http://www.indystar.com/article/20130420/SPORTS0605/304200038/Butler-jumps-bigger-stage-bigger-money-some-ask-could-lose-its-way-
"Margaret Brabant, chair of the Butler faculty senate and a political science professor, told the Washington Post the move could be "a dance with the devil."
A career academic has a problem with growing visibility for sports programs?
Never saw that coming.
Quote from: MtAiryGoldenEagle on April 22, 2013, 11:30:48 AM
"Margaret Brabant, chair of the Butler faculty senate and a political science professor, told the Washington Post the move could be "a dance with the devil."
What would you expect a female lib arts professor to say? I am sure that if you could find any number of Marquette Profs who think that not only is Marquette dancing with the devil, we are taking him home with us, having unprotected sex, and making him breakfast the next morning.
Liberal arts professors hating on big time sports teams. Welcome to the real show, Butler.
Perhaps if the posters in this thread had spent some more time listening to their liberal arts profs, they'd know what an ad hominem attack is. ZING!
Jokes aside, there is no shortage of legit critiques of her argument that have nothing to do with her gender, her position, or what ever generalizations you have in mind for humanities professor. I'd be curious to hear the critiques of those who feel strongly enough about it. I could always use a counterpoint in my back pocket when this topic comes up with friends who have similar reservations about big time college athletics.
Quote from: MUMBA on April 22, 2013, 12:03:04 PM
Jokes aside, there is no shortage of legit critiques of her argument that have nothing to do with her gender, her position, or what ever generalizations you have in mind for humanities professor.
It would be difficult to critique her argument because she basically doesn't make one. Saying sports is a deal with the devil isn't really saying anything unless you explain what you think the devil is.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PuZoLkvmBbc/SWu7HUa3slI/AAAAAAAACD8/6c25_CDN7A4/s320/David%20Puddy.jpg)
Clicked on this thread expecting to read about Jimmy Butler's role in the Bulls playoff run. Oh well.
Quote from: frozena pizza on April 22, 2013, 12:32:24 PM
Clicked on this thread expecting to read about Jimmy Butler's role in the Bulls playoff run. Oh well.
yup
Quote from: CTWarrior on April 22, 2013, 12:19:20 PM
It would be difficult to critique her argument because she basically doesn't make one. Saying sports is a deal with the devil isn't really saying anything unless you explain what you think the devil is.
Maybe she thinks part of the deal with the devil is hanging with all those catholics.
Quote from: T-Bone on April 22, 2013, 12:25:15 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PuZoLkvmBbc/SWu7HUa3slI/AAAAAAAACD8/6c25_CDN7A4/s320/David%20Puddy.jpg)
Gotta support the team.
I think anyone who takes the time to read her full quote in context wouldn't be so offended. Her comments are less about sports than how sudden growth and an influx of millions of dollars tied to sports affects the entire school.
But yeah, she's a woman, and women just don't get it. Probably a feminist Obama voter, too. Or something.
Butler officials are thrilled with the recognition and hope that the conference change — along with a lucrative television deal — will transform the university, further building its national reputation. But there also are worries about the rapid growth and what it could mean for a school that had existed in near obscurity for more than 150 years.
"I worry that it's a dance with the devil," said Margaret Brabant, a political science professor who is chairwoman of the Butler faculty senate. "It's multimillions of dollars, and money changes people. And if we don't remain vigilant and ask questions, we will go the way of other institutions."
Many students say they were attracted by Butler's small and quiet campus, tucked away in a historic, upscale neighborhood in north Indianapolis. Classes typically have fewer than 20 students, and most professors prioritize teaching over research. Star basketball players study, sleep and eat in the same places as non-athletes. On a recent tour, the student guide pitched Butler as being "a small campus with a big-campus feel."
Recently, the boom in interest has caused a capacity squeeze; the number of undergraduates has grown about 8 percent in five years. The residence halls, university-run apartments and Greek houses are packed, with students sometimes living three to a room or in converted lounges. Parking is scarce. The university has struggled to staff all of its introductory courses without increasing class sizes.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-20/local/37870228_1_butler-bulldogs-butler-university-basketball-tournament
Quote from: chapman on April 22, 2013, 11:36:08 AM
Liberal arts professors hating on big time sports teams. Welcome to the real show, Butler.
Be careful, talking politics and PC is troubling.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 22, 2013, 01:18:19 PM
Maybe she thinks part of the deal with the devil is hanging with all those catholics.
That's right. The DePaul Blue Demons, the Marquette Warriors, the St. John's Redmen, the Seton Hall Pirates, and so on.
Quote from: MUMBA on April 22, 2013, 12:03:04 PM
Perhaps if the posters in this thread had spent some more time listening to their liberal arts profs, they'd know what an ad hominem attack is. ZING!
Jokes aside, there is no shortage of legit critiques of her argument that have nothing to do with her gender, her position, or what ever generalizations you have in mind for humanities professor. I'd be curious to hear the critiques of those who feel strongly enough about it. I could always use a counterpoint in my back pocket when this topic comes up with friends who have similar reservations about big time college athletics.
+100000000
I agree. I vehemently disagree with her. But bringing her gender and profession into the argument is just lazy... but par for the course in today's political discourse
Quote from: Victor McCormick on April 22, 2013, 01:39:58 PM
+100000000
I agree. I vehemently disagree with her. But bringing her gender and profession into the argument is just lazy... but par for the course in today's political discourse
What if they interviewed someone who was employed by the Butler athletic department instead of the school of liberal arts? Would you say that their profession was not relevant to the argument?
And I only mentioned her gender because it means she is statistically less likely to be a basketball fan.
Some of you will be labeled as "anti-education" any minute now....
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 22, 2013, 02:33:42 PM
Some of you will be labeled as "anti-education" any minute now....
Ha! Can't wait.
I'd be more curious to know what the conservative arts representative on the faculty senate says about the move.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 22, 2013, 01:26:03 PM
I think anyone who takes the time to read her full quote in context wouldn't be so offended. Her comments are less about sports than how sudden growth and an influx of millions of dollars tied to sports affects the entire school.
But yeah, she's a woman, and women just don't get it. Probably a feminist Obama voter, too. Or something.
Butler officials are thrilled with the recognition and hope that the conference change — along with a lucrative television deal — will transform the university, further building its national reputation. But there also are worries about the rapid growth and what it could mean for a school that had existed in near obscurity for more than 150 years.
"I worry that it's a dance with the devil," said Margaret Brabant, a political science professor who is chairwoman of the Butler faculty senate. "It's multimillions of dollars, and money changes people. And if we don't remain vigilant and ask questions, we will go the way of other institutions."
Many students say they were attracted by Butler's small and quiet campus, tucked away in a historic, upscale neighborhood in north Indianapolis. Classes typically have fewer than 20 students, and most professors prioritize teaching over research. Star basketball players study, sleep and eat in the same places as non-athletes. On a recent tour, the student guide pitched Butler as being "a small campus with a big-campus feel."
Recently, the boom in interest has caused a capacity squeeze; the number of undergraduates has grown about 8 percent in five years. The residence halls, university-run apartments and Greek houses are packed, with students sometimes living three to a room or in converted lounges. Parking is scarce. The university has struggled to staff all of its introductory courses without increasing class sizes.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-20/local/37870228_1_butler-bulldogs-butler-university-basketball-tournament
Athletics are a dance with the devil.
University mission statements don't include "Win lots of games and make lots of money", yet some schools have sacrificed their own reputations for that purpose. PSU, ND, Miami, Memphis, SMU, USC all to varying degrees.
Now, for some schools, it's a simple give and take, with the academic institution reaping HUGE benefits from the publicity big time athletics brings, while the hardcore "academics" have to understand that athletics are part of the deal. They can certainly coexist peacefully.
Butttttt, we also know that the more $$ that involved, the more pressure, and the more likely a school is willing to sacrifice own integrity for wins and $$.
Stick to teaching girls about the health benefits of flicking their beans.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on April 22, 2013, 02:53:44 PM
Athletics are a dance with the devil.
University mission statements don't include "Win lots of games and make lots of money", yet some schools have sacrificed their own reputations for that purpose. PSU, ND, Miami, Memphis, SMU, USC all to varying degrees.
Look, I know ND is not popular here, but how can they be lumped in with Miami, USC, SMU and Memphis, who have all been serial violators of NCAA rules and have been on probation numerous times?
Quote from: Norm on April 22, 2013, 03:53:06 PM
Look, I know ND is not popular here, but how can they be lumped in with Miami, USC, SMU and Memphis, who have all been serial violators of NCAA rules and have been on probation numerous times?
I actually like ND, but their handling/mishandling of several "incidents" over the past couple of years have been poor, and I attribute a lot of that to football being too important (IMHO).
Obviously not every infraction is equal.
Quote from: MtAiryGoldenEagle on April 22, 2013, 11:30:48 AM
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130420/SPORTS0605/304200038/Butler-jumps-bigger-stage-bigger-money-some-ask-could-lose-its-way-
"Margaret Brabant, chair of the Butler faculty senate and a political science professor, told the Washington Post the move could be "a dance with the devil."
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23866933.jpg)
n
Quote from: warriorchick on April 22, 2013, 02:04:33 PM
What if they interviewed someone who was employed by the Butler athletic department instead of the school of liberal arts? Would you say that their profession was not relevant to the argument?
And I only mentioned her gender because it means she is statistically less likely to be a basketball fan.
I never said her profession is irrelevant. Its very relevant in that she is a member of the faculty and is employed by Butler. Due to the nature of her employment, she may or may not have a vested interest in athletics, and may or may not have a unique perspective on it. These are all fair game, and should be included in discussion.
I just took issue with automatically discounting her argument based on her gender and profession, rather than an analysis of the argument itself. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. And its lazy.
Like I said, I disagree with her argument. That's what matters.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on April 22, 2013, 02:40:16 PM
I'd be more curious to know what the conservative arts representative on the faculty senate says about the move.
He was unavailable for comment
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/244897/GLENN-BECK.jpg)
Quote from: Victor McCormick on April 23, 2013, 02:11:45 PM
He was unavailable for comment
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/244897/GLENN-BECK.jpg)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/standing-ovation.gif)
In before the lock.....
Maybe terrorists educators William Ayers, Kathy Boudin, Angela Davis can opine from their ivory towers of academia.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on April 22, 2013, 02:53:44 PM
Athletics are a dance with the devil.
University mission statements don't include "Win lots of games and make lots of money", yet some schools have sacrificed their own reputations for that purpose. PSU, ND, Miami, Memphis, SMU, USC all to varying degrees.
Now, for some schools, it's a simple give and take, with the academic institution reaping HUGE benefits from the publicity big time athletics brings, while the hardcore "academics" have to understand that athletics are part of the deal. They can certainly coexist peacefully.
Butttttt, we also know that the more $$ that involved, the more pressure, and the more likely a school is willing to sacrifice own integrity for wins and $$.
Yeah...I'm not exactly sure what she said was so controversial. Perhaps people don't understand what "dance with the devil" means???
Speakin' of dancin' with the devil, can someone post that Harlem Shake thing with Kate again?
Quote from: Terror Skink on April 23, 2013, 02:25:17 PM
Yeah...I'm not exactly sure what she said was so controversial. Perhaps people don't understand what "dance with the devil" means???
It's not controversial.
Butler is experiencing a great deal of growth, a lot of that is due to athletics. That's awesome.
However, we all know the law of unintended consequences. Lots of things can get sideways if you aren't prepared for it.
I believe Biggy Smalls said it best: Mo Money, Mo Problems.
I completely agree Guns. Too many are jumping to conclusions about their preconceptions about what a liberal arts professor believes instead of reading what she actually says.
Hey, she's artsy and she's liberal.
Dumb-a$$ article. A college has success and benefits from it, and someone claims they've lost their way. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
Quote from: Sunbelt15 on April 24, 2013, 10:39:14 AM
Dumb-a$$ article. A college has success and benefits from it, and someone claims they've lost their way. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
Didn't read it, did you?
Ahhhh no! Not the infamous Glenn Beck! I know a few stories from his Top 40 DJ stint here in Connecticut.
Hey, since you all are flexing your misogyny and spouting cliches about liberal arts professors, I thought I might chime in, since I actually am a liberal arts professor. The arguments against athletics from faculty center on one thing: that the core mission of the university is academics, and if too much money/attention is focused elsewhere, that mission suffers. Very few have a problem with athletes or sports per se, and most of the faculty I know are fans of college or pro sports teams, but many of us have seen money funneled towards athletics (including building or renovating arenas and stadiums) that might better be used elsewhere. It's a matter of priorities, particularly at state institutions where funding for higher ed has steadily decreased, but also at smaller private schools like Butler. While all of us recognize that sports can bring revenue and recognition to the university, the landscape is much more complicated with big time sports.
Only a little of this has to do with political beliefs, either. I have a very conservative colleague who is the most rabid college football fan I've ever met, but he still questions whether our university is spending money on sports to the detriment of academic programs. Many of the conservative faculty I know are more vocally opposed to sports than the supposed "liberal" ones, on economic grounds alone (the economists in particular, but also many in the hard sciences, which means, of course, that they are mostly men). So it's not some radical feminist liberal agenda to eradicate sports from universities; it's a reasoned questioning of how the university should best allocate its resources.
And leaving reasoned argument for a moment... Chicos, you can take that tired "ivory tower" canard, fold it, fold it again, fold it a third time, turn it sideways, and shove it where your head is.
Quote from: cj111 on April 25, 2013, 05:35:27 AM
Hey, since you all are flexing your misogyny and spouting cliches about liberal arts professors, I thought I might chime in, since I actually am a liberal arts professor. The arguments against athletics from faculty center on one thing: that the core mission of the university is academics, and if too much money/attention is focused elsewhere, that mission suffers. Very few have a problem with athletes or sports per se, and most of the faculty I know are fans of college or pro sports teams, but many of us have seen money funneled towards athletics (including building or renovating arenas and stadiums) that might better be used elsewhere. It's a matter of priorities, particularly at state institutions where funding for higher ed has steadily decreased, but also at smaller private schools like Butler. While all of us recognize that sports can bring revenue and recognition to the university, the landscape is much more complicated with big time sports.
Only a little of this has to do with political beliefs, either. I have a very conservative colleague who is the most rabid college football fan I've ever met, but he still questions whether our university is spending money on sports to the detriment of academic programs. Many of the conservative faculty I know are more vocally opposed to sports than the supposed "liberal" ones, on economic grounds alone (the economists in particular, but also many in the hard sciences, which means, of course, that they are mostly men). So it's not some radical feminist liberal agenda to eradicate sports from universities; it's a reasoned questioning of how the university should best allocate its resources.
And leaving reasoned argument for a moment... Chicos, you can take that tired "ivory tower" canard, fold it, fold it again, fold it a third time, turn it sideways, and shove it where your head is.
I agree with most of what you say, (the last line in particular is amusing), but your money argument is weak. Big time athletics bring in millions to support the lesser revenue sports and the university as a whole. I am sure each institute is unique, but I would think that the money spent on renovation and facilities is more than offset by the revenue that is brought in from the sport. How would resources be allocated elsewhere if there were no resources generated from the sport or sports to begin with? Is it the money and resources that are the issues, or is it more of a jealousy and attention away from academics that is the issue? I would be more willing to buy that argument.
Quote from: hairyworthen on April 25, 2013, 07:55:53 AM
I agree with most of what you say, (the last line in particular is amusing), but your money argument is weak. Big time athletics bring in millions to support the lesser revenue sports and the university as a whole. I am sure each institute is unique, but I would think that the money spent on renovation and facilities is more than offset by the revenue that is brought in from the sport. How would resources be allocated elsewhere if there were no resources generated from the sport or sports to begin with? Is it the money and resources that are the issues, or is it more of a jealousy and attention away from academics that is the issue? I would be more willing to buy that argument.
Can we please have more posts like this one and the one before it, instead of posts like "OMG THE TERRORIST NAZI WAR SOCIALISTS ARE RUINING AMERICA!!!111!!!"? I don't care what position you take but at least put together a coherent argument before posting it.
Regarding your post though- my impression is that from a strictly financial perspective, athletics rarely have substantial
direct benefits that outweigh the costs, although there are many exceptions of sports/schools that do pay for themselves and make a ton of money in the process. On average, however, it is a loss of money for most universities. Nevertheless, athletics does increase the reputation of a school, which helps them to attract better students, faculty, etc... As such, although athletics doesn't pay for itself directly, it serves the same function as the PR department, which can be valuable.
Quote from: cj111 on April 25, 2013, 05:35:27 AM
So it's not some radical feminist liberal agenda to eradicate sports from universities; it's a reasoned questioning of how the university should best allocate its resources.
Although I take exception one term you use, what you say is very true; however, it's probably also safe to assume that your typical radical, feminist liberal (RFL) is going to advocate allocating less resources to athletics.
That said, "reasoned questioning" cannot exist when the two sides (athletics vs. academia) are debating about which one of them should get more money. One of the most important, real-life lessons I learned in graduate school from working with and interacting with academics was that nobody on this Earth is immune to the "I gots [sic] to get mine" syndrome; even the most logical, reasonable, wise, and objective professor turns into a blathering moron the second you start talking about his/her paycheck.
Many feel that spending a bunch of money on athletic facilities is a waste of money because that money could be better spent on more "academic" things.
However, my hunch is that if a university spent the same amount of money on new performing arts facilities (e.g., new theater, new musical instruments, etc), people wouldn't be so up in arms. And the reason for this hunch is that football, and athletics more generally, is seen as more low-brow, while the performing arts are seen as more high-brow.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on April 25, 2013, 09:47:51 AM
Many feel that spending a bunch of money on athletic facilities is a waste of money because that money could be better spent on more "academic" things.
However, my hunch is that if a university spent the same amount of money on new performing arts facilities (e.g., new theater, new musical instruments, etc), people wouldn't be so up in arms. And the reason for this hunch is that football, and athletics more generally, is seen as more low-brow, while the performing arts are seen as more high-brow.
Universities were founded and have mission statements. When a lot of $$ is spent on items that don't directly tie into that mission statement, it can be an issue. A school can potentially drift from it's core values and beliefs when a lot of $$ is involved.
Athletics CAN help with a school's mission. In fact, for a lot of schools, it does. But, it can also be disastrous if a school loses focus.
Politics has nothing to do with it. Being "high-brow" or "low-brow" has nothing to do with it. It's about $$, gentlemen.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on April 25, 2013, 09:47:51 AM
However, my hunch is that if a university spent the same amount of money on new performing arts facilities (e.g., new theater, new musical instruments, etc), people wouldn't be so up in arms. And the reason for this hunch is that football, and athletics more generally, is seen as more low-brow, while the performing arts are seen as more high-brow.
This has not been my experience at several institutions I have worked at. I have seen faculty oppose the building of arts facilities on the same grounds that they have opposed a basketball arena. At least with an arts facility, however, it can be argued that it directly serves the academic mission of the university. And of course, it's a lot cheaper to equip a marching band than a football team, and cheaper to build an arts facility than a stadium. But it's always easier to get money for a stadium and for athletics, because both donors and the legislature (in the case of public institutions) like to have their names attached to those projects. So that's part of the reason many faculty fight against them. I suppose you could call it jealousy, but it's not only concern about salaries (the "I got mine" syndrome), but the principle that a university spends money on what's important to it. If the academic mission is the reason the university exists, then damn straight we're going to fight against resources being unduly directed away from that mission.
That said, I am a huge fan of college athletics, and I recognize--as many of my fellow
communists faculty members do, that
good athletic programs can bring money to the university in many ways--through ticket sales, through TV deals, through increased exposure and enrollment (assuming that the university has the capacity to take advantage of those increased enrollments). But when programs suck, they can become a drain on the university, and that can adversely affect the academic mission. And, of course, continuing to suck adversely affects the university and/or increases the pressure to stop sucking, which may require more resources.