… at the University of Oregon, comments on the new, astoundingly expensive student athlete center there:
… The Jaqua Center, dubbed the “jock box” by critics, has spurred controversy because of its opulence and exclusivity. Although it sits at a prominent entrance to campus, most of the building is off limits to non-athletes.
“Forty million dollars buys a lot of new faculty, reduced class sizes, better facilities for the rest of campus,” UO senate president Nathan Tublitz said. “It is a travesty to spend so much money for the benefit of such a small subset of students who already receive enormous perks.”…
The university didn’t spend the money; Phil Knight of Nike did. Implicit in Nathan’s comment, though, is the point that this does not matter. Choices were made about how to spend immense sums of money on an important public university suffering from serious budget cutbacks.
A university spokesman says what they always say under circumstances like these: Universities have no sway over donors. If they want to donate only for athletics, what can we do?
Nonsense. Universities can turn down gifts. They can attempt to alter, expand, and differentiate, gifts… Where, after all, is UO’s president in stories like this? Did he attempt convey to Knight the symbolic significance of a serious university spending this sort of money on athletes, many of whom will not graduate?
August 8th, 2010 at 9:05AM
Just apply an “overhead” percentage to all specifically-directed contributions, as is done with research grants…”Phil, thank you very much for your willingness to consider this big contribution…of course, 50% is allocated to the university general fund, just as I’m sure your product line managers at Nike have to help pay for the company headquarters and headquarters staff rather than retaining all their margin for their own businesses…”
August 8th, 2010 at 9:22AM
And the U of M wants to spend big bucks for a new practice facility for the (men’s) basketball team…
Of course the claim is that the funding will be private. But someone from the U development is out raising the money as is often the case. This happens a lot. And not just in athletics.
Something that the admin knows will be perceived as a boondoggle by the legislature is not even brought up, not even with the academic community. But then, voila, the decision is a fait accompli, usually with an unspoken commitment from general funds and sometimes even with an appeal to the lege with the plea, but we have already raised x$.
Examples, past and ongoing: football stadium, Northrop auditorium rehab (a mega project in drag, with long term financial implications), the biomedical discovery district, MoreU Park, etc. etc.
And so it goes.
As UD puts it: “Nonsense, they can turn down gifts.”
To which I add: Stop soliciting gifts for the wrong things…
August 8th, 2010 at 9:39PM
UD, do you know why Nike thinks this is a good investment for them? And do you know if Nike is paying anything for the maintenance of the building? That could start running into serious money after a few years.
Bill, Which “U of M?” Massachusetts? Mississippi? Maryland? Montana? Missouri? Michigan?
August 8th, 2010 at 10:17PM
AYY: I’ll forward your questions to Nathan and see what he says. Here are my guesses:
1. I don’t think Nike thinks of any of its large contributions to sports at Oregon as an investment. My sense is that this is a grateful, sports-mad, insanely rich alum simply doing his thing, loving his school, enjoying the ego-thrill of having his name on lots of buildings and of being a power in UO sports. Knight has a great deal of influence in the running of athletics at the university, I believe.
2. I assume maintenance of the building is also taken care of by the donor.
Bill’s U of M would be Minnesota.
August 9th, 2010 at 9:05AM
Usually maintenance of the building is NOT taken care of by the donor. Yale made waves some years back by instituting a rule that they would not accept gifts for new buildings unless they came with a maintenance endowment.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:07AM
Crystal: I’m going to email Nathan Tublitz and ask him about this. UD
August 9th, 2010 at 4:04PM
Crystal, AYY: Here’s Nathan:
“It is my understanding that the University will pay for maintenance. I don’t have the numbers handy but it is an ultra high tech facility that will likely cost a bundle to run.”
So, Crystal, it looks as though you were right.
As to Nike’s motives, Nathan says he hasn’t a clue…