36 responses so far ↓

• 1 FortheloveofDuck // May 5, 2008 at 4:36 pm

  Coming from Michigan and spending much time on and around the University of Michigan campus, I am aware of what the various donations can do for a university both athletically and academically. We are all aware that Phil Knight is a major donor to the U of O, and his enormous donations make headlines ‘around the country. Many other ‘big’ universities may not get single donations of this caliber but how does the U of O compare to total donations annually? I would like to see a breakdown of total donations to schools by alumni and such. Perhaps Mr. Knight chooses to donate more than the average donor just to even the playing field with schools like Michigan, USC, UCLA, etc…

• 2 underduck // May 5, 2008 at 4:57 pm

  The way I see it, the balance between academics and athletics is an issue. There is just more institutional financial instant gratification in athletics and academics takes a back seat. God Bless America.

• 3 Jay // May 5, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  Underduck -

  I can understand how the balance between academics and athletics could be an issue.

  However, consider this situation. I want to give $1 to athletics. And I don’t want to give any to academics. Because the ledger is not even, balanced, should the University reject my gift to athletics? I don’t think so.

  If academics want balanced donations, they need to pick up the slack.

  Jay
  DSN

• 4 Jay // May 5, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  Underduck -

  Something else to consider.

  What would athletics’ reaction be if the situation was reversed?

  Jay
  DSN

• 5 Treston // May 5, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  Even with Knight’s enormous donations, the UofO is still well under many schools around the country in fund raising. The size of his donation, along with being synonymous with Nike, Knight is an easy and visible target to write about. As long as there is an arms race in college sports, why shouldn’t the UofO be competing in that arms race? And, why should they turn away a rich friend of the University. That makes no sense. Criticize the game if you want, but don’t blame the players.

• 6 Tyson // May 5, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  don’t hate the players, hate the game.

• 7 Richard // May 5, 2008 at 5:39 pm

  And why would the university turn away $4 million in donations? A wait, they are doing that with the wrestling boosters because(quoting Phil Knight to an employee) “I don’t sell enough wrestling shoes to care.”

  If that’s isn’t a direct influence over the livelyhood of student-athletes interest, I don’t know what is. And that’s a bad influence.

• 8 jj // May 5, 2008 at 5:44 pm

  It’s pretty obvious that the boregonian has an ax to grind with the U of O and Phil Knight. It’s not the first time as you’ve pointed out. It doesn’t surprise me that phil would be pre-emptive with the new slew of articles. He’s a smart man. And not the first time the Oregonian has hated on a local billionaire. 10 years ago, I remember another area billionaire getting fed up at the newspaper and starting the Tribune. They continue to lambast Pamplin about his gifts as well. I just wish our business community would stop supporting the O. Despite their horrible instate sports coverage, they don’t report on barely anything nationally, from politics, to business, to sports, etc. The reg gaurd is by far the best paper in Oregon, followed by the tribune. The O falls somewhere below the Mercury in my book.

  Bottom line, who cares what the Oregonian thinks, I agree with you Jay, Phil can direct his donations however he wants to and I for one am thankful to him for his generosity.

• 9 Todd // May 5, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  Jay, the $1 analogy is a great example! Here here!

  The Humanities department I graduated from didn’t do jack for me when I was there, nor have they done anything to give me the same historic feelings UO athletics has since. Why would I give them a dollar ever?

  If I had to give equal dollars to academics and athletics, I’d probably just keep the money and vacation more, instead of going to games.

  I just don’t understand the animosity from the intellectual types. I say to them, pack up your things, and move closer to an Ivy League school. Their athletic programs are easily quashed by academics. Discuss nothing but prose there.

• 10 Jay // May 5, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  JJ -

  I didn’t want to get into the “What can I do?” thing in my blog (because I thought it was too long, already).

  But if I did, here’s where I would have gone.

  What can you do about The Oregonian’s coverage of the University of Oregon? Nothing. Really.

  However, a few select people could do a bunch. If they are so inclined. And that group of people would be in the business community.

  Those individuals would have to own businesses, support Oregon, and advertise in The Oregonian. If they would be willing to use their businesses to make a point, all they would have to do is pull their advertising from The Oregonian.

  Individuals could stop their subscriptions. Not click on the OregonLive.com links. Send emails to the authors. And all of that is fine. Unfortunately, it would be more of an annoyance to them, than effective.

  Money talks. That’s all The Oregonian will listen to. And it’s going to have to be a bunch.

  Jay
  DSN

• 11 profem // May 5, 2008 at 7:02 pm

  Now, now, Jay, that’s a bit ridiculous. You want to have people boycott the Oregonian for being critical (slanted, perhaps) towards the UofO and Knight?

  I hope you can stretch your horizon and think about what injustices in this state or country deserve organized boycotting. Consider, for example, the state’s ranking in hunger (at or near the top) and the state’s ranking in business taxes (at or near the bottom). Or consider the oil companies’ massive gains in the past few years while the oil prices have steadily increased and put pressure on just about every U.S. citizen.

  I am a huge Ducks fan. And more than once have I defended the positive impact of athletics on the academic side of this university. I certainly don’t think athletics and academics have to be opposed to each other at all.

  But the state gives its flagship state school less than 20% of its funding for academics, and the consequences are dire. (I won’t bore you with the usual list.) This is not Knight’s fault; and he has actually helped to remedy the problem a bit. But have a little empathy with students and staff at the UofO who feel like being on educational food stamps.

  I wish the Oregonian would go after the state’s laughable underfunding of its universities. But at least the Oregonian is critical; not something I can say about the R-G.

• 12 Richard // May 5, 2008 at 7:21 pm

  Do they have an ax to grind or are the questions they raise something that should’ve already been raised. I think this side of college athletics needs to be reported on more and not just shoved under the rug. Whether its UO, Texas or whoever, the public has a right to see both sides of an issue and not just one that is fed to us in order to keep us passive.

  What UO is sacrificing is education for entertainment and sales revenue. As far as that goes, that should’nt be tolerated. I have family who have recently graduated from UO that are simply disgusted with how things are turning out at the school in the name of the “Swoosh.”

• 13 Todd // May 5, 2008 at 8:28 pm

  Education is everywhere. Go and get it!

  Why do we only limit our personal growth to an institution? That might be the problem.

  Why do the folks that cry the perverbial “foul” about the lack of money for academics insist that the free-enterprising athletic side is evil?

• 14 Jay // May 5, 2008 at 9:19 pm

  Profem -

  I’m not suggesting that people do anything in response to The Oregonian series critical of Phil Knight and his relationship with the U of O.

  What I’m suggesting is that, honestly, the individual can do very little in this kind of situation. The only thing that can get The Oregonian’s attention is the business that invests in The Oregonian. If someone wanted to use their business in a way to send a message, they could start by not continuing to advertise in the O. But, other than that, canceling subscriptions and the like won’t have much of an impact.

  Are there other things to be concerned about in this world other than Oregon athletics? Absolutely. But Duck fans take their support for Oregon very seriously. And the message boards are full of threads about what fans should do in response to this series.

  As far as The Oregonian is concerned, you bring a good explanation as to why they did this series, instead of on state financing of the higher education system. People will talk about these stories. Readers won’t be talking about a series on the underfunding of the universities. That’s unfortunate, but that’s reality.

  Could the RG be more critical of the U of O? That depends (I’m sure if you ask some within the RG, they would probably say, “Yes.). But is there something to be critical about? And that raises the question regarding the timing of this series. What prompted this? It’s obviously been in the works for some time. Is the new arena? Is it Frohnmayer’s retirement?

  I don’t know. And that’s why I think most Duck fans feel like there is an agenda at work.

  Jay
  DSN

• 15 Jay // May 5, 2008 at 9:25 pm

  Richard -

  Other than the wrestling situation, I’d like to see an example of where athletics has impeded academics at the University of Oregon.

  Also, I’ll contend that without the financial support from the likes of the Knights and Kilkennys, academics would be suffering much more now than they are supposedely already suffering.

  Jay
  DSN

• 16 Hank Hosfield // May 6, 2008 at 12:05 am

  Jay, did you mean another example of how athletics has impeded academics in addition to hiring Kilkenny and compromising the academic credibility of the university?

  Here’s a few more possible negative impacts of athletics upon academics:

  The fallout from a dispirited faculty forced to make do while athletics hauls in 37% of the total university donations to run an athletic department that only offers athletic programs for barely over 2% of the entire student body.

  Classes that are dumbed down to accommodate special athletic admits that have no business in college in the first place.

  A new arena funded by state bonds that limit the UO from seeking additional state bonds to fund other necessary capital improvements on campus, such as much-needed new dorms and classrooms.

  The growing public perception that athletics trump academics at Oregon, which will likely have a chilling effect on the future recruiting and retention of top students and faculty.

  A growing adversarial relationship between athletics and academics that threatens the harmonious educational atmosphere of the university.

  The celebration of athletics at the expense of proper perspective of the greater educational mission of the university.

  I’m sure the academic set can come up with even more examples, but I don’t travel in those circles.

  In the event anyone reading my posts on DSN gets the impression that I’m more aligned with the grumbling profs, you should know that I come from a far more athletic background. I competed and coached internationally. I’m a true believer in athletics and defend their place in education. I’m also enormously proud of the growing success of UO athletics. I haven’t missed a home football game since 1988. By and large, my coaches took more interest in my total development than most of my professors ever did, so I don’t have a warm and fuzzy feeling about Oregon whenever I spy my sheepskin hidden at the bottom of a shelf in my den. Yet somehow I understand that academics are actually more important than athletics, and that recent events in UO athletics have damaged the academic reputation of the UO and that this is something that the people of Oregon should be concerned about. I don’t know what to make of the fact that so many Ducks fans posting on here seemingly don’t.

• 17 profem // May 6, 2008 at 12:32 am

  Some people are far too quick at jumping from an obvious _discrepancy_ between academics and athletics to claims of an _impediment_ of athletics exerting on academics. I agree, Jay, that we have to look at concrete data. And I believe we will find many cases of discrepancies and very few of direct impediment (or decisions between academics and athletics that favor athletics).

  One of the few places where I can see some impediment is in morale. While the football and basketball recruiting are really fabulous for us fans, with some facilities being (and some soon will be) among the best in the country, recruiting top graduate students into academic programs is a bit of a nightmare here. The UO’s GTF stipends are far below their competitors’, and graduate students simply cannot live on the money they get (for working as teachers while doing a ton of research as well).

  This is terrible for the moral of recruiting faculty and that of the recruited prospective students. In no way is it the _fault_ of athletics; but by contrast to the great funding there, the underfunding in academics drives people away.

  Some have argued that the athletics department should pay back into the general budget (just as the general budget financed them until about 5 years ago), and if they did, graduate student stipends could be improved.

  But not by enough. It takes a commitment from state and university (and not just TALK about that) to change this situation.

  If the Oregonian’s series draws people’s attention to the many discrepancies, then it serves an important purpose. It should not be misunderstood as blaming the athletics department for the constraints in academics; I don’t think that’s what any of the articles is really saying.

• 18 wheaton4prez // May 6, 2008 at 4:16 am

  Hey Jay,

  It’s an honor to have been quoted by you on this subject!

  Reading the commentary here… Call me presumptious. But, I get the impression that these lists of reasons why donations to athletics are bad for academics are born of antipathy rather than observation. They read more like a marketing brain-storm than a clear explaination. “Maybe it’s this… or maybe it’s this… and I’m sure others have better ideas!”

  Nobody (that I have seen) is suggesting that academics are not important. Simply that someone making a large donation to athletics is not at the expense of academics. Certainly, nothing worthy of the symphony orchestra of whistle-blowing offered by The Oregonian.

  Well funded athletics is only bad for recruiting faculty if a substantial number of prospective faculty erroneously believe athletics have anything to do with their prospective employment situation at the university. I’m doubtful that the cliche of people having to be disinterested in sports (ie nerds) to be smart (ie professors) has much merit, anyway. A person might just as easily be more interested in the university because they grew up watching Ducks football.

  Without an athletics department, the University would recieve 37% fewer donations. So, how would that change academics from “making due” any more than they are now?

  If classes are dumbed down for athletes, they are so at the discretion of the professors, not by the whims of the athletic department or Phil Knight. The whole idea behind the student athlete study building is to smart-up the athletes rather than dumb-down anything for anyone else.

  Funding the arena does not come at the expense of the Universities ability to seek funding for any other reason. The fact is, as a revenue generating facility, the arena is a viable business investment. The bonds are to be re-paid plus interest. Dorms and other depreciating assets are more difficult to fund because they don’t have an ROI. They must simply be added to the top of the budget for tax-payers.

  In my view, persons who get what they want, for lack of a cohesive reason, by creating disharmony are called children.

  The only thing that academics need to do to be celebrated is something someone believes is worth celebrating. The idea that we should now regulate who can celebrate what is ridiculous. The concept of celebrating is to simply recognize achievement. If people aren’t free to celebrate whatever it is they see as an achievement, is true celebration then even possible? Wouldn’t that more accurately be called re-distribution?

• 19 warsawal // May 6, 2008 at 8:34 am

  Just curious, but why is eliminating wrestling an example of “bad influence?” Does wrestling have any more right to a sport at the UofO than baseball, track, lacrosse, etc.? It is disappointing that Oregon can’t offer every sport that every student might want, but to say that removing wrestling is an example of Phil Knight’s “bad influence” is ridiculous…it is simply an example of a business decision that probably should have been made years ago.

• 20 Richard // May 6, 2008 at 9:27 am

  warsawal,

  When eliminating your 2nd highest graduation rated sport at the college, wrestling at like 80%,(2nd only to men’s tennis) and then still backing sports that only graduated like 50%(football and basketball), that’s a bad influence. The message he is sending is that graduation isn’t that important unless it makes me money.

  Now, of course, they won’t ever cut those two sports, but my point is until, I believe, this past year, UO basketball was standing to lose scholarships because of their APR. I believe football will be losing scholarships because of their APR.

  The dumbing down of classes comment by Hank, most likely refers not to the professors but the classes that are being taught. Things like pool, TV or any other cake walk classes that are offered in order to help get ones GPA up to keep them eligible. The more emphasis placed on athletics will more likely bring in more of these “dumbed down” classes. Is that the kind of college you wnat to be known as? Or one simply that has cool uniforms and can win some games?

  And sure, you take away Knight and Kilkenny and you lose money, but that doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t rise up and replace them. Some one with a little intergrity towards both academics and athletics and one that isn’t more concerned with making his school his companies ad campaign.

• 21 Jay // May 6, 2008 at 9:28 am

  Here are a flurry of quick responses:

  Hank -

  Ahhh…seems like old times. Ummm…I mean the old wrestling post.

  - The hiring of Kilkenny was an unusual occurrence. He’s only been on board for almost a year. If Oregon’s academic street cred has been shot in less than a year because of his hiring, then the U of O was on dangerous turf long before he arrived.

  - If you want to level the playing field between academics and athletics, you don’t reject Knight’s donations. Ideally, you want to raise academic donations. If academic donations can outpace athletic donations, then those percentages will look a little bit more balanced.

  - Special athletic admits. Hank, seriously, how many athletes are there like that? If athletes only account for 2% of the student population, then those athletes have to account for only a fraction of that. And it’s not like those type of student-athletes don’t exist at other schools. And if academic standards are being dumbed-down, then there are some professors and GTFs who are complicit in this, as well.

  - State bonds. Before the U of O sought state bonds for the arena, I had never heard of the academic side seeking those same bonds for academic purposes. What, were they waiting for that “perfect time” to get those much needed funds?

  - Academics vs. Athletics. Yes, there is an adversarial relationship. But I think it’s mostly coming from the Academics’ jealousy of the Athletics financial success.

  - The celebration of athletics over academics. If you’re looking to what’s really important to most students at the U of O, it’s academics. But what I would like to see is a situation where academics raises itself to the level of athletics, instead of trying to pull athletics down to their level.

  Profem -

  You hit on two key words: discrepancy and morale.

  I think The Oregonian found a bunch of little discrepancies and tried to make a class action suit out of them. And I think that’s what’s got Oregon fans up in arms. The Oregonian smelled smoke. But when they went looking for the fire, they found a bunch of rubbed out matches. Fires, indeed. But very tiny fires.

  As far as morale is concerned, I think this is one of the strongest criticism of the current state at the University of Oregon. Is morale low? I don’t know. However, I could see how that might be the case.

  If I were on the academic side and saw everything that the athletic side (and certain academic programs) were getting in terms of resources, my first reaction would be jealousy. But I would like to think that I would come around to realize that those funds would never come to me if they weren’t going to athletics. And I think I would eventually start to get upset with the academic side for not doing a good enough job in terms of fundraising to keep up with the athletic side.

  My only suggestion to help ease the situation would be when a big athletics donation comes in, I would try to talk that donor into to making some kind of donation to the academic side. And I’m sure this has been done. Unfortunately, I don’t think the academic side has done themselves many favors with their positions in the media. If I were giving a gift to the U of O and some professors were bad-mouthing me, would I want a gift to go towards helping them? I would have to think about it. Because I know, regardless of how much I give, they will never be happy.

  Wheaton4Prez -

  You’re right on. Unfortunately, I think most people on the opposite side of this argument see reducing athletic donations, instead of raising academics funds, as the solution to this problem.

  Warsawal -

  Good question. I happen to agree with you. But that’s a discussion we had a few months ago and the comments grew to around 70.

  Jay
  DSN

• 22 Morgan // May 6, 2008 at 10:30 am

  Hey y’all -

  Couple comments:

  I’ve stated before that if academics wants to compete with athletics for funding, they need to market, develop excitement, and build relationships with big donors. Just Do It.

  And then: somehow people are surprised that money provides sway in public arenas. Take a look at the NRA and gun control. Health care reform and pharmaceuticals. Sign O the Times. (And BTW, I’d much rather address THOSE problems before some supposed academics/athletics inequality.)

• 23 Richard // May 6, 2008 at 11:43 am

  Also, if its simply business then why haven’t tennis, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball and golf been cut yet, since they are obviously exploding with attendance as well?

  If its only business, then football and basketball would only exist, but if you throw in academics into that mix, then they may not exist either because of their APR.

• 24 Hank Hosfield // May 6, 2008 at 11:57 am

  I don’t know whether I’m not a very good writer or if some people aren’t very good readers, but in the interest of clarity, I’m going to further
  simplify my position.

  I believe:

  Fund raising for UO athletics is very good for UO athletics and the greater university has also benefited from their success.

  Knight’s generous contributions have moved the UO forward and created great new opportunities that would have otherwise never existed.

  However, the growing perception of Knight’s undue influence on UO personnel and policy decisions, combined with the UO’s over-dependence on his continuing largesse, worry many who care about the academic and institutional integrity of this public trust.

  Knight’s green lighting of Kilkenny’s improper hiring further compromised the UO’s academic integrity and invited national ridicule.

  The prosperity gap between athletics and academics is real, but its greatest impact is symbolic.

  The public image of Nike U pouring money into first-rate athletics while funding academics at a subsistence level is bad for building academics.

  Academics are not merely as important as athletics, they are much more important.

  I find it disappointing that few of my fellow Ducks fans seem to share this view; and appalling that the UO leadership seemingly operates as if they don’t share it, either.

  What is the damage of all this? Consider the following letter to the editor from John Hardy that appeared in The Oregonian today:

  UO’s Priorities Skewed

  My daughter recently received a postcard advising her she is on a waiting list for a dorm room at the University of Oregon. When I talked to the university’s director of housing, he told me that the dorms are so highly overbooked that it is now likely that hundreds of freshman students may be turned away from on-campus residence halls, and their parents will be left to find off-campus housing for their kids with little or no help from the university administration.

  Your paper gushed all over about Dave Frohnmayer’s tenure as president of the University of Oregon. However, given the apparent state of the on-campus housing situation, faculty salaries and hit-or-miss academics, I seriously question his recent judgment regarding priorities and planning.

  Fixing and replacing aging dorms, improving average-rated academics and increasing faculty salaries are just not as “sexy” as building, dedicating and using the new multimillion-dollar arena and the new baseball field.

  A truly great college president would realize the importance of the university’s non-athletic needs and would handle these more important core issues before the ground is broken on two new expensive sports facilities.

  Looking at an $80,000-plus bill over the next four years, first and foremost I am sending my daughter to Eugene to get an education, not for sports entertainment, and she should at least have a roof over her head while pursuing her academic dreams.

  JOHN HARDY Southeast Portland

• 25 warsawal // May 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm

  Richard,
  I still don’t see how eliminating Wrestling as a scholarship sport is unduly “influencing” anything on the academic side of the ledger. Aren’t these students still able to attend class, study, etc.? This is a silly argument. Wrestling was eliminated because its costs outweighed its revenues by a greater margin than any of the other sports you mention, not because someone decided that Wrestling graduates too many students.

• 26 Richard // May 6, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Hank,

  I think some just don’t get it because of the glossy overcoat that is Nike U now. All the glitz and glamour of the college is blinding a lot of people and they are looking past all the major problems that are going on all for the sake of the glitz and glamour.

  There’s something wrong with that. And, that doesn’t necessarily just apply to UO, but a lot of these athletic first schools.

  Look at Miami. Great football school, but not what you would call an academic powerhouse. They have sacrificed education for more skybox seats. UO is in the same boat.

  There is nothing wrong with wanting to have great athletic facilities or teams, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of education. Why do you send your kids to college? For an education or entertainment?

• 27 dfb // May 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  I too am mystified why the Oregonian articles aren’t causing more Duck fans to question what is going on. I have been a Duck fan for almost 50 years, with multiple family members working for, graduating from or at least significantly attached to the UofO. But it seems as if many Duck fans are willing to sell their integrity, or at least the University’s, for a BCS bowl game. This is how football factories lose their way, because no one wants to rock the boat, especially one tha makes lots of money.
  Not only am I not angry at the Oregonian, but I have sent the editors a thank you not for having the courage to write a semi-critical article about such a powerful figure and institution in this state. That is how journalism serves the culture. I only wish the Register Guard had a small portion of that courage. The RG has become simply the PR department for the Casanova Center.

• 28 Jay // May 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  Honestly, as a Duck fan I can’t even muster up the energy to care about this.

  It seems to me that the only people weighing in on this issue aren’t doing it out of any honest sense of outrage.

  Its such a non-issue, really. I don’t know how its percieved controversy, or sells papers.

  Phil Knight donates a lot of money and, as such, has more influence than most boosters. Big deal.

  Oregon academics are not sufferring because of Knight’s donations.

  If people want to harrass Knight, and try and get him to spend more on Oregon academics (of which he already does spend a considerable amount), more power to them. Of course, people like Canzano aren’t basing their argument on getting Knight to concern himself more about Academics, because that is clearly a retarded argument. He can do with his money, whatever he wants.

  Instead the idea is to attack the University for…? Accepting his donations?

  Yes, Beaver & Husky fans everywhere our outraged at this impropriety.

  Oddly enough, living in Los Angeles, you don’t hear any concern over it.

  I’m sure that’s purely coincidental and all of the Northwest outrage is purely based on alums of Oregon State, and Washington wanting the University of Oregon to be a better academic school.

  The argument, itself, is a junior high school girl-fight. How to deal with it? Ignore it. Its a complete waste of time.

• 29 duck1fan // May 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  Hank I understand that the university needs to find creative ways at raising money for academics but the way it sounds is that your blaming all of those athletic fiancial supporters. It almost sounds like people are looking a gift horse in the mouth. If people want to donate for whatever they want, why can’t we let them!! It does suck that not as many people have stepped up for academic support but that shouldn’t give us the right to criticise the support that has been given! To even think about telling someone how they “have” to donate there is outrageous! Would you like someone to tell you that your donations has to go towards a certain program or they won’t accept your donation? You take what you can get when you can get it and be happy that person gave what they did and move forward!

• 30 PlayerHater // May 6, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Bottom line in my opinion is that wrestling was sacrificed because it is not an exciting sport to watch. Even the most boring, dragged out, non scoring 14 inning baseball game could keep the interest of 1000 fold the amount of fans. The only exciting wrestling to watch is fake as hell and you need a mullet and nascar t-shirt to join the fanclub.
  The only reason that wrestling graduates 80% is because other than UFC or some other combat based career, there really is no future in the study of this archaic sport.

• 31 Richard // May 6, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  I’d be curious to know if donors aren’t somehow convinced to donate only to athletics when sometimes they may want to donate to academics. I’d bet this has happened as it seems like there is more concern to raise money for athletics, than academics at the school.

  I can remember a story at Notre Dame when a boosters will(large sum of money) was intended to be left for an endowment of a program, and the admins talked the widow into directing it towards football instead.

  However, I did find duck1fan’s comment amusing. He states “You take what you can get when you can get it and be happy that person gave what they did and move forward!”

  That’s a great comment, well unless, its money for a program that doesn’t sell enough shoes. Then that money is unacceptable.

• 32 Aric The Duck // May 6, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  Money follows success. If academics wants a bigger share of the pie…succeed at something.

• 33 Hank Hosfield // May 6, 2008 at 3:42 pm

  Okay. It appears I need to further clarify my position.

  I’m very grateful for Knight’s many donations, and for those from everyone else, too. For athletics, academics, the hostess fund, everything. Thrilled, actually. Giddy, on occasion. Well done!

  I would never presume to tell anyone how they should give their money.

  I’ve never blamed anyone for giving; nor have I blamed them for not giving.

  I wouldn’t take a cent away that was donated for athletics and redirect it.

  All I’ve done is recognize how academics and the UO’s reputation are taking unintended hits as a result of the improper hiring of a booster, and the growing public perception of a benevolent billionaire who seems to have more influence on the UO than many feel is proper.

  I may have mentioned something about selling souls at some point. I may have been wrong about that. Souls may not exist, and therefor could not be sold.

  It does seem to me that all things combined bespeak an insufficient dedication to the educational mission of the university, and a new way of doing business within the Cas Center that seems at odds with the values of our state. But this is much less the fault of donors than it is of leadership.

  I’ve lauded the good, and voiced my disagreement about things in which I thought the UO could have done so much better. If it helps, think of my position on this as matching that of Ryan White. Only difference, I’m not impartial. I root for the Ducks.

• 34 Life is what you make it // May 6, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  You can get a great education at PCC if you study and work hard. UO’s academic reputation has always been upper middle, and I don’t see that slipping because we also have good athletics and accept donations. Students who care about their academics will excel and those that don’t won’t. It is that simple.

  I seem to remember Oregon raising its grade point requirement and min sat score. Doesn’t exactly jive with slipping academics does it beav fan?

• 35 wheaton4prez // May 6, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  Jay,

  “Unfortunately, I think most people on the opposite side of this argument see reducing athletic donations, instead of raising academics funds, as the solution to this problem.”

  You really hit the nail on the head here. What this is really about is the fact that, not just the UofO, but most universities across the nation, via lack of accountability, radical agendas and the pursuit of anything and everything not valuable to society, American academics have slowly and surely diminished the value of their product. A shiny new athletic building is only a reminder of the fact that the contribution of university academics to society is in the red, and by their own doing.

  Consider for a moment how much money is out there in the fields that academics represent. However giganto Nike is, it is safe to say that inventions in scientific fields, gains in innovative new businesses, great works of art and literature, etc. bring in the big bucks too. Phil Knight believes that the athletics department at UofO played a significant role toward his success with Nike. Conversely, there doesn’t seem to be a rush of great inventors, CEOs, authors, etc. that feel like academics are deserving of the same kind of giving back. That’s not the athletics departments fault. It’s the academics.

  Academics, innovation, “being smart” are all very important. The problem is that academics programs at universities, by their own actions, policies and disregard for anything practical or relevant to society have removed themselves from the equation. Students go to universities to get a piece of paper. They learn how to change the world while on the job at corporations.

  Richard, can you be any more transparent? You’re angry about wrestling. We get it. I agree that it was a bad move. But, it doesn’t make anything and everything UO or Phil Knight wrong.

• 36 Seems to me // May 6, 2008 at 5:48 pm

  i think hank seems to be writing a little to smart for people to understand. that tends to happen when you’re educated and talking to the un-educated. that is the price you pay when athletics is way more important than academics.

  i don’t know if hank can dumb it down anymore for you folks.

  academics should be just as important as athletics at uo. people need to wake up and realize that.