By Emma Coleman, Isaiah Fisher-Smith, Tre Freeman, Madison Rhea, Wade Unger
Introduction
On most college and university campuses, there is an evident gap between varsity athletes and non-athletes. Part of the reason for this divide, according to Harvard’s previous Athletic Director Robert Scalise, is that college athletes share demanding schedules that force athletes into their own isolated and highly structured worlds on campus. Most Division I athletes who participated in a survey done by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reported practicing between 30 to 40 hours per week (not including travel time or game time).1 In addition, because teams practice during the school day, they often must take classes later into the evening, conflicting with normal mealtimes and extracurricular activities where athletes might otherwise socialize with their non-athlete counterparts.
Nina S. Uzoigwe, a former member of Harvard’s women’s rugby team, commented on the isolation that student athletes feel: “Teams tend to be teams. They party together, sleep together, work out together, bleed together. So, by default those people become your closest friends. There is a sort of feeling of isolation but more of overlapping in terms of scheduling, especially for athletes.”2
At schools with especially competitive athletic programs, like the schools in the Power5 conferences, the divide between athletes and non-athletes is exacerbated by non-athletes’ perception that athletes receive preferential treatment in the classroom and around campus. Examples of such preferential treatment include receiving unearned grades from faculty, unfair preference in admission, and excessive financial support. In a 2019 study published in the Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, researchers surveyed 382 college students and found that 78 percent of respondents believed that college athletes receive some form of preferential treatment (whether that be academic preference, monetary benefit, or social praise).3
One of the students surveyed commented on the perceived academic benefit of being a student-athlete, saying “even if [college athletes] don’t earn a good grade, they are given one so they can play, and their team will win.” And another student shared: “In general, collegiate athletes have a better chance of getting out of any kind of bind, especially if they are good.”4
There is a growing body of research that explores the divide between varsity athletes and non-athlete students, much of which is being done by the colleges and universities themselves. Examples include Harvard University’s formal review of the “culture and structure of its athletics department”5 and a report done by Amherst College titled “The Place of Athletics at Amherst College” that highlights the significant ways in which the experiences of athletes and non-athletes deviate from one another and have created a divide between the two groups.6 This research is particularly important because uncovering how the athletic gap manifests on campuses empowers college administrators and athletic departments to work together to develop strategies to improve inter-group perceptions and interactions.
Our group was interested in whether a similar gap between varsity athletes and non-athletes exists at Duke University, and if so, how each group’s interaction with and perception of the other affects this gap. Whereas a majority of the existing literature focuses on non-athletes’ perceptions of athletes, we believe it is critical to include varsity athletes’ perspective, as well, to fully understand the nature of the athletic gap. In our survey, we asked both students and student-athletes to describe each other. The concentration is driven from the students' conception. What perspectives do student-athletes have about non-athlete students? Would student-athletes convey a negative description about non-athlete students in the same way that those students talked about student-athletes?
Some of the key questions that drove our research are: Where do athletes and non-athletes interact the most on campus? How does a non-athlete distinguish an athlete from the rest of the student body? Is it obvious? How would individuals in each group rank their experiences with each other in the classroom? Do athletes generalize about all non-athletes, and vice versa? What responsibility does the University have to ensure the integration and inclusion of all students in a holistic college experience, regardless of athletic status?
Methods
To assess the nature of the relationship between athletes and non-athletes at Duke, we gathered data from current undergraduate students using a survey. In our study, we parameterize athletes to only include athletes playing a varsity sport at Duke whereas non-athletes include all other respondents, including those who play club or intramural sports. This survey aimed to ascertain common perceptions of and attitudes towards athletes by non-athletes and vice versa using 41 multiple choice and short-answer survey questions. The first five questions provided us with demographic information regarding gender-identity, ethnic background, class year, academic focus, and whether the respondent was an athlete. Based on the respondent’s answer to the last demographic question, they were either directed towards a set of 17 athlete-specific questions or a set of 15 non-athlete-specific questions. We utilized this approach to target the wording of our questions to the group in question and more easily segment and interpret our response data. These sets of questions focused on academic and social relationships between athletes and non-athletes at Duke.
In creating this survey, we sought to balance the maximization of data gathered with the minimization of time required to complete the survey. These goals motivated our decision to incorporate a mix of multiple-choice questions and short-answer questions throughout the survey. Although we preferred the short-answer questions because they provided respondents with the opportunity to personalize and elaborate on their answers, we felt that using too many short-answer questions would dissuade potential respondents from completing the survey. To combat this problem, most of our short-answer questions were worded so that they could be answered in a few words rather than sentences. Ultimately, despite sacrificing some potential insights and level of detail in responses, we believe that this approach allowed us to collect data from more respondents, thereby enhancing our analysis.
The way in which our survey was distributed also serves as a limitation to this methodology. Specifically, each team member initially sent the survey to their friend group; then, to increase the number of responses, we asked Professors Starn and Nash to distribute the survey to our classmates in Race and the Business of College Sports. Because we were unable to randomly sample Duke’s undergraduate population, we acknowledge that our survey results may not be generalizable to the rest of the Duke community. In particular, we expect that non-athlete respondents from our course responded more favorably about their perceptions of and interactions with athletes because we have spent the semester learning about and hearing from them. That said, despite these issues, our method of distribution yielded a relatively proportional demographic split among respondents.
Results
We received 46 responses to our survey. The gender breakdown of these respondents was fairly even with 54.3% women and 45.7% men. In terms of ethnic background, 65.2% of respondents answered that they were White/Caucasian, 19.6% answered that they were Black/African American, 8.7% answered that they were Asian, and 6.5% answered that they were Mixed Race. Relative to the demographics of Duke’s broader undergraduate population, White, Black, and Mixed-Race students were somewhat overrepresented and Asian and Hispanic/ Latino students were underrepresented7. The majority of respondents were seniors, comprising 47.8% of our sample, with 26.1% freshmen, 17.4% sophomores, and 8.7% juniors. Though our sample of respondents included a wide variety of major/minor/certificate combinations, 12 respondents majored in Public Policy, making it the most represented department.
39.1% of respondents identified themselves as varsity athletes. The most represented sport was football (53%), but rowing, men’s golf, and field hockey were also included. All but two of these athletes reported that the majority (50% or more) of their friends are also varsity Duke athletes. However, their responses indicated that they spent that majority of their time with athletes on their teams rather than athletes on other varsity teams at Duke. Of the other teams that the respondents interacted with, baseball, track, and women’s lacrosse were the most prevalent. Respondents also indicated that they spend time with other athletes in academic as well as social settings. Specifically, 44.4% of athletes have 2 classes with other athletes per semester, while 22.2% have 4 or more classes.
Athlete respondents’ characterizations of non-athletes were generally positive with adjectives like smart/intelligent and driven/hardworking used frequently. That said, athletes also repeatedly noted that their non-athlete peers were quiet and sheltered/unaware. 52.9% of athletes reported interacting with non-athletes the most in class, but 41.2% reported that they did so in social settings. Athletes generally characterized their classroom and group project experiences with non-athletes as being neutral to positive (5 or greater on a 10-point scale). In terms of professors, 76.5% of athlete respondents felt that their instructors treated them the same as non-athletes.
The remaining 60.9% of respondents identified as non-athletes. These individuals reported that very few (39.3%) or none (57.1%) of their friends were varsity Duke athletes. Among those that were friends with athletes, football, and lacrosse (gender not specified) were the most popular. In general, non-athletes’ perceptions of student-athletes focused on their athletic commitments with adjectives like busy, hard-working, and strong/fit/athletic being used frequently, That said, various responses were distinctly negative with words like slacker, dumb, conceited, unqualified, unmotivated, freeloading, and pretentious used as descriptors. Academically, 46.4% of non-athlete respondents reported taking 2 classes and 39.3% reported taking 1 class with athletes per semester on average. In fact, 82.1% of non-athlete respondents reported interacting with athletes the most in class. Unlike athlete response, non-athlete responses about their interactions with athletes in academic settings were variable, ranging from extremely negative to extremely positive with a neutral median response. Similar to athletes, 46.4% of non-athlete respondents reported that Duke professors treat them the same as athletes. That said, non-athletes were highly divided as to whether athletes receive unfair privileges at Duke.
As we will analyze further in our discussion section, both athletes and non-athletes perceived a significant divide between them at Duke. Both groups noted that they typically distinguish athletes from non-athletes based on the distinctive athlete backpacks provided only to varsity athletes, Duke athletic clothing, and physique. Specifically, 82.4% of athletes and 92.9% of non-athletes rated division between the groups at a 5 or greater on our 10-point response scale. 60.7% of non-athletes reported that the existing level of interaction between Duke athletes and non-athletes need improvement, and 41.2% of athletes agreed. The majority of athletes (41.2%) were unsure if the level of interaction between Duke athletes and non-athletes is the same at other colleges and universities in the ACC, but 47.1% felt that it was different from colleges and universities in other athletic conferences. Most non-athletes (46.4%, 50%) reported that they were unsure about both. Athletes generally attributed this sentiment to the academic rigor of the ACC, the emphasis placed on sports, and the size of the undergraduate population.
Discussion
Athletes were asked to describe non-athletes with three distinct adjectives. The most common adjectives were intelligent, pretentious, hardworking, and NARP smart.(NARP stands for “Non Athlete Regular Person.”) Non-athletes described athletes as dedicated, busy, and passionate. Both the athletes and non-athletes distinguish each other by clothing, the kind of backpack they wear, and their physical characteristics. The best way for both groups to interact with one another is in a classroom environment. This puts less pressure on the two distinct groups and allows them to socialize in a safe area. Athletes noted that they have had mostly positive experiences with non-athletes when completing projects in the classroom and interacting with them around campus. Professors do their best to treat all their students the same yet tend to give athletes the benefit of the doubt knowing that they are on a hard schedule.
Many students who filled out the survey agree that there is division between athletes and non-athletes here at Duke; and most agreed that the interaction needs improvement, thus benefiting the culture on campus. Students here believe that the interactions amongst each other are not the same at other universities. Students sought this because, “Other colleges don’t see the non-athletic students as significantly different in the areas of academics and social interaction” as well as, “At larger schools where athletes take up a smaller proportion of the student body, I believe they experience greater privileges than athletes at a smaller school like Duke. For instance, the difference between a student-athlete experience and a non-athlete experience is much greater at large state schools like Alabama, Texas, Michigan, etc.” (Athlete and Non-Athlete Relations Questionnaire). Based on the questionnaire, 57% of non-athletes do not have friends that are varsity athletes. In general, non-athletes have the utmost respect for athletes but dislike the way they believe they are above everyone else. It is evident, we as a university must do better to mingle the two groups so that we can show the proper support for one another and strive to accomplish what other universities cannot.
With the separation between student-athletes and students at Duke, there is typically a stigma that is created. For example, students might look at student-athletes differently because they tend to be quiete rin class. There is a plethora of reasons why student-athletes choose not to speak during class. There could have been strenuous workouts the morning before their class started. Now the student-athletes are tired from workouts while going straight to class with no break to rest.8 Students who may be unaware of the demands placed on student-athletes sometimes assume athletes are lazy and choose not to be involved in class. This sort of generalization can lead to the belief that all athletes are bad students because they hate to participate in class. Non-athlete students only see a portion of student-athlete reality, and so they do not always think about the factors that shape the student-athlete participation and energy they see in class.
Based on the survey, students describe both positive and negative associations with athletes. These associations reflect generalizations held by many students. Students might tend to believe that student-athletes are most likely lazy and do not like schoolwork.9 There is a belief that student-athletes’ advisors and tutors do their work for them. People who took the survey did not have a lot of positive experiences with many athletes at Duke. When it was an academic collaboration or an experience in class, more people had negative results than positive. The negative outcomes created the negative stigma surrounding student-athletes. When students talk about how their experience went, they tend to talk about what went wrong and the downfalls of what happened. Then, the students connect the student-athletes being lazy etc., to negative outcomes they have experienced.
Are experiences at Duke similar to what happens on other college campuses? In our survey we asked the same question. Different universities in the Power Five conferences (the Football Bowl subdivision of NCAA D1) like Alabama, Clemson, and Louisiana State University are schools with different student and student-athlete relationships. At Duke, if you are not on the basketball team the support is not the same. Duke is a basketball school; the experience of support is different for people on other varsity sports teams. Being a part of the football team feels different when a number of students and fans do not come to the game and do not speak to athletes on campus. For the basketball team, the students desire to see the team in public. But at other universities, the relationship is different among the students and athletes. Schools like Alabama, Louisiana State University, and the University of North Carolina at ChapelHill (unfortunately) are schools that have strong varsity football teams.
The students attend more games and support the student-athletes better. Their attitude towards more student-athletes will be more positive because if your varsity team is winning the students will start to appreciate the athletes more. This will lead towards a better relationship between the students and athletes on campus. There would be an inclination to say nice things about the student-athletes instead of having negative things to say combined with positive. But if the team is not winning their games, the students might not have a reason to like them as much. This is seen on campuses that only have a select few on successful varsity teams.
In our survey, we asked both students and student-athletes to describe each other. The discussion above is driven by the students' conception. But would the student-athletes have a certain perspective on the students for how they are viewed? Is there going to be a negative description about the students the same as the student’s said about the student-athletes in class?
1 Giacomini, Christopher. “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes.” The Montclarion, 2019, https://themontclarion.org/sports/its-time-to-pay-college-athletes/
2 Srivastava, Devin B. “Scalise Says Student Athletes Face Structural Isolation on Campus.” The Harvard Crimson, 2019, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/30/athletes-isolated-on-camp…
3 Fuller, Rhema et al. “College student perceptions of preferential treatment of college athletes.” Journal of the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, vol. 13, no. 3, 2019, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/19357397.2019.1647034
4 Ibid.
5 Berger, Jonah S., & McCafferty, Molly C. “Harvard to Launch Study of Athletics Department.” The Harvard Crimson, 2019, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/9/6/athletics-study-dean-gay/
6 Grabowski, Kyle. “Report finds divide between athletes and non-athletes at Amherst College.” Daily Hampshire Gazette, 2017, https://www.gazettenet.com/Amherst-college-assesses-athletics-in-report…
7 Deloitte, and Datawheel. “Duke University.” Data USA, 2019, datausa.io/profile/university/duke-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at. Accessed 23 Apr. 2022.
8 Thomas, Haleigh. “Struggles of the Student Athlete.”The Echo, 2019, https://echo.snu.edu/struggles-of-the-student-athlete/.
9 Kots, Kara. “How to Be a Successful Student Athlete.” North Central College, 2021, https://www.northcentralcollege.edu/news/2021/09/14/how-be-successful-s….