Mark Makela/Reuters/File

Consumer spending has held steady in the United States, despite signs that a global recession may be on the horizon. A strong job market has bolstered the confidence of many consumers at places like this Prussia, Pennsylvania, shopping mall seen in December 2018.

Recession indicators are blinking worldwide, with financial markets rattled this week by bad news from all corners: Germany, China, Argentina, and even the United States, where bond interest rates “inverted” in what many see as a signal of economic trouble ahead.

But the worry runs deeper than that uncertainty. 

For decades, an inverted yield curve, when shorter-term bonds yield a higher interest rate than long-term ones, has been seen as a likely recession indicator. What’s different this time is that interest rates on all U.S. Treasury debts are so low that there’s little room for the Federal Reserve to deploy interest rate cuts to stave off a recession.

“Monetary policy I think is impotent” in the current environment, says Gary Shilling, who heads an economic forecasting firm in Springfield, New Jersey.

Ultra-low interest rates have become a feature of the world economy since the Great Recession. It’s a conundrum that few view as benign, and the coming year could test whether the global economy can weather hard times amid financial conditions for which there is little precedent.

In much of Europe, for example, interest rates on public debt have actually been negative for several years – forcing savers to pay a fee to lend (or store) their money. Recession or not, policymakers seem engaged in a kind of perpetual war to keep economic growth afloat.

“Some of the recession fears are a little bit overblown in my view, but that’s not to say that we’re complacent about the risks,” says Tim Quinlan, a senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Perhaps the overlooked risk – and nowhere is this more pronounced than in the United States – is that the ability of government to have a robust response either through fiscal spending or a central bank ... is limited.”

Susan Walsh/AP/File

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting on the sidelines of the June 2019 G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. China and the United States have been locked in a trade war that is battering exporters on either side of the Pacific and threatening to tip the global economy into recession.

And that challenge leads back to the conundrum: Why have interest rates become so unusually and persistently low in major economies worldwide, rain or shine? Economists aren’t sure, but some say restoring more normalcy in global finance may hinge on addressing deeper structural challenges, from high debt levels and imbalanced trade to wide inequality of incomes.

The hopeful view is that recession can be averted, or be mitigated where it crops up. Perhaps, in this era of ultra-low interest rates, the inverted yield curve isn’t quite the danger signal that it used to be, Mr. Quinlan and others suggest.

Red flag or “silly talk”?

Recessions often happen partly because central banks tighten monetary policy too much, boosting short-term interest rates. Meanwhile long-term rates decline as real-world investors see warning clouds and buy bonds. The result is an inversion of bond rates for a time, before central banks start slashing their short-term lending rates to offset a downturn.

On Wednesday, the U.S. bond market inverted with the 2-year Treasury note yielding more than the 10-year Treasury note. Economists are closely watching how long that situation will last. The past three times the bond market endured a sustained inversion, recession followed within about a year.

Yet global economic data lately haven’t been entirely bad, especially in the linchpin U.S. economy. And the Federal Reserve has recently reversed its monetary stance, cutting its short-term lending rate in July for the first time since the Great Recession. More rate cuts are expected to follow.

“The bond market is distorted by what’s happening outside of the U.S.,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at the insurance firm Allianz, said in a CNBC interview this week. He dismissed concerns about a U.S. recession as “silly talk.”

But it’s a fragile time at best. Nations worldwide are worried about the fallout from unresolved trade tensions between the U.S. and China. And a number of nations already appear to be possibly in a recession or near it. 

• In Europe, the export-oriented German economy shrank 0.1% in this year’s second quarter. Growth was almost nonexistent in debt-troubled Italy. Russia is tottering. And the British economy contracted by 0.2% amid worries about its looming breakup with the European Union.
• In Latin America, Mexico and Brazil are struggling. Argentina is in a full-scale crisis as a projected populist swing in coming elections raises the prospect of a default on debts.
• In Asia, China may turn to stimulus policies to sustain growth, although its economy isn’t yet near a formal recession. The economy of trade-reliant Singapore contracted in the second quarter. South Korea has cooled dramatically.

Can the slide be reversed?

One key to turning all this around, many say, is for the U.S. and China to find a positive resolution to their trade differences. President Donald Trump this week announced a postponement of a planned expansion of tariffs against Chinese imports, so that toys, clothing, and cellphones would remain unaffected through this holiday season. But the uncertainty remains whether the two sides will reset trade relations, or increasingly decouple. 

Ralph Orlowski/Reuters/File

Employees of German car manufacturer Porsche work on a Porsche 911 at the Porsche factory in Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen, Germany, Feb. 19, 2019. The export-oriented German economy shrank 0.1 percent in this year’s second quarter.

The other obvious steps would include central banks easing monetary conditions, or governments using fiscal policy, such as new spending or tax cuts to spur more consumer and business activity.

The bandwidth in many nations is limited. The U.S. has already enacted a big tax cut under President Trump, for example. But that doesn’t mean there’s no room to act. 

Mr. El-Erian and others say this moment – with low government borrowing costs and the economy needing a boost – could be a perfect time for infrastructure spending, which can help in both the short and long term.

That idea connects back to the larger conundrum. 

Ultimately, the lesson may be that getting out of the cycle of abnormally low or even negative interest rates is about more than just stimulus. It’s about how to create lasting healthy progress for the world economy rather than a bandages-and-duct-tape kind of growth.

“If the US borrows money to invest in infrastructure, education, etc., or to redistribute wealth in ways that increase economic efficiency, and if that causes the total value of goods and services to rise by that amount, then there is indeed no limit to the ability of the U.S. to borrow,” says economist Michael Pettis, a professor of finance at Peking University, in an email interview. 

But if a nation is perpetually adding to its debts without boosting its gross domestic product (its ability to finance those debts), then there are limits to borrowing, he argues. That’s the case even if the central bank is willing to keep printing money, since the value of that money will decline unless it’s backed by the nation’s real productive capacity.

A broader challenge

As Professor Pettis sees it, the world of low rates has been enabled by more than just rising public debts and unconventional central bank policies.

“I think there are huge distortions in the distribution of income that explain the low interest rates and weak [consumer] demand,” he says. “The first is high levels of income inequality in all the major economies. The second is what are effectively ‘mercantilist’ policies in ... countries like Germany, Japan, China, etc., in which hidden transfers from the household sectors [are subsidizing exports, and] leaving the household share of GDP relatively low.”

Inequality and trade imbalances have gained attention as global economic concerns in recent years. Professor Pettis thinks those two are linked in the way they’re affecting global economics. He argues the two distortions have a parallel effect: They both transfer income from ordinary households – people who spend most of their earnings – to lower-consuming sectors (the rich, businesses, or local governments).

Financially healthier households, by contrast, could actually fuel solid growth, as rising consumption gives the impetus and confidence for more investment by businesses. 

Some other analysts see similar concerns. 

“If you look around the world, we have basically the same structural problems. We’re extremely over indebted. The debt is delivering diminishing returns,” says Lacy Hunt, an economist at Hoisington Investment Management in Austin, Texas. “Manufacturing sectors around the world I think are already in recession.” 

No one is discussing how to reduce debt levels as a share of advanced economies, he adds. And with a negative interest rate, “the economy may respond transitorily,” but Mr. Hunt argues a decline in savings “quickly controls the situation” for the worse.

Mr. Shilling, in New Jersey, worries that a recession may already be underway even in the U.S., given the way official data can be shaky during turning points in the economy. While most economists disagree, forecasts for growth have been declining globally in recent months, and many forecasters see a strong likelihood of recession in either 2020 or 2021. 

Longer term, Mr. Shilling is hopeful that the low-rate, low-growth conundrum will end. Perhaps more people staying in the workforce past their traditional retirement age will help the economy grow.

“I’m not as convinced as many,” he says, “that we’re in a slow growth environment forever.”

Paul Sancya/AP

Rep. Rashida Tlaib speaks to constituents in Wixom, Michigan, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019.

To J. Thomas, soul food means eating what you want, when you want it. His restaurant in northwest Detroit, J’s Cafe Soul Food, specializes in soul food breakfast, which means catfish or pork chop entrees with eggs, grits, and toast. 

Mr. Thomas hasn’t changed his menu during the 36 years he’s been in business, which he sees as proof of his success. The same thing could be said for politics, adds Mr. Thomas: Politicians need to know their jobs and do them well.

“Why would I start trying to offer Chinese food?” says Mr. Thomas, throwing his hands up in the air with a laugh. “Stay in your lane.”

One local politician in particular should perhaps stay in her lane and focus on the basics, according to J’s Cafe diners. That’s Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who was elected in 2018 to represent a slice of greater Detroit, including the stretch of Grand River Avenue on which J’s sits.

Beginning with her inauguration night, Representative Tlaib has had far more national attention than is typical for a freshman member of Congress. Her membership in the self-named  “squad,” a group of four first-term, progressive, minority congresswomen, has made Ms. Tlaib a target of President Donald Trump and some of his supporters, and a beacon of hope for some of his opponents.

Her latest burst of widespread media coverage came on Thursday, when Israel, at President Trump’s urging, barred Ms. Tlaib and fellow squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota from visiting the country. Both women have been outspoken in support of the Palestinians and the boycott-Israel movement.

Ms. Tlaib later spurned an Israeli offer to allow her to visit her grandmother in the West Bank if she agreed in writing to not promote the Israeli boycott during her trip.

Her outspokenness has made her a hero in the pro-Palestinian movement. But at home in Detroit, almost halfway through the congresswoman’s first term, the response to Ms. Tlaib’s fame is more nuanced than the national reaction.

Many constituents are proud of the work she is doing in Washington. Others don’t know who Ms. Tlaib is. Some, including diners at J’s Cafe, think her priorities are off. They say Rep. Rashida Tlaib is trying to expand the menu without mastering the basics. She’s trying to cook kung pao chicken, say the men at J’s, but she doesn’t know how to cook grits. 

“I wish she was talking about the district she was elected to represent,” says Booker Fullilove, a retired police officer who comes to J’s every morning for an ice tea. “Poverty, crime, bringing money to Detroit: If you represent the 13th district, that’s what you should be thinking about.” 

Symbolism and service

As one of the first Muslim women to be elected to the U.S. Congress, Ms. Tlaib has been balancing between symbolism and service since before her general election, as the Monitor reported last November.

She has long been outspoken about her heritage (a grandmother lives in the West Bank) and political victory has not changed her. At her campaign events Arabic songs thump alongside hip-hop. She has a shirt that says “Unapologetically Muslim.”

Paul Sancya/AP

As a freshman congresswoman, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, shown here in Wixom, Michigan, on Aug. 15, 2019, is still learning to manage the dual pull of her duties in Washington and the needs of her constituents.

Her support of the boycott-Israel movement, designed to pressure Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, among other things, has infuriated the Israeli government and its U.S. supporters. On Thursday, after Israel blocked Ms. Tlaib from visiting, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman said in a statement that the boycott effort is “economic warfare” and Israel has “every right to protect its borders” against boycott proponents.

Yet during her short tenure in Congress, Ms. Tlaib has also introduced a bill that is the closest Congress has seen to a universal basic income. Earlier this week she penned an Op-Ed on how to reverse declining black homeownership. 

“She does a lot. She’s helping the homeless, the parks,” says Eric Crump, an aide at Detroit’s Western International High School, as he waits to get his hair cut at Kut-Em Up Hair and Nails Salon on Detroit’s Greenfield Road.

If Ms. Tlaib is visible at the national level that is both good and inevitable, Mr. Crump says.

“Right now everyone is talking about national stuff and Trump, so she doesn’t have a choice,” says Mr. Crump. “She’s a nice lady. She’s for the people.” 

Comparatively vulnerable

Ms. Tlaib’s initial 2018 electoral victory in Michigan’s 13^th Congressional District was not exactly a resounding win.

The seat is reliably Democratic, meaning the Democratic primary is usually far more competitive than the general election. On August 7, 2018, then-candidate Ms. Tlaib won the primary with only 31% of the vote. 

Some pundits partially attribute Ms. Tlaib’s narrow win to the crowded race: There were five other candidates, four of them black. And in a district that is more than 53 percent black, the large field of black candidates likely split a block of African American voters. Brenda Jones, City Council president for Detroit, came in second, losing to Ms. Tlaib by only 900 votes.

Comparatively, the other squad members, Rep. Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, and Rep. Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, won their Democratic primaries by larger margins.

And while all four members of the squad are unpopular nationally, most of them, particularly Representative Ocasio-Cortez, are incredibly popular in their districts.

Of the four, Ms. Tlaib is considered the most vulnerable. Political rumors are swirling that Ms. Jones will challenge Representative Tlaib for the seat again next year.

There are reasons to believe such a race could be competitive. In a separate special election to fill the remaining six weeks of former Rep. John Conyers term following his 2017 resignation from the 13^th District seat, held concurrently with the multicandidate Democratic primary, Ms. Jones and Ms. Tlaib faced off in a direct one-on-one match-up. Ms. Jones won that contest by some 1,650 votes.

Solidifying her position?

But there are also indications Ms. Tlaib is solidifying her local position. A Targyt Insight/MIRS News poll in late July put her favorability rating with 13^th District Democrats at almost 70%. In a theoretical match-up between Ms. Jones and Ms. Tlaib, the poll had the congresswoman ahead by more than 35 percentage points. 

Keith Williams, chair of the Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus, says that Ms. Tlaib has done a good job of showing up in the district.

Her term was a little “rocky and chaotic,” in the beginning, says Mr. Williams, and she said some things she shouldn’t have said. But he believes she’s starting to find her political legs. 

“I think she cares about the district,” says Mr. Williams. “But once this stuff with Trump passes, I want her to focus more on small African American businesses, healthcare, education. The things that people in her district need.” 

Leaving J’s Cafe on his way to work, Kevin Quinn, a diesel mechanic, overhears Mr. Thomas and Mr. Fullilove and chimes in. He says he has questions for Ms. Tlaib, and problems that need to be fixed. He sees a lot of families foreclosing on their homes and getting kicked out, only for the houses to be occupied by squatters and then demolished. If Ms. Tlaib came to J’s Cafe, or anywhere nearby, he’d talk to her about that.

“I like how Trump doesn’t like her, but she doesn’t have any town hall meetings or anything,” says Mr. Quinn. “Even the governor does that.” 

But, he adds, it’s not too late for Ms. Tlaib to win his vote in 2020.

“She can turn it around,” says Mr. Quinn. “Being against Trump, she’s got a chance. But she’s really got to get out here and sell herself and meet the people. She’s got to do both.” 

From President Donald Trump to presidential candidates, the air is thick with policy proposals to prevent the next mass shooting. Senate leaders promise to take up gun legislation when the Senate reconvenes in September. The House has already passed a universal background check bill that closes the “gun-show loophole.”

But there is a “shocking absence” of evidence to inform gun policy in the United States, and no conclusive evidence on what policies might effectively stop mass public shootings like those in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, according to Rosanna Smart, an economist with the Rand Corp. 

Last year, Rand published “The Science of Gun Policy,” a distillation of research on the effects of gun policies. The Monitor recently spoke with Dr. Smart, who is updating the report, to find out what is known about the effect of policies like “red flag” laws and what society might gain from more reliable data. The following is based on that conversation.

What is known about how to stop mass shootings?

All the evidence about gun policy and mass shootings is “inconclusive.” One reason is that the relative rarity of these instances makes them hard to study in a scientifically meaningful way. 

Also, researchers don’t have a common definition of a mass shooting, which makes it difficult to determine what would stop them. Not even the U.S. government defines the term, though the FBI says a “mass murderer” is someone who kills at least four people, not including himself or herself. [Editor’s note: The Monitor uses that definition.]

Depending on the various definitions, there were either seven, 65, 332, or 371 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, according to the Rand study.

Well, then, what is known about effective gun policies?

Of the many thousands of studies that Rand looked at, only 63 met its rigorous research criteria. Of those, it can be concluded that “safe storage” laws actually do reduce fatal firearm injuries to children and youths.

When it comes to background checks, “moderate” evidence suggests they reduce firearm suicides and firearm homicides, and “limited” evidence that they can lower overall suicide and violent crime rates, according to the Rand report. “Moderate” evidence also shows that laws banning guns from individuals with a history of involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility do reduce violent crime. “Limited” evidence, meanwhile, points to reduced firearm suicides among youth when the minimum age for purchasing firearms is raised to 21.

Versions of all three of these policies are being talked about in the context of mass shootings, including “red flag” laws that allow the removal of weapons from people who may present a harm to themselves or others. But there is no conclusive evidence that these policy offshoots would be effective in stopping mass shootings.

On the side of gun advocates, “stand your ground” laws of self-defense may increase homicide rates, according to “moderate” evidence that Rand found. Quite a bit of research has been done on concealed carry laws, but it’s contradictory, says Dr. Smart. More research needs to be done on the effects of policies on the gun industry, hunting and sporting use of guns, and defensive use of firearms, the Rand report recommends.

What’s at stake for society given weak data on gun policy?

“I think we lose the ability to have conversations around gun policy that are grounded in science and that are grounded in fact,” says Dr. Smart. Lack of data makes it easier – or almost a necessity – to make claims about policy with no evidence to back them up. “It’s based largely on opinions or emotions.”

Conversely, sound data holds the promise of finding common ground in the divisive gun debate – though climate science denial shows how difficult that could be. Yet Dr. Smart is hopeful. In a survey of experts on both sides of the gun issue, Rand found general agreement that the primary objective of gun policy should be reducing homicides, suicides, and mass shootings. The two sides shared the same goal, even if they disagreed on how to get there.

“Providing evidence could potentially change minds,” says Dr. Smart. 

What are common misperceptions about mass shootings?

It comes back to the definition. Most people, when they hear of a mass shooting, probably think of public incidents in which people are shot at indiscriminately. But applying the commonly used definition of four fatalities casts a much wider net – including criminal activity, such as gang and robbery violence. 

“It’s easy to get kind of sucked into fear” about mass shootings, says Dr. Smart, but public shootings are “a small share of mass shootings, and a much smaller share of overall gun violence.”

The economist points to another misperception: the relationship between mental illness and mass shootings. “It gets brought up quite a bit and I don’t think the evidence is there to back it up.” Arguably, it could be said that a mass shooter is undergoing duress or has a behavioral problem, she says. But in terms of diagnosable mental illness, “that’s not from evidence.” 

How can gun policy research be strengthened?

One of the most effective ways would be for Congress to lift restrictions that limit federal research funding and access to data. In 1996, the National Rifle Association convinced Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Before that, the CDC conducted millions of dollars in research on firearm violence. But when the federal agency found that having a gun at home increased the risk of homicide among household members, the CDC was seen as putting its thumb on the scale of gun control.

The ensuing budget cuts and conditions put a “chilling effect” on CDC firearms research, says Dr. Smart – and on the science of gun policy. “It seems kind of crazy that we don’t even know how many guns there are in America,” because the CDC no longer asks that question.

Universities and foundations have tried to take up the slack in funding and research at the CDC and other national entities, “but in terms of large-scale data collection, that’s something you need a lot of weight behind.”

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/File

Researchers catch, tag, and release crabs back into the Nanticoke River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, near Tyaskin, Maryland, in 2015. An estimated 600 million blue crabs live in the bay, nearly double the number that lived there last year.

It’s a warm summer day by the waterfront in Annapolis, and it couldn’t be busier on the Chesapeake Bay. Countless boats dot the horizon of the 200-mile-long estuary, which spans six states. 

But the bright scene conceals a difficult history. Since the 1970s, waste runoff and pollution have contaminated the water, threatening ecosystems and economies. 

“The bay is home to 18 million people; it’s an economic powerhouse,” says Rachel Felver, a communications director for the Chesapeake Bay Program. Fishing, tourism, and agriculture are among the bay’s key industries, all of which rely on clean water. The commercial seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia alone brings $3.4 billion in sales each year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

And the bay is a summer destination for thousands of families. “This is where they have come for years,” Ms. Felver says.

This year, thanks to decades of ongoing cleanup efforts, there is good news for those who depend upon the bay for work or pleasure. The Chesapeake Bay Program – which helps organize a regional partnership among government bodies, nonprofits, and academic institutions working to protect and restore the bay’s watershed – recently released a report indicating improvements in water quality in the 64,000-square-mile system. 

“Last year’s data for our water quality standards was the highest that we have ever seen since monitoring started over 30 years ago,” says Ms. Felver. “An estimated 42% of the whole bay has met its water quality standards.” 

That 42% milestone is a 2 percentage point increase over the previous year’s report. The gains are key to supporting healthy aquatic habitats, says Ms. Felver, and one outcome has been an increase in underwater grasses to more than 100,000 acres for the first time in monitoring history.

“Bay grasses are very easily impacted by the weather and by pollution, [and] they are a really good indicator of bay health,” she says. 

Additionally, populations of the bay’s famed blue crab have doubled over the past year, to 600 million animals. That’s the highest count in seven years.

William Ball, director of the Chesapeake Research Consortium, sees reason for hope. 

“It is amazing that it is doing as well as it is,” says Dr. Ball. “It’s a testament to how well the restoration process is going.” 

Both Dr. Ball and Ms. Felver attribute much of the progress to the establishment in 2010 of a total maximum daily load pollution limit by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The TMDL identifies how much nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment pollution the bay can handle and still support aquatic life, and requires the states in the watershed, as well as the District of Columbia, to take action to reduce levels below that maximum load. “That was a big factor in contributing to the overall health of the bay,” says Ms. Felver. 

An emerging challenge for restoration efforts is climate change, particularly with increased rainfall totals and severe storm systems. A State of the Bay report from the nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation found that heavy storms flushed unusually high amounts of pollutants into the estuary in 2018, undoing some progress.

“The weather just makes such a huge difference,” says Dr. Ball. “It is going to be a little bit harder to get the job done.” 

Still, he believes that the findings in the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Barometer report indicate an overall trend of improvement. “It speaks to the fact that the bay is becoming more resilient,” he says. “[That’s] a very important thing to build up.” 

There is still much work to be done. Ms. Felver notes that the sheer size of the watershed and the number of governments, businesses, and landowners in the system will make progress slow to realize.

There will be a continued focus on tackling agricultural runoff, addressing toxic contaminants, and promoting best management practices for the bay – many of which are part of a plan that will culminate in 2025.

Ms. Felver emphasizes the shared goal of preserving the bay for generations to come. 

“It’s a commitment we all have,” says Ms. Felver. “We want clean water. We want to know that we can still pull crabs out of the water and eat them.”

AP

NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis.

That tiny hyphen that holds the label “student-athlete” together seems in danger of losing its original purpose. Coined in the 1950s, the term was meant to encapsulate the dual identities of students who play on college-sponsored athletic teams while also carrying a full academic load. In the decades since, college sports, especially football and basketball, have become multibillion-dollar businesses that also help brand a school. On many campuses the label has become little more than a charade for what is essentially an athlete.

The “gross commercial climate” of intercollegiate athletics has radically changed college sports, observed Walter Byers, who came up with the term student-athlete while serving as the NCAA’s executive director from 1951-1988. Today’s campuses have a “neo-plantation mentality” in which the “rewards belong to the overseers and the supervisors.”

Together the top 25 college teams generate $2.5 billion in revenue each year, with $1.4 billion in pure profit, says Nathan Kalman-Lamb, author of “Game Misconduct: Injury, Fandom, and the Business of Sport.”

But while top college coaches make millions of dollars in salaries, for example, athletes at best have a scholarship and ultimately a degree to show for their efforts. At the Power Five schools, the conferences with the top sports programs, the 4,400 coaches are paid more, in total, than the value of the scholarships given to their 45,000 athletes, says Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut who has been studying the finances of college athletics. In addition, companies from shoemakers to online gambling sites benefit from sports played by unpaid athletes.

Scholarships can be seen as a form of payment, of course. But they can be a sham: Many players fail to earn degrees, in part because their days may be filled with athletic training and practice, leaving little time for academics.

Minority athletes have suffered the most. Black male athletes at the 65 colleges that make up the Power Five have a graduation rate 5% below other black male undergraduates and 21% below other students in general, reports the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center.

Jay M. Smith, a history professor at the University of North Carolina and co-author of “Cheated: The UNC Scandal, the Education of Athletes, and the Future of Big-Time College Sports,” calls collegiate athletics today a “fraud” and “shameful.” He proposes that it be “disassembled and rebuilt from scratch.”

Senator Murphy holds out hope that the voices of such critics will influence the NCAA to clean up its own house. The courts also could step in and determine that the NCAA is a monopoly in need of regulation. That might open the way for Congress to act – a last resort.

Other proposals try to avoid an unvarnished pay-for-play system that would remove any vestiges of amateurism. University of Connecticut football coach Randy Edsall argues that money could be put in a trust fund for players that they could receive only after graduation. He and others support the idea that players should be able to profit from personal endorsements, the value of their names and likenesses.

Among Senator Murphy’s other ideas: Insist colleges restore a real balance between the time athletes spend on sports and academics. Track more honestly and openly athletes’ academic progress toward degrees and study what happens to them after they leave.

College sports entertain millions of Americans. But that shouldn’t be at the cost of proper treatment of the athletes putting on the show.