Jay, here.
Yesterday, I posted “What If…? Wrestling Reinstated At The University Of Oregon”, regarding the elimination of wrestling at the University of Oregon. Basically, I posed a simple question: if wrestling was reinstated, how would wrestling supporters reconcile their differences with the University of Oregon?
Since then, I’ve had every Ricky and Bobby in the states of Oregon and Iowa coming at me like a spider monkey! And it’s made for a pretty good thread of discussion.
But this response deserved its own post. Earlier today, I emailed Michael Copperman, the writer of the essay I used as a jumping point for my entry, to see if he was interested in posting a response. And he was.
In addition to being a Eugene resident, former Stanford wrestler, and instructor at the University of Oregon, MIke is also a very good writer. You can see for yourself.
However, as good as a writer as Mike is, there are a few things I’d like to clear up before his response. Nothing big. Just a little bit of clarification.
- I intentionally framed the debate on this website to examine the communication coming from wrestling supporters. The best device I could think of was a version of an old debating parlor trick: “Let’s assume that this is true, then…”
- I was not a college athlete. College debater, yes. But not an athlete. Six knee operations had something to do with that. Oh, and maybe a lack of athletic ability. I had some, but not enough. Although, I don’t think that fact should disqualify my opinion on the discussion surrounding the elimination of wrestling. I don’t have a problem with wrestling as a sport. This isn’t even about wrestling as an event. This is all about an examination of the discourse between wrestling supporters and detractors. That’s what interests me. And that is something I am qualified to scrutinize.
- I characterized those assertions in my post as “facts” because I believe most proponents of wrestlings believe them to be facts (even though I know they are opinions).
- On some things Mike has written, I don’t disagree with him at all. And there are some things here I strongly disagree with him on. So, Duck fans, please don’t view the publication of his response as a condonation of his opinion. Because there are some things here that I have no basis to comment on. But just as this entire thing started, I’m going to take him at his word.
Mike, thanks for taking the time to write this.
Here’s Michael Copperman…
Strange that I didn’t know this issue was being discussed here until just now. And it’s interesting, to be put in a position where you have to defend love of school, and your personal merit or lack thereof. In reading comments on this forum, I see a lot of people who never were college athletes weighing in about what atheletics is about. It’s different when you’re one who’s offering up your body and your effort. There’s a difference between spectacle and competition. Bleacher jockeys and blowhards bellow the loudest, but they don’t know much about what it takes to get out there on the field and offer your best, and quite honestly, I can’t take their criticism to mean much.
Yet I feel the need to respond all the same, because I’ve never backed down from a fight, and because I’m a better writer than I ever was a wrestler. With these words, I can say anything– and what I choose to say, I mean.
In the last four years I’ve spent teaching at the UO and living in Eugene I’ve been disappointed in what I saw. On the one hand, there’s been a movement toward valuing only what’s flashy and popular and will bring the university publicity, both within the athletic department and in the University as a whole. That has occurred in large part because of the situation that the University is in– we don’t make higher education a priority in the nation and the state. As an educator, I find that problematic. As a kid who grew up an Oregon fan, and as a former Pac-10 wrestler, I also found the situation troubling even before the decision to cut wrestling. Something about that billboard with the volume bar, about the Autzen with that huge O like two linked swooshes is distasteful, and gets away from what I loved about Oregon football growing up, back in the Rich Brooks era. None of it seems to be about competition, not competition first, not what I called in my article the ‘unequivocal striving for excellence’. My questions about what sport at the UO has become were reinforced over time, especially as I interacted with athletes, who tended to look to me as one of their own, who sought me out on a campus where people often assume that athletes are idiots.
One spring, I helped a scholarshiped football player write a paper using the NCAA mission statement and the UO mission statement. He was a fifth year senior who’d transferred here two years before with a serious wrist injury– he’d broken it twice. The coaches insisted he work spring drills when it wasn’t sufficiently strengthened despite what his surgeon said, and he promptly re-fractured it. The surgeon who put it back together again told him he shouldn’t play with it again, that he risked losing use of his hand. The kid wanted to be a chiropractor. When he expressed his concerns about trying to play late that Fall, when he started having pain in the wrist, the Coaches told him ‘fine’– but they were pulling his scholarship. He could get his education somewhere he’d ‘contributed something’. If he had a problem, well, he could meet with Belotti and Moos and the NCAA rep, but that ‘wasn’t likely to go well for him’. He was terrified, was a yes-sir, no-sir, thank-you-sir kid from rural California.
He told me he was scared to talk to them; that his position coach had told him he better not make trouble, or he’d make it impossible for him. The kid said he just wanted his degree. I helped him write a paper about what collegiate sport at the UO was supposed to be about: scholarship, integrity, moulding young men. He worked hard on it– it was something he understood, what Oregon football meant to him, what he’d put into it and sacrificed for it and why he didn’t have anything left to give if he was going to have the career he wanted.
He went to the meeting where the three men sat at the edge of huge oak table. He’d brought three copies of his paper, and he handed a copy to each of them and told them that everything he had to say was there. Eyes widened as the men read; Belotti rubbed the bridge of his nose nervously, and didn’t meet the kid’s eyes. Finally, Moos asked him to leave, and they closed the door. He could hear them speaking in low voices before they called him back in, Moos’s voice rising: “How could you think this was ok?” he said he heard through the door. Moos came outside in a moment. “I don’t think we’ll have any problem letting you finish out here,” Moos said, and shook his hand.
For once, someone at the UO remembered what was important.
Well, off Moos went, too concerned with what was right and too slow to respond to the demands of the donor, a casaulty of Mr. Knight’s vested interest. In came Kilkenny with two million dollars to buy his job, and away went Wrestling for baseball and cheerleading. Perhaps I have been unfair to Mr. Kilkenny; as my mother, a die-hard Oregon football fan said to me, “I don’t think he’s likely to have you over for dinner.” As if I’d have clothes fine enough for a dinner chez K; as if Mr. Kilkenny were likely to have me over before I spoke out. That said, I’m not inclined to say anything in a public forum unless I see a real problem that directly concerns the world I live in. I am a fiction writer working on a novel, not a journalist. Yet as a former wrestler, as a teacher at the UO who has a graduate degree from this school, and as a former and current Oregon athletics fan, I couldn’t help saying something.
I don’t mean any of what I’ve said as a personal attack on Mr. Kilkenny, who honestly isn’t touched by my characterization of him (do you honestly think he reads the Eugene Weekly?). I’ve let his actions and words speak for themselves: yes, he’s Oregon atheletics second biggest donor. Yes, he does cater to Mr. Knight’s interests, and those of other wealthy athletic donors like himself. Yes, his justification for cutting wrestling is disingenuous and misleading, and the addition of cheerleading really can’t be characterized as suggesting that women’s competition matters. That the direction of the modern University is troubling is my opinion, only, given my point of view. That I express that opinion in explicit, even uncompromising terms is a function of my personality. I’m stubborn. I’m outspoken when I see injustice.
I noticed that when my article was reprinted, and when you, Jay, summarize what you see as my view, that you said I asserted that “Wrestling is too good for the UO.” I didn’t say that; I said that Wrestling is too decent, by which I mean it is too pure, only about the essence of competition and sacrifice, and consequently, is disconnected from private or corporate ties. I also hold that it’s not tawdry, not like the decision of a couple older gentlemen to create a funded ‘cheer squad’, especially when that ‘team’ is brought back despite no other popular support. Why in the world does the UO need to become about find the ‘finest” cheerleaders to stand in pleated skirts shaking their pom-poms and kicking thoroughbred legs in the air?
That being said, speaking clearly about a problem doesn’t mean you hate the place where the problem is occurring. I find myself wanting to say something lefty and inappropriately high-minded, like ‘dissent is patriotic.’ Instead, let me just say that as an Oregon alum, as a long-time Oregon fan who grew up in Eugene, as a former Pac-10 Wrestler, and as current faculty who teaches UO students every day, I have a deep investment in the University of Oregon, both in its academics and athletics. I care about this university, and I believe that the direction it’s going, which has resulted in the decision to cut wrestling and the poor way it’s been handled, is wrong.
Jay, I get the sense that in your ten point ‘facts’ spread (and I should point out that almost none of those are ‘facts’. They are assertions, not facts, though some may be true), and what you say after, that you’re seeking to suggest is that what Wrestler’s have said about the University of Oregon makes it impossible for the UO to reinstate the sport. Why, some of the statements are downright Anti-Duck– those wrestlers must hate Oregon athletics. They probably hate Oregon, too, and my god, did you see that rally they had in tye-dye? The UO, love it or leave it!
Well, Wrestling has already been shown the door. If it’s not reinstated, it won’t be because of the vitriol or vigor of those of us fighting to bring it back. It will instead be evidence that the modern University has the wrong priorities, caters to the wrong interests, and has lost a sense of itself.
I would love to hear that the UO wants wrestling back. That would be the end of my writing pieces about the injustice of the decision to cut wrestling, and I would indeed feel the University was a friendlier place. Yet I think this debate is a false one, Jay. I don’t think that Wrestling advocates such as myself have been ‘unfair’ to the University. I love the University and am a part of it. The University has been unfair to Wrestling, and I don’t believe I’ve identified the wrong reasons its happened. If– and it’s an awful unlikely if– the University reinstates the sport, I will celebrate.
In the meantime, I reserve the right to love the University as it is, and to speak of how I believe it should be. I’m an idealist. That doesn’t mean I don’t love the UO.
Richard Says:
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Outstanding piece Michael. You are a credit to your school and sport.
These are the type of people that this sport creates. Great ones.
Mike Copperman Says:
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Jay,
I just wanted to say that I don’t think you have to be an ‘athlete’ to have opinions on Oregon athletics. I suppose I bristled a bit at some of the dumber comments about wrestling, and about athletics, none of which were yours.
David Gillaspie Says:
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
The aura of success touches everyone associated with winning teams. The bandwagons collect more people with each victory. The Cinderella teams in the NCAA basketball tournament are often more interesting than the eventual champions.
Sports do that for people. Everyone is equal at a game. You get to be your true self. You’re not an accountant, a therapist, or a billionaire. Instead you are a sports fan rooting for your team. You and thousands of others stand and let it rip.
National and world championships keep interest high in sports fans. Without that level of achievement other means come into play. When titles are not possible, the experience of attending competition becomes the focus instead of the competition. A team can lose, but as long as the crowds are happy they’ll come back. If you have a great time at a losing effort, does it really hurt anything?
UO is doing a version of Field of Dreams, ‘if you build it, they will come’, hoping to attract the sort of athletes equal to the arenas and stadiums. Some might call that putting the cart before the horse, but they aren’t writing the checks.
When big money wrote UO wrestling out of the picture, they lost the measure of pure competition. If wrestling is a diamond wrapped in plain brown paper, then other sports, ones that didn’t get cut, are hunks of coal in a Cartier box. It’s good and true if you don’t open the box.
Jason Becker Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 am
There is one concept everyone seems to forget around here. MONEY TALKS!
If you don’t like it, you must be an idealist who sits around and acts like everything could be better.
Has the University of Oregon sold out? You could make the argument. Would every single school, let alone person, in this nation “sell out” for 100 million? ABSOLUTELY. If you said no, you’re lying. The only reason why Oregon gets so much heat is most people envy them.
All of you are hypocrites! If the world could be a perfect place, it would be. The ideal world is impossible. Quit shoveling dirt all over the school you love for the sake of saying that you think it could be better.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that wrestling is God’s gift to humanity. Why would it get cut? Why would anyone want it gone? Because money talks and people listen.
wheaton4prez Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:30 am
I think that Copperman has the Obama-like ability to make talking about mostly nothing sound as compelling and worthy of a great length of attention as possible. Since we’re dropping credentials now, I’d like to add that I have a degree in creative writing and feel well qualified to make this observation. ;)
Jay posed a very valid and revealing question in response to Copperman’s article. Instead of addressing that question with argument, Copperman wrote a lengthy pontification about why he is better qualified than others to make his complaints. The hope, apparently, is that flowery language and bogus appeals to authority will be percieved as an argument with merit. Just the opposite of Copperman’s belief that the latest turn of events indicates that the modern university has the wrong priorities, I believe that Copperman’s own musings demonstrate the type of mentality that indicates that the modern university absolutely does have the wrong priorities.
At the core of this is the same thing that is at the core of the academics vs. athletics debate at the UO. Academics (some, not all) either resent or fail to see that a university (even a public one *gasp*) is a business and as such is part of a market. In their quest for “idealism” and unparralelled job protectionism, academics at many universities have manipulated their output into something that is completely incongruous to anything valuable to the rest of society. Instead of learning at the university how to change the world, students are getting a piece of paper that gets them the job where they then learn how to change the world.
The “nation and the state” haven’t made higher education a lower priority. Educators have. By embracing an increasingly “idealistic” agenda and failing to adopt any serious standards, they have marginalized the real value of their output.
I happen to believe that there is a demand for wrestling in Oregon and that the decision to cut the program was off. But, to claim that this one decision is indicative of a wrong direction for the entire university is really a stretch of the imagination. I can understand how the lack of publicity for wrestling compared to other programs can be romanticized and attractive to some people. That’s fine. But, certain sports get the attention that they do because, not surprisingly, a lot of people choose to pay attention to them. Reading Copperman’s explaination, one might believe that some evil, gray-haired board of directors decided one stormy night that they would prop up football as the sport to watch. The reality is, there is a lot of demand for football because a lot more people enjoy watching it than most other sports. There are corporate and private interests involved because of this large public demand. Not the other way around. If football at the UO is flashy, it is because that’s what a nationally competitive NCAA football team looks like. If it’s time for wrestling to go (and I disagree that it is) then it’s time for it to go. We don’t continue making horse-carriage trails simply because it’s a wonderful novelty a few people in the world enjoy. Demand (and performance) dictate where effort goes in any capitalist society. That is ok and it has served our country well since it’s founding. Despite a tremendous amount of effort and crying out, it applies to universities too. Their purpose after all is to serve society, is it not?
I don’t know if Copperman really is a ‘lefty’ and ‘high-minded’ person. But, he touched on a good parrallel when he brought up ‘dissent is patriotic.’ No. No it’s not. At least not always. Just because the right to dissent is an important value to America does not mean that all dissent is patriotic. Likewise, just because it is not illegal to speak out against something at the UO does not mean that anything possibly said about UO is valid, helpful or pro-UO. If a US citizen embraces the right to free speech but would just assume dispense of all the other rights traditionally valued by the country, they are, in fact, behaving subversively rather than patriotically in their dissent. Likewise, if someone would give the UO a pass as a “friendlier” place only if they get what they want, they also are attemping coercion.
Copperman’s characterization of competitive cheer brings to home his disconnect with the fact that a university must adapt to demand. Competitive cheer is, in fact, an important activity to men and women across the country. The only thing that is tawdry in this case is Copperman’s base description and dismissal of competitive cheer. If all it takes to make a point is to rip on something that is important to someone else, it wouldn’t be difficult to do with wrestling, football, baseball or any other sport or activity. Is there supposed to be something more substantial behind ripping on cheerleading? Perhaps that only activities that are considered “manly” deserve funding?
As Jay skillfully revealed in his last article on this subject, if anyone wants wrestling back, they should just state the good reasons why it should be there (and I believe that there are many good reasons). The whole disparage-the-institution mentality amounts to nothing more than a small pack of disgruntled picketers, banging drums and carrying signs outside the gates because of a decision that didn’t fall in their direction. It’s just an ineffective means of winning sympathy and support.
als96 Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 am
Football is more popular because the mass-media made it so.
Curtis Sexton Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
Jason Becker writes:
“here is one concept everyone seems to forget around here. MONEY TALKS!”
We all know that money talks. However this was never about money. If it was, the Oregon administration would have gone to the wrestling community and assisted in developing a plan for endowing the Duck Wrestling program for all eternity (like Cornell University’s wrestling program).
My sense is that this started with shallow thinking on the part of Pat KilKenny. He was highly motivated to bring baseball back to the U of O. I believe he actually thought that he had to drop wrestling to add baseball because of his limited knowledge about college athletics and Title 9. My bet is KilKenny did not know how easy it would have been to expand the U of O Wrestling program into a Western US Olympic training center for Women’s freestyle Wrestling and Women’s Judo–both Olympic sports. KilKenny’s shallow thinking combined with his lack of understanding of the wrestling community culture in the NW. Remember he was just a rich insurance man and booster from sunny Southern Cal–a fan–a spectator-not an educated sportsman! A huge gap in experience and ability in a job where experience and deep thinking is necessary. College Athletics isn’t just about making money. That is why every athletic department has a business manager under the AD. Oregon gave the AD position (notice I did not say hired) to a rich Business Manager and forgot Athletics is and was about educational growth and learning of student-athletes.
There was never a connection between cutting wrestling and the 100 million dollars. IMHO
Jason Becker also writes:
“Let’s assume for the sake of argument that wrestling is God’s gift to humanity. Why would it get cut? Why would anyone want it gone? Because money talks and people listen.”
KilKenny with inexperience (only experience is talking with other fans and boosters) actually thought that wrestling was “easy pickens”, wrestling was in the way of adding baseball-his love.
He was wrong on all counts. It was good to bring back baseball to Oregon but totally ignorant to think that wrestling had to go. KilKenny’s job called for him to improve Oregon’s wrestling program, to expand wrestling opportunities at Oregon, not reduce educational opportunities for Oregon’s only sport that does not discriminate on the basis of athlete size.
Hank Hosfield Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am
It appears that Copperman’s words were lost on some. So it goes. It also seems to me that the positive arguments for wrestling have been made ad infinitum–here and many other places, including with the UO administration. In fact, those working to save wrestling have presented an avalanche of data and testimony to contradict the fallacious statements originally and repeatedly proffered by the administration as justification for dropping wrestling. This hasn’t been the UO’s finest moment. Speaking as someone who has often found himself on the front lines in this battle, in uncomfortable critical opposition to some with whom I was previously friendly, I feel a bit sullied by the whole ordeal. It pains me to acknowledge the changing ethos within the Athletic Department. This is bigger than the demise of wrestling. It’s the abandonment of previously held standards of commitment to excellence and fair play that came to be known as the Oregon Way. What happened to wrestling is merely symbolic of the encroaching spiritual rot. I think Copperman’s words illustrate some of the manifestations of this rather well.
Mike Copperman Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
Mr. Wheaton,
I’ll take the parallel to Obama (at least his rhetoric doesn’t insult my intelligence, which is more than I can say for this response), and raise you a conservative nonsense, and then pray your degree in creative writing is an undergraduate one, since otherwise I’d have to share a degree with you. Of course, a degree does not a writer make (and with prose like that, my friend, I’m sure you have a day job). My ‘claims’ about being qualified to make this argument are appropriate, because they explain how and why I have my views, and what basis I have for my claims.
You, however, depend on assertion and tenth grade economics here. Let’s evaluate your argument anyway, despite it’s lack of merit.
Wheaton says: “The hope, apparently, is that flowery language and bogus appeals to authority will be percieved as an argument with merit.”
What ‘flowery language’? I suppose I was clear, and used the vocabulary at my disposal. I don’t, ahem, accept that appeals to authority are bogus because you claim they are. The logical fallacy you mean to invoke is called false authority, where someone without expertise in a field transfers that authority outside their province of expertise. The Pope says buy Ford. Michael Jordan says buy Hanes. In this case, the ‘authority’ I claim is as a former Pac-10 wrestler and three-time state finalist, as a kid who grew up in Eugene, Oregon a Duck fan, as UO faculty and a teacher of UO students… all appropriate to the subject matter: wrestling, Division one Athletics, and the state of the modern University of Oregon. For the sake of this comment, I’d like to add to that list: as a teacher of ethical argument.
Mr. Wheaton also says: “Just the opposite of Copperman’s belief that the latest turn of events indicates that the modern university has the wrong priorities, I believe that Copperman’s own musings demonstrate the type of mentality that indicates that the modern university absolutely does have the wrong priorities.”
As a teacher of writing, I’d love to strike ‘absolutely’,to bring the diction down to earth, to make the syntax less tortured, and to make you stop repeating words like ‘priorities’ in a manner that impedes clarity. Too long a wishlist. Right, argument. Ok. So, what I’ve said about there being a problem with the corporatization of college athletics demonstrates that there’s a problem at the university, which is my sort of thinking? Well, that’s nice and circular. I didn’t realize I was the problem. Why do I have the sense we’re leading up to a ‘I hate Liberals!’ sort of argument?
Wheaton goes on to say: “Academics (some, not all) either resent or fail to see that a university (even a public one *gasp*) is a business and as such is part of a market.”
Ah ha! I knew it. Sir, you must have been sniffing David Horowitz’s throne yet again. Could you ask him to include me on his list of ‘America’s 100 Most Dangerous Intellectuals’ next time you see him? It would be an honor. Nothing is as dangerous as middle-aged, balding academics who’re concerned with matters of ethics. Of course, I’m not an academic; I’m a fiction writer who makes a living teaching argument. I’m not a liberal; my politics are middle-of-the-road, though I do have my issues with the last seven years of Mr. Bush. But the University, a ‘business that is part of the market?’ No. The University is a public institution of higher learning, dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. The UO motto is ‘mens agigitat molem,; or ‘Minds move mountains.’ That the modern University operates like a ‘business’ is because unlike other countries, we don’t adequately fund our universities (see: all of Europe, Russia, even China), and so they must scrounge for funds, at some points acting like businesses instead of places dedicated to preserving, creating, and transmitting knowledge. Your assertion, in other words, reflects the actual problem.
Mmm, you go on to say: “In their quest for “idealism” and unparralelled job protectionism, academics at many universities have manipulated their output into something that is completely incongruous to anything valuable to the rest of society. Instead of learning at the university how to change the world, students are getting a piece of paper that gets them the job where they then learn how to change the world.”
Say what? Your prose is turgid. Good lord, I know you know a lot of big words, but please don’t use them all at once with no consideration for what they mean. I’m not sure what you’re saying, but it seems to have to do with the idea that ‘idealists’ have made the university into a place where students earn a degree that effectively gets them a job, though what that has to do with being an idealist (since when were idealists criticized for being too practical?) escapes me. And what is all this ‘changing the world’ stuff? I knew you were for Obama in your secret heart, Mr. Wheaton.
Let’s keep going, and see if any of this comes to make sense.
“The “nation and the state” haven’t made higher education a lower priority. Educators have. By embracing an increasingly “idealistic” agenda and failing to adopt any serious standards, they have marginalized the real value of their output.”
Again, I don’t know if I understand, mostly due to inappropriately high and imprecise word choice. ‘Educators’ have ‘marginalized’ higher education through their ruthless ‘idealism’, which then gets students jobs? Say what? What’s the evidence for any of these assertions? And what in the world does this polemic have to do with this issue about athletics, academics, and the University of Oregon?
“…to claim that this one decision is indicative of a wrong direction for the entire university is really a stretch of the imagination.”
Well, not really. The case for the ‘wrong direction’ has to do with, um, all the evidence offered in the essay and elsewhere about today’s UO. The decision is ‘representative.’
“Reading Copperman’s explaination, one might believe that some evil, gray-haired board of directors decided one stormy night that they would prop up football as the sport to watch. The reality is, there is a lot of demand for football because a lot more people enjoy watching it than most other sports. There are corporate and private interests involved because of this large public demand.”
Speaking of active imaginations, where do I suggest such a thing about football? I’m a football fan. I like football. I follow football, and watch it. The ‘corporate and private interests’ that have come to be involved with NCAA football in the last fifteen years are NOT necessarily a part of the sport that I like, nor do I accept them as being a necessary part of the sport. Yes, they come to football because it’s popular, and they also add to football’s prominence. They are not a part of the essence of sport, however.
You go on to be pro-cheer, and Mr. Wheaton, if you like your girl’s in short skirts, you may have them. If that’s your idea of sports competition, well, I disagree with it, but perhaps it suits your disposition.
I wish you better luck with future arguments.
:
Oregonfan Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Great job, Wheaton. You did a great job of “creating” something and making no sense of it at all.
Travis Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
Wheaton4prez,
You say you are a writer and your words and thoughts are very well written. But, I question whether you really care about wrestling or have been paying attention to the arguements at all. You and Jay both argue about how the argument is being done and say very little about the argument itself.
1) The only good points you make have nothing to do with wrestling or the decision to cut wrestling.
2) If your only goal is to analys everyone’s attempt to make good points, then find another topic to analys.
3) We are fighting for a sport we love and thousands of kids love. We are fighting for our livelyhood. We are fighting to see our kids not only participate in a great sport but to maybe represent our state intsitution while doing it. It is a means of getting into a grand institution to get an education. If anyone has any pull with Nike owner Phil Night or Mr. Kilkenny; I would be glad to sit down with you and give you a highly educated hour long speach about the benefits of wrestling. If time permitted I would give you another hour of why the decision by the U of O Administration was not a good one. Otherwise, the discussions on here are just that, Rhetoric. Nothing else…
Jay Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Travis -
I understand what you’re saying.
I can’t speak for Wheaton4prez, but my response is that the issues surrounding wrestling have gone beyond a cost-benefits analysis of wrestling. Instead, they have mostly been personal. And that’s detrimental to your cause.
I know you guys are in a fight to save a sport, tradition, and opportunity you love. That’s great.
I just happen to think that in the defense of wrestling, the supporters of Oregon wrestling are causing a lot of collateral damage. I know, I know. You guys didn’t start this. But it seems like you’re trying to finish a few people off on your way off of campus.
It’s a very compartmentalized way to look at things. Oregon’s a big place. There are some great things about it. And there are some not so great things about it…
Let’s back up and take a look at the big picture. Maybe we’ll even back up as far as Mars.
Well, in this case, let’s go out to Iowa, where wrestling is big.
If a wrestling fan from Iowa were to look this discussion, and others, what do you think they would think of Oregon? Never mind the decision to cut wrestling. What would be their perception of Oregon? I don’t think it would be very good. And that was my point.
Unfortunately, loving Oregon doesn’t have the impact of criticizing Oregon. You can love the pieces all you want. But when someone is critical of a piece of Oregon in the way a lot of wrestling supporters have been (with personal attacks), I don’t think it does anyone any good. Especially the wrestling community. As Mike said, Mr. Kilkenny probably is not fazed by his essay.
Everyone has a very long memory. Now with the internet, it’s in writing for the world to see. And for people to remember.
Again, good discussion.
Jay
DSN
Oregonfan Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
but yet its okay for UO admin like Kilkenny and Baumgartner to get personal in their attacks? Its a two way street and they were the ones who made it personal in the first place.
what people are mad about is that these two have continued to be called on their lies, in public. this in turn makes them look bad and they can’t have that.
Travis Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Jay,
How do you argue getting sucker punched in the gut, by the principle, just because you are not the Pretty Boy on campus? That what this amounts to in the big picture. It is very difficult to argue and look pretty doing it,especially when you are hurting inside and you’re not pretty. What can we say or do? and who can we say it to, too make a difference?
Jay Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Oregonfan -
It’s not OK for anyone to lie. But…
You want your job back, right? Regardless of whether or not your boss lied to you, do you call him a liar and still expect to get your job back, ever?
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Travis -
I know the wrestling community is hurting over this. And I’m not going to lie. Wrestling is in a real pickle.
A couple of weeks ago, I was going to write in more detail about my experience at the wrestling tournament at Willamette HS. I had promised Richard Rockwell I would, and I wanted to make good on that promise (I did with my previous entry, but it wasn’t quite what I had planned on.).
Following the announcement of Frohnmayer’s retirement, I thought that might be the break wrestling needed. “Wrestling Finally Gets A Break” was going to be the title. Saw a kid break his arm. Frohnmayer’s retirement seen as a break. New blood at the U of O. Yada yada yada.
Well, wrestling did get a break. And it went the wrong way in the elimination of ASU’s program. That kind of took the wind out of my sails. But I still think it’s true.
The only hope for wrestling, and it’s minuscule at best, is to get a fresh start with a new President and Athletics Director (as long as it’s not an internal candidate) at the University of Oregon. And a turnover of internal personnel, as well (which I think will happen with a new AD).
That’s wrestling’s last best hope.
And in the mean time, don’t do any further damage in the relationship between wrestling’s supporters and Oregon.
Prayer might also be a good idea, too.
Jay
DSN
truth seeker Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Former Naval Academy All American wrestler Doug Zembiec, lost in Iraq. Maybe Pat K and company should read some of what is below. I think some of these things belew are what Oregon wrestling supporters are doing.
Excellent Post MCM. Stories about men like Zembiec are many. WE owe them much! I had to copy a few of the Major’s beliefs:
Here are his:
Major Zembiec left many volumes of personal writings behind, some of which were shared at his funeral. The final words of the Eulogy, delivered by his friend Eric L. Kapitulik, have evolved into a new credo for many members of the USMC and USMIL[citation needed] communities at large, amounting to what Kapitulik said was a summary of Zembiec himself.
Be a man of principle. Fight for what you believe in. Keep your word. Live with integrity. Be brave. Believe in something bigger than yourself. Serve your country.
Teach. Mentor. Give something back to society. Lead from the front. Conquer your fears. Be a good friend. Be humble and be self-confident.
Appreciate your friends and family. Be a leader and not a follower. Be valorous on the field of battle. And take responsibility for your actions.
Never forget those that were killed. And never let rest those that killed them.
Curtis Sexton Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Jay is absolutely correct when he advises wrestling:
” Regardless of whether or not your boss lied to you, do you call him a liar and still expect to get your job back, ever?”
An important principle of human relations is that we need to allow the other person to “save face”.
KilKenny has said a lot of things that are not accurate or true. That does not make him a liar, unless he intentionally said the untruths with the intention to personally profit from the untruth. That is what a lie is. A lie is far more than misspeaking or stating something that is not true, or even saying something different than you said before.
We must allow people to “save face.”
Brian Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
wheaton4prez is like reading something from Bush. There seems to be some pretty smart people here, much smarter than me. I hear from the people who say wrestling needs to go, because it doesn’t make money, and nobody goes to the meets. Okay, here is my question one last time. WHEN DID THE APATHETIC, CASUAL SPORTS FAN BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE STUDENT ATHLETE? ALSO, DOES THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON BELIEVE IN IT’S MISSION STATEMENT? Anybody who reads the mission statement of the athletic department would agree that wrestling needs to stay.
RedmonDuck Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
I don’t claim to be a writer, but that does not make me an idiot. Neither does me not caring what sports the UO chooses to carry. Would I be upset if football was cut, yes, but that is not my decision to make. That decision is made through all of our support. Be it through attendance, or donations. Basically wrestling got cut because not enough people care about it. I really don’t care what reasons the school gave. Lack of interest is killing the sport everywhere, not just at the UO. Schools should not be forced to keep a sport because a vocal minority want it to live on. Just like boxing its time has passed in this country. In my opinion MMA has taken over for both of them. Maybe Mr. Copperman should write a piece telling everyone how barbaric MMA is and how we are all blowhards for watching it instead of his beloved wrestling. Mr. Copperman is understandably angry that the sport that he loves is no longer at the institution he loves, but the reality is that he is in the minority. His attachment to wrestling makes him equally unqualified to comment about the sport being cut as all of us who did not play college athletics. Maybe he should focus on the real issues of athletics vs. academics and not focus on things like a position coach trying to bully a kid into playing hurt. If Moos, and Bellotti had continued to allow this then you may have a point, but he was allowed to complete his degree. I don’t have time to respond to all of your points I don’t agree with because I have to get back to work, but a power hungry position coach is not a statement on the direction of the university. To say it is is irresponsible to the university you love.
Hank Hosfield Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
It occurs to me that much of the opposition to wrestling on this blog may be fed by a growing unease about having to defend the UO against mounting evidence of its failure to live up to its own mission statements. Often this manifests itself in devolving rancorous debate about what we all think the university is and should be. The ideal standards that I hope the UO would uphold are not my own, but rather, their own. If it’s blasphemy to call attention to this degeneration, by all means, please continue to ignore and/or kill the messengers.
Brian Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
wheaton4prez, Could you explain to a simpleton like me how a university is a business and part of the market? That’s a new one to me. Can I purchase stock in these university corporations?
Mike Copperman Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Hmm.
On the one hand, Mr. Sexton, I think you have an excellent point, as does Jay when he suggests that Oregon Wrestling’s only hope is with a new AD. Saving face is necessary.
On the other hand, calling a spade a spade is sometimes important too.
Jay, I was emailed by a couple of Hawkeye fans who live out there. They loved the piece, love the sport, and had no ‘bad’ ideas about Oregon beyond the sense that something is awry with the current Athletic Department and its decisions.
Richard Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Lack of interest is yet another lie told by the admin and force fed to the public, yet has been proven many times that at the HS ranks, kids are very interested in the sport of wrestling. The numbers don’t and haven’t lied for quite some time now.
And Hank is on to something. My brother recently graduated from UO. He’s a wrestling fan as he watched me wrestle as he grew up, but never played the sport. So, of course he cared about the cuts.
However, when the cut came, whatever Kilkenny spewed off in public as his reason for that week, my brother would defend. Why? Because that’s all he was hearing. Until he came home and I told him what was really gone on.
It took him some time, but eventually as I showed him all the REAL facts, he began to realize what was true and what was false. He no longer backs Kilkenny and does have some resentment towards UO. Not because he didn’t appreciate the education he got there, but because it is not the school he once thought it was. He is starting to see things as an educated adult and not as just a fan, able to make decisions for himself without having to read a press release from the AD first to make them.
Richard Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
BTW, people do give a crap about the sport as ASU was just re-instated.
Arizona State reinstates wrestling program as 21st varsity sport; Sun Devils will compete fully in 2008-09
Arizona State University
05/23/2008
TEMPE, Ariz. - Arizona State University Vice President for Athletics Lisa Love announced Friday that the athletic department is fully reinstating the sport of varsity wrestling, effective immediately, due to financial support from local civic leadership. The reinstatement of wrestling gives ASU 21 sports in its varsity athletic program.
“It is with great pleasure that I announce the reinstatement of the varsity sport of wrestling at ASU,” says Love. “The wrestling community, both locally and nationally, accepted this as a challenge to do something wonderful for the sport. ASU is forever grateful for that passion and unwavering support. Something special is happening on our campus thanks to civic leadership that cares deeply about ASU wrestling.”
ASU had announced on May 13, 2008 that it was discontinuing the sport of wrestling due to the rising cost of operating a 22-sport varsity program. It was determined at that time that sponsoring a 20-sport program would better fit ASU¹s athletic financial profile. Love indicated at the time that if the wrestling community were able to raise enough financial support the sport could be reinstated. That commitment is there and the sport will continue at Arizona State.
Love said that fundraising for the sport of wrestling will be an ongoing process. The objective is not just to sponsor wrestling as a varsity sport, but to position the sport as one of the top programs in the country.
The Sun Devil wrestling team is a member of the Pacific-10 Conference.
For more information regarding giving to assist the Sun Devil varsity sports programs, visit http://www.sundevilclub.com.
David Gillaspie Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I call myself a writer, just not out loud. If I stray beyond fifth grade comprehension, then I’m ignoring my intended audience. I want the communications majors and creative writing majors to understand me. I don’t want the slice and dice of Copperman’s ruler. He just took Wheaton to the writer’s woodshed and worked him. It’s good for the cause.
UO wasn’t a trade school while I was there. There was no Court Reporter class, or Office Skills Major. You do learn something about the foundations of civilization. When a student expands their field of interest, they also learn about wrestling, since it’s been around as long as man.
If you believe pre-history cave art depicts the reality of the time, then you understand the importance of wrestling. The hand of man was the first weapon used to survive. Who writes history? The winners.
The history of UO wrestling will be written by the winners, too. They’ll say it ended because it was unfashionable. They’ll reference Title IX. They won’t say that wrestlers scared the bejesus out of the administration, but I think there is something in that.
Admitting a fear of wrestling isn’t a bad thing. It frightens me. Scared me half to death watching my kid’s elbow pop out in a match. Spooked me when my other kid had to wrestle a Crater guy at state while I was surrounded by Crater parents. They talked about the beat downs their guy had put on everyone. I had the fear of death when I had to wrestle Larry Bielenberg for a Jr. National title in Iowa City. I wanted my momma, who still complains about some of my matches. She was a sore loser, I was just sore.
Non-wrestlers watch a guy getting torqued on the mat and react in fear. “Oh my God that must hurt.” Memo to non-wrestler: it does hurt. My shoulder carries an audio reminder that it was separated in a dual meet against Oregon State. Clunk. Ouch. Ron Sather.
The difference between wrestler and non-wrestler is how they change doubt and fear into a tool. A college wrestler does it often enough that it seems like they don’t feel the same things ordinary people feel, the paralysis, the insecurities. It’s a mask they wear, like a thick ear and a bent nose, and they wear it a lifetime.
To me, wrestling is something you do. Having done it, you want others to experience it for themselves.
The end for UO wrestling came as a result of fear and doubt. Once the parties responsible acknowledge those feelings, wrestling will come back to teach more lessons. If UO is about higher education, wrestling will return sooner, not later.
Wrestling Alumni Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
ASU BACK!!!! Come on now Pat, your turn. The community stepped up and brought it back, now you can also do the same.
Mike Copperman Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
That’s super encouraging.
wheaton4prez Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Mr. Copperman,
Thank you for responding to my comments. I’m flattered to find that I don’t fall into any of the groups you deem unworthy of taking seriously. But, I just have to start by saying:
Wow.
My point about your “qualifications” is that nobody really cares “how and why” you have your views. That has nothing to do with whether or not anyone else should share them. I appreciate your effort to “correct” me even though it was in the most condescending manner possible. However, you’re wrong that I was making a false authority claim. Appeal to authority is exactly what the bulk of your statement was. You were expecting others to read your list of qualifications, making you the authority and give weight to your position without much if any further argument.
I can’t say that I’m sorry that you don’t like my prose. It may indeed be bad or “inappropriate.” Thankfully, I do have a day job. Or, rather, I have a company. Anyway, I may not be as smart as you. But, I have learned enough to know that your response to me has deteriorated logically, further than your response to Jay. I count at least 5-6 blatant ad hominem attacks. Maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong on this. But, my understanding has always been that ad hominem attacks are pretty much the lowest form of argument.
You also dip into a straw man argument when you start writing fiction in my voice: “I hate Liberals!” It may be convenient for you to try and dismiss my arguments on the basis that you “got me” that I’m a conservative. In fact, I have no qualms with confirming that I am a conservative on most issues. We can get into a larger, ideological debate if you like. But, I would prefer that people judge the relevant arguments I make on their merit rather than on how they categorize me.
Your insistence that any university in America is not part of a market confirms my position. You and others would like to see it differently. But, the fact is, until students have no choice on which college they attend and how much they are willing to spend at a given school, they are part of a market. There are all kinds of businesses dedicated to things other than turning a profit. A lot of them have mottos too. That does not mean that they do not have a product, employees and all of the other basic structures (and market influences) of a business. The only distinction that being a ‘public institution’ gives them is that they have the option to take government collected funds.
You didn’t give me much to work with in your response to my “change the world” comment. I think it’s an important point. So, I will try to explain more clearly. Through their own inconsideration of the practical and embracing of the ideal, some educators have changed what students are expected to know, coming out of college and entering the work-force. Having a college degree has increasingly become more symbolic than useful, particularly in certain fields.
My evidence for that assertion is first, in having 7 years experience in multiple university systems. There were exceptions that I am very thankful for. But, most of my professors were either uninterested in teaching or spent most of their time discussing personal agendas that were unrelated to their field. By the end of it, I felt like the main thing that I got from college was dedicated time to direct my own reading and studies. This is something I could have accomplished on my own with a bank loan rather than student loans. Second, my experiences being hired by companies. I have not once been asked by any company whether or not I have a degree. And it’s not as if computer engineering is something people don’t go to school “for.” Third, in having another 7 years experience running a company, hiring employees and contractors with various degrees. I have had more problems with employees with college degrees than I have with people who are self taught. Again, there are some exceptions. But, we have found that many new workers with college degrees have to completely unlearn a lot of junk theory in order to be effective. Others apply for positions that they aren’t qualified for at all. I can’t say I blame them for doing so since theoretically, their schooling is supposed to have made them qualified and they probably paid a lot for that. But, it ends up wasting a lot of our time, finding out that they really don’t know the first thing about the field their degree says they know.
I didn’t say that you don’t like football. I’m glad that you do. I was referring to your complaints about “flashy.” I agree with you that all of that is not at the root of what sport is. It’s merely the stage that it’s on. My point is that the market dictates the shape of the stage. Where there’s a bigger market, there’s going to be more (and bigger) actors involved in the show. I believe it’s just a natural result and doesn’t come at the expense of the sport. It’s not, as you wrote, something that can be focused on. It’s “focus” itself.
You again attempt to disparage both me and another sport with your “pro-cheer” comment. I do not follow cheer or have any interest in it. However, I think it’s just a matter of being open-minded to accept that people find a lot of enjoyment in pursuits that I don’t care for. If people enjoy competitive cheer (and there are many that do), more power to them. Funding one thing always comes at the expense of all other things those funds could be used for. I think it’s senseless to suggest that one type of funding is better than another based on ad hominem arguments alone.
Finally, I will again point out that I think wrestling should have remained at Oregon. I don’t follow the sport personally. But, I respect it and know that a lot of kids in the state participate in it at the high-school level. It only makes sense to provide the opportunity to continue at the next level in-state. Just, as I wrote originally, I don’t see your approach to the problem being very effective at accomplishing anything in that direction.
wheaton4prez Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Travis,
Thank you. You’re right that my points mostly haven’t been about wrestling. I see the subject at hand as being how to effectively argue for a cause. I have no points to make against re-instating wrestling because I think that it should be re-instated.
My goal isn’t to analyze everyone elses arguments for the sake of it. I just don’t like to hear people smearing the entire university simply because they aren’t getting their way. Sometimes, a bad decision is simply a bad decision and there’s no boogeyman or corruption behind it. That’s what I think the case is with wrestling. It was a short-sighted decision. Forces wanting wrestling back, in my opinion, would do better to focus on the valid reasons why UO with wrestling is better than UO without wrestling.
I understand fighting for a sport. I just think that there are different kinds of fighting and they each call for different strategies. In the world of university politics I don’t see a blitzkrieg of accusations, running peoples character through the mud, etc. as being effective. It will probably just alienate people that might otherwise be compelled to help.
Richard Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Someone has to get the truth out. That’s what Copperman has done in his writings. Whether or not people wanted to hear it.
Now, like wrestling alumin said, now its Pat’s turn.
ASU’s AD was ready to bring down the hammer, listened to alumni and boosters, they proposed a deal and it was accepted. That’s a smart AD.
They are to raise $8 mil, but the kicker is, she’s allowing them to keep their program while they do it. They’ve already raised $2 mil. UO has close to $3 mil, with another $1 mil to come after the FREE state of the art facility is built(new tennis one as well).
Again, what’s the hold up? You’re the AD and you’re going to turn down a $4 mil donation and two new facilities? Makes no sense to me. What makes sense it to swallow your pride and become yet another hero for the wrestling community by making the right decision.
Come on Pat. There’s got to be a heart somewhere under all that Nike apparel.
Richard Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Another thing worth mentioning is that basketball guy, Jerry Coangelo was one of the major players in helping to re-instate wrestling. He understands the importance of the sport enough to do his part in helping ASU out.
Hank Hosfield Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Wheaton4prez: I confess, I didn’t follow your argument very well the first time, and now that I’m tracking, I think you make some salient points; although probably not as germane to this discussion as some of us would like. That’s cool. I’m sure I lose a lot of readers, too.
Regarding your observation about college being poor preparation for the working world, I agree only in as much as business-specific procedures are foreign to most newly-minted college grads. Furthermore, the liberal arts education like that which I experienced at the UO honestly never attempted to groom me to become a seamlessly-integrated corporate cog. That may be a shortcoming from where you stand. What it did best was help me become a better critical thinker, and expose me to a far wider world of ideas and people than I’d likely brush up against in some apprenticeship program. Of course, this was long ago, and the UO was a different and better place. If you don’t think that UO academics are up to snuff these days, or that they’re being led astray from enlightenment by political agendas, that’s fair comment about the state of education, but it has little to do with athletics’ relationship to academics, or one of the main pillars of wrestling’s argument for reinstatement, that being: as sports go, wrestling both meets the athletic interests of our state and uniquely matches the educational mission of the university.
I share Copperman’s observations about the changing ethos within the Casanova Center. You might be correct that we wrestlers are winning few hearts and minds by pointing this out. Regrettably, we naively reasoned that somehow virtue would win out. Instead, we look like scolds. Standards are hard to uphold when the low road has been re-graded into a highway of money and moral authority is ceded to your wealthiest donors. Make no mistake, Oregon is seeking to become a big-time college athletic program, and fully embracing all of the attendant ills, which include cruel-high ticket prices, alienation of academics, and what many see as the corruption of the educational mission–all to the detriment of student athletes, who are supposed to be the main beneficiaries.
Wrestling is not jealous of football or basketball. Wrestling is not arguing it’s deserving of more fan attention. Wrestling understands and appreciates that revenue sports make their existence possible. Wrestling believes that the lessons it teaches stand it in worthy stead. And wrestling observes that the changing culture of big-time college athletics has devalued its perceived contributions and made it expendable, as athletic directors, focused on the big prize, loss sight of why college sports exist in the first place.
Herb Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Just got into this as I have been busy…I’ve got your back Wheat4 and Jay
It seems everyone wants to make a judgement…not the case here…take it or leave it…the business of college atheletics should be left to the pro’s.
I questioned one day about the business and received a polite response….not!
Until the day comes that you are an AD or head coach in a college that has to…repeat..has to keep up with the Jones’s like the SEC or anyone else with the tv contracts and ESPN’s monopoly of sports coverage, NFL drafting, and our own ego’s as fans then there is nothing more to be said.
I can explain this in more depth using terms that anyone past the 14th grade cannot understand but I think that would confuse the issue!
Herb Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Must be soylent Green…
David Gillaspie Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Herb, why not take a run at the 14th graders. Wheat is breaking out the ’strawman argument’ and ‘blatant ad hominem attacks.’ Hank is working the ‘changing ethos.’
What I mean is, elevate the discussion. Bring your best and post it. A smart wrestling opinion benefits everyone, like the high tide that lifts all boats.
We’ll never know why a 100 million dollar tide didn’t lift the wrestling boat, or why there is no show of other Oregon athletes for some of their own. At some point it falls into the ‘who cares’ ditch. Then you bring the hammer.
Do you know what a hammer is? It’s other name is Mike Copperman. Wheat is the nail. Why did he say he wasn’t as smart as Copperman? What’s that got to do with helping wrestling? None of us have the block S for being the Stanford athlete with the highest gpa. Mike does. The rest of us don’t need reminding about the smart guy in the room. You can post a mile long and go political and explain why you’re not a nail and you’ll still get the hammer. That can’t be good.
There is a question about smart guys. If someone is smart, why aren’t they rich? I like to ask it in reverse, if someone is rich, why aren’t they smart? Dumping wrestling probably makes sense, but to who? Keeping wrestling makes more sense. It’s smarter.
Mike Copperman Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Oh, Wheaton, Ad Hominem is so much more fun!
And if you look back at your comments, well, you started it. And you brought politics to the table, not me, by assuming I was some ya-ya, knee-jerk liberal.
I do understand better what you’re trying to say now. I agree with Mr. Hosfield that your argument about college inadequately preparing someone for the corporate world has little to do with wrestling and the arguments being made for keeping it or cutting it. As far as I can tell, then, what you wanted to do was question the idea that there’s a problem with the modern university– in the education colleges offer, and how big-time college athletics affects it. You believe a college education isn’t useful because some professors are too political, and because you rarely use what you gained in college in your professional, computer-systems/corporate life. For you, what’s wrong with the university is mostly political or structural; what’s ‘right’ about the university is the ways it has some features of a market.
I think our fundamental disagreement is about what a university should be. You think it should be a big business, driven by profit motive, because that’s how you see and think of the world. I think a university should be about knowledge, and about other ‘pure’ efforts– not that anything is completely pure, but I believe the pursuit of athletic excellence can and should be, that at it’s best it is. That’s why I believe wrestling is unique and has merit.
I’m glad you’re in favor of keeping the wrestling program. Let’s leave it at that.
Western Man Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The business should be left to the pros? I think your statement backs up the notion that Pat K was not the man for that job in the first place and surely should not have been in that position to make that decision. The fact that he went in to the wrestling coach on April 3rd, 2007-his 3rd day on the job and stated he was thinking of dropping wrestling, tells me there was at least some sort of agenda or predetermined decision. Pat K had no business being in this particular business, if you will. He should have stayed out of the business of the athletes and coaches, and stuck to his press box seats at the Padre games, and golf games. I think anyone could see that the guy is out of touch with the state of Oregon. Perhaps he should have in the very least came here, observed for a while, and decided at a little later time what the best interests of the department, the athletes, the needs of the state were before pulling a plug on the program. It seems to be he was nothing more than a super fan who had the means to get in that position and build his field of dreams. Piss on everyone or everything else that gets in his way. And he should have definitely looked at alternative ways to keep the sport and add baseball if that was his ultimate desire(which is obvious.).All this BS about it being financially better for the department, yadayada, let’s see 15-20 million for a stadium that will be lucky to average 1500 fans per home game, losing parking spots for football, on and on, this guy long term will hurt the UO.
wheaton4prez Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Thank you Hank,
You make a lot of excellent points and hold an entirely reasonable view, imo.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reasons you give for wanting wrestling back. In fact, I had the same reaction you describe. When I heard it might be cut and then seeing the commercial, I thought there was no way that they would do it.
I realize that my position on the state of academics may seem out of left field and you’re right that it has little to do with the AD and wrestling situation by themselves. I brought it up in response to the types of arguments being made, rather than anything to do with wrestling’s place at the university. For instance, when I hear that the reason something is wrong is due to “corporatization”, “private influence”, “lack of transparency”, etc. without any further explaination or evidence that something untoward has taken place, I’m being asked to believe that those are evil things just for what they are. I don’t accept that and I believe it grows out of a culture problem on many campuses.
You hit the nail on the head when you wrote that the university was different and better long ago. There’s nothing wrong with being exposed to lots of disciplines and spending time thinking things through rather than stressing about dead-lines. There’s just no reason that those things need to be contra-private. The private world does value those things. It’s the university that rejects the relationship with what people spend the rest of their lives doing. I only have one college experience to draw information from. But, from what I’ve learned, it doesn’t seem like it has always been this way.
Take Phil Knight for example. There is a guy who took what the university gave him (long ago) and went a long way with it. All he wants to do is to give back to the school he gives credit to. It’s a great opportunity for the university to establish that connection between education and the results. I mean, isn’t becoming the best at what you want to do the goal of the university? I could understand peoples concern if he never went to the university. But, think of it in basic terms. They teach a kid. He leaves, uses those teachings to become the best at what he does. Comes back to the university and there’s a contingent of folks that are pissed off because they don’t like how he wants to donate to them?
I think there are risks involved with that disconnect. It might even be too late. Myself for example. I could become the next Bill Gates and I would probably find 100 other charities or causes to donate to before I would consider donating to the college I went to. I feel that I was basically ripped off. I was a means for other people to collect student loans so that they could pursue day-dreams. Embracing success stories like that of Phil Knight just seems like the most obvious way to keep a university grounded to what their function in society is supposed to be, to make effective citizens.
Anyway, I apologize for going off on a tangent again. :)
I hope you guys get the wrestling program back. I don’t see how you won’t, given the circumstances and good arguments like yours.
wheaton4prez Says:
May 25th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Mr. Copperman,
I appreciate your more even-tempered comments.
We can leave it at us both being for the wrestling program. But, I would like to clarify some things first since your assessment of what my position is isn’t quite what I was trying to say.
I didn’t assume that you were a liberal. Some of the views you expressed are things that are orthodox for liberals. But, I know that most people have some views from both sides of the fence and I was careful not to assume where you stood.
I wasn’t trying to comment on the political aspect of this issue. My objection was to the notion that universities are (or should be) separated from the same market effects that any organization offering an optional service or product has to consider. What is wrong with the modern university is a giant, complex subject. But, I believe that a lot of what is wrong is a result of the we-are-not-part-of-a-market mentality.
I don’t see the existence of market functions as representing what is right about a university. It’s just a matter of fact. What is right about a university is what happens when the value of the education exceeds the investment given up for it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for considering high-concepts, idealism, etc. Just the opposite, society has shown that it values those things. Some of the most successful, world-changing causes and businesses accomplish what they do via high concepts. For example, I think that it’s arguable that Nike owes a lot of it’s success to standing out via high concept. I just want it to be clear that I’m not saying that universities should be turned into trade schools. They just shouldn’t disguise agendas (or lack of agendas) as being the same as entertaining ideals and principles society is looking for.
I don’t think that a university should be a “big-business, driven by profit-motive.” As mentioned, there are all kinds of non-profit organizations that serve society well. I think that our difference is over whether or not making sure education is indeed a service to society affects it’s “purity.” I don’t think that it does. I’m not saying this is you. But, from my experience, for a lot of professors, maintaining purity simply means to spend time on the job talking about whatever random nonsense they feel like without repurcussion.
Finally, I would just like to say that I do think that teaching is vital and admirable. I had a number of great teachers in college. I don’t think the entire institution is a failure. They just need Jack Welch to go through and fire the bottom 10%. ;)