson, J. S., Brown, K. T., Sellers, R. M., Keiper, S., & Manuel, W. J. (2003).

Theres No Race On The Playing Field Perceptions of Racial Discrimination

Among White and Black Athletes. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 27(2), 162-183.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Comeaux, E. (2013). The Long-Term Benefits of Cross- Racial Engagement on Workforce

Competencies for Division I White Student-Athletes. Journal Of Student Affairs

Research & Practice, 50(1), 37-55. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2013-0003

Etzel, E. F. (2006). Understanding and promoting college student-athlete health: Essential issues

for student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal,43(3), 518-546.

Evans, N., J. Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college

Gale, D. (Producer), & Robbins, B. (Director). (1999). Varsity Blues [Motion Picture]. USA:

Paramount Studios.

Gayles, J. G. (2009). The student athlete experience. New Directions for Institutional

Research, 2009 (144), 33-41.

DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 22

Gayles, J. G., & Hu, S. (2009). The influence of student engagement and sport participation on

college outcomes among Division I student athletes. The Journal of Higher

Education, 80(3), 315-333.

Gayles, J. G., Rockenbach, A., & Davis, H. A. (2012). Civic Responsibility and the Student

Athlete: Validating a New Conceptual Model. Journal Of Higher Education, 83(4), 535-

557.

Henry, W. J., & Closson, R. B. (2012). The racial identity development of male student-athletes

when blacks are the majority and whites are the minority. Journal Of Student Affairs

Research & Practice, 49(1), 17-32.

HowardHamilton, M. F., & Sina, J. A. (2001). How college affects student athletes. New

Directions for Student Services, 2001(93), 35-45.

Lapchick, R., Baker, D. (2015). The 2015 Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport.

Retrieved from http://www.tidesport.org/college-sport.html

Martin, B. E., & Harris, F. (2007). Examining productive conceptions of masculinities: Lessons

learned from academically driven African American male student-athletes. The Journal

of Men's Studies, 14(3), 359-378.

Martin, B. E., Harrison, C. K., Stone, J., & Lawrence, S. M. (2010). Athletic voices and

academic victories: African American male student-athlete experiences in the Pac-

Ten. Journal of sport & social issues, 34(2), 131-153.

Melendez, M. C. (2009). Psychosocial influences on college adjustment in Division I student-

athletes: The role of athletic identity. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,

Theory & Practice, 11(3), 345-361.

DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 23

Melendez, M. C. (2008). Black football players on a predominantly White college campus:

Psychosocial and emotional realities of the Black college athlete experience. Journal of

Black Psychology.

Melendez, M. C. (2006). The influence of athletic participation on the college adjustment of

freshmen and sophomore student athletes. Journal of College Student Retention:

Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 39-55.

NCAA. (2015a). Results of the 2015 GOAL Study of the Student-Athlete Experience. Retrieved

from

www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/GOALS_convention_slidebank_jan2016_public.pdf

NCAA. (2015b). Sport Sponsorship, Participation and Demographics Search. Retrieved from

http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/main

Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering,

& Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Singer, J. N. (2005). Understanding racism through the eyes of African American male student

athletes. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(4), 365-386.

Umbach, P. D., Palmer, M. M., Kuh, G. D., & Hannah, S. J. (2006). Intercollegiate athletes and

effective educational practices: Winning combination or losing effort?. Research in

Higher Education, 47(6), 709-733.

Watson, J. C. (2005). College student-athletes' attitudes toward help-seeking behavior and

expectations of counseling services. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 442-

449.
DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 24