Athletic competition requires a winner and a loser; with winning the ultimate goal. Lower level moral reasoning has been reported to occur in athletes beginning in elementary grades. This trend toward lower moral reasoning for higher contact sports continues into adulthood (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986; Stoll, Beller, Cole & Burwell, 1995). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in moral judgment between athletes and non-athletes from three universities. Rest’s Defining Issues Test (DIT) was utilized to examine moral judgment differences between university athletes and non-athletes. The universities were all public institutions: one from the Midwest, two from the Southwest. The study was cleared by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at each university prior to data collection. The DIT is based on Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning. Subjects read several dilemmas, then evaluate twelve statements, rating the importance of each when deciding on the appropriate action. Based on the rate and rank responses to those statements, a Principled (“P”) Score is determined. The P Score ranges from 0 to 95, with the higher score reflecting a higher level of principled moral reasoning (Rest, 1979). There were 344 participants and 12 surveys were deleted due to incomplete data, leaving 332 analyzable surveys. A 2x2 (Gender x Athletic status) factorial ANOVA was performed. Based upon the DIT, a “P” score for post conventional moral thinking was determined for each participant. Results of the ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between athletes and non-athletes for the DIT (p = .0004). The DIT scores (means+sd) were 25.0+15.5 for the athletes and 32.1+15.6 for the non-athletes. The DIT scores (means+sd) were 30.1+17.9 for the males and for females 31.6+14.6. Results of this study revealed no significant gender difference (p =.9594) and the gender by athletic status interaction was not statistically significant (p=.3053). The results from this study support previous research that college athletes have a different perspective of moral reasoning and ethical behavior than do college non-athletes. While this study related to social issues, previous researchers also reported lower moral reasoning scores for athletes on sport specific instruments (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986; Stoll et al., 1995). Moral reasoning is reported to be positively influenced by a variety of interventions (Burwell, Butman & Van Wicklin, 1992; Smith & Bunting, 1999); therefore, it may be prudent for college athletic programs to provide some form of ethical education to their student-athletes. Keyword(s): standards and ethics