Each morning on my way to class from the bus, I pass the towering steel skeleton of a new athletic building, with a mechanical symphony of construction equipment hammering away. To some undergraduates, it’s background noise. But to students who saw departmental funding or entire faculty positions cut, it’s getting harder not to notice what comes up and what goes down.

Construction is well underway for the Hatfield-Dowlin Complex Practice Field Expansion, an indoor athletics training facility slated to open next year. The plan for the building is formidable, including a meeting space, indoor field, nutrition and recovery areas, expanded weight rooms and players’ lounge. Standing at nearly 100 feet and spanning 170,000 square feet, the facility is also entirely funded through private philanthropy.

The expansion marks a new addition to the athletics program’s increasing collection of buildings filled with state-of-the-art technology, with the number and size of the facilities resembling a small college of its own. Dan Lanning himself noted the change, saying that in a “healthy university, you’re going to see some buildings going up.” That confidence is harder to share when the sheer scale of construction stands in stark contrast to the slow attrition of staff members and academic departments happening at the same time.

It’s hard for an undergraduate without a connection to athletics to ignore a continuous pattern of donors funding athletic programs, used by only a small portion of students, over academics. The tension created by the funding imbalance has only worsened as time goes on, especially as recent, sudden budget cuts remain controversial for many students, faculty and staff members.

Blaise Malczewski, director of organizing for ASUO, expressed that the administration and the Board of Trustees are “prioritizing private funding for athletics in the same year that they made large-scale cuts to academic programs and fired student workers and non-student staff that make the university function.”

When I contacted UO Giving for a statement about whether comparable donor funding goals exist for non-athletic student services and whether these donations displace philanthropic capacity that might otherwise go to academics, they said that “many donors support both athletic and academic programs,” and “give to the programs they care about.” I was also directed to the Oregon150 initiative, which aims — and will likely achieve — its goal to raise $500 million for student success and capital priorities.

But when asked directly what percentage of athletic giving is concerning for students, the response offered raw giving totals from five years ago without engaging the question. The numbers were certainly there. The answer wasn’t.

This is not intended as an indictment, but rather an inquiry into why our culture prioritizes certain institutions over others and what it means to ‘grow’ as a university. When buildings go up, the support for the average student — whether through scholarships or the staff who make UO function — should rise with them.

In a year or so, the cranes will eventually come down, and the construction equipment will disappear. I’d like to think that by that time, something else will rise with it. Maybe a department restored, a staff position refiled or an answer from someone in charge. Until then, I’m still waiting.