Consider this hypothetical situation: the Michigan football team is having a stellar season, and with only a few games left, it is close to securing a trip to the Rose Bowl. But the team’s star running back is having some trouble in the classroom so his case is brought to the Committee on Academic Performance (APC), an advisory committee to the Office of the Provost that decides student-athletes’ academic eligibility. Coincidentally, the committee has an extra stake in the decision: if the player remains eligible and the team goes on to the Rose Bowl, the Athletic Department will offer to foot the bill to send the committee’s members off to beautiful Pasadena. See the conflict of interest? Apparently, the University doesn’t.

Common at many universities, the Athletic Department’s practice of offering to pay for faculty who review student-athlete’s academic eligibility to attend bowl games has recently come under fire. The practice had been revealed in a July 2007 internal audit that found the Athletic Department paid for seven members of the APC to attend the Rose Bowl that year. But for the past year, little action has been taken on the issue.

The faculty’s Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs — which initially voiced concern that the practice encouraged a bad University image and unanimously agreed upon the audit's release that the practice should be reviewed — is taking the issue up again. Defiantly, the University’s administration is not. In a recent interview with the Daily, President Mary Sue Coleman argued that because the practice was properly disclosed to the public and because the Office of the Provost has the final say on who plays and who doesn’t, the APC’s perks aren’t concerning.

Coleman’s position couldn’t be more wrong. At the very least, there is an obvious perception of a conflict of interest here. APC members receiving perks from the Athletic Department gives the disturbing image of a system skewed to favor athletes. That’s not to say the APC has been acting in an unethical manner or that their verdicts have been polluted. However, the mere perception of such a conflict gives rise to questions regarding the validity of their decisions.

What’s more disturbing is that nothing has been done about the problem since it was brought to light. Coleman won’t acknowledge that even a tiny problem exists. University Provost Teresa Sullivan has “taken the audit’s findings under advisement,” but has yet to take any further action. And SACUA, which has already noted the problems here, hasn’t done much yet on this issue either. It seems like everyone just wants it to go away so business can continue as usual. It seems that no one is willing to make a change.

It’s time for the University to stop hiding behind convoluted justifications and picky semantics and take action to end this practice. Not dealing with the problem won’t make it go away or make it less questionable. Until the University does that, this committee will be tainted by people's suspicions about its biases. And what we think we don’t know is probably much worse than what the reality is.