This Margaret Soltan take-down of the University of Oregon president is a thing of beauty.
Pages
- Photos at Flickr
- About Me
- Emergence Notes
- Last Collection Speech, Swarthmore, 2002
- Permanent Entries
- Power Can Lose
- Research Libraries Group/OCLC Programs Talk, June 2007
- Scholarly Articles
- Syllabi
- History 1L The History of Play and Leisure, Spring 2008
- History 1Y History of the Future Spring 2011
- History 61 The Production of History, Spring 2007
- History 62 The History of Reading, Spring 2007
- History 62, The History of Reading, Spring 2012
- History 80 The Whole Enchilada
- History 83 What Ifs and Might-Have-Beens, Spring 2011
- History 87 Development and Modern Africa, Spring 2007
- History 88 The Social History of Consumption, Spring 2008
- History 89 Environmental History of Africa
- History 8B History of Southern Africa, Spring 2011
- History 8B. Mfecane, Mines and Mandela: Southern Africa from 1600 to 2006, Fall 2006
- History 8C From Leopold to Kabila: The Bad Twentieth Century in Central Africa, Spring 2008
- History of the Future, Spring 2006
- The NOTES ARCHIVE
Archives
- June 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- May 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
Categories
- Academia
- Africa
- Blogging
- Books
- Cleaning Out the Augean Stables
- Consumerism, Advertising, Commodities
- Defining "Liberal Arts"
- Digital Humanities
- Domestic Life
- Food
- Games and Gaming
- Generalist's Work
- Good Quote, Bad Quote
- Grasping the Nettle
- I'm Annoyed
- Information Technology and Information Literacy
- Intellectual Property
- Miscellany
- Oath for Experts
- Oh Not Again He's Going to Tell Us It's a Complex System
- Pictures from an Institution
- Politics
- Popular Culture
- Production of History
- Sheer Raw Geekery
- Swarthmore
- The Mixed-Up Bookshelves
- Uncategorized
Meta
He uses rhetoric to emphasize the positive. She emphasizes the negative (with her own brand of rhetoric). Mostly they’re talking past one another. Even if her negatives do come true, and Congress does restrict educational loans to UOregon–something that seems unlikely–it won’t affect the truth value of the positives he cites. I know Ms. Soltan doesn’t much care for the current status of university athletics, and that they have a deleterious effect on university academics; I don’t particularly see that this current entry is a terribly strong argument for her views.
It’s a cumulative argument on her part. But seriously, the UOregon president’s piece is 100% empty–it’s not “accentuating the positive”. It’s content-free. There’s an argument to be made about how athletics fits into things, but that’s not it.
I suppose I am naive. It struck me as boiler-plate, but not empty.
I’m a lurker on this blog, but this U of O thing has shaken me out of my passivity. Forgive the rambling quality here.
I got my BA from the U of O in 1992, and in those days athletics, like frats, were present but more or less a non-entity. Our football team stunk (I vaguely remember us getting invited to a particularly marginal bowl game, once; the Daisy Bowl or something). We were proudest of our track team, which drew a few world-class Africans (during my brief stint on the cross country team, I can remember seeing a teenage Maria Mutola running intervals) and had a truly great history (Steve Prefontaine, Alberto Salazar, etc.), but drew nothing even approximate to the kind of fuss consistent with college basketball or football.
And I must say I was really well-served by the U of O. I wanted to go to a big state school, but had no interest in sports (other than cross-country, the misfit geek of sports), frats, or other big-state-social-life kind of things. Because of the sheer size of the place I had an insanely wide variety of professors, ran a very well-funded film society, got involved with a few national activist networks, etc; because of the sheer size of the place I was also able to avoid the kind of touchy-feely forced intimacy that seemed to go along with small-liberal-arts-type education (my sisters both went to Grinnell). As I look back on the experience I do feel like I managed to get the every best of what a big public university can offer.
And I think that the faculty that signed the statement that Frohnmayer is replying to are driven by a fear of losing that sort of experience. You can see the faculty statement at http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/01/14/ed.col.tublitz.0114.p1.php?section=opinion . So I share Soltan’s annoyance at Frohnmayer’s failure to engage with some pretty precise problems here, such as when the faculty point out that “The UO’s 2004 four- and five-year graduation rates, at 36.4 percent and 56.7 percent respectively, are significantly below our academic peers and near the bottom of the Pac-10. Oregon is the only Pac-10 school to be recently downgraded by the Carnegie Trust from the top tier to the second tier of national research universities.†These are major problems, ones that cut to the core of what the U of O was all about. When I knew it, it was not just CU on the coast. Indeed, I grew up in Colorado Springs, and made a very clear decision not to go to CU, partially because I wanted out of Colorado, but also because I didn’t want any part of the big-school football-frat-party environment which so defined that place (I have no idea what it’s like now).
The job of a college president is to direct these sorts of macro-issues. What kind of place will the U of O be? CU on the coast? A soggy, mellower Michigan? An aspirant Northern Berkeley? I realise that they don’t phrase this sort of thing in terms of comparisons (how insecure, he realised sheepishly…..), but it seems to me that this is the level of decisions that they should be making. Presidents provide, in the immortal words of GHWB, the vision thing. And this sort of pious, lazy response to your faculty’s pointing out that the place is drifting into academic mediocrity makes it painfully clear that Frohnmayer, like GHWB (who appointed him to head the NEA back when I was the U of O), just can’t be bothered.
So maybe the speech is boilerplate, maybe it’s content-free. Either way, Frohnmayer’s got some serious issues on his hands, issues with long-term implications, and this speech tells me that he just doesn’t care.
Again, sorry for the ramble. Sentimental over co-ed days I suppose.
As I was driving home last night I remembered that it was John, not Dave, Frohnmayer, who ran the NEA under Bush père. Sorry.
1. There’s no reason to say that the experience that Jerry White had as an undergraduate is mutually exclusive with relatively low four-year graduation rates, slipping relative research rankings, and more spending for an athletic team. (Frankly, I could image that high research rankings would correlate with less teacher attention for students.)
2. This bit about Oregon slipping *relatively* does raise the question of whether it’s slipping *absolutely*. Is Oregon positively worse academically than it was a decade ago? Or have other peer institutions simply improved themselves at a faster rate? If the latter, there is some cause for criticism, but I think of a more nuanced, Burkean variety.
3. Going back to the original letter from Oregon that started all this … I do find parts of it untrustworthy. It deplores the rising student-faculty ration – well and good. But it then, after talking about a 20% increase in student enrollment (which, incidentally, indicates UOregon is doing something right) rather dodgily brings in the phrase “without an equivalent increase in full-time faculty.” Presumably Oregon, like everywhere else, has relied a fair bit on adjuncts, gypsy profs, etc.–which may not be an optimal experience for the students, but is presumably better than nothing. The phrase twists from the interests of the students to the interests of the faculty–which may overlap, but are not identical–unpleasantly. Then they deplore the decrease in graduate students–when, at least in the humanities, one major line of criticism is that *too many* graduate students are accepted, without hope of a job, to satisfy professors’ professional egos, and that the number should be lowered. This would indicate Oregon might be doing something right. I also have no conception from their letter of precisely how much academic costs are in comparison with athletic costs, or how many Oregonians could qualify for financial aid (so many that the athletic scholarships would be a drop in the bucket?) I don’t know if the Biology Department’s office staff were necessary–and I do note that their budget has increased 47% in 12-13 years, which seems pretty solid to me. Furthermore, given scarce resources, *any* spending on athletics will always come at the expense of academics–and their line of argument inclines toward the (not very compromising) thought that athletics would be better off at zero spending. Athletic capital spending is high–but did Oregon have a low capital in athletics before the campaign?
And so on. There probably are good and valid criticisms in the letter, but there are a number of slipshod and unconvincing arguments in it. It doesn’t strike me as categorically superior to the UOregon president’s letter. And since any argument by academics that we ought to put academics first is, um, predictable, I find it difficult to get emotionally behind it. If I were the UOregon president, I think I might say “Faculty whinging about their salaries again–the rest is boilerplate.” I’m not sure I’d be entirely wrong.
This kind of argument-by-factoid is kind of tricky. It makes athletic department spending sound obscene. You could pay a severance package to a coach of a few million, enough to pay for secretaries for all the humanities departments put together. Probably the athletics spending is obscene, but it needs to be compared to a comparable area of the university, say liberal arts and sciences. What is their total budget, where does it comes from and what does it do? Educate x number of students at x amount per student. Where does the athletics department budget come from? (state money, tuition, donations, t.v. revenues). Where does it go? (salaries, buildings, travel, scholarships). Only with this information out in front can one have a serious discussion of athletics vs. academics. Then the questions can be answered. Does the athletics department lose or gain money? If it is a money-making enterprise how much of that money is simply channeled back into athletics? Do licensing fees on tee-shirts go to the university or the athletics department? Does success and publicity in sports result in more donations to the athletic department or to the university as a whole, and in what proportion? Does the “leverage” argument hold water? In other words, the argument that spending on athletics results in a net gain for the university in publicity and donations.
We all have our gut instincts, but these are empirical questions. I believe a mediocre state school would usually remain mediocre even if athletics were eliminated completely. There wouldn’t be extra millions to spend because much financial support would dry up due to loss of political, community, and alumni suppport for the institution. Eventually you would have even less money.
So then we need to have big-time sports. Do we need to spend that much on it? Well, it’s something that can’t just be done in a perfunctory way because it’s a big business and so you’re competing against other schools with obscene spending. So you are trapped in a way. If your sports team is bad it’s obvious. If some academic department slides into mediocrity or worse it’s not visible in the same way.
If it weren’t for sports, the government would have already shut down the American colleges and university system. Think about it: they hate science, they hate education, they hate art, they hate literature, they hate liberals… they hate anyone who KNOWS anything. Pretty much everything that higher education is, they despise… and as we’ve seen, they aren’t shy about using the power of government to eradicate institutions they despise. Really, the only reason why they haven’t turned every major univerity in America into some kinda Vacation Bible School is because the only scenario in which I can imagine American citizens dragging our fearless leaders into the streets and hanging them from any convenient lightpost (as a citizenry with BALLS would have done years ago) is one in which the government took action that threatened Pro or College Sports.
So I would submit that all you lefty types that rail against the prominence of sports at your institutions of higher learning consider carefully how far you want to push your point. Because, in America, higher education serves the following functions, listed in order of importantance:
1. Permitting overgrown adolescents to drink and screw their way through their late teens and early 20s.
2. Sports.
3. Facilitating the coordination of “drum circles” that (scientists believe) keep the earth from falling off its axis.
4. Providing a fertile testing ground for the nextgen drugs the CIA plans to use to subjugate the ghetto.
5. Teaching people stuff.
I don’t know. I’m not a fan of big-time college athletics, but I thought Dr Soltan failed to make a comprehensible point.
If (as Frohmayer’s letter states) the athletic department is funded solely with money it generates (from ticket sales, licensing, and targeted donations)–then that money wouldn’t be available for academics if there was no athletic program–it just wouldn’t be coming in at all.