Men's Basketball Exonerated

The Ivy League exonerated men’s basketball head coach Tommy Amaker and an assistant coach following allegations of improper recruiting and lowered admissions standards for the men’s team.

An inquiry by the Ivy League into allegations of improper recruiting by the Harvard men’s basketball program and of lowered standards of admissions for the team—raised initially in a March 2008 New York Times article—has determined that no violations of either National Collegiate Athletic Association or Ivy League rules occurred. In addition, the league’s routine annual review of admissions standards found that all admitted Harvard recruits met the requirements mandated by the league, which issued a statement on September 3 that read, in part:

Harvard Head Coach Tommy Amaker and Assistant Coach Kenneth Blakeney were completely forthcoming in their participation in this inquiry, and interviews with others who were involved, as well as a thorough examination of relevant records, corroborated that the coaches’ contacts with prospective student-athletes and their families were entirely consistent with NCAA and Ivy League rules.

“We’re very pleased with the outcome,” Harvard athletic director Robert L. Scalise said after the results became public. “It was what we had expected it to be,” he added. “We have a program that abides by the letter and the spirit of NCAA and Ivy rules and we want to continue that.”

“This matter got a lot of attention because it was raised in the press,” said Jeff Orleans, executive director of the Ivy League (see “Questions about Recruiting,” May-June, page 76, and ”What Next for Ivy League Sports,” July-August, page 75). “The admissions part was a non-story, in the sense that the reporter could have simply waited until the admissions decisions were known, instead of asking people to speculate.”

As for the alleged recruiting violations, which centered on the fact that assistant coach Blakeney had played basketball—before Harvard hired him—with a prospect, Orleans said the committee conducting the investigation asked three questions: Was Blakeney a Harvard employee? Was he a Harvard representative? Was he trying to recruit athletes to Harvard at the time of these activities? “The answer was no in each case,” Orleans noted. Such issues arise and are investigated routinely in Division One athletic programs; what made the Harvard instance unusual, he said, “was the level of attention that was focused on it.”

Orleans did indicate that the allegations have prompted the league to begin “discussing with all the schools the importance of being very clear about the employment relationship and how it develops. That way,” he added—given the public perception that the periods before and after someone is hired “shade together”—“they can avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”

You might also like

Trump Administration Appeals Order Restoring $2.7 Billion in Funding to Harvard

The appeal, which had been expected, came two days before the deadline to file.

At Harvard, AI Meets “Post-Neoliberalism”

Experts debate whether markets alone should govern tech in the U.S.

Sam Liss to Head Harvard’s Office for Technology Development

Technology licensing and corporate partnerships are an important source of revenue for the University.

Most popular

Why Men Are Falling Behind in Education, Employment, and Health

Can new approaches to education address a growing gender gap?

The 1884 Cannibalism-at-Sea Case That Still Has Harvard Talking

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens changed the course of legal history. Here’s why it’s been fodder for countless classroom debates.

Explore More From Current Issue

A girl sits at a desk, flanked by colorful, stylized figures, evoking a whimsical, surreal atmosphere.

The Trouble with Sidechat

No one feels responsible for what happens on Harvard’s anonymous social media app.

A man skiing intensely in the snow, with two spectators in the background.

Introductions: Dan Cnossen

A conversation with the former Navy SEAL and gold-medal-winning Paralympic skier

Four men in a small boat struggle with rough water, one lying down and others watching.

The 1884 Cannibalism-at-Sea Case That Still Has Harvard Talking

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens changed the course of legal history. Here’s why it’s been fodder for countless classroom debates.