When the Football team holds a bake sale...

Once again, I'm taking a bit of a departure from the theme of this blog "Mixed Race America" -- although I'm sure there's a way to think about how race is part of what I want to write about: university priorities in times of financial crisis.

As everyone who has been alive these past few months knows, the finances of our nation, and I dare say globe, has been hard hit by various banking crises. And everyone is hurt: the government (federal to local), institutions (private and public), and individuals.

And as an "institution" various universities and colleges, both public and private, have had their endowments crumble (because their investments, like everyone else's were tied into these financial debacles). Things are bad all over. If you are a college professor, whether you read The Chronicle of Higher Ed or not, you have heard the horror stories, maybe at your home institution but certainly at schools across the nation: job searches cancelled, sometimes right in the middle of the search when they've already brought people to interview on campus, photocopying privileges taken away, conference and research travel suspended, and even more serious, staff layoffs, increased class sizes and/or increased teaching loads, fewer graduate students admitted and/or current graduate student support shortened, centers and programs cut, and in the case of a very controversial move, art museums closed and their collections sold off.

This last scenario has made worldwide headlines. Brandeis University is closing the doors of its art museum and selling off its world renown contemporary art collection, which contains works by such luminaries as Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol, and Roy Lichtenstein (click here for The New York Times article). This decision has been loudly and widely criticized, particularly within art circles. The general consensus is that this is a short-sighted decision, selling off a collection potentially valued at $350 million dollars to solve a $10 million dollar deficit, particularly in a market where these works are not going to fetch top dollar. It sends a bad message about the value of art--that it is an expendable material good that one can sell off in bad economics times, rather than a priceless cultural and educational asset that enriches many different communities--both at the university and abroad (since in the case of Brandeis's excellent collection, many of their works circulate throughout museums around the world, which then advertises on the art labels that the work's home is at the Rose museum at Brandeis.)

One of the things I'm struck by is that in times of financial crisis, we do often go to the arts and humanities as places that are not necessary for the "core" mission of the school/college/university. Art and music programs are usually the first to be slashed from public school budgets. But what about sports teams? Do we ever think of cutting an athletic program or to significantly curtail it? Southern U., like many colleges in the region, has a strong sports culture, particularly around football and basketball. The sports culture here is so strong that when I have had high school students visiting my classes and have asked my current students why Visitor X should come to Southern U., they almost unanimously say "THE FOOTBALL/BASKETBALL TEAM!" As an English professor and, more importantly, a non-team sports fan (remember: golf is my game), it's a dismaying answer, even though I do know that the students appreciate the education they are getting and other cultural aspects of the university.

Yet I can't help but think, especially when I hear about Brandeis's decision or the decisions that other schools I know are making--to close centers and institutes, to have professors willingly take pay cuts in order to prevent staff members from being fired, to switch from a 2/2 load to a 3/2 load--that what if we did away with the athletic program, or if not do away (because I do believe athletics are important, both from the point-of-view of performing as well as watching) then seriously cutting the budgets and scaling back the programs of various sports, but especially football and basketball, would this prevent academic departments from firing lecturers and would it allow departments to keep graduate student funding?

I know the arguments about elite college sports teams, that they provide revenue for their schools, that big donors, especially alumni, won't donate to schools without these teams, that it's free advertising for the university: getting young kids to start rooting for the team in a bowl game translates into them wanting to attend Big State U. for college. But if any of you remember reading The New York Times magazine article back in 2002 (and you can click here to refresh your memory) then you know that college sports doesn't necessarily pay--in fact in many cases they aren't even breaking even and are being subsidized by their schools. And as far as the advertising argument goes, I sincerely doubt that we would find our enrollments down significantly if we scaled back our athletics department. I've participated in admissions events at the undergraduate level and sat on admissions committees at the graduate level. I don't recall anyone ever saying that they were only coming to Southern U. for its sports teams. That might be a bonus--something that the students will enjoy as part of the life of the college, but they come because they want a good education.

And I'm not talking about necessarily cutting the football or basketball program--I'm not that dumb. Even though at my two alma maters (UCSB and Boston University) the student body did vote to dismantle the football programs (and yes, I voted in the affirmative in both cases), the culture here at Southern U. wouldn't allow it. But scaling back in terms of coach salaries (which are ridiculously high, especially for the two big sports--in 2007 USA Today announced that the average salary for football coaches at top schools was a million a year), in terms of recruiting money, in terms of other amenities that the average Southern U. student doesn't enjoy. I think that's something that should be considered, and that I hope is being explored because I'm assuming that the athletics programs, at Southern U. and across the nation, are having to make tough choices like every other department.

But still, I can't help thinking of those bumper stickers that talk about "It'll be a great day when the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a new fighter plane."

For me, it will be a great day when the Football team has to hold a bake sale to buy new jerseys and the English department has standing room only crowds for its lectures and talks. One can only dream.