Butler jumps to bigger stage, bigger money - but, some ask, could it lose its 'w

[Coleman]

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.

[Coleman]

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

[Ari Gold]

He was unavailable for comment

[ChicosBailBonds]

In before the lock.....

Maybe terrorists educators William Ayers, Kathy Boudin, Angela Davis can opine from their ivory towers of academia. 

[GGGG]

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???

[4everwarriors]

Speakin' of dancin' with the devil, can someone post that Harlem Shake thing with Kate again?

[Skatastrophy]

n

+1

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[GGGG]

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. 

[ATWizJr]

Hey, she's artsy and she's liberal.

[Sunbelt15]

Dumb-a$$ article. A college has success and benefits from it, and someone claims they've lost their way. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Ahhhh no!  Not the infamous Glenn Beck!  I know a few stories from his Top 40 DJ stint here in Connecticut.

[cj111]

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.

[hairy worthen]

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.

[EnderWiggen]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[Eldon]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[cj111]

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.