While University staff and students express a mix of support and criticism of the University after Nike CEO Phil Knight’s decision to curtail future philanthropic contributions to the campus, comments from alumni have been much more uniform.
The majority of letters to the editor written by University alumni and published in the Oregon Daily Emerald, The Register-Guard and The Oregonian criticize the University for not contacting Knight — a 1959 graduate and the University’s biggest donor in recent years — before signing on to the Worker Rights Consortium April 12.
“I think Knight deserved at least a phone call. It’s just sound business practice,” Paul Morgan, a 1993 graduate who wrote a letter to the Emerald April 25, said during a telephone interview. “He’s given $50 million, and that’s an awful lot of an investment in the University.”
Duncan McDonald, University vice president for public affairs and development, said he regrets not contacting Knight immediately after the final decision to ease tension between the Nike CEO and the University.
“I very much wish I could have gotten Mr. Knight and [University President Dave Frohnmayer] together after the decision was made,” McDonald said. “I consider this a great error on my part.”
Alumni also allege the University didn’t include its graduates in the decision-making process but instead allowed a minority of outspoken students to make a decision that affected the entire institution.
Some graduates have written that many alumni, in addition to Knight, will second-guess making monetary donations to the University as a result of this month’s events.
“Despite what many students apparently think, alumni are not outsiders. We are stakeholders in the further well-being of the University and full members of the community,” 1999 graduate Eric D. Jensen wrote in his letter published in the Emerald on April 27. “Our opinions and concerns in the direction of the University should be sought out with at least as much vigor as our fiscal contributions are.”
Supporters of the University’s signing on to the WRC counter that the decision was the result of a year-long process that included an advisory board, on which the president of the alumni association served, a vote by the University Senate and Frohnmayer’s final signature.
Nonetheless, many alumni feel Knight’s alienation from the University could have been prevented if more alumni were included in the process.
“The overall feeling is that we should have thought this through better,” Morgan said. “A little more long-term thinking would have helped, and that’s what you get from people in the business community.”
However, not all published alumni responses have been critical of the University.
Elizabeth Joy Howard, a 1999 graduate, praised the University’s decision and wrote, “Why should the University have to inform Knight of the school’s involvement in the Worker Rights Consortium?”
Though many comments have been passionate, McDonald said all responses have been “family-like” and refrained from personally criticizing Frohnmayer.
“I believe we can continue to work this out as a family,” McDonald said.