SACRAO Journal 2020 Volume 33

SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE REGISTRARS AND ADMISSIONS OFFICERS

2020

THE SACRAO JOURNAL Changing the NCAA: Becoming an Academic Institution BENJAMIN A. KEMPTON, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, WILMINGTON

What Are the Implications of Recent Technological Changes and Developments on Communication in Crisis Situations?

SHERRY WALDON, Ed. D, LAMAR UNIVERSITY

VOLUME 33

Information for Authors THE SACRAO JOURNAL is published annually by the Southern Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, a professional association to promote and advance the improvement of admissions, registration, records, data management, international education and financial aid management practices through study, education, and research; to advance professional knowledge and techniques by fostering the exchange of experiences and information; and to develop and advance standards of competence in the profession. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts which are the responsibility of the author. The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of SACRAO. SACRAO does not endorse the products or services described by authors.

Previous volumes of The SACRAO Journal are published online at: https://issuu.com/sacrao

THE SACRAO JOURNAL

EDITORIAL BOARD CO-EDITORS Nichole Mancone Fisher, Ed.D. University of Texas ― Arlington Texas Blake Bedsole, Ed.D. Arkansas Tech University Arkansas JOURNAL BOARD MEMBERS Karen Beckett, M.S.Ed. University of Miami Florida Jennifer Hardy, M.A. University of Tennessee ― Knoxville Tennessee Nicole Martin, M.A. East Tennessee State University Tennessee Lillian Owens, Ed.D. Jefferson State Alabama Cindy Peterson, M.Ed. Piedmont College Georgia Nanett Rojas, M.S. Florida International University Florida Ken Thompson, Ph.D. Millsaps College Mississippi

The Editorial Board welcomes manuscripts for publication in SACRAO’s academic, refereed publication, The SACRAO Journal. Members of SACRAO are encouraged to submit articles which pertain to their professional and research experiences regarding issues and innovative practices in the profession.

Preference is given to articles authored by SACRAO members, but articles from outside the membership will be considered based on revelatory findings that advance the work of SACRAO members. Active Journal Editorial Board members may not submit articles for publication; book reviews and commentaries by Board members may be published at the discretion of the Editor.

Preparing Manuscripts The complete title of the article should be placed on the first pace of the text, with the author’s name excluded. The author should provide a phone and email address. Unless specified otherwise, the principal (first- named) author will be sent all correspondence.

Manuscripts should be submitted in accordance with the stylistic rules and guidelines delineated in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., 2010). For information, visit http://www. apastyle.org. Manuscript pages should be numbered consecutively. All manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that The SACRAO Journal Editorial Board reserves the right to edit for clarity, syntax, and style. At the discretion of the Editorial Board, authors may be asked to shorten or lengthen articles.

The Editor will acknowledge receipt of manuscripts and will forward them to members of the Editorial Board for review. The Board will consider the appropriateness of the articles for SACRAO’s membership and reserves the right to reject articles submitted for publication.

Manuscript Submission Manuscripts submitted for publication must be original material, which has not been simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. Length of manuscripts, including references and tables, should range from about eight to 20 double-spaced, 8.5 x 11-inch pages. Abstracts are limited to 125 words. Authors should retain a copy of the manuscript to guard against loss.

First drafts of manuscripts are due August 1 annually, and revisions by the Editorial Board are generally returned to the author by the end of September. The final deadline for manuscripts is November 1 in order to meet the printing schedule.

Please email your manuscript to Dr. Scott Gordon at scott.gordon@wku.edu.

Copyright and Permission

An author may reproduce an article for use. Other individuals must request permission from the Editor to reproduce tables, figures, and more than 500 words of an article text.

2020

THE SACRAO JOURNAL 2

The Margaret Ruthven Perry Distinguished SACRAO Journalism Award

3

Changing the NCAA: Becoming an Academic Institution

BENJAMIN A. KEMPTON, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, WILMINGTON

11

What are the Implications of Recent Technological Changes and Developments on Communication in Crisis Situations?

SHERRY WALDON, Ed.D., LAMAR UNIVERSITY

VOLUME 33

THE MARGARET RUTHVEN PERRY

Distinguished SACRAO Journalism Award This award is presented annually to the author whose article promotes and advances knowledge, techniques, and standards of competence in the profession. The award was initially established by Margaret Ruthven Perry, who served as the first editor of The SACRAO Journal. It was named in her honor following the completion of her service as editor.

Listed below are the recipients of the award.

1989 Diane Freytag The Evolution and Maintenance of an Enrollment Management Program

2002 Paul Taylor The Future of Higher Education in the 21st Century

1990 T. Luther Gunter Image Technology in the Information Age: Is Microfilm Really Dead?

2003 Bradley W. Johnson and Sheldon L. Stick Application of Strategic Planning to Enrollment in a Community College

1992 Bruce W. Cunningham Students Versus Registrars: Opponents or Partners in the Educational Process 1994 David H. Stones On the Strategic Nature of SPEEDE/ ExPRESS: Scalability, and Applicability of EDI in the Workplace 1996 James Lynch African-American Undergraduate Recruitment Strategies 1997 Michael E. Malone SACRAO’s “50th”: A Tint of Gold 1998 Cynthia J. Farrier Electronic Grades: From Professor to Student Information System 1999 Edward L. McGlone Primer on Outcomes Assessment for Academic Administrators 2000 Rick Skeel How to Find Funding for EDI: Oklahoma’s State-wide Grant Approach 2001 Angela J. Evans Home School Education: Its Impact on a State University

2004 Louis D. Hunt What’s Your Social? Replacing the Social Security Number 2005 John Fletcher Get Ahead and Stay Ahead: Summers at Auburn Creating a Program to Maximize Your Summer Enrollment 2006 Magdalena H. Williams Achievement and Retention Patterns in a Predominantly Hispanic Serving Institution of Higher Education 2007 Matthew P. McCrickard Adapting Solution Focused Advising: Effective Communication Strategies for Registrars 2008 Ronald G. White Experience Marketings: Putting Students on the Frontline...Again 2009 Lisa B. Harris The Enrollment Manager as a Change Agent 2010 Holly Swart Strategic Training and Communication: The Keys to Our Successful System Implementation

2011 Matthew P. McCrickard Accentuate the Positive: Identifying Opportunities in Enrollment Services through Appreciative Inquiry 2012 Reta Pikowsky Assessment in the Registrar’s Office 2013 Rodney L. Parks and Jonathan W. Rich Voices from the Past: Boomers Transition Back to College 2014 Rodney L. Parks and Ashley D. Edwards Transgenderism and the College Experience: Transitioning Challenges During Higher Education 2015 Rheanna Plemmons Staff Perceptions of Work-Environment Factors Affecting Morale in Southeastern Registrat’s Offices 2016 Mark Eister Serving Student Veterans 2017 Lorie Snyder Garrett Best Practices for Design of Admissions Offices and Welcome Centers 2018 Angela Brockelsby Best Practices for Communicating Online with Generation Z in Recruitment and Marketing for Undergraduate Admissions in Higher Education 2019 Scott Gordon Graduate Student Retention: Examining Factors of Persistence Among Master's Program Students

Changing the NCAA

ABSTRACT

Recently there has been an increase in the number of detractors to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules.

There are certainly problems with the current structure. However, the eligibility portion of the NCAA bylaws is worth maintaining.

Not all student–athletes will become professional athletes, and the eligibility bylaws help to ensure their graduation from college. This article will advocate for the NCAA to become an institution focused solely on helping student–athletes graduate college, while giving up majority control to the universities themselves.

Changing the NCAA: Becoming an Academic Institution Introduction ESPN correspondents and many college sports commentators often criticize the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for taking advantage of student–athletes, either by not paying them or imposing excessively high expectations for their academic grades.

The goal of this paper is to propose eliminating many of the NCAA rules, but retaining the academic rules to guide student–athletes to graduate with a college degree. While the NCAA rules are certainly not perfect, the academic rules do attempt to guide student– athletes toward entering and graduating from college. In this article, I will first discuss the foundation of the NCAA and how it achieved the governance the organization enjoys today.

I will include a brief section on terminology. Next, I will discuss the eligibility rules, including guidelines for and problems with high school and college eligibility processes. Lastly, I will make my case that the NCAA would be better served by allowing the conferences to set their own athletic rules, while the NCAA concentrates on the student role of the student– athlete and supports student–athletes in moving toward graduation. By reforming itself as a purely academic support system for athletes, the NCAA would separate itself from many of the monetary issues currently plaguing the organization, as well as prioritizing the student– athlete’s greatest asset: a college education.

Foundation of NCAA Collegiate sports prior to 1840 were controlled by the schools themselves, without much oversight. Concerns over student–athlete health and wellbeing were highlighted in 1905 when there were 18 deaths and over 100 major injuries in football alone. New York University Chancellor Henry MacCracken was concerned that collegiate sports would have to be abolished if left unregulated because of the potential long-term health repercussions. He formed a rules committee with support of many of the major college football programs.

These deaths and injuries brought national attention all the way to President Theodore Roosevelt. President Roosevelt called for a meeting at the White House with Chancellor MacCracken’s rules committee to address the issues. This effort created the Intercollegiate Athletic Associate (IAA) with 62 members. Then in 1910, the IAA was renamed as the NCAA. The NCAA was established as a central governing body to promote the health and safety of student athletes (Berri, 2000).

3

After World War II, there was an increase in college enrollment with the troops returning home. Increased enrollment meant greater interest in college sports. Then the NCAA capitalized on the invention of television by landing lucrative contracts. Coaches began to recruit student – athletes who could build the university’s profile.

To combat the potential exploitation of recruits, the NCAA instituted the “sanity rule.” The Sanity Rule prohibited coaches from offering full scholarships, based on the idea that student – athletes should not be treated differently than other students (Berri, 2000). However, the only available means of enforcing the Sanity Rule was expelling the offending university from the NCAA, which was considered too harsh, and thus the rule was seldom enforced. In 1950 seven universities voluntarily admitted to violating the Sanity Rule by offering full scholarships for football. Rather than banishing so many colleges from membership (Byers & Hammer, 1995), the NCAA replaced the Sanity Rule with the Committee of Infractions in 1951, to provide options for punishing coaches and programs in ways other than expulsion (Berri, 2000).

The NCAA scored a major win in 1988. The organization found that Jerry Tarkanian, head men’s basketball coach at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV), had committed multiple recruiting violations, and handed down a probationary period against UNLV and a show-cause order for Tarkanian. The show-cause order required that UNLV provide a reason why the NCAA should not impose additional penalties if the university did not suspend Tarkanian. Tarkanian sued the NCAA, claiming that the NCAA could not hand down such a penalty against him because he was entitled to due process under the fourteenth amendment. The NCAA won this case because the US Supreme Court held that the NCAA was not a state actor and was outside the enforceability of the fourteenth amendment (“NCAA v. TARKANIAN”). This verdict was a significant victory for the NCAA because the organization could enforce its rules and regulations without going through the due process normally required by state actors.

Since this court case, the NCAA has been allowed to enforce its rules without legal challenge. Each year the NCAA has published a manual that includes the rules and regulations all NCAA members must follow. These topics range from pay for play, student – athletes profiting from their own likenesses, amateurism, and financial aid, and are now under attack by those both within and outside universities. While the NCAA began with good intentions – guarding the health of student – athletes – it now appears to be more interested in financial gains. By reverting to the basic task of protecting the wellbeing and potential of student – athletes, the NCAA can focus on ensuring student – athletes’ long-term success.

In this article, I will provide a case for the NCAA functioning as a strictly academic organization and allowing colleges and universities to handle the rest.

Definitions To further explore these issues, it is important to define certain NCAA terminology. Amateurism rules require student–athletes not to be professionals, meaning that they cannot accept payment, earn money, or accept anything beyond actual and necessary expenses.

Recruiting refers to the rules found in article 13 of the NCAA manual.

These rules limit the amount and timing of contact a coach can have with a prospective student–athlete, tryouts, recruiting materials, and use of recruiting funds. Financial aid refers to article 15 of the NCAA manual, which limits maximum financial aid per sport and the amount of financial aid each athlete can receive. Article 17 refers to the playing and practice season, limiting days of practice and defining a sport’s season, playing rules, and other sport regulations.

References will be made to these areas throughout the following pages (NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs Staff, 2019).

The NCAA and High School Before discussing possible improvements to the NCAA, it is important to understand the NCAA academic rules and why they should be protected. The academic rules begin with high school and go through college graduation. Starting in 2016, the NCAA’s college admissions requirements became more stringent. The organization increased its core GPA from a 2.0 to a 2.3 (“2.3 or take a knee,” n.d.). Currently, core classes are English, math, and natural and physical sciences classes. Ten of these core classes must be completed by the end of the student–athlete’s junior year in high school. During the junior and/or senior year, the student must take a standardized test. The test score combined with the student’s core GPA will determine whether the student will be a qualifier or non-qualifier. A qualifier is eligible for athletic scholarships and competition, while a non-qualifier is not able to receive athletic aid or compete during their first year in college. The first chart below shows the core GPA matched with the minimum test score required to be an NCAA qualifier (NCAA, 2015). The second chart shows the number of required core classes and the subject areas that core classes cover (National Scholastic Athletics Foundation, 2014).

Core GPA 3.550 & above 3.525 3.500 3.475 3.450 3.425 3.400 3.375 3.350 3.325 3.300 3.275 3.250 3.225 3.200 3.175 3.150

SAT

Sum ACT

400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

37 38 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 46 46 47 47 48

Core GPA 3.125 3.100 3.075 3.050 3.025 3.000 2.975 2.950 2.925 2.900 2.875 2.850 2.825 2.800 2.775 2.750 2.727

SAT

Sum ACT

570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730

49 49 50 50 51 52 52 53 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 59 60

Core GPA 2.700 2.675 2.650 2.625 2.600 2.575 2.550 2.525 2.500 2.475 2.450 2.425 2.400 2.375 2.350 2.325 2.300

SAT

Sum ACT

740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900

61 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 70 71 72 73 74 75

Div I Core Course Requirements Subject

Requirement

English Math (Algebra I or higher) Natural / Physical Science Additional English, Math or Natural / Physical Science Social Science Additional from any category above and/or Foreign Language, Philosophy or Non-Doctrinal Religion courses Total

4 years 3 years 2 years 1 year 2 years 4 years 16 courses

Furthermore, although the increase from a required 2.0 to a 2.3 GPA may seem insignificant, some feel that the boost effectively limits prospective students and college programs. College coaches do not visit or recruit at certain high schools because these schools have not reached NCAA academic standards. In addition, college coaches say that the mandated increase in student–athletes’ GPAs actually lowers the number of athletes they can recruit. If a coach recruits a prospective athlete with a GPA lower than 2.3, the student must be an academic redshirt, which requires him or her to sit out one academic year. Some of these students may be late bloomers, who have not reached their academical potential in high school but have committed to work harder in college. A college athletic program might be able to take one or two of these students, but if the roster has too many academic redshirts, the program suffers due to a lack of active student–athletes to play for the team (Dewey, 2016).

However, if the NCAA chose to reinstate the minimum 2.0 GPA, doing so could negatively impact students in another way. Certain colleges require higher GPAs for general admissions; for example, UNLV applicants need a minimum 3.0 GPA. Therefore, all UNLV applicants must exceed NCAA expectations in order to apply (Dewey, 2016). So lowering the NCAA’s GPA threshold will not help students who need higher GPAs just to apply to certain universities. Other universities with lower GPA requirements allow more students the opportunity to attend college, but these students may be disadvantaged when they attempt to balance athletics and academics. The student–athletes who are admitted with lower GPAs should receive careful guidance from academic support programs to ensure that they can succeed in academics as well as athletics.

High school counselors have a different set of concerns with the NCAA’s GPA increase: how best to help students who have fallen behind in reaching their goals. This problem is difficult because high school counselors are expected to not only keep up with their regular students, but also remain abreast of changing NCAA regulations (Laigo, 2014), which can be extremely difficult when the average caseload of a high school guidance counselor is 471 students (Rowe, 2014). The American School Counselor Association (2019) has recommended a caseload of 250 students. Counselors working to support hundreds of students as well as follow the new NCAA rules may struggle to help students create a game plan for their collegiate careers. The introduction of freezing core classes has added yet another layer of

complexity to the eligibility process. Prior to 2016, if a student did poorly in a core class, he or she could take additional core classes later in high school. With the new rules, 10 core classes lock into the student’s GPA at the end of his or her junior year. Therefore, counselors cannot help students correct certain missteps in their academic history. On the other hand, freezing core classes forces students to take each class seriously rather than relying on loading up on classes their senior year to become eligible (“2.3 or take a knee,” n.d.).

Changing the NCAA

The qualifier system is certainly not without its problems or its detractors. The major criticism of the NCAA rules is that wealthier schools, such as prep schools, have the advantage of selecting higher-performing students in order to earn a higher NCAA acceptance rate. On the other hand, schools within an urban environment may have fewer options. Unfortunately, students in urban environments tend to fall behind before they have reached high school and have trouble catching up (Brennan, 2012). It is estimated that between 25 and 30 percent of future student–athletes will be ineligible because of the new NCAA eligibility rules for high school students (Laigo, 2014). Many point to this as a reason why the NCAA should not be involved in high school. In addition, detractors say that the NCAA is a collegiate governing body, and by creating rules for high school students, they are overreaching and making rules that keep players from participating collegiate athletics (O’Neil, 2012).

High school counselors now have the responsibility to help students navigate the new NCAA rules and assist them in choosing the correct courses. However, students can begin to help themselves when they start high school. The NCAA has created a database in which students can search for approved core courses on the Eligibility Center (also known as the Clearing House) here: https://web3.ncaa.org/hsportal/ exec/hsAction?hsActionSubmit=searchHighSchool. The Eligibility Center site is not the perfect system, as the students who tend to lack access to college advising are students from poorer areas, and these are often students who need college advising most of all. However, if the NCAA could spread knowledge of this database more consistently, it could support students in determining what courses to take during their high school career (Rowe, 2014). With its vast resources (a reported $1.045 billion in revenue in 2017 [Kirshner, 2018]), the NCAA could take ownership of the process by sending out representatives to educate students. If the NCAA leaders are concerned about resource allocation, they could target low-income school districts, which tend to lack the resources to help prospective student–athletes.

Another approach to disseminating eligibility information to students is for school counselors to promote the NCAA rules early and often.

School counselors need increased awareness of any new NCAA rules so they can properly advise their students (Brennan, 2012). Again, promoting knowledge of NCAA rules throughout high school does not address every issue, but it is a start.

Another piece of the high school eligibility puzzle is whether a student’s high school requires a certain GPA in order for him or her to play high school sports. Some students can experience difficulty because there is a difference between what their school requires for competition and what the NCAA requires. High schools in only 12 states and Washington, D.C. require a minimum GPA to play varsity sports. Most of these states mandate a minimum 2.0 GPA to play high school sports, but the NCAA requires a 2.3 to play. This discrepancy leads to difficult decisions for high school counselors. A student with a 2.0 may be eligible for high school athletics, but not college athletics.

Also, if a student lives in a state without a minimum GPA requirement, he or she can earn a GPA significantly lower than the 2.3 GPA mandated by the NCAA. High school administrators tend to choose lower GPA requirements in the interest of allowing more students to participate in athletics. Students participating in sports are more likely to go to class and participate in academics (Lavigne, 2012).

It is difficult to argue against this line of reasoning. For schools in areas with high rates of crime and/or poverty, sports may be the only way to keep students in high school. However, high school GPA does indicate success in college. There is a fine line to walk.

Increasing the requisite GPA boosts the likelihood that NCAA athletes

5

can handle the rigors of college, but it also excludes students who have not done as well in high school. Although I stand by the GPA requirement, because it allows the NCAA to recruit students most likely to succeed in both athletics and academics, I acknowledge that the NCAA could do more to level the playing field. For example, the NCAA could consider low-income areas with fewer academic resources, factors that indicate lower academic success, and perhaps relax certain requirements. Even though academic requirements are important for guiding a student to graduation, allowing more students into universities could increase the number of people with college degrees in these lower-income areas, which currently sits below five percent (Center, Rassen, & Grunderson, n.d.).

However, there is solid reasoning behind the NCAA setting such standards and increasing them. In 2014 a study was conducted on the relationship between a student’s high school GPA and success in college. (The study also included a discussion on how standardized test scores do not represent the student’s success in college, but for the purposes of this discussion, the standardized test score section is not relevant.) The study showed a positive correlation between GPA and success in college. Below is a graphical representation from of a student’s high school GPA and college GPA (Hiss & Franks, 2014, p. 10). (While the graph includes data about test scores, those data are not relevant to this discussion.) As student–athletes are required to balance school with practice, games, travel, and other obligations, it is important for them to establish good study habits early. The NCAA GPA standard has increased to a 2.3 in order to push high school students to achieve the goal of a college education (Hiss & Franks, 2014).

semester, and complete the degree by the end of the 10th semester.

It may be better for the student to complete his or her degree in five years rather than four. According to the Higher Education Research Institute, only 38.9% of all college students complete their degree in four years (DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Trans, 2011). However, 56.4% of students complete their degree in five years (DeAngelo et al., 2011). With the NCAA’s five-year rule, there is an increased probability the student–athlete will graduate with a college degree. In 2008, 86% of Division 1 student–athletes earned their college degree. This is the highest NCAA graduation rate to date (Hosick, 2015).

Graduation rates are up across the board, including among women athletes and athletes of color. In men’s basketball, the 2008 African American cohort increased their graduation rate from 74 to 77%. In women’s basketball, the 2008 African American cohort increased their graduation rate from 79% to 84%, which represents another high. In Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), the graduation rate increased 4 percentage points (Hosick, 2015). Below is a graph from the NCAA showing the upward climb of the Graduation Success Rates in all collegiate sports (Hosick, 2015).

Academic Overlay: College Cumulative GPA and High School GPA (students entering 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) 4.0

Submitter (N:41608) Above-Average-Testing Non-Submitters (N:22232) W/O Above-Average-Testing Non-Submitters (N:24610)

3.6

The graduation rate is only part of the story. In accordance with academic progress standards, if a student needs to earn a standard 120 hours to graduate, then he or she must complete 48 hours to obtain a 40% progress toward degree by the start of the fourth semester, or 12.5 hours a semester. According to NCAA rule 14.2, all student – athletes must be enrolled a minimum of full time, which for most universities is 12 hours (NCAA, 2019). Therefore, if a student – athlete can remain at just above full-time enrollment, he or she meets the progress toward degree regulations as set by the NCAA.

3.2 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.6

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

High School GPA

College Eligibility Per bylaw 14 of the NCAA manual, once in college, student–athletes have a different set of requirements. The NCAA has established rules to guide student–athletes to graduate within five years.

According to NCAA rule 14.4.3, a student – athlete must complete 40% of his or her degree by the start of the fourth semester, 60% by the start of the sixth semester, 80% by the start of the eighth

A college degree is a lifelong financial advantage for a student – athlete and should not be underrated. In 2017 the average yearly salary with a high school diploma was $37,024; the average with college degree $60,996 (“Unemployment rates,” 2018). By earning a college degree, a student–athlete increases his or her financial earning powers by 64.7%. Education also increases one’s employability. According to the US Department of Labor, unemployment for individuals with just a high school diploma averages at 4.6%. This number decreases dramatically to 2.5% unemployment for individuals with a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, a bachelor’s degree increases an individual’s earnings and decreases his or her chances of unemployment (“Unemployment rates,” 2018).

What Can Be Done?

It is the opinion of this author that the NCAA should move away from regulating student – athletes’ competition and shift completely to helping students gain their college degrees. The NCAA is effective in ensuring that students graduate, but the organization’s regulations on recruiting and playing tend to affect athletes negatively more often than they protect them. The following sections of this discussion will provide context for several nuanced aspects of the debate on whether to pay college athletes. In providing this information, I hope to demonstrate why the NCAA should leave such complicated issues up to individual colleges and universities and focus instead on supporting student–athletes’ academic careers.

AMATEURISM Perhaps the most popular argument for paying student – athletes is the money that colleges earn from collegiate competitions without offering financial compensation to student – athletes (Peebles, 2015). It is true that college sports do make money via television deals, ticket sales, and donations. During the 2016 men’s NCAA basketball tournament, game play was worth $1.59 million (Rovell, 2016). One College World Series’ TV deal was worth $500 million (“ESPN extends deal,” 2011). College football bowl games generate anywhere from $100,000 to $6 million (“College bowl game payouts,” 2018). There really is no debate that college sports generate money. Commentators point to this as a major example of the NCAA taking advantage of student – athletes and argue that the athletes should be paid, since they are the ones generating the revenue (Wilbon, 2011).

The money earned by lavish TV contracts is the central argument for paying student – athletes. However, according to the NCAA 2015 study, only 24 FBS Division-1 schools make a profit on their athletic programs. The median FBS school run a $14.7 million deficit to provide athletic programs for their students (Burnsed, 2015).

Pro-NCAA commentators point to this spending as the reason why student – athletes should not be paid. If the athletic department must spend more money than they bring in, how can the student – athlete be adding value? University representatives have claimed that paying athletes would force schools to reduce scholarships or cancel sports that do not produce revenue – such as golf and track – because there is simply not enough money to go around (Solomon, 2015). Therefore, it could be problematic to pay certain athletes because other student – athletes may not have the ability to go to college without such a scholarship (Osbourne, 2018).

The value of a scholarship is undeniable. Students can attend school and receive a worthwhile education that will greatly help them in the future, while taking advantage of all the services provided by a university, including but not limited to room and board, meals, and other extra-curricular activities. (Osbourne, 2018) Students who receive full scholarships also have the added benefit of avoiding student debt, which is currently at $28,650 (Fain, 2018). During the 2017–2018 academic year, the average cost of tuition and fees at an

in-state public college was $9,970 $25,620 at an out-of-state public college; and $34,740 at a private college (“What’s the price tag,” 2018).

Given these numbers, a student–athlete can earn a scholarship of at least $49,850 at an in-state public school, $128,100 for an out-of-state public school, and $173,700 for private school (Hess, 2018).

Returning to the inequality in revenue generated by different collegiate sports, if a university were to only report the revenue from football and basketball, colleges would show a $19 million profit on average. The chart below shows the revenue generated by the FBS Power 5 (called AQ in the chart), FBS schools not in the Power 5, and Division 1 as a whole.

Football and Men’s Basketball

Number of Schools

Revenue

Profit

Average Profit per School

Six BCS AQ Conferences

73

$2.9 billion21

$1.4 billion21

$19 million

FBS non AQs

56

$515 million

$39 million

$0.7 million

All Other Division I

215

$638 million

$18 million

$0.1 million

Changing the NCAA

In short, a college degree provides a powerful tool to take on life and its challenges, and the NCAA should prioritize supporting student – athletes’ academic progress.

(Schwarz, 2011, citing https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/)

If universities began to pay their revenue-generating athletes, how would non-revenue-generating sports survive? Inequality in prestige and compensation is also visible among professional and Olympic athletes, so the NCAA could consider their example. Salaries for professional football players dwarf what professional bowlers earn.

Obscure Olympic athletes must raise their own money to train and compete. When women’s ski jumping was included in the Olympics in 2018, skiers created their own videos and helped to raise more than $600,000 (Buckley, 2014). While this method is certainly not the fairest way to solve the problem, letting student–athletes use their likeness for their own benefit would allow them to attend college. In addition, this strategy would protect the NCAA from accusations of overreaching.

Another common argument against paying athletes is that doing so would change the way in which the game is played. NCAA President Mark Emmert believes that compensating student–athletes would effectively transform college athletics into minor league programs.

Because fan bases have not supported minor leagues in the past, converting college sports into minor leagues could drive away fan bases (Herndon, 2014). In contrast, others believe that the NCAA would not change significantly if student–athletes received compensation. One example frequently used is the 1992 “Dream Team.” Prior to 1992, the US men’s Olympic basketball team was comprised of amateur athletes. Then in 1992, professional athletes including Michael Jordan, Michael Johnson, and Scottie Pippen led the Olympic team. Viewers did not turn off the TV, and in fact tuned in more to watch the professionals play (“BARCELONA; TV Ratings Up For Olympics,” 1992). Based on the Dream Team’s popularity, it would seem that paying athletes does not dampen public enthusiasm.

If the NCAA allowed individual colleges and universities to decide whether and how to pay their student–athletes, critics would no longer view the NCAA as the institution that promotes games with massive profits that student–athletes do not see. The NCAA could still negotiate TV contracts because it is easier to speak to one direct

7

representative than every college separately. However, it would be up to each university to decide whether and how much to pay their student–athletes and which sports to subsidize. The NCAA should remove itself from this debate and focus instead on academics, thereby restoring its original priority of ethical treatment and the wellbeing of student–athletes.

RECRUITING Recruiting is another section of NCAA rules over which commentators disagree. Chapter 13 of the NCAA restricts recruiting to certain months, amount of contacts, number of visits, and times when a scholarship can be offered (NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs Staff, 2019). The purpose of these guidelines is to create a culture of fairness, allowing all schools an equal opportunity to recruit athletes (Smith, n.d.).

Even with the recruiting rules in place, larger schools have the advantage over smaller schools in terms of recruitment: “Over the last ten years, more than 99% of the Top 100 high school prospects chose [schools in the Power 5 conferences]” (Schwarz, 2011). Duke University had the Nos. 1, 2, and 3 ranked players and No. 9 overall high school prospect entering for the fall of 2018 (Corcoran, 2018).

In football, 94% of the top 100 prospects went a Power 5 school (Schwarz, 2011).

Therefore, if the NCAA were to remove itself from recruiting, little change would be likely. Perhaps poorer schools could find donors willing to donate more cash to see certain players on the field, which could actually help even the playing field. In addition, one could argue that recruitment violations do not actually negatively impact athletic performance. For example, Reggie Bush, won the Heisman and averaged almost a first down each carry despite receiving $280,000 from an outside source (Press, 2007). There are numerous scandals involving other recruiting violations that would cease to be a problem if the NCAA were to leave it to the schools.

Some recruiting scandals involving clearly unethical actions, such as the Miami football scandal involving paying erotic dancers to perform for recruits, would still need to be addressed. However, the act of buying a student–athlete a car or paying for their meal tends not to undermine the student–athlete’s field performance. Because their recruiting rules tend to create more problems than solutions, the NCAA allow schools to make up their own rules and regulations.

Where Can the Money Go? At some point in the future, student–athletes might indeed receive compensation from money generated by these TV contracts.

However, right now the NCAA can use this money to support lower achieving students both in college and in high school. In addition, as previously stated, some high school students may be late bloomers or attend a school without the resources to provide quality education or support (Dewey, 2016). The NCAA could fund resources to help these under-equipped students become academic qualifiers. Furthermore, some smaller universities are unable to afford tutors, while larger schools can hire tutors. The NCAA could use this revenue to hire tutors or supply additional resources to universities that are not as financially rich.

It is uncertain how these suggestions would play out, because many colleges and universities would want to keep the money they earned. However, if the NCAA used the money to help student– athletes only for academics and allowed universities to manage everything else, the NCAA might receive fewer complaints. Much of the criticism directed at the NCAA derives from the organization’s practice of making money from the hard work from the student– athletes and then limiting these athletes’ ability to make money from their own sports performance. At least if the NCAA uses the money from TV contracts to help students graduate, college degrees will help students in the long run.

The NCAA has already taken steps toward becoming an exclusively academic organization. The first major change occurred in 2014, when the NCAA adopted a new model giving the Power 5 conferences (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and PAC-12) autonomy in establishing certain rules. For example, the leaders of these conferences can now award scholarships that cover the full cost of attendance, which could mean a stipend of up to $5,000 per athlete. (However, Power 5 conferences still cannot revise scholarship limits or amateurism regulations.) The new model offers schools some autonomy around finances, but not around academic rules, demonstrating the NCAA’s continued emphasis on control over academics (Trahan, 2015).

Then again, in August 2018, the NCAA began to lift some of the stringent financial regulations on the student–athletes. NCAA basketball has been a target of an FBI investigation into bribery, including cases in which college coaches bribe students to attend their college in order to gain publicity for their school. One of the main issues has been the so-called “one-and-dones.” These are the top high school athletes who attend college for one year and then go on to the NBA. There is much competition among college coaches to land these athletes, as well as the temptation to ride these recruits’ coattails and cash in on their future NBA contracts.

To combat this tendency, the NCAA allows students who are not drafted to return to college. In addition, high school athletes whom the NBA considers elite prospects can hire an agent. The agent must be certified by the NCAA and can cover minor expenses.

These guidelines represent a marked departure from earlier rules and would have violated amateurism bylaws in the past. If the NCAA has already begun to relax these provisions, why not relax others?

Allowing the student to return to school gives him or her the ability to finish a college degree. This new rule has already begun to move the needle toward the NCAA keeping academics first and athletics second, reflecting the priority order reflected in the very term student–athlete (Medcalf, 2018).

Implications The NCAA began as an organization advocating for student health, so becoming an academic body would be consistent with the spirit of its foundation. Why not remove the organization from everything but academics? Supporting students as they work toward graduation is far more important in the long run, because even professionalquality student–athletes are one knee injury away ending their careers. In addition, if the NCAA stopped controlling amateurism,

Furthermore, the NCAA has plenty of funds to dedicate to student success. President Emmit makes over $1 million a year (Berkowitz, 2017). With its vast resources, the NCAA could hire tutors and advisers to support high school and college student–athletes in earning their degrees. Schools would not have to pay these advisers and tutors, who would greatly help struggling student–athletes. The NCAA is a non-profit organization and should focus on putting the student first in student–athlete by supporting students throughout the country.

Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed changes would not solve all the problems in student athletics, but they would encourage significant progress.

Many of the scandals in the NCAA have arisen from agents or coaches sneaking around recruitment and amateurism rules. If the NCAA revised or removed these rules and left more up to the universities (and who knows students better than their own universities?), then there would be fewer opportunities for corruption, bribery, and taking advantage of student–athletes. While the NCAA would need to work out the details with college and universities (e.g., how much money each school would receive), the temptation for coaches and agents to profit from student– athletes would decrease.

In addition to the debate about student–athlete compensation, some are critical of the new NCAA rules for eligibility. Academic advisers on campus often feel that the rules are too stringent, and that instead

of focusing on advising their athletes, they are preoccupied with observing the NCAA rules. Many advisers also feel the higher academic progress rate requirements push advisers to help students meet these requirements at the expense of focusing on their life post-college.

Another critique is that athletes may be unwilling to take academic risks because they must pass a certain number of hours (Grasgreen, 2012). All these critiques are valid, and it is concerning that advisers feel as if they cannot give their full time and attention to their advisees.

Rather than spending time and money enforcing rules around athletics, the NCAA could use more targeted resources to support universities and high schools that struggle to meet their standards, or even host additional trainings at NCAA headquarters for academic advisers. The NCAA could also hire regional advisers to assist prospective student– athletes who may lack access to such an adviser at their high school.

Changing the NCAA

universities could pay (or not pay) student–athletes whatever they deem appropriate.

However, at the very least, the current NCAA academic rules facilitate student–athletes’ pursuit of college degrees. Even with the concern that student–athletes may not be as prepared as they could be for life after college, data have shown that a college degree can and will prepare the student to obtain work and a higher salary. Studies have shown that employment is 24% higher, poverty is 3.5 times lower, and overall health is 44% better for individuals with college degrees than without.

In addition, choosing a specific major does not limit a student to just one career. In 2010, only 27% of college graduates worked in jobs that used their college major (Plumer, 2013). Having any bachelor’s degree gives student–athletes an advantage in the job market. The value of a college degree cannot be understated (Trostel, n.d.), and it is here that the NCAA should center their finances and priorities.

References 2.3 or take a knee. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/static/2point3/ American School Counselor Association. (2019). Student-to-school-counselor ratios.

Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/press Barcelona; TV ratings up for Olympics. (1992, July 29). New York Times.

Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/29/sports/barcelona-tv-ratings -up-for-olympics.html Berkowitz, S. (2017, May 18). NCAA’s Mark Emmert credited with more than $1.9M in

compensation in 2015. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ college/2017/05/18/ncaa-mark-emmert-oliver-luck-salaries/101829110/ Berri, D. J. (2000). Paying NCAA athletes. Marquette Sports Law Review, 11, 9–21. Retrieved

from http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393& context=sportslaw Brennan, E. (2012, August 7). Eligibility hits home at high schools. ESPN. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8243776/high-schools-see problems-ncaa-eligibility-firsthand Buckley, J., Jr. (2014, February 5). Chasing the Olympic dream via crowdfunding. Retrieved

from https://www.cnbc.com/2014/02/04/the-toughest-race-for-olympic-athletes is-the-one-for-funding.html Burnsed, B. (2015, September 18). Athletics departments that make more than they spend still

a minority. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority Byers, W., & Hammer, C. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct (4th ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University

of Michigan Press.

Center, E., Rassen, E., & Grunderson, J. (n.d.). Leveling the playing field: Community schools

confront poverty to improve student success. Retrieved from http:// ilcommunityschools.org/images/Community_Schools_Whitepaper_Leveling_the _Playing_Field.pdf

Center, E., Rassen, E., & Grunderson, J. (n.d.). Leveling the playing field: Community schools

confront poverty to improve student success. Retrieved from http://ilcommunityschools.org/images/Community_Schools_Whitepaper_ Leveling_the_Playing_Field.pdf College bowl game payouts. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/college bowl-game-payouts/ Corcoran, T. (2018, April 11). Will Duke’s historically great 2018 recruiting class live up to the

hype? Retrieved from https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2769789-will-dukes historically-great-2018-recruiting-class-live-up-to-the-hype DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Trans, S. (2011). Completing college:

Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Los Angeles, CA: Higher

Education Research Institute, University of California at Los Angeles.

Dewey, T. (2016, August 24). Recruiting game: NCAA toughens academic standards, says

‘2.3 or take a knee’. Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved from https://www. reviewjournal.com/sports/recruiting-game-ncaa-toughens-academic-standards says-2-3-or-take-a-knee/?returnUrl=https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/ recruiting-game-ncaa-toughens-academic-standards-says-2-3-or-take-a-knee/ ?clearUserState=true ESPN extends deal through 2023–24: Networks will expand final-round coverage of

championships. (2011, December 15). Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.com/news/ ncaa/article/2011-12-15/espn-extends-deal-through-2023-24 Fain, P. (2018, September 20). Average loan debt for graduates of four-year colleges: $28,650.

Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/ 2018/09/20/average-loan-debt-graduates-four-year-colleges-28650 Grasgreen, A. (2012, May 9). Tough choices for athletes’ advisers. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved

from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/09/ncaa-academic-rules frustrate-advisers-athletes

9

Herndon, M. (2014, June 20). NCAA president Mark Emmert defends amateurism at

O’Bannon trial. Retrieved from https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/06/ ncaa_president_mark_emmert_def.html

Peebles, M. (2015, December 3). 7 common sense reasons why college athletes should

be paid (according to Jay Bilas). Retrieved from http://www.complex.com/ sports/2015/12/jay-bilas-interview/athlete-restricted-earnings

Hess, A. (2018, February 15). Here’s how much the average student loan borrower owes

when they graduate. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/heres how-much-the-average-student-loan-borrower-owes-when-they-graduate.html

Plumer, B. (2013, May 20). Only 27 percent of college grads have a job related to their major. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/20/only-27-percent-of-college-grads-have-a job-related-to-their-major/?utm_term=.f5b3a61addf9

Hiss, W. C., & Franks, V. W. (2014, May 2). Defining promise: Optional standardized testing

policies in American college and university admissions. Retrieved from Press, A. (2007, October 11). Report: Marketer claims Bush received $280K in benefits at https://offices.depaul.edu/enrollment-management-marketing/test-optional/

USC. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id Documents/HISSDefiningPromise.pdf 3056397 Hosick, M. B. (2015, November 4). Graduation success rate continues to climb. Retrieved

from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/graduation success-rate-continues-climb Kirshner, A. (2018, March 8). Here’s how the NCAA generated a billion dollars in 2017.

SBNation. Retrieved from https://www.sbnation.com/2018/3/8/17092300/ ncaa-revenues-financial-statement-2017 Laigo, S. (2014, May 16). NCAA eligibility changes: A looming crisis for prep athletes. The

Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://blogs.seattletimes.com/take2/2014/05/16/ ncaa-eligibility-changes-a-looming-crises-for-prep-athletes/ Lavigne, P. (2012, October 18). Bad grades? Some schools OK with it. ESPN. Retrieved

from http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/Outside-The-Lines-GPA/ some-high-schools-actually-reducing-gpa-requirements-student-athletes Medcalf, M. (2018, August 08). New NCAA rules are more cosmetic than they are

consequential. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/ story/_/id/24320626/ncaa-rule-changes-not-address-issues-fbi-investigation

Rovell, D. (2016, March 26). ACC on track to shatter record for money earned in NCAA tournament. ESPN. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/mens-college basketball/story/_/id/15071018/atlantic-coast-conference-set-shatter-record money-earned-ncaa-men-basketball-tournament Rowe, C. (2014, August 15). From slipping through the cracks to the college track. The

Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://old.seattletimes.com/html/education/ 2023364576_edlabguidancecounselorsxml.html Schwarz, A. (2011). Sportsgeekonomics musings on sports economics [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/myths Smith, M. (n.d.). Recruiting rules & NCAA restrictions. Retrieved from https://www. fcwtjuniorgolftour.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Recruiting-101.docx.pdf Solomon, J. (2015, June 01). NCAA, conferences: Scholarships would be cut if players

are paid. Retrieved from https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/

ncaa-conferences- scholarships-would-be-cut-if-players-are-paid/

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2015). 2015-16 NCAA division I manual.

Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association Membership Affairs Staff.

Trahan, K. (2015, January 17). The 4 things to know about the new NCAA. Retrieved from https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/8/7/5966849/ncaa autonomy-power-conferences-voting-rules

National Collegiate Athletic Association Academic and Membership Affairs Staff. (2019,

July 5). 2018-19 NCAA Division 1 Manual. http://www.ncaapublications.com/ productdownloads/D119.pdf

Trostel, P. (n.d.). It’s not just the money: The benefits of college education to individuals

and to society. Lumina Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.luminafoundation. org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, 87–1061 (December 12, 1988). https:// caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/488/179.html

Unemployment rates and earnings by educational attainment, 2017. (2018, March 27).

Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

National Scholastic Athletics Foundation. (2014). NCAA Eligibility Center (formerly NCAA

Clearing House). Retrieved from http://www.nationalscholastic.org/ncaa_ clearing_house

What’s the price tag for a college education? (2018). Retrieved from http://www.collegedata.com/ cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064

O’Neil, D. (2012, August 6). Eligibility vs. academic preparedness. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8236949/ncaa-increases minimum-eligibility-standards-division-student-athletes

Wilbon, M. (2011, July 18). College athletes deserve to be paid. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www. espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6778847/college-athletes-deserve-paid

BEN KEMPTON is the current NCAA Eligibility Specialist in the office of the registrar at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW).

Ben is originally from Raleigh, NC and is a graduate of Wake Forest (’11) and Elon Law (’14). While at law school, Ben was a member of the Moot Court team. Ben argued a case in front of an international panel of judges in Oxford, England after winning a spot from the regional competition in New York City. During the summer after his 2L year, Ben interned at Louisiana Monroe in the compliance office, which led to an internship at Elon University. After graduation he worked for a few months at the University of North Carolina Greensboro (UNCG) where he received his NAAC Certification prior to taking the job at UNCW. At UNCW he earned his MBA (’19) and is now working on his PhD in Business Administration at UNCG. Ben’s other activities include enjoying riding his ’99 Harley Fatboy, watching movies, and spending time with his wife.

This brief is intended to address the question “What Are the Implications of Recent Technological Changes and Developments on Communication in Crisis Situations?”

• Technology can create a sense of community. Before technology, community depended upon physical presence. Now a community may be virtual or a hybrid model of location and technology.

• Within physical communities technology assists with the transfer of information in crisis situations.

• Technology expands the reach of crisis communication and gives the power of redistribution to individuals.

• No one mode of technology is the complete answer to effective crisis communication.

Technology has and is expected to continue to affect crisis communication. In order to distribute information before, during, and after a crisis in the most effective manner the official message should be sent using a multimodal method of communicating using two or more modes.

What Are the Implications of Recent Technological Changes and Developments on Communication in Crisis Situation?

Implications of Technological Changes in Crisis Situation

ABSTRACT

Introduction The answer to the title question can be found in recent research including the article Crisis communication within a community: Bonding, coping, and making sense together (Xu, 2018).

As technology changes, the manner in which we communicate before, during, and after a crisis also changes. One implication of technology on crisis communication is the ability to create community without regard for physical location (Xu, 2018).

Community Recent research expanded upon the traditional literature of crisis communication which focused more on public relations and damage control by examining the college campus as a community.

College campuses are affected by a variety or crisis situations including but not limited to fires, floods, assaults, robbery, active shooters, tornadoes, hurricanes, etcetera (Xu, 2018). “This particular study delineates the process through which an online community makes sense of a crisis collectively, providing evidence that collective sense-making activities exist in a virtual community and serves as a coping mechanism.” (Xu, 2018, p. 86). Technology is used to create a virtual or online community which demonstrates a major implication technology has had on communication in crisis situations.

Technology Technology adds new methods for conveying information that previously required direct interpersonal communication. Official warnings from government agencies about natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes can be received on radios, televisions, and mobile devices. This information can then be posted on social media with the addition of an individual’s perceptions and shared experience added (Houston et al., 2015). This process is an example of a relational theory of power where the power shifts from officials with expertise to individuals with normative power in a group (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018).

11

SOCIAL MEDIA In their article Public health implications of social media use during natural disasters, environmental disasters, and other environmental concerns, Finch et al. (2016) concluded that: Citizens were the highest contributors of messages on social media networks during environmental disasters. Citizens can spread information released by government agencies and emergency responders to targeted populations. Social media can be used to warn the public of disasters coming, communicate with them the need to evacuate, and point people to places of refuge. ( p. 757) Citizens are not the only ones using social media to communicate during crisis situations, however. When Hurricane Harvey hit the Texas gulf coast in 2017 government agencies used social media to rapidly disseminate information (Liu, Lai, & Xu, 2018). When two hurricanes hit Florida the following year the director of web communication at Flagler College used social media to keep thousands of students, faculty, and staff apprised of the conditions on campus including requesting that the president post a video to social media as he toured the damages to campus (McKenzie, 2018).

MULTIMODAL SYSTEMS Social media should be one of the models of crisis communication but not the sole model. Studies completed after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech University focused on the perceptions of faculty and staff (Elsass, McKenna, & Schildkraut, 2016), and the perceptions of students (Schildkraut, McKenna, & Elsass, 2016) about the campus emergency notification system. While e-mail and text messages were found to be the preferred mode of emergency alerts, there are inherent drawbacks to using only those modes such as the

amount of time it takes the system to send tens of thousands of e-mails or texts, the possibility the e-mail will not be read until much later when the crisis has passed, out of date contact information, etcetera (Schildkraut et al., 2016). More traditional technology like television and radio were preferred modes of twenty two percent of faculty and staff (Elsass et al., 2016, p. 342) and twenty nine percent of students (Schildkraut et al., 2016, p. 614). Social media modes were preferred more by faculty and staff (Elsass et al., 2016) than by students (Schildkraut et al., 2016).

Multimodal communication employs more than one mode to minimize the limitations of providing information quickly. Depending upon the urgency of the crisis, the mode of communication may differ. For a tornado or an active shooter situation an audible siren or announcement followed by a text message to mobile devices would be more appropriate than sending an e-mail or posting on a website since the communication has immediate urgency (Schildkraut et al., 2016). As stated earlier citizens are then likely to take the official notification, add their own perception, and post it to social media (Finch et al., 2016). When this occurs the communication becomes multimodal even if the original message was sent using a single mode of communication.

Conclusion Technology has and will continue to have implications on crisis communication. No singular mode of communication is appropriate in all situations. To effectively communicate, a system should be established that creates a parallel message using two or more modes of communication and a tiered system that indicates to the recipient the level of urgency of the message (Schildkraut et al., 2016).

References Elsass, H. J., McKenna, J. M., & Schildkraut, J. (2016). Rethinking crisis communications on

Campus: An evaluation of faculty and staff perceptions about emergency

notification systems. Journal of Homeland Security Emergency Management, 13 (3), 329–349.

Finch, K. C., Snook, K. R., Duke, C. H., Fu, K. W., Tse, Z. T., Adhikari, A., & Fung, I. C. (2016).

Public health implications of social media use during natural disasters,

environmental disasters, and other environmental concerns. Natural Hazards,

83, 729–760.

Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2018). Interpersonal conflict (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Houston, J. B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M. F., Park, E. H., Goldstein Hode, M., Halliwell,

M. R., & Griffith, S. A. (2015). Social media and disasters: A functional framework

for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39, 1–22.

Liu, W., Lai, C. H., & Xu, W. (2018). Tweeting about emergency: A semantic network

analysis of government organizations’ social media messaging during

Hurricane Harvey. Public Relations Review, 44, 807–819.

McKenzie, L. (2018, August 29). The perils and pitfalls of higher ed social media

management [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from https://www. insidehighered.com Schildkraut, J., McKenna, J. M., & Elsass, H. J. (2016). Understanding crisis communications

communications: Examining students’ perceptions about campus notification systems. Security Journal, 30 (2), 605–620.

Xu, S. (2018). Crisis communication within a community: Bonding, coping, and making

sense together. Public Relations Review, 44, 84–97.

SHERRY WALDON WELLS is Assistant Vice Provost at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Texas State University, a Master of Interdisciplinary Studies degree from Stephen F. Austin State University and a Doctor of Education degree from Lamar University. Dr. Wells currently serves on the Enrollment Services Efficiency Committee for the Texas Council of Public University Presidents & Chancellors, AACRAO Criminal & Disciplinary History in College Admissions Work Group, AACRAO Women’s Caucus as well as Texas Women in Higher Education. She has found her 27+ years in higher education rewarding and rarely dull.

Dr. Wells is the mom of two - Bekah, a college admissions counselor for the north Houston region, and Hudson who is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree. In her spare time she enjoys travel, reading, and serving in her community.

SACRAO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2019–2020

Future Meetings

Ginnifer Cie' Gee Director of Strategic Planning and Assessment University of Texas at San Antonio Steve McLeod Associate Dean Harding School of Theology Andrew Green Director of Community Engagement Jacksonville State University Justin Schilke Senior Associate Registrar Rice University Kimberly Kay Taylor University Registrar University of Kentucky

2020 73rd ANNUAL MEETING February 2-5, 2020 Alexandria, Virginia

Tennyson Smith Director of Recruiting Shelton State Community College Cynthia Terry University Registrar University of Alabama at Birmingham Jonathan T. Reece University Registrar University of North Carolina-Charlotte Kimberly Barber University Registrar Florida State University Dustin Duncan Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions East Tennessee State University

2021 74th ANNUAL MEETING January 31 - February 3, 2021 Little Rock, Arkansas

Angela Brockelsby Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Services North Carolina State University Ronnie Chalmers Director of Strategic Initiatives North Carolina State University Megan Mitchell Director of Graduate Admissions and Recruitment Austin Peay State University Hope Reynolds Senior Director of Enrollment Management and Registrar Virginia Tech Carillion School of Medicine Brandy Denise Piner Senior Associate Registrar University of Texas Hlth Sc Ctr-San Antonio

sacrao.org