The Athletics Department and the rest of the University will be enhancing the way they communicate with one another in response to two motions passed by the University Senate last month.
The motions include directives requiring the athletic director to give an annual “state of the athletic department” speech and requiring the Athletics Department to consult the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, a group composed of faculty members and students, in several of its decision-making processes.
In addition, the chair of the IAC and the faculty athletics representative will present annual reports to the University Senate. A faculty member from the IAC will be included on the search committee when open searches for new head coaches are conducted.
The Senate based its resolutions on the findings of the President’s Task Force on Athletics, which studied the relationships between academics and athletics from 2001 to 2004. The task force was created to address mounting local and national pressure for reform of collegiate athletics at big-sports universities.
The findings of the task force, which was headed by English professor Suzanne Clark and law associate professor Margaret Paris and included Athletic Director Bill Moos, were generally positive, Clark said.
“(Our final report) shows that
the U of O differs from other
institutions,” Clark said. “We
were surprised.”
According to the report, the Athletics Department has succeeded in providing academic success for
athletes, and the fact that it is financially self-supporting is “reason
for pride.”
“Our athletic programs do a remarkably good job of representing the academic integrity of the University,” University Senate President and geography professor W. Andrew Marcus said.
The task force included representatives from the Athletics Department, and the panel’s decisions were made by consensus.
“It was a remarkable agreement,” Clark said.
The Athletics Department was unable to comment prior to the Emerald’s deadline on Tuesday.
The bulk of the task force’s recommendations for improvement came in the examination of the communication and governance structure between the two areas of the University.
“Although the governance structure regarding athletics is not badly compromised,” the report reads, “it can be improved.”
Low levels of communication can allow myths and rumors about athletic programs to circulate within the University community. Myths are part of the reason the task force put an emphasis on the community, Clark said.
“It’s important to keep the working relationship between the faculty and athletic department alive and current,” she said. “We were dealing with myths rather than dealing with reality, and we need to deal with reality.”
Clark said there is “surely” animosity between the University’s academic and athletic cultures.
“Some if it is because of real differences,” she said. The values, style and approach of the two are occasionally points of contrast.
“We want to reduce the level of animosity,” Clark said. “The big improvement in the athletics program has made everyone worry that we were going to be a sports school only.”
Although the fact that the Athletics Department is financially self-supporting is a benefit, it has had the effect of hiding the supportive exchanges between the whole University and its Athletics Department, according to the report.
To increase the financial ties between academics and athletics, the task force suggested a voluntary financial contribution from the Athletics Department to academic programs.
Many NCAA Division I colleges are locked into an “arms race” for superior sports facilities and programs. Anxiety over the race from the academic community has raised concerns about commercialization in collegiate sports.
According to the report, the unilateral withdrawal from the race for superiority would damage the Athletics Department’s ability to compete with other collegiate institutions and compromise the current mission of both the department and the University.
The task force didn’t believe that the improved facilities and programs had caused athletic programs to become overly commercialized.
“The Athletic Department draws its fundamental nature from being part of the college rather than professional sports and from the fact that the athletes are students rather than professionals,” the report reads. “The Athletic Department benefits from its association with a great research facility in multiple, intangible ways.”
The report did, however, caution that the pressures and conditions present in intercollegiate athletics will continue to require vigilance from administration, faculty and staff alike.

[email protected]