Life as we know it is not simple. Every day, we face challenges and decisions that often have widespread implications. For an organization that facilitates athletics across the nation, challenges abound.

The NCAA is recognized as the primary regulatory body for collegiate athletics in the United States and thereby represents the interests of thousands of universities. When faced with a challenge, this body must consider all it represents and the implications of its actions. As a representative of millions of individuals’ points of view, the NCAA has no place making divisive and politically motivated decisions.

The following are the NCAA’s Core Values:

• The collegiate model of athletics, in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.
• The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.
• The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.
• The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.
• An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.
• Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.
• Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels.

The NCAA has a fair and reasonable purpose and guidelines, but has failed to act in accordance with these guidelines time and time again. We have seen the NCAA target a coach for unethical reasons (see Jerry Tarkanian), give schools a slap on the wrist for mistreating students by falsifying their education to bolster athletics (see UNC academic integrity case) and has, on several occasions, overstepped its own guidelines in order to bring about a conclusion that favored the NCAA itself (see 2012 Penn State investigation or O’Bannon vs. NCAA).

So why should this organization, known for decades to be self-interested, be allowed to make politically motivated decisions? It shouldn’t. The best example I can offer is the NCAA’s actions in relation to House Bill 2 in North Carolina.

After the signing of HB2, the NCAA made a decision to remove seven championship games from the state. The association has also recently threatened to remove all championships and neutral-site events from the state until 2022.

Although the move has generated praise from some advocates, the moment the NCAA made this decision, it broke its own guidelines and disrespected the entire state of North Carolina.

Regardless of individual stance on the controversial “Bathroom Bill,” the NCAA has devalued both the state and its people. For the NCAA to remove events that are key to local revenue and to the sporting culture of North Carolina due to a political decision, is for the NCAA to state that North Carolina is no longer a legitimate or critical part of college athletics.

In any case where the association takes a stance against an entire state or any particular university over social issues, it is essentially saying that the NCAA no longer “respects institutional autonomy and philosophical differences,” nor does it support “enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.”

There are fundamental flaws and infringements upon basic rights included in HB2, and the North Carolina state legislature should repeal the law. However, the NCAA took the passing of the law as an opportunity to grandstand and deny equal representation to its member institutions, making a decision solely based on the opinion of its administrators. Rather than acting through the democratic process outlined by the association itself, the association launched a war of attrition against the state.

The NCAA generates nearly $1 billion in revenue each year, more than any other sports organization in the United States. It is more than well aware that its actions against North Carolina do not directly punish the legislators that passed the law. In fact, it punishes citizens, workers, students and fans. The removal of championships and tournaments could potentially cost the state one-quarter of a billion dollars. That money will come out of the pockets of working class people, cities in dire need of revenue and local businesses.

The NCAA rationalized its actions by stating that it’s concerned about the fair and equal treatment of all of its athletes, specifically those in the LGBT community. This is a fair and reasonable concern, as all athletes deserve accommodating and safe environments.

Yet the NCAA’s Board of Governors, who made the decision to remove the events, curiously lacks a single representative from a university within North Carolina. In taking action to act in the interests of one particular group, the NCAA silenced another.

To say that the NCAA had no right to lash out against North Carolina is not to say the individuals it represents cannot do the same. Players, coaches, employees and administrators absolutely have the right to speak out on important issues.

In fact, I would argue they often have the duty as local leaders to act on what they believe in. The NCAA, however, as an institution that represents countless opinions, is not afforded these rights.

If the NCAA truly cared about the issues created by HB2 in North Carolina, it would have representatives in contact with the state government, and if compromises could not be made, would allow its member institutions to make a fair and democratic decision on what to do moving forward. Instead, the administrators of the association saw an opportunity to act out their own political will and made a decision that affected millions.

Much like the government of a nation, ideally the NCAA would not take a stance on any issues until considering the opinions of all of its constituents. If a government were to act solely on the will of its executives and overstep its bounds, negatively affecting millions, we would call it tyrannical.

The case of the NCAA is no different. The NCAA has just as much of a duty to maintain athlete safety as it does to remain impartial. The association’s actions must be curtailed, or any state, city, college or individual that dares to act outside of the will of its executives will be subject to its wrath.