Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley revealed grim budget prospects for the coming year at Wednesday’s University Senate meeting, and he emphasized the importance of Measure 30, the state’s looming income-tax surcharge.
If Measure 30 fails, Moseley said, the University will see a $2.5 million budget shortfall, which would result in tuition increases, program cuts or some combination of both.
There was some good news, however.
“We’re not talking about a tuition increase for this academic year,” University President Dave Frohnmayer said.
There is also a fair amount of uncertainty regarding the potential budget shortfalls. Moseley said Gov. Ted Kulongoski told faculty that, because of other legislation, the shortfall may be closer to $1.7 million rather than the originally slated $2.5 million.
In a panel discussion that followed the Senate meeting, titled “Intercollegiate Athletics and Higher Education,” numerous members of the audience challenged the relationship between the Athletics Department and the University. The discussion was sponsored by the University Senate and the University of Oregon Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.
Some members of the audience expressed concern that the Athletics Mission Statement conflicted with the University Mission Statement. ASUO Senate President Ben Strawn, a panelist in the discussion, countered that argument and said, “I don’t think you can separate physical pursuits from intellectual pursuits when (examining the mission statement).”
Brad Shelton, chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Commission, added, “I would be horrified if there was anything in the Athletics Mission Statement that didn’t jive with the University Mission Statement.”
The discussion then shifted to the athletics arms race, a movement of big spending by athletic programs that aim to keep up with and outdo one another. Many are concerned that Division I athletics programs are being pushed to outspend each other to attract the best athletes.
Moreover, panelist and Interinstitutional Faculty Senator Jim Earl said the University faces an unfortunate predicament.
“You cannot pull back unilaterally in an arms race,” he said.
Audience members also worried that the massive athletics budget would be a draw on the University’s budget, thus taking away from academics. Director of Athletics and panelist Bill Moos noted, however, that the Athletics Department is financially self-sufficient.
Moos said that while the athletic budget may seem high compared to the rest of the University’s budget, it ranks fifth among schools in the Pacific-10 Conference and is “right in the middle of the bunch” among the rest of Division I schools. But faculty remained concerned about what sort of message is sent.
“Are we five out of 10 on library spending?” asked Spanish Professor Gina Herrmann.
Still, others worried about added problems that athletics self-sufficiency brings.
“I think we ought to be deeply concerned with commercialization,” said Suzanne Clark, panelist and chair of the President’s Task Force on Athletics.
But Strawn said commercialization has undeniable benefits; for example, athletics serves as an original draw for many out-of-state students, who then investigate further and find that the University also has strong academics.
“I wouldn’t be at the University of Oregon if it weren’t for commercialization,” Strawn said.