Donations to the University’s athletic department in the form of outright gifts has increased by more than 200 percent in the last 10 years, while outright gifts to academics have remained stagnant, according to a recent Emerald article (“Athletic hype draws alumni dollars,” ODE, Feb. 14). Outright gifts are those given directly to the University and not overseen by the UO Foundation.
This is represented by such buildings as the $41.7 million John E. Jaqua Academic Center for Student Athletes, the $227 million Matthew Knight Arena and the expansion to the Casanova Center, the cost of which will not be announced until after the renovation is complete and the building is donated back to the school.
Nike founder Phil Knight, the primary donor, used the same method for both the Jaqua and the Casanova.
As much as the brand and profile of Oregon are enhanced with the increasing amount of money being put into athletics, it seems that the “University of” that proceeds it has been neglected.
Although the outright gifts have been much higher for the athletic department, quality donations have been made to academic departments, as well. Recent academic investments include the Lewis Integrative Science Building (under construction), Allen Hall (set for a renovation beginning June 15), and the renovation of Anstett Hall, the last part of the Lillis Business Complex.
A major issue with the University’s funding model is the lack of transparency for donors. The University fields its donations through the UO Foundation, a private nonprofit that allows people to donate to the school anonymously. This is why only outright donations were mentioned in the aforementioned report; those donations are estimated to be no greater than 50 percent of total donations to the University.
This lack of transparency makes it impossible to determine where the donations are coming from and where they go. Knowing the full story would make it possible to determine whether the disparity in donations is as big as the available data shows.
Transparency of donations should be a higher priority for the University. What do the donors have to lose by their donations becoming public? The current ambiguity is just as damning as assuming that all the University’s donations go toward athletics because that is the current perception.
Instead, the UO Foundation hides its sources of income as best as it can. It even hired a lawyer last year to get itself an exemption to Oregon Public Records Law.
The data we have shows the school trading its academic prestige for athletic prestige, a troubling trend for a member of the Association of American Universities. Incidentally, the University pays the lowest average salary for professors of any member school in the AAU. The average $73,300 salary offered to University professors in 2009 was approximately $8,000 less than any other AAU school.
The University should do a better job of getting donations for academic programs. Obviously, certain donors choose specific programs to support for their own interests, but there shouldn’t be such a vast disparity between academic donations and athletic donations. After all, the University’s purpose is to educate students, not win football games.
Don’t get us wrong: We love our Ducks, but we also love our educations.
[email protected]