This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010)

An athletic scholarship is a form of scholarship to attend a college or university awarded to an individual based predominantly on his or her ability to play in a sport. Athletic scholarships are common in the United States, but in many countries they are rare or non-existent.

United States[link]

Overview[link]

Regulation and Organization[link]

In the United States, athletic scholarships are largely regulated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). There are also JUCO's and NAIA, the National Association of Independent Athletics.

In 1973, the NCAA split its membership into three divisions: Division I, Division II, and Division III. Under NCAA rules, Division I and Division II schools can offer scholarships to athletes for playing a sport. Division III schools may not offer any athletic scholarships. Generally, larger schools compete in Division I and smaller schools in II and III. Most schools give offers to eligible students in most circumstances.

Division I football is further divided into the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly I-A) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS, formerly I-AA). The two differ in several ways:

• Postseason system: FBS uses postseason bowl games, while FCS uses a single elimination playoff, expanding from 16 to 20 teams in 2010.
• Number of football scholarships: FBS schools are allowed 85 players receiving athletic aid, while FCS schools are allowed 63 scholarships. The wording is a very important distinction for another reason.
• Awarding of partial scholarships: Because each player receiving athletic aid for football counts fully against an FBS team's scholarship limit, this effectively means that all players awarded football scholarships at FBS schools receive full scholarships. On the other hand, FCS schools are allowed to add their 63 scholarships among no more than 85 individual players.

Some schools or leagues permitted by the NCAA to award athletic scholarships nevertheless prohibit them among their students. An example is the Ivy League, which is part of Division I FCS. The three service academies that participate in Division I FBS football (Army, Navy, and Air Force) are effectively exempt from NCAA scholarship limits because all students at those schools, whether or not they are varsity athletes, receive full scholarships from the service branch that operates the academy.

Institutions that engage in misconduct may be stripped of the ability to award a certain number of athletic scholarships. The ultimate penalty, the suspension of an entire athletic program from participation for a set period of time, is popularly known as "The Death Penalty"; it has only been levied three times against schools now in Division I: against Kentucky basketball in 1952, Southwestern Louisiana (now Louisiana-Lafayette) basketball in 1973, and SMU football in 1986.

In addition to the regulations imposed by the NCAA on the educational institution, the rules governing the provision of athletic scholarship and financial aid are also exhaustive. As noted above, NCAA bylaws place a cap on the number of student-athletes that participate in a given sport at a particular school, who are eligible to receive institutional aid.^[1] Institutional aid is defined as the financial aid granted to a student-athlete by the institution in which they are enrolled^[1] Financial aid that has not been provided by the school will render the athlete ineligible, unless the aid is received from a guardian or dependent, it has been awarded for reasons separate from the individual's athletic ability, or it has been provided by a recognized and continuing program that may or may not recognize athletic ability as a major criterion (i.e. National Merit Scholarship or as an honorary high school award).^[1] There is also a limit to the amount of money that may be awarded through an athletic scholarship. Specifically, it must not exceed the cost of the individual's education otherwise it is considered "pay", which violates an athlete's amateur status.^[1]

Academic eligibility, in addition to the other requirements mentioned, has been a longstanding issue in the history of college athletics. In order to respond to the lack of national academic standards, the NCAA passed the 1.600 GPA rule in 1962 in order for freshmen to receive athletic scholarship.^[2] However, this decision received widespread criticism and was eventually abolished in 1973.^[2] In its wake, the American Council on Education (ACE) presented Proposition 48 to the NCAA conference in 1983.^[2] Instead of a minimum 1.600 freshmen GPA, it recommended that for a student to be eligible they must obtain a 2.0 high school GPA, take 11 core high school courses, and score either a 700 on the SAT or a 15 on the ACT.^[2] However, just as the 1.600 rule generated controversy, so to did Proposition 48. Joseph B. Johnson, the President of Grambling State University and a representative of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education argued that it "[discriminated] against student-athletes from low-income and minority-group families by introducing arbitrary SAT and ACT cut off scores as academic criteria for eligibility."^[2] To address this, the NCAA added a partial qualifier to the suggested guidelines. Thus, under the revision, an athlete who met either the 2.0 high school GPA or 700 SAT/15 ACT score would be eligible to receive a scholarship, but would be unable to practice with or play for the team for one academic year.^[2] This partial qualifier was subsequently overturned in 1989 following the passage of Prop 42.^[2] However, amendments to Prop 42 restored it after much protest.^[2] The newest amendment to Proposition 48, Prop 16, was passed in 1992 and later revised in 2008. As of 2008, under Prop 16, a sliding scale for standardized test scores was expanded to allow for a zero score to be allowed in a test, as long as the high school GPA was sufficient to balance it out. Moreover, the number of core high school courses required was increased to 14.^[2]

Once a high school senior is deemed eligible to receive an athletic scholarship for their participation on a sports team, they must then follow a number of explicit steps in order to participate at the collegiate level. In particular, the NCAA mandates that they sign a National College Letter of Intent (NLI), which is effectively an agreement that binds the student-athlete to institution in which they have chosen to enroll.^[1]

Division I[link]

Origin of Athletic Scholarships in the U.S.[link]

Prior to the late 19th century, college athletics consisted largely of informal gatherings orchestrated by students.^[1] The first college game ever played took place on November 6th, 1869, when Rutgers defeated Princeton 6-4 in football.^[3] Following this monumental game, a movement swept across American colleges that increased the number of schools participating in athletics. As the popularity of sports grew, colleges also began to actively recruit individuals, as well as to offer scholarships.^[1] As early as the 1870s, both colleges and universities were providing financial support and incentives to athletes.^[1] It was not an uncommon practice at this time for non-students to participate in order to increase the success of a team.^[1] In fact, one story tells of a farm boy recruited to play football at the University of Kansas in 1895.^[1] As a result of these practices, numerous concerns were raised, including the desire to regulate college athletics. In 1905, the NCAA was created with the intention of "the regulation and supervision of college athletics throughout the United States, in order that the athletic activities in colleges and universities of the United States may be maintained on an ethical plan in keeping with the dignity and high purpose of education."^[1] Right from the start, the NCAA expressed a commitment to preserving both education and amateurism within college athletics. Toward this goal, the NCAA was forced to address student funding, specifically alumni sponsorship. Thus, in 1939 the NCAA delivered a statement which emphasized the amateur status of student-athletes and stated that financial awards would be needs based and independent of the individual's continued athletic participation.^[1] Then, in 1950, under the governance of the NCAA, colleges developed the athletic scholarship, as a way to pay prospective student-athletes. As a consequence, prospective students would be awarded financially on the basis of athletic ability.^[1] For the next twenty years, there were no limits, as set by the NCAA, on the number of scholarships that an educational institution could award players, as well as no limit on the length of the scholarship term.^[1] Moreover, if an athlete withdrew participation from their sport, their scholarship could not be revoked.^[1] However, this all changed at the NCAA's annual convention in 1973.

NCAA Bylaws Governing Division I Athletic-Scholarships[link]

On January 13th, 1973 the NCAA revised the scholarship system, and voted to institute a one-year scholarship as opposed to the four-year scholarship already in place.^[1][2] Today, Article 15 of the NCAA Manual Bylaws governs the regulations regarding financial aid grants and athletic scholarships for student athletes.^[1] As of 2010, Bylaw 15.3.3.1. for Division I athletic programs differs little from the one-year rule invoked in 1973, as it reads, "If a student's athletics ability is considered in any degree in awarding financial aid, such aid shall neither be awarded for a period in excess of one academic year nor for a period less than one academic year."^[4] In addition to the "One-Year Period", the Bylaws also address recommendations made to extend the one-year term, as well as the policies surrounding injury or illness. Specifically, Bylaw 15.3.3.1.3 states that "It is not permissible for an institution to assure the prospective student-athlete that it automatically will continue a grant-in-aid past the one-year period if the recipient sustains an injury that prevents him or her from competing in intercollegiate athletics, but an institutional representative may inform the prospective student-athlete of the regular institutional policy related to renewal or continuation of aid past the one-year period for recipients who become ill or injured during their participation."^[4] Moreover, Bylaw 15.3.4 addresses the instances in which an award may be reduced or canceled during the period of the award. According to the NCAA, if a student-athlete becomes ineligible to compete, engages in fraudulent behavior (i.e. provides false information on their application, letter of intent, or financial aid agreement), engages in misconduct that results in disciplinary action, or voluntarily ends participation in the sport.^[4] However, the NCAA asserts that the student-athlete must be awarded a hearing before the reduction or cancellation occurs.^[4] In addition to the circumstances in which reduction or cancellation of an award is permissible, there are circumstances in which such action cannot be taken during the term period. Specifically, financial aid cannot be withdrawn or reduced based on athletic ability, performance, or contribution to success. This is true also in the event of injury, illness, or the result of a physical or mental condition.^[4]

Criticism and Reforms[link]

In recent years, there has been a great deal of discussion surrounding athletic scholarship, particularly, the one-year term. Moreover, it is not just the athletes who are speaking out, though basketball icon, Oscar Robertson was recently critical, arguing that "Student-athletes are treated like gladiators – revered by fans and coveted by member institutions for their ability to produce revenue, but ultimately viewed as disposable commodities. They are given no ability to negotiate the contents of their scholarships, often punished severely for even the smallest NCAA violations, and discarded in the event they suffer any major injuries."^[5] Despite the rules surrounding cancellation and reduction of aid, it has been argued that the one-year term allows for the potential abuse and exploitation of student-athletes. The most prevalent argument asserts that the one-year term enables coaches to manipulate players by threatening to not renew players' scholarships unless their athletic performance improves. Certainly, these types of pressures are overwhelming to student-athletes, who must also fulfill the academic expectations of their educational institution. In his piece, “Athletic Scholarships: An Imbalance of Power Between the University and the Student-Athlete” for the Ohio State Law Journal in 1992, Daniel Nestel provides a background for the way in which student-athletes are vulnerable to the bargaining power of universities in negotiating athletic scholarship agreements. In particular, he claims, “a one-year term potentially allows more pressure, both subtle and overt, to be exerted on student-athletes to improve athletic, rather than academic, performance to ensure renewal of scholarship benefits” and that “the one-year scholarship agreement is also subject to abuse by coaches, who might threaten nonrenewal of scholarship benefits if a student-athlete’s athletic performance does not improve“^[6] Moreover, a number of high-profile cases in which athletic scholarships have been either revoked or not renewed has placed scholarship rules under scrutiny. One case, in particular, that of Joseph Agnew, drew national attention. Agnew,a member of the football team at Rice University in Houston, was cut from the team after his sophomore season, only to learn a year later that his scholarship would be revoked as well.^[3][7] For Agnew, who had led his high school football team to consecutive state titles in 2004 and 2005, this was devastating.^[7] As a consequence, Agnew filed a class-action antitrust suit in October 2010, in which he asked the federal court to abandon the one-year rule.^[3] As this case gained national prominence, the Justice Department, under President Obama, announced its investigation into NCAA scholarship rules.^[3]

Future Directions[link]

As a consequence of the complaints voiced and involvement by the Justice Department, in August 2011 the Division I Board of Directors adopted multiyear scholarship legislation to allow Division I schools to provide scholarships for a period greater than one year^[8] This legislation was one of many steps the Board of Directors took after the NCAA President Mark Emmert organized a meeting to discuss issues with the operation of Division I athletics.^[9] Voting to override Proposal No 2011-97 (as it was named) was open until Friday, February 17th 2012.^[9] By a very narrow margin, the multiyear scholarship legislation was upheld. Of the 330 Division I schools, 62.1% voted in favor of the override, which was just .4% short of the 62.5% majority required to overturn the proposal.^[10] Following the outcome, President Mark Emmert was quoted saying, "I am pleased that student-athletes will continue to benefit from the ability of institutions to offer athletics aid for more than one year, but it's clear that there are significant portions of the membership with legitimate concerns. As we continue to examine implementation of the rule, we want to work with the membership to address those concerns."^[10] Some opponents worry that multiyear scholarships award wealthy schools an advantage in the recruiting process.^[10] Others contend that coaches will be forced to keep players that are not a good fit for their program.^[10] It is important to note, however, that member institutions opposed to the decision will not be forced to offer student-athletes multiyear scholarships. Rather, the decision, provides coaches and universities with the option to extend the scholarship term if they so choose.^[10] So far, a number of sports programs have already declared their intent to offer multiyear scholarships including Ohio State, Auburn, Michigan, Michigan State, Florida, and Nebraska.^[10]

In February 2012 the Arizona Legislature proposed a bill named HB 2675 which required students that attended a public university in the state of Arizona (Arizona State University, University of Arizona, or Northern Arizona University) to pay an additional $2,000 fee in order to attend one of the 3 universities. The bill also stated that students should pay this fee by their own means, meaning that no federal or state grants would cover this fee. However, specific students, including students who gained an athletic scholarship, would be exempt from this fee.^[11]

Other countries[link]

In other countries athletic scholarships are far more restricted.

Canada[link]

A common misconception is that Canadian schools do not offer Athletic Scholarship money for their athletes.^[12]

• Tuition and compulsory fees is the maximum amount an athlete can receive for athletic-related awards in an academic year, including athletic-related bursaries.
• The value and quantity of athletic-related awards and bursaries available varies from institution to institution.
• Specific awards and bursaries may have additional conditions, such as academic success and citizenship
• Many awards, such as academic awards or awards provided by Sport Governing Bodies or the Federal and Provincial Governments, are not included within the tuition and compulsory fees maximum
• The athlete is eligible to receive an award or bursary at the beginning of tgeur first year (September) at a university if they have a minimum entering average of 80% or equivalent. Alternatively, the athlete is eligible to receive an award at the end of their first year at a university (spring or summer) if they satisfy Canadian Interuniversity Spor (CIS) academic requirements with at least a 65% average or equivalent. Thereafter, the athlete is eligible to receive an award at the beginning of any year if they satisfy CIS academic requirements with at least a 65% average or equivalent in the preceding year.

Many Canadian student/athletes decide to go to NCAA Division 1 programs based on the illusion that they are receiving a better deal from these schools with regards to finances and athletics. A typical Canadian University program could cost between $5,000-$6,000 Canadian per year, where as an NCAA school charges between $25,000 to $40,000 US to attend their programs. Compounding this is the cost of travel to and from the university for both student and family and the associated costs of living away from home. Based on the information above, Canadian schools have less tuition to cover and also do not have to include substantial federal/provincial scholarships and academic scholarships in their scholarship declarations.

While the competitive standard for some sports may be higher in some Division 1 schools, this does vary. In general, this difference would not materialize until the play-off portion of the season, where the standard is much higher overall than the general standard of NCAA competition.

The academic standard for athletes is lower in United States and leaves many Canadian students returning to Canada having to take extra courses and in some cases, extra years of study in order to have their academic qualifications recognized.

CIS schools are also not bound by the tight NCAA rules surrounding contacts with athletes and in reality, means that CIS coaches have the potential to develop their athletes to a higher standard, while also maintaining higher academics due to the above mentioned differences in academic standards.

United Kingdom[link]

In the United Kingdom entrance scholarships based on sporting ability are not traditional, though contrary to popular belief they are not actually banned. Sporting ability may be taken into account in admission for places on degrees in subjects such as sports science, and at the discretion of admissions staff sporting achievements may be taken into account on choosing candidates based on their ability to make an all round contribution to the institution in the same way as achievements in any other non-academic area. Students who are elite standard sports competitors are eligible for financial support from bodies such as UK Sport on the same basis as anyone else. Certain universities have a strong emphasis on sport, including Loughborough University, University of Bath and Richmond, The American International University in London each of which hosts a number of nationally funded training facilities. Some universities may make bursaries available to top student athletes, though these are generally not large. Some British students take athletic scholarships at American universities, a trend which is particularly noticeable in golf. Many top British golfers are graduates of American universities including Colin Montgomerie, Luke Donald and Paul Casey. Many young individuals use sports scholarships agencies such Athletes USA to help them gain a sports scholarship.

Arguments for and against sports scholarships[link]

Critics have labeled the term to be an oxymoron, stating that physically talented persons selected for their ability to run, jump, throw, kick or hit a ball are retained to staff a school's teams, and paid for their services while being classified as "scholars".^{[citation needed]} Some critics of the athletic scholarship system have coined the term "jockship" to describe the awards.^{[citation needed]} The term is based on the word jock, a mildly derisive American slang term that plays on the stereotype of the "dumb athlete".

Such scholarships have been characterized as salaries paid to the persons selected in order to induce them to perform for the hiring school.^{[citation needed]} (The characterization of the salary as a "scholarship" is deemed necessary because, generally, at most American colleges, participation as a member of the school's athletic teams is a privilege accorded exclusively to enrolled students, and team members are, in theory, amateurs.)

Supporters contend that many students would be unable to receive a higher education at all, but for the availability of athletic scholarships, due to the prohibitive costs associated with university education. The theory is that while most academic scholarships are predominantly awarded to students of middle and upper class backgrounds (thought of as counter-intuitive, as they are typically considered more affluent), many feel the tendency does, in fact, lean toward athletic scholarships being awarded to less-privileged students, who are generally members of a minority.^{[citation needed]}

References[link]

External links[link]

• NCAA Website: Academics & Athletes
• Backgrounder: Athletic Scholarships

Ralph Nader
Nader speaking at BYU's Alternate Commencement
Personal details
Born	(1934-02-27) February 27, 1934 (age 78) Winsted, Connecticut, U.S.
Political party	Independent
Other political affiliations	Green (affiliated non-member) Reform (affiliated non-member) Peace & Freedom (affiliated non-member) Natural Law (affiliated non-member) Populist Party of Maryland (created to support him in 2004) Vermont Progressive Party (affiliated non-member)
Alma mater	Princeton University, Harvard University
Occupation	Attorney, consumer advocate, and political activist
Religion	Eastern Orthodox Christian[1][2]
Signature
Website	nader.org
Military service
Service/branch	United States Army
Years of service	1959

Ralph Nader ( /ˈneɪdər/; born February 27, 1934)^[3][4] is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney. Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government.^[5]

Nader came to prominence in 1965 with the publication of his book Unsafe at Any Speed, a critique of the safety record of American automobile manufacturers in general, and most famously the Chevrolet Corvair. In 1999, an NYU panel of journalists ranked Unsafe at Any Speed 38th among the top 100 pieces of journalism of the 20th century.^[6]

Nader is a six-time candidate for President of the United States, having run as a write-in candidate in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, as the Green Party nominee in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent candidate in 2004 and 2008. Some people claim that Nader acted as a spoiler in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, while others, including Nader, dispute this claim.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]}

Background and early career[link]

Nader in 1975

Nader was born in Winsted, Connecticut. His parents, Nathra and Rose (née Bouziane) Nader, were immigrants from Lebanon^[13] and members of the Maronite Church.^[1] His family's native language is Arabic,^[13] and he has spoken it along with English since childhood. His sister, Laura Nader, is an anthropologist. His father worked in a textile mill and later owned a bakery and restaurant where he talked politics with his customers.^[14]

Nader graduated from The Gilbert School in 1951, followed by Princeton University four years later and then Harvard Law School.^[15] He served six months on active duty in the United States Army in 1959, then became a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut. He was a professor of history and government at the University of Hartford from 1961 to 1963. In 1964, Nader moved to Washington, D.C., where he worked for Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan and also advised a United States Senate subcommittee on car safety. Nader has served on the faculty at the American University Washington College of Law.^[16][when?]

Automobile safety activism[link]

Nader's first consumer safety articles appeared in the Harvard Law Record, a student publication of Harvard Law School, but he first criticized the automobile industry in an article he wrote for The Nation in 1959 called "The Safe Car You Can't Buy."^[17]

Ralph Nader lectures at Florida State University, 1980s

In 1965, Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, a book which claimed that many American automobiles were unsafe. The first chapter, "The Sporty Corvair - The One-Car Accident," pertained to the Corvair manufactured by the Chevrolet division of General Motors, which had been involved in accidents involving spins and rollovers. There were over 100 lawsuits pending against GM in connection with accidents involving the popular compact car. These lawsuits provided the initial material for Nader's investigations into the safety of the car.^[18]

A 1972 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960–1963 Corvairs possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporaries in extreme situations.^[19] Additionally, according to Crash Course by Paul Ingrassia, Corvairs were environmentally friendly due to their smaller size and lighter weight, and Nader's safety-focused activism negatively affected the cause for eco-efficiency.^[20] However, former GM executive John DeLorean asserted in On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors (1979) that Nader's criticisms were valid.^[21]

In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and The New York Times, reported that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.^[22][23] Nader sued the company for invasion of privacy and settled the case for $425,000. Nader's lawsuit against GM was ultimately decided by the New York Court of Appeals, whose opinion in the case expanded tort law to cover "overzealous surveillance."^[24] Nader used the proceeds from the lawsuit to start the pro-consumer Center for Study of Responsive Law.

Nader's advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, along with concern over escalating nationwide traffic fatalities, contributed to the unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The act established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and marked a historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety from the consumer to the government. The legislation mandated a series of safety features for automobiles, beginning with safety belts and stronger windshields.^[25][26][27]

Activism[link]

Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader's work, came to DC to help him with other projects.^{[citation needed]} They came to be known as "Nader's Raiders" and, under Nader, investigated government corruption, publishing dozens of books with their results:

• Nader's Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
• Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
• The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
• The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
• Old Age (nursing homes)
• The Water Lords (water pollution)
• Who Runs Congress? (Congress)
• Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
• The Big Boys (corporate executives)
• Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
• No Contest (corporate lawyers)
• Destroy the Forest (Destruction of ecosystems worldwide)

Nader speaks out against the Iraq War at a September 15, 2007, anti-war protest

In 1971, Nader co-founded the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Public Citizen with fellow public interest lawyer Alan Morrison as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 225,000 members ^[28] and investigates congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Nader wrote, "The consumer must be protected at times from his own indiscretion and vanity."^[29]

In the 1970s and 1980s Nader was a key leader in the antinuclear power movement. "By 1976, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who later became allied with the environmental movement, 'stood as the titular head of opposition to nuclear energy'."^[30][31] The Critical Mass Energy Project was formed by Nader in 1974 as a national anti-nuclear umbrella group.^[32] It was probably the largest national anti-nuclear group in the United States, with several hundred local affiliates and an estimated 200,000 supporters.^[33] The organization's main efforts were directed at lobbying activities and providing local groups with scientific and other resources to campaign against nuclear power.^[32][34] Nader advocates the complete elimination of nuclear energy in favor of solar, tidal, wind and geothermal, citing environmental, worker safety, migrant labor, national security, disaster preparedness, foreign policy, government accountability and democratic governance issues to bolster his position.^[35]

Nader was also a prominent supporter of the Airline Deregulation Act.^[36]

Ecology[link]

Nader spent much of 1970 pursuing a campaign to educate the public about ecology. Nader said that the rivers and lakes in America were extremely contaminated. He joked that "Lake Erie is now so contaminated you're advised to have a typhoid inoculation before you set sail on some parts of the lake."^[37]

He also added that river's state of contamination affected humans because many residents get their water supply from these contaminated rivers and lakes. "Cleveland takes its water supply from deep in the center of Lake Erie. How much longer is it going to get away with that?"^[37]

Nader told how some rivers are contaminated so badly that they can be lit on fire. "The Buffalo River is so full of petroleum residuals, it's been classified an official fire hazard by the City of Buffalo. We have the phenomenon now known as flammable water. The Cuyahoga River outside of Cleveland did catch fire last June, burning a base and some bridges. I often wonder what was in the minds of the firemen as they rushed to the scene of the action and pondered how to put this fire out. But we're heading in river after river: Connecticut River, Hudson River, Mississippi River, you name it. There's some rivers right outside of Boston, New Hampshire and Maine where if a person fell into 'em, I think he would dissolve before he drowned."^[37]

Non-profit organizations[link]

Throughout his career, Nader has started or inspired a variety of nonprofit organizations,with most of which he has maintained close associations :

In 1980, Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, lecturing on the growing "imperialism" of multinational corporations and of a dangerous convergence of corporate and government power.^[38]

Presidential campaigns[link]

Ralph Nader has been a frequent contender in U.S. presidential elections, always as an independent candidate or a third party nominee. His activism on behalf of third parties goes back to 1958, when he wrote an article for the Harvard Law Record critiquing U.S. electoral law's systemic discrimination against them.^[39]

Presidential campaign history[link]

1972[link]

Ralph Nader's name appeared in the press as a potential candidate for president for the first time in 1971, when he was offered the opportunity to run as the presidential candidate for the New Party, a progressive split-off from the Democratic Party in 1972. Chief among his advocates was author Gore Vidal, who touted a 1972 Nader presidential campaign in a front-page article in Esquire magazine in 1971.^[40] Psychologist Alan Rockway organized a "draft Ralph Nader for President" campaign in Florida on the New Party's behalf.^[41] Nader declined their offer to run that year; the New Party ultimately joined with the People's Party in running Benjamin Spock in the 1972 Presidential election.^[42][43][44] Spock had hoped Nader in particular would run, getting "some of the loudest applause of the evening" when mentioning him at the University of Alabama.^[45] Spock went on to try to recruit Nader for the party among over 100 others, and indicated he would be "delighted" to be replaced by any of them even after he accepted the nomination himself.^[46] Nader received one vote for the vice-presidential nomination at the 1972 Democratic National Convention.

1992[link]

Nader stood in as a write-in for "none of the above" in both the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic and Republican Primaries^[47] and received 3,054 of the 170,333 Democratic votes and 3,258 of the 177,970 Republican votes cast.^[48] He was also a candidate in the 1992 Massachusetts Democratic Primary, where he appeared at the top of the ballot (in some areas, he appeared on the ballot as an independent).

1996[link]

Nader was drafted as a candidate for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket during the 1996 presidential election. He was not formally nominated by the Green Party USA, which was, at the time, the largest national Green group; instead he was nominated independently by various state Green parties (in some states, he appeared on the ballot as an independent). However, many activists in the Green Party USA worked actively to campaign for Nader that year. Nader qualified for ballot status in 22 states,^[49] garnering 685,297 votes or 0.71% of the popular vote (fourth place overall),^[50] although the effort did make significant organizational gains for the party. He refused to raise or spend more than $5,000 on his campaign, presumably to avoid meeting the threshold for Federal Elections Commission reporting requirements; the unofficial Draft Nader committee could (and did) spend more than that, but the committee was legally prevented from coordinating in any way with Nader himself.

Nader received some criticism from gay rights supporters for calling gay rights "gonad politics" and stating that he was not interested in dealing with such matters.^[51] However, more recently, Nader has come out in support of same-sex marriage.^[52]

His 1996 running mates included: Anne Goeke (nine states), Deborah Howes (Oregon), Muriel Tillinghast (New York), Krista Paradise (Colorado), Madelyn Hoffman (New Jersey), Bill Boteler (Washington, D.C.), and Winona LaDuke (California and Texas).^[53]

2000[link]

In the 2006 documentary An Unreasonable Man, Nader describes how he was unable to get the views of his public interest groups heard in Washington, even by the Clinton Administration. Nader cites this as one of the primary reasons that he decided to actively run in the 2000 election as candidate of the Green Party, which had been formed in the wake of his 1996 campaign.

Nader's supporters, with Christopher Hitchens speaking, protest his exclusion from the televised debates in 2000.

In June 2000 The Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) organized the national nominating convention that took place in Denver, Colorado, at which Greens nominated Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke to be their parties` candidates for President and Vice President.^[54][55]

On July 9, the Vermont Progressive Party nominated Nader, giving him ballot access in the state.^[56] On August 12, the United Citizens Party of South Carolina chose Ralph Nader as its presidential nominee, giving him a ballot line in the state.^[57]

In October 2000, at the largest Super Rally of his campaign,^[58] held in New York City's Madison Square Garden, 15,000 people paid $20 each^[59] to hear Mr. Nader speak. Nader's campaign rejected both parties as institutions dominated by corporate interests, stating that Al Gore and George W. Bush were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum". A long list of notable celebrities spoke and performed at the event including Susan Sarandon, Ani DiFranco, Ben Harper, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, Eddie Vedder and Patti Smith. The campaign also had some prominent union help: The California Nurses Association and the United Electrical Workers endorsed his candidacy and campaigned for him.^[60]

In 2000, Nader and his running mate Winona LaDuke received 2,883,105 votes, for 2.74 percent of the popular vote (third place overall),^[61] missing the 5 percent needed to qualify the Green Party for federally distributed public funding in the next election, yet qualifying the Greens for ballot status in many states.

Nader's actual influence on the 2000 election is the subject of considerable discussion, and there is no consensus on Nader's impact on the outcome. Nader's votes in New Hampshire and Florida vastly exceeded the difference in votes between Gore and Bush, as did the votes of all alternative candidates.^[62] Exit polls showed New Hampshire staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader^[63] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choosing Gore over Bush by a large margin,^[64] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, and while critics claim this shows Nader tipped the election to Bush, Nader has called that claim "a mantra — an assumption without data."^[65] Nader supporters argued that Gore was primarily responsible for his own loss.^[66] Nader critic Eric Alterman disagreed, writing: "One person in the world could have prevented Bush's election with his own words on the Election Day 2000."^[67] Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn cited Gore's failure to win over progressive voters in Florida who chose Nader, and congratulated those voters: "Who would have thought the Sunshine State had that many progressives in it, with steel in their spine and the spunk to throw Eric Alterman's columns into the trash can?"^[68] Still others argued that even if Nader's constituents could have made the swing difference between Gore and Bush, the votes Nader garnered were not from the Democrats, but from Democrats, Republicans, and discouraged voters who would not have voted otherwise.^[69]

The "spoiler" controversy[link]

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."^[70] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) Michael Moore at first argued that Florida was so close that votes for any of seven other candidates could also have switched the results,^[8] but in 2004 joined the view that Nader had helped make Bush president.^[10][71] When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida."^[72][73]

A study in 2002 by the Progressive Review found no correlation in pre-election polling numbers for Nader when compared to those for Gore. In other words, most of the changes in pre-election polling reflect movement between Bush and Gore rather than Gore and Nader, and they conclude from this that Nader was not responsible for Gore's loss.^[74]

An analysis conducted by Harvard Professor B.C. Burden in 2005 showed Nader did "play a pivotal role in determining who would become president following the 2000 election", but that:

"Contrary to Democrats’ complaints, Nader was not intentionally trying to throw the election. A spoiler strategy would have caused him to focus disproportionately on the most competitive states and markets with the hopes of being a key player in the outcome. There is no evidence that his appearances responded to closeness. He did, apparently, pursue voter support, however, in a quest to receive 5% of the popular vote."^[7]

However, Jonathan Chait of The American Prospect and The New Republic notes that Nader did indeed focus on swing states disproportionately during the waning days of the campaign, and by doing so jeopardized his own chances of achieving the 5% of the vote he was aiming for.

Then there was the debate within the Nader campaign over where to travel in the waning days of the campaign. Some Nader advisers urged him to spend his time in uncontested states such as New York and California. These states – where liberals and leftists could entertain the thought of voting Nader without fear of aiding Bush – offered the richest harvest of potential votes. But, Martin writes, Nader – who emerges from this account as the house radical of his own campaign – insisted on spending the final days of the campaign on a whirlwind tour of battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida. In other words, he chose to go where the votes were scarcest, jeopardizing his own chances of winning 5 percent of the vote, which he needed to gain federal funds in 2004.^[75]

When Nader, in a letter to environmentalists, attacked Gore for "his role as broker of environmental voters for corporate cash," and "the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician," and what he called a string of broken promises to the environmental movement, Sierra Club president Carl Pope sent an open letter to Nader, dated 27 October 2000, defending Al Gore's environmental record and calling Nader's strategy "irresponsible."^[76] He wrote:

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge... Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.^[77]

2004[link]

Nader announced on December 24, 2003, that he would not seek the Green Party's nomination for president in 2004, but did not rule out running as an independent candidate.

Meeting with John Kerry[link]

Ralph Nader and Democratic candidate John Kerry held a widely publicized meeting early in the 2004 Presidential campaign, which Nader described in An Unreasonable Man. Nader said that John Kerry wanted to work to win Nader's support and the support of Nader's voters. Nader then provided more than 20 pages of issues that he felt were important and he "put them on the table" for John Kerry. According to Nader the issues covered topics ranging from environmental, labor, healthcare, tax reform, corporate crime, campaign finance reform and various consumer protection issues. Nader reported that he asked John Kerry to choose any three of the issues and highlight them in his campaign and if Kerry would do this, he would refrain from the race. For example, Nader recommended taking up corporate welfare, corporate crime—which could attract many Republican voters, and labor law reform—which was felt Bush could never support given the corporate funding of his campaign.^[78] Several days passed and Kerry failed to adopt any of Nader's issues as benchmarks of his campaign, so on February 22, 2004, Nader announced on NBC that he would indeed run for president as an independent, saying, "There's too much power and wealth in too few hands."

A Kerry aide who had attended the meeting had a different recollection. "He made more the point that he had the ability to go after Bush in ways that we could not, He did not at all say to Kerry, 'I'm here to make you better on things.' That was not his tone at all."

The New York Times quoted Nader saying after the meeting "Gore was petrified wood, He was stiff as a board, he didn't want to have these kinds of meetings. He didn't want to have meetings like this when he was vice president three years before the election. Kerry is much more open." Nader himself said he had deliberately steered clear of disagreement, telling the Times, "When you go in looking for common ground, it takes up most of the time, doesn't it?"^[79]

The campaign[link]

Nader's 2004 campaign ran on a platform consistent with the Green Party's positions on major issues, such as opposition to the war in Iraq. He has detailed the legal reasons George W. Bush and Dick Cheney fit the criteria for war criminals, and why they should have been immediately impeached.^[80]

Due to concerns about a possible spoiler effect as in 2000, many Democrats urged Nader to abandon his 2004 candidacy. The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, stated that Nader had a "distinguished career, fighting for working families," and that McAuliffe "would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush." Nader replied to this, in filmed interviews for An Unreasonable Man, by arguing that, "Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me." Nader's 2004 campaign theme song was "If You Gotta Ask" by Liquid Blue.

In May 2009, in a new book, Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny, Theresa Amato, who was Nader's national campaign manager in 2000 and 2004, alleged that McAuliffe offered to pay off Nader to stop campaigning in certain states in 2004. This was confirmed by Nader, and neither McAuliffe nor his spokeswoman disputed the claim.^[81]

In the 2004 campaign, Democrats such as Howard Dean and Terry McAuliffe asked that Nader return money donated to his campaign by Republicans who were well-known Bush supporters, such as billionaire Richard Egan.^[82][83] Nader's reaction to the request was to refuse to return any donations and he charged that the Democrats were attempting to smear him.^[82] Nader's vice-presidential running mate, Peter Camejo, supported the return of the money if it could be proved that "the aim of the wealthy GOP donors was to peel votes from Kerry."^[82] According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Nader defended his keeping of the donations by saying that wealthy contributors "are human beings too."^[82]

Nader received 463,655 votes, for 0.38 percent of the popular vote, placing him in third place overall.^[84]

2008[link]

Nader campaigning in October 2008

Wikinews has related news: Ralph Nader enters US presidential race as independent Ralph Nader calls out Democrats for financial bailout

In February 2007, Nader criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton as "a panderer and a flatterer."^[85] Asked on CNN Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, Nader replied, "It's really too early to say...."^[86] Asked during a radio appearance to describe the former First Lady, Nader said, "Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation ... She has no political fortitude."^[87] Some Greens started a campaign to draft Nader as their party's 2008 presidential candidate.^[88]

After some consideration, Nader announced on February 24, 2008, that he would run for President as an independent. His vice-presidential candidate was Matt Gonzalez.^[89]

Nader received 738,475 votes, for 0.56 percent of the popular vote, earning him a third place position in the overall election results.^[90]

Personal life[link]

Nader was raised in the Eastern Orthodox Church.^[1] He has never married. Karen Croft, a writer who worked for Nader in the late 1970s at the Center for Study of Responsive Law, once asked him if he had ever considered getting married. She reports: "He said that at a certain point he had to decide whether to have a family or to have a career, that he couldn't have both. That's the kind of person he is. He couldn't have a wife—he's up all night reading the Congressional Record."^[91]

Personal finances[link]

According to the mandatory fiscal disclosure report that he filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2000, Nader owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. He also held between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Magellan Fund.^[92] Nader said he owned no car and owned no real estate directly in 2000, and said that he lived on US $25,000 a year, giving most of his stock earnings to many of the over four dozen non-profit organizations he had founded.^[93][94]

Television appearances[link]

In 1988, Nader appeared on Sesame Street as "a person in your neighborhood." The verse of the song began "A consumer advocate is a person in your neighborhood." Nader's appearance on the show was memorable because it was the only time that the grammar of the last line of the song—"A person who you meet each day"—was questioned and changed in the show. Nader refused to sing the prescriptively improper line, and so a compromise was reached, resulting in Ralph Nader singing the last line as a solo with the modified words: "A person whom you meet each day."^[95] In the same episode, Nader tests "Bob"'s sweater, with permission, and destroys it, telling Bob "Your aunt . . . knitted you a lemon!"

He hosted an episode of NBC's Saturday Night Live in 1977 and appeared in a 2000 episode.^{[citation needed]}

He was interviewed on Da Ali G Show by Sacha Baron Cohen.^{[citation needed]}

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Nader appeared on NBC's Meet The Press, CNBC with John Harwood, CNN with Rick Sanchez, PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and Fox News Channel with Shepard Smith.^[96] He was interviewed by Triumph the Insult Comic Dog on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 2008. Also that year he appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. In 2011, he appeared multiple times on the Fox Business Network primetime show Freedom Watch with Andrew Napolitano, including a January 19, 2011 joint appearance with Ron Paul.^{[citation needed]}

Works[link]

See also[link]

	Biography portal
	Politics portal

• Shafeek Nader
• Critical Mass (Anti-nuclear group)

Notes[link]

• An Unreasonable Man (2006). An Unreasonable Man is a documentary film about Ralph Nader that appeared at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.
• Burden, Barry C. (2005). Ralph Nader's Campaign Strategy in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election 2005, American Politics Research 33:672-99.
• Ralph Nader: Up Close This film blends archival footage and scenes of Nader and his staff at work in Washington with interviews with Nader's family, friends and adversaries, as well as Nader himself. Written, directed and produced by Mark Litwak and Tiiu Lukk, 1990, color, 72 mins. Narration by Studs Terkel. Broadcast on PBS. Winner, Sinking Creek Film Festival; Best of Festival, Baltimore Int'l Film Festival; Silver Plaque, Chicago Int'l Film Festival, Silver Apple, National Educational Film & Video Festival.
• Bear, Greg, "Eon" — the novel includes a depiction of a future group called the "Naderites" who follow Ralph Nader's humanistic teachings.
• Martin, Justin. Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon. Perseus Publishing, 2002. ISBN 0-7382-0563-X

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• What Was Ralph Nader Thinking? by Jurgen Vsych, Wroughten Books, 2008. ISBN 978-0-9749879-2-7
• Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network by Dan Burt, 1982. ISBN 978-0-89526-661-3
• Citizen Nader by Charles McCarry Saturday Review Press, 1972 ISBN 0-8415-0163-7
• The Investigation of Ralph Nader by Thomas Whiteside 1972.

External links[link]

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (March 2012)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Ralph Nader

• Nader.org official website
• Nader / Gonzalez '08 campaign website
• Appearances on C-SPAN
  • Booknotes interview with Nader on Crashing the Party, February 3, 2002.
  • In Depth interview with Nader, August 1, 2010
• Ralph Nader on Charlie Rose
• Ralph Nader at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Ralph Nader in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Ralph Nader collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Ralph Nader at the Notable Names Database

Articles and interviews

• Kugel, Allison (May 14, 2008). "Ralph Nader Goes to Washington... Again – The PR.com Interview". PR.com. http://www.pr.com/article/1100. 
• "How Winstedites Kept Their Integrity," article by Nader in the September 1963 issue of The Freeman
• Ralph Nader Goes to Washington... Again – The PR.com Interview
• Digital History Ralph Nader
• Nader, Rare Among Candidates May 5, 2008