On the court, things are pretty simple. Shoot from behind the arc, it’s a three pointer. Step on the baseline, out of bounds. Move a pivot foot, traveling. In black and white — typically outlined in a handbook and usually officiated by a referee on the hardwood — rules and regulations are predominant in athletics.
Off the court, however, things occasionally slip into a hazy shade of gray.
Take, for instance, the recent suspension of former Oregon point guard Shaquala Williams. The former Pacific-10 Conference Freshman of the Year and 2000 Pac-10 Player of the Year was suspended by head coach Bev Smith for reasons not made public.
“It is what it is,” Smith told the Emerald on Dec. 4, when she first suspended the hoops star.
Then, “after considerable thought, reflection and with regret,” Smith announced on Dec. 9 that a permanent suspension would be in both Williams’ and Oregon’s best interests.
“Whether I was treated fairly, it’s her program,” Williams told the press. “She can do whatever she wants.”
And, in essence, Williams’ assessment of the situation was correct. Student athletes are at the mercy of coaching personnel; coaches have the ability to determine who plays and who does not. In this case, Williams would not be playing for Oregon — ever again.
To make matters more discouraging, there wasn’t a process that allowed for an appeal. That, essentially, was that.
But former University of Kansas track and field head coach Bob Timmons is trying to change the system. Timmons, a longtime advocate of student-athlete rights, is pushing for the adoption of a Student-Athletes’ Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is part of a 64-page proposal from the National Student-Athletes’ Rights Movement that was sent during the summer to the presidents, chancellors, trustees and athletic departments of all NCAA institutions.
The document outlines 10 proposed rights designed to protect student-athlete interests. The proposal ensures a number of student-athlete rights, including the right to play and the right to receive the same privileges available to students who do not participate in intercollegiate athletics. Student athletes would also have eligibility reinstated — if previously taken away for academic reasons — if satisfactory progress toward graduation is made by the end of their fourth year of enrollment.
Right No. 2, particularly, peaked the interest of Williams.
“Each student-athlete,” the proposal states, “shall have the right to be governed by a penalty system that a) protects a student-athlete’s participation opportunities if he or she is not charged with violations of NCAA rules … and e) is compatible where possible with the minimum due process standards of the Constitution of the United States.”
Williams, who won’t discuss her situation in detail, did say the suspension was not issued because of NCAA violations.
“There does need to be more set out rules for a situation like mine, both with the NCAA and more specifically with individual universities,” said Williams, who, although commenting, is not necessarily advocating for the Bill of Rights. “When you leave it up to an individual coach at their own discretion without any set-out stages of action, it leaves a lot of things left to wonder about. A coach could get rid of someone for personal reasons and state anything about things detrimental to the team or some excuses like that. No one can argue with the coach’s decision unless you take it legal.”
It’s too late for Williams — who is now taking two classes to finish her degree and is training for a WNBA combine in April — to benefit from such a system. But for others, the implementation of standards could prove advantageous.
“I’ve enjoyed my time here at the University, for the most part,” Williams said. “But I think athletes should have more stated rights that are on paper, so that we are all given the opportunity of due process, whatever the situation may be.”
Timmons said he has not heard from any university presidents about his proposal and speculated that many do not want to take a stance on the issue. For now, Timmons said he hopes the press will present the issue on campuses across the country. From that, he added, perhaps a change could come about.
At the University, Athletic Director Bill Moos said he had not heard about Timmons’ proposal, although he has been aware of the issue in general. Moos said some of the things in Timmons’ plan are already being done and added that nothing in the proposal seems radical.
Moos was concerned, however, that such a plan would take away too much autonomy from individual coaches. On campus, University coaches are given fairly consistent but flexible command over their respective teams, Moos said.
“I would have some problems with that (proposal), as I feel the coach should have the control over the program,” Moos said.
Vice President for Administration Dan Williams, who helps supervise intercollegiate athletics at the University, was not familiar with Timmons’ proposal and could not offer analysis.
“Although this is an important subject, there are significant differences of opinion and circumstances between the institutions and the conferences — so it’s hard for me, or perhaps anyone else at the University, for that matter, to speak in a general or specific way about the value or necessity of the recommendations at this time,” Dan Williams said.
The implementation of the Student-Athletes’ Bill of Rights is a work in progress. While Timmons said the NCAA has been a positive force in athletics, he still feels there is room for improvement. A bill of rights could enhance the system, Timmons said, but he acknowledged the battle is uphill. For such a proposal to be realistically considered, student athlete and university support would have to be strong. Then, perhaps, the NCAA might consider adopting such policy.
“I just think they deserve a bill of rights,” Timmons said, “whether it’s the one we’re suggesting or one student athletes or the NCAA comes up with.”

Bill of (Athlete’s) Rights

No. 1 — Opportunity for participation
* Would ensure a student’s right to play if he or she is capable to play at the level desired by each team and is in compliance with NCAA rules and regulations
No. 2 — Penalty system
* Requires student-athletes to comply with NCAA regulations in a system that protects those who do and allows for punishment of those who do not; also protects school and other players from actions of a few; is compatible with the minimum due process of the Constitution of the United States
No. 3 — Freedom from discrimination
* Student-athletes will receive the same privileges available to students who do not participate in intercollegiate athletics
Bill continued from page 1
No. 4 — Health and safety
* Each student-athlete would have the right to establish rules that protect the health and safety of those involved in intercollegiate athletics
No. 5 — Reinstatement of eligibility
* Student-athletes would have eligibility reinstated if satisfactory progress toward graduation is made by the end of their fourth year of enrollment
No. 6 — Scholarship allocations
* Student-athletes would have the right to NCAA review of athletics-related financial aid scholarships
No. 7 — Right to work
* Student-athletes would have the right to work and receive earnings up to a full grant, plus a reasonable, but limited, amount above the grant
No. 8 — Implementation of new rules and policies
* Student-athletes would have the opportunity to ensure that rules and policies are fairly applied in all areas that concern their welfare and participation opportunities
No. 9 — System of surveillance
* Student-athletes would have a system to review rules and policies that concern their welfare and participation opportunities
No. 10 — Regular review a
nd simplification of rules
* Student-athletes would have the right to periodically review NCAA rules and push for the elimination of rules found to be unfair or illegal if subjected to review under constitutional standards of the federal government

SOURCE: The National

Student-Athletes’ Rights Movement

Contact the news editor at [email protected].