The increasing tendency to place athletics over academics is distressing and evident on this campus. It may be true that scheduling athletic events during important academic times cannot always be avoided. But it is also true that when the University can avoid schedule conflicts, it doesn’t. This is why the University Senate “scolded” the Athletic Department for setting the Civil War football game during Dead Week.
Avoidable too was the recent decision to institute post-season Pacific-10 Conference basketball play. Our University voted for it even though it interferes with finals. These actions are motivated by the relentless quest for dollars in order to meet rapidly escalating costs in everything from coaches’ salaries to fielding 100-member football squads.
I was under the impression that the $2 million annual subsidy given to athletics was needed to keep Oregon in Division I, but I was recently informed that this is not the case. So why does athletics need this revenue after having signed generous TV contracts? According to the president, a competitive sports program is necessary in order to provide a “window” into the University, one that will draw students and donations to Oregon. This is a common administration refrain, but the amounts raised for academics since our last bowl game have yet to be announced.
It is evident that the Athletic Department can boast state-of-the-art facilities, but academics cannot make a similar claim. Disability access, space, staffing, etc., are ever in short supply, thus making it hard to be creative. University presidents must therefore summon courage and change strategies.
We should aim at making athletics unnecessary as a funding tool for higher education (if it is really that). This can be done if institutions cooperate to create a level playing field, one that allows each participant to focus on academics. The administration seems adept at finding ways to promote athletics, but the same entrepreneurial spirit does not spill into academics. The $2 million subsidy for athletics could be making the University academically competitive. Academic departments can make each dollar stretch into 10!
The football coach’s projected million-dollar salary, at my current pay, can fund 21.2 new professors. In my department we sorely need more faculty, as “performance indicators” comparing art history to the rest of the University demonstrate. For example, the average faculty-to-student ratio (in non-GTF-assisted courses) for the University is 19.3, but in our department it is 28.6.
In light of art history’s performance, it is discouraging when a football coach who makes more than 20 times my salary can also get a $98,000 bonus, twice my paycheck, for filling Autzen Stadium. I regularly fill the seats in my classroom, but don’t receive or expect a bonus. Coaches say they are educators, but where is their educational ethos? In academics, we also don’t get a $10,000 bonus for graduating our students, but the football coach does if his players finish school.
I thought that whatever side of the Millrace one happens to occupy, graduating students was part of everyone’s mission and therefore not subject to rewards beyond the satisfaction of knowing that we have met our responsibilities. Let us begin by narrowing the gaps between academics and athletics and aim for academic competitiveness.