Natural Sciences: Continuing members: D. Herrick (Chemistry), D. Soper (Physics), R. Zimmerman (Physics). Elect 4 Social Sciences: Continuing members: L. Fuller (Sociology), D. Luebke (History), J. Novkov (Political Science). Elect 4 (one is a 1 year position to replace a Senator who will be on Sabbatical) Humanities: Continuing members: L. Bowditch (Classics), J. Earl (English), M. Epstein (E. Asian Lang & Lit). Elect 4
Architecture and Allied Arts: Continuing members: A. Morrogh (Art History), V. Cartwight (Architecture), P. Keyes (Architecture) -- elect 2 College of Education: Continuing member: R. Horner -- elect 1 Journalism and Communication: Continuing member: J. Wasko -- elect 1 Law School: Continuing member: K. Aoki -- elect 1 Library System: Continuing member: S. Midkiff -- elect 1 Lundquist College of Business: Continuing member: M. Partch (Finance) -- elect 2 School of Music: Continuing member: R. Ponto -- elect 1
Officers of Administration
Continuing members: M. Hallock (Morse Law & Politics Center), F. Tepfer (University Planning) -- elect 1
[All Officers of Administration holding appointments of .50 FTE or greater are eligible to be nominated for, serve as, and vote for Officer of Administration senators]
Faculty may serve two successive two year terms, but then must sit out a year. Term of office is two years, June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2004.
The secretary is authorized and instructed to exclude from the ballotany nominated persons who are ineligible for membership under the rulesof the faculty. The Committee on Committees and secretary, with help fromthe senate, will fill out the ballot if an insufficient number of nomineesis received.
From: UO Senate ad hoc committee on non tenure track instructional faculty
Re: Non Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF)
The UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Non Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) is gathering information about the numbers, distribution, and working conditions of NTTIF on campus. For the purposes of this questionnaire, NTTIF members are lead instructors of courses who are neither appointed to a tenure track position nor enrolled as graduate students. In this group we include instructors, senior instructors and adjunct faculty, whether part- or full-time.
Please return this completed questionnaire to Gina Psaki, Romance Languages, by Friday, 14 June, 2002. Thank you for your help with this project.
1. How many non tenure track instructional faculty are employed in your dept.?
at .49 FTE or less: ______________
at .5 FTE or above: _____________
2. What percentage of the courses in your department are taught by NTTIF?
3. What is the typical course load for a NTTIF member employed at 1.0 FTE?
Courses per year: ______________ or courses per term: ________________
4. What is the salary range for a non tenure track instructional faculty member employed at 1.0 FTE?
5. What percentage of NTTIF contracts currently issued are for the following durations:
1 quarter ___________
1 year _____________
2 years ____________
other (please specify) _____________
6. Can instructors in your department be promoted to senior instructor?If so, what are the requirements for promotion?
7. Can instructors in your department be tenured? If so, what are the requirements for tenure?
8. What changes (to salary, contract term, etc.) result from promotion?
9. a. Do NTTIF receive merit-based salary increases?
b. Are the criteria for such increases established in a printed policy?
c. Do NTTIF receive COLA increases or increases based on length of service?
10. What access do the NTTIF have to the following, compared to tenure track faculty:
computer none less the same more
mailbox none less the same more
telephone none less the same more
office none less the same more
travel money none less the same more
ASA none less the same more
support staff none less the same more
supplies none less the same more
photocopying none less the same more
choice in scheduling none less the same more
11. Whom do you contact in the administration when you require information or authorization pertaining to employment of NTTIF?
12. Are there any other issues regarding NTTIF you think should be brought to our attention?
YEAR 2 (2001-2002) REPORT OF THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE
ON SALARY AUGMENTATION PLAN
08 MAY 2002
I. University Senate Budget Committee White Paper: A Plan for Sustained Competitive Parity in Instructional Faculty Compensation.
A.Progress towards 95% parity goal with our comparators.Faculty salary increases in Year 2 of the White Paper (2001-2002) averaged 6.6%. This includes the regular merit raise pool, which provided for approximately 4% average salary increases; and in addition, raises related to promotion, retention, and post-tenure review. This resulted in our total compensation (salary + benefits) increasing by 0.3% with respect to our comparator institutions. Thus, only modest progress towards the 95% parity goal was achieved this year.
B.Salary Compression.In Year 2, the salary compression issue got somewhat better, in contrast to the previous year when it had gotten somewhat worse. The SBC had agreed to make rectification of the compression issue a high priority in future years.
C.Instructors.Accurate salary and compensation data for both tenure-related and non-tenure-track instructors for the academic year 2001-2002 are not currently available from our comparator institutions. The University Senate President will be referring this issue to the Senate Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Instructional faculty and asks that Committee to obtain meaningful data on this subject in 2002-2003 with guidance and assistance from the Senate Budget Committee.
II. Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon.Substantial progress was made in implementing the seven Basic Principles.
III. White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2001. Administration and academic units continue to make progress with respect to the Implementation Guidelines, which were based on the values set forth in the Principles document approved by the University Senate in March 2002 2.
IV. Salary Improvements in 2002-2003.The budget situation of the State and therefore of the University is uncertain at present, but clearly is not very favorable. The SBC and Administration recommend anaverage salary improvement of 3.0% for all instructional and administrative faculty starting on January 1, 2003. However, given current budget uncertainties, it is possible that there might be a smaller or even no salary increase next January.
YEAR 2 (2001-2002) REPORT OF THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE
ON SALARY AUGMENTATION PLAN
This is the second annual report on progress toward the goals of the salary augmentation plan, developed by the University of Oregon Senate Budget Committee in collaboration with the University Administration, and adopted by the University Senate in March 2000. The plan consists of three documents: University Senate Budget Committee White Paper: A Plan for Sustained Competitive Parity in Instructional Faculty Compensation1, Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon2, and the White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 20003. The first annual report4 was presented to the University Senate in May, 2001 and an interim report5 was presented in October, 2001.
I. University Senate Budget Committee White Paper: A Plan for Sustained Competitive Parity in Instructional Faculty Compensation 15 March 2000
The White Paper highlighted that in 1998-1999, University of Oregon average faculty compensation was at 82.1% of the mean of our group of peer comparators. The University adopted as a long-range goal to achievesustained competitive parityby bringing average instructional faculty compensation (salary + benefits) to95% of parityrelative to our comparator institutions. This increase was to be over and above cost of living allowances. The funds supporting this increase were to be devoted to significantly improving the compensation of thevast majority of faculty, with an emphasis on rectifying the problem ofsalary compression.
To accomplish this goal, the aim has been for the University to increase average faculty compensation a minimum of 2.5% per year over and above the performance of our comparators until we achieve the 95% goal. We estimated in the White Paper that it would take 5-7 years to reach 95% parity. In the following sections, we assess progress toward reaching our goals, using data from U of O, the American Association of Universities (AAU), and 8 peer universities that share our educational mission and which have been adopted as our comparators by the Oregon University System: U. California at Santa Barbara, U. Colorado at Boulder, U. Indiana at Bloomington, U. Iowa, U. Michigan, U. North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U. Virginia, and U. Washington.
Progress toward parity.In the second year of the plan (2001-2002), average salaries of continuing faculty (i.e., excluding those who retired and those newly hired) increased 6.56%; in the previous year they had increased 6.75 %. At the end of the second year of the plan (2001-2002), U of O total compensation (salary + benefits) was 87.8% of our comparators when a weighted average of assistant, associate, and full professors6 was compared with a similar average of our comparators. In 2000-2001, the total compensation figure was 87.5%; in 1999-2000, it was 85.0%, and in 1998-1999 it was 82.5%. Thus, we have made progress -- a cumulative gain on our comparators of 5.3% in three years -- in reaching the goal of 95% parity. However, progress was much less (only 0.3%) this year than in the previous two years (2.5% each year).
Salary compression.The definition of salary compression used by the SBC in the White Paper is the erosion of compensation as a factor distinguishing faculty ranks. Average salaries at U of O are less competitive than our comparators as people rise through the academic ranks. In 2001-2002, the gain on our comparators by rank was 1.6%, -0.8%, and -1.0% for full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, respectively. The situation for instructors is considered separately below. Among the other ranks, it appears from these data that the problem of compression improved in the last year, i.e., full professor salaries rose faster than those of associate and assistant professors relative to our comparators. This improvement in the salary compression situation followed two years in which it worsened. Unfortunately, as the figures above show, the improvement this year is due largely to a decline in the relative situation of associate and assistant professors relative to comparators. The three-year cumulative figures (5.7% gain for full professors relative to comparators, 4.4% for associate, and 5.6% for assistant) still shows a worsening of the compression issue over three years, though as noted, the differences between ranks have narrowed in the most recent year.
The compression issue has been of great concern to the Senate Budget Committee, and we have sought to gain a better understanding and to encourage a focused effort at redress. In the Fall, 2001 report to the Senate we proposed that salary increases for the year beginning January 1, 2001 be divided among full, associate and assistant professors on a differential basis of approximately 5/4/3% in those units where compression is an issue. This was achieved to some extent: salary increases were 6.8% for full professors, 6.4% for associate professors, and 6.5% for assistant professors. This is part of the reason for the improvement of the compression situation in the current year.
It should be remembered that our comparisons are based on total compensation, i.e. salary + benefits. Since benefits (health insurance, pension, etc.) are a complicated matter, and vary from institution to institution, we believe there will be an unavoidable uncertainty in our ability to gauge the real situation regarding the compression issue from year to year, as evaluated in terms of total compensation.
Nonetheless, we are certain that the disparities in ranks relative to our comparators (85.1% parity for full professors, 88.1% for associates, 92.7% for assistants) signal a real issue which is of importance to the long-term health and prospects of the University. We recommend that the University continue its focus on redress of the compression issue in future years, and that the Senate Budget Committee continue to monitor the situation using the best yardsticks at its disposal. We believe the data we have presented are the best yardstick currently available.
Instructors (Tenure-Related And Non-Tenure-Track).Nearly all academic institutions report salary and total compensation figures for instructors but the definition of instructor used to compute these figures varies enormously between institutions. The University of Oregon at present has 10 tenure-related and 260 non-tenure-track instructors (includes instructors and senior instructors). The average salary increase of full-time instructors in 2001-2002 was 5.0%. Accurate salary and compensation data to address salary comparisons for tenure-related and non-tenure-track instructors are currently not available. The University Senate President will be referring referred this issue to the Senate Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty and asks that Committee to obtain meaningful data on this subject in 2002-03 with guidance and assistance from the Senate Budget Committee.
II. Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon
The Senate and administration also endorsed two additional documents: Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon (Basic Principles) and the White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2000 (Implementation Guidelines).
We believe we have made progress in implementing the seven Basic Principles. First, however, we must recognize that progress toward the overall goal of achieving 95% compensation parity has been disappointing in the latest year: as noted already, after gaining 2.5% on our comparators in each of the past two years, the gain this year was only 0.3%. The reasons for this are (1) the impact of the worsening budget situation of the State on the University and (2) better salary performance by our comparators than we had anticipated in this period of national recession.
In other respects, we have been more successful. As their second aim the White Paper and Principles documents set forth the goal that the vast majority of instructional faculty should receive salary increases. In 2001-2002, all but one tenured and tenure-track faculty received salary increases. Third, as directed by the Principles document, each unit has continued to make progress toward the promulgation of systematic principles and procedures and, to various degrees, shared them with the faculty. The Vice President for Academic Affairs provided evidence that the Deans had taken this charge seriously. We encourage department and unit heads to attempt to fully achieve this goal in the forthcoming year. Fourth, salary adjustments did include a cost of living component of 2.0% Fifth, salary increases did not come at the expense of the academic infrastructure (i.e., academic programs and units); however it must be noted that in the current difficult budget climate, the decision to increase salaries meant there were less funds for improving the academic infrastructure. Sixth, the 80% floor was successfully implemented. Only 13 instructional faculty (out of a total of 627 tenured and tenure-track faculty) fall below 80% of the average salary of their peers in their home unit at the same rank and all 13 have a clear justification for their salaries, according to the Vice-President for Academic Affairs. Seventh, from our vantage point, the administration continues to make a good faith collaborative effort to implement these principles.
III. White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2001-2002
We believe that the administration and academic units generally adhered to the Implementation Guidelines, which were based on the values set forth in the Principles document. We believe that these two documents have helped to better promote an understanding of the budget process. At the same time, the Senate Budget Committee will need to continue to promote the visibility of the White Paper, the Basic Principles and Implementation Guidelines. While we are satisfied that the Administration and the Deans understand the vision outlined in the White Paper, we believe continuing efforts are needed to insure that faculty members in general and other University of Oregon community members are as aware as they need to be of these documents. The Senate Budget Committee plans to continue discussion of the three documents with Deans, department heads, and the Senate to enhance prospects that the plan outlined in the White Paper is fully and successfully implemented in future years.
IV. Salary Improvement Plan for Year 3 (2002-2003)
In 2002-2003, the Senate Budget Committee and Administration foresee a difficult situation with respect to salary increases. We recommend, in line with the original University of Oregon budget request to the Oregon University System, that average salary increases for all instructional and administrative faculty of at least 3.0% will be possible on January 1, 2003. However, as noted above, it is possible that there will be no faculty salary increase pool whatsoever next year. Even if the higher figure of 3.0% is achieved, this may not be enough to improve our standing relative to comparators, or even prevent relative deterioration. This is not due to lack of goodwill or effort on the part of the Administration. Clearly, the financial situation of the University as an institution within the State of Oregon must improve if there is to be continued progress toward the vision of sustained competitive parity relative to our comparators which was set forth in the original White Paper.
Respectfully submitted to the University Senate on May 8, 2002. 2001-02 SBC members: Mike Kellman, Chemistry (Chair); David. Frank, Honors College, Vice-Chair; Barbara. Altmann, Romance Languages; Suzanne. Clark, English; Lynn Kahle, Business; Nathan Tublitz, Biology; J. Moseley, Provost (Ex-Officio).
6. Weighting of full, associate, and assistant professors is 35:30:30, respectively. This weighting was used to determine average salary and average total compensation figures for each of the 8 comparator institutions.
The University of Oregon’s plan to “increase access and offer lower cost tuition options” and its impact on the
School of Music and Department of Dance
School of Music
A. What are the negative effects of the 14-16 Credit Plateau on the School of Music and Department of Dance?
1. It unfairly penalizes a student for majoring in music or dance.
2. It is detrimental to the large ensembles.
3. It (further) impedes our recruitment efforts, particularly out of state.
4. It applies indirect pressure on the School of Music and Department of Dance to reduce the number of credits required for many of our degrees.
B. What are the negative effects of the discount credit plan on the School of Music and Department of Dance?
1. It arbitrarily benefits some ensembles and classes while hurting others.
2. Extremely tight space and equipment constraints leave the School of Music with almost no flexibility for the rescheduling of classes.
A. What is the negative impact of the 14-16 Credit Plateau on the School of Music & Department of Dance?
1. It unfairly penalizes a student for majoring in music or dance.
Most of our music and dance degree plans require a certain number of terms that exceed 16 credits. According to data from February 26, 2002, over 40% of our music and dance majors are taking more than 17 or more credits this term (compared with about 25% for all UO students combined) Below is a list of our undergraduate degrees and the number of terms the student should expect to exceed 16 credits. (This list includes only required classes — not any additional classes or ensembles.)
School of Music Undergraduate Degrees:
No. Terms over 16 cr.
Bachelor of Science with option in Music Technology
Bachelor of Science in Music (General Music Option)
Students often participate in ensembles beyond the requirements of their degree. Here are a few typical examples:
· Instrumental music education majors must take marching band for two terms. Many of them opt to play in Wind Ensemble during these terms so they may perform and study art music— along with the functional/entertainment music associated with athletic bands.
· Professional performers are expected to have performed a wide range of repertory; therefore, performance majors often participate in the Symphony Orchestra and Wind Ensemble during the academic year. Switching back and forth between ensembles at term break is strongly discouraged because repertoire must often be carried across the boundaries of the term. (The quarter system is very awkward for large ensembles.)
· Instrumental music educators are expected to know the major repertory of all types of ensembles, plus, be able to playeach of the instruments they will be teaching. It is therefore common for music education majors to play in Orchestra (for repertoire), Wind Ensemble/Symphonic Band (for repertoire and pedagogy), and Campus Band (to gain “hands-on” experience playing secondary instruments in a conducted ensemble). This one of the big “selling” points of our education major!
· We must often ask (beg, cajole) students to play in multiple ensembles. We do not have enough qualified players on each instrument to fully staff our ensembles.
Here is a list of some of our major ensembles (as of February 26, 2002) showing (1) the number of students currently carrying 17 or more credits and (2) those who are currently taking more than one large ensemble:
Over 16 cr.
In multiple ensembles
Oregon Jazz Ensemble
University Symphony Orchestra
Oregon Wind Ensemble
3. It (further) impedes our recruitment efforts, particularly out of state.
One must remember that the University of Oregon School of Music must compete for talented students. Like other schools of music and conservatories, we must have a sufficient number of skilled students in specific performance media. In other words, we need a certain number of oboists, violinists, sopranos, etc.
Unfortunately, the University of Oregon School of Music finds itself increasingly unable to attract the type of high-caliber student it once enjoyed. The skill level of our incoming students is steadily declining. The School of Music has been staring into a double-barreled recruitment problem from which it cannot extricate itself. This is primarily a result of (1) the declining quality of music education in the State of Oregon and (2) skyrocketing non-resident tuition costs. These two problems interrelate and have created daunting obstacles for us.
Measure 5’s impact on high school music programs around the state has been very severe. With the exception of a few pockets here and there, the number of quality music programs in the state has grown quite small. Consequently, the pool of Oregon students who are appropriately prepared to major in music is shrinking. While we continue to attract similar numbers of Oregon students as in the past, increased financial competition from other schools — both in-state and out-of-state — has substantially reduced the percentage of meritorious students coming from our state.
In their most recent on-site evaluation, the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) expressed concern that the quality of student performance was “below the standard of those peer schools to which the University of Oregon wishes to be compared.” They complimented the quality of teaching, but remarked that the School music needs more scholarship and graduate assistantship funds to “attract and retain students of advanced musical abilities.”
One obvious solution is for us to attract more students from outside the State of Oregon. Indeed, we invest considerable time and energy doing just that. Unfortunately — and this is the other “barrel” of the problem — since 1990, non-resident undergraduate tuition has increased by more than $8500 (compared with about $2100 for residents). Our scholarship resources have not increased anywhere near enough to offset amounts like that. This astronomical rise in non-resident tuition has condemned us to the role of “non-player” in the bid to bring highly-skilled students from other states to the University of Oregon. We are truly struggling in our efforts to attract non-resident students to this campus. 
The proposed compression of the credit plateau aggravates this problem because it will have a disproportionately large impact on non-resident students, both current and prospective. We need help with our recruitment efforts, not another impediment. Clearly, adding hidden “surcharges” to our music and dance degrees just keeps us moving in the wrong direction.
4. It applies indirect pressure on the School of Music and Department of Dance to reduce the number of credits required for many of our degrees.
I did not have time to provide you with a comparison of our degree requirements to those of other schools. Rest assured, however, that we are truly experts in our fields. We know what is expected of our graduates. We know what a performing musician, conductor, music historian, theorist or music educator must be able to do in the “real world.” We are well aware of requirements in our peer institutions — and our degrees are standard for our disciplines.
Any attempt to compel us to change our requirements — overtly or covertly — must be viewed as interference with our faculty responsibility to establish appropriate curricula within our fields of expertise. Any adjustments to degree requirements must be made only after careful and thoughtful deliberation by our faculty — not “under the gun” of a threatened tuition hike. Not all schools and departments can operate under this proposed “one-size-fits-all” solution.
B. What is the negative impact of the discount credit plan on the School of Music & Department of Dance?
1. It arbitrarily benefits some ensembles and classes while hurting others.
Several of our ensembles are currently offered in the afternoon. Others, out of necessity, are offered at other times during the day (this is explained in the next point). Under the new plan, a Jazz Studies major would be paying more for his/her required ensemble than a Violin Performance major. Similarly, a Choral Music Education major would be paying more than an Instrumental Music Education major. The students have absolutely no choice in the matter. This proposal is inherently discriminatory.
2. Extremely tight space and equipment constraints leave us with almost no flexibility in scheduling classes.
Although it is difficult for some of my friends in other departments and schools to visualize, you must believe me when I tell you that the School of Music is filled beyond capacity! Although our building might draw the understandable envy of my colleagues for its stunning collection of Naugahyde furniture, (predominantly in colors not found in nature), it can boast, alas, only 13 classrooms in which to teach (including Beall Hall). We cannot simply change a course from one time to another without either (a) bumping another class, (b) creating a conflict between two required courses, or, (c) ruining the instrumentation of an ensemble. Besides, you can’t just move a band, orchestra, choir or jazz ensemble into any old room at any old time! Each must be assigned to a specially designed rehearsal room with proper acoustics, space, percussion instruments, etc. — and we have a very limited number of these.
I invite any of you to visit the School of Music and ask our office manager, Laura Littlejohn, to show you our large scheduling board. If you can figure out a way to rearrange more than one or two classes, you may qualify as our next dean!
It also seems unlikely to me that the School of Music will be able to take advantage of reduced rate evening classes. For musicians, the 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm time is “sacred.” We have performances almost every night of the academic year — often in multiple venues — and our students are expected to be in attendance, either as performers or observers.
The School of Music and Department of Dance have spent years fine-tuning class schedules in an effort to make the best possible use of our limited space and avoid conflicts between required classes. The outside imposition of this “market-based scheduling” scheme will be ruinous for us. This proposal cannot work in the School of Music.
A. Create a “voucher” or “scholarship” program — for qualifying students — to offset the unintended effects of the new tuition structure.
While theoretically good ideas, I see the solution of offering students “vouchers,” “credits” or “scholarships” as ultimately unworkable solutions. Individual class schedules would have to be checked and the “legitimacy” of claims would have to be somehow verified. Moreover, I question our ability to do this in a timely manner. Would we be able to determine all of this before student tuition payments are due, or would we be offering “rebates” and such? Remember, also, that had this plan been in place this term, 40% of our music and dance students would be filling out extra paperwork — and hoping it would make its way through the bureaucracy unscathed. Unless an agency outside the School of Music is prepared to track this information, it will certainly create a bookkeeping nightmare for our already overworked staff.
Personally, I don’t think music and dance students should have to fill out additional paperwork — in some cases, every term — just to fulfill the requirements of a degree we offer.
B. Instead of changing the credit plateau to 14-16, make it 14-18 instead.
For us, a 14-18 is probably the best and simplest solution. I do not know, of course, if this would compromise the “bottom line” too much. In any event, we hope that some sort of fair solution can be found.
While I certainly understand — and applaud — the intended economic goals of the proposed plan, I cannot get past the peculiar situation it puts us in. It seems to me that we are preparing to tell our best and brightest — those students who go beyond minimum requirements — that they are “overusing” a resource and must therefore pay more for it. It is as if they are parasites who are growing intellectually obese at the expense of other students. What is going on here? These students are not abusing the system; they are using it for the purpose for which it was intended! Please, with all of the other mistakes our state is making while under the knife of budget cuts, let us not turn our beloved university into “education a la carte.” Let us continue to encourage those who are willing to work hard, not penalize them.
 In addition, music education students are strongly advised to take additional practica and ensembles.
 Just last month, one of our faculty members was recruiting at one of California’s musically “elite” high schools. The high school director, who is well-known for his point-blank frankness, told our faculty member, “I tell my students, ‘If you want to major in music, the University of Oregon is the place to go — but, you can probably forget it because you’ll never be able to afford it. They have practically no scholarship money.” This anecdote underscores one of the major “Catch-22”s in our School of Music recruitment efforts: because the UO is dependent upon the money brought in by non-resident students, we have few incentives (like non-resident tuition waivers) to attract outstanding undergraduate students from other states. There are times when I would like to stand at the border with either of our neighboring states to the north or south and shout — in my most Reaganesque voice — “Mr. President, tear down this wall!.”
 While an Oregon resident pays $78 per “overload” credit, a non-resident must pay $367.
 During this past Fall term, the percentage of music students carrying more than 16 credits was significantly higher than 40%..
I believe the Knight Commission has done a very good job in pointing out the major problems affecting intercollegiate athletics at the beginning of the 21st century.In the areas which concern me most especially, (a) institutional responsibility for the academic welfare of student athletes and (b) holding all university personnel (in academics and athletics) accountable to a common educational ethos, the Commission echoes almost exactly my own thoughts. My comments will be directed mostly to the two issues signaled above.
Except for some parts, which thankfully don't apply to Oregon, many other parts of the Report's assessment of intercollegiate athletics do indeed describe the ills that plague our university's sports program (in common with most others).Consequently, the Report is worthy of careful reading by all Oregon faculty, administrators and athletic personnel. The picture it paints of athletics today is almost as important and helpful as the recommendations of reform it proposes. By laying bare the unhealthy state of athletics (at least as it affects basketball and football), the Report calls attention to current problems and clearly explains why the need to resolve them is urgent and why faculty everywhere should not stand idly by on the sidelines.
University presidents should respond soon to the Commission's call for a deep and fundamental reform of athletics. Faculty at Oregon and nationwide should encourage administrators to heed the Report and begin implementing its recommendations.The NCAA likewise should embrace the Commission recommendations as a positive contribution to bringing sanity back to intercollegiate athletics, even if it means sacrificing the NCAA's income and status.
Among the Report's observations which are applicable to Oregon under the terms listed above (and some others), I highlight and comment on the following items:
1) "A frantic, money oriented modus operandi that defies responsibility dominates the structure of big-time football and basketball." (p. 17)One result of this in Oregon is the Athletic Department's recent restrictions on broadcasting, which threatens freedom of the press guarantees, in addition to being fan unfriendly (clearly reflected this month in the editorial and fan letters to the editor in the R-G).
2) "�accommodating excess�who can build the biggest stadiums, the most luxurious skyboxes." ( p. 17)In other words, keeping up with the Joneses, and we in Oregon have started a trend by building a covered practice field, now being emulated by others. The New York poster also ups the advertising race.
3) "Presidents and trustees accept their athletic department's argument that they have to keep up with the competition." (p. 18).What happens when athletic costs run more than the income generated by the Autzen expansion? Well, the plans are now for a $100 million basketball arena, hardly what Oregon can afford. The faculty need to be aware of this now, not when it is too late.
4) The idea that a sports program builds university spirit among students seems outmoded at best, as the following observations from the Report suggest: "To what purpose, indeed, are luxury skyboxes built?�certainly not to accommodate more students, in whose name and for whose benefit collegiate sports were originally introduced�The central goal is to garner greater fiscal windfalls from wealthy boosters�while students are often relegated to the endzone�" (p. 18)
5) "Repeated studies indicate that most contributions�come from those to whom athletic records have little import." (p.18) The UO administration claims that sports attract donations, some of which eventually go to academics.They say that some who give to sports will later donate to academics. I don't doubt that this is true, but are the amounts substantial enough to justify a $29 million- a-year athletic budget which, since 1991, has been supported with a $22 million subsidy from general funds? Is it enough to justify the enormous amount of faculty and administration time that goes into supervising athletics? (The Runge affair alone consumed a great deal of presidential hours which could otherwise have been devoted to academics.) When we have had successful capital campaigns, to what extent is the success due to the fact that the University pulled out all stops for such an effort?The results have to be contextualized for the success of pre-planned campaigns is not dependent on athletic success; fundraising plans are conceived and carried out (and succeed) in situations that are not always (if ever) temporally connected to wins in the athletic field. The administration says it can quantify the benefits to academics, but so far it has not done so on paper, item by item, and in relation to other factors besides athletics (i.e. context).
6) "�downside to this arms race�They must siphon from the general revenue�" (p. 18)At Oregon we are beginning to reduce the subsidy to athletics, but how long will it be before we have to resume full subsidy? Will the Autzen stadium expansion really keep athletics in the black for the next decades? By its own admission it will not, hence the plans for a basketball arena as the next market venture.
7) "�football and men's basketball coaches are paid a million dollars or more a year." ( p. 18) We in Oregon have now entered this league in football, an amount, which at one associate professor's salary, could fund 22 experienced professors.Adding this many to the faculty would reduce class sizes (this would be welcome given that some 400/500 courses have 50 to 60 students), and/or provide better staffing for our campus museums, etc.We need also to stem the growing divide, economically and in terms of educational ethos, between academic and athletic personnel--we should all feel we are part of the same educational enterprise; astronomical disparities in salaries erode morale; so too do different standards on how personnel are compensated for simply doing their job.(On these matters see also A.9, C.3a and C.7).
8) "But coaches have a quite different perspective�"(p. 18)One can understand this when they are expected to generate revenues and have short-term contracts, based mainly on winning, and thus no security.This is where we have to get beyond the idea that sports are all about winning. But as long as presidents nationwide think that sports are necessary for securing donations, the push will continue to be "competitive," and salaries are bound to escalate further.
9) The astronomical salaries are leading to a divorce between athletics and academics and to the emergence of an ethos among athletic personnel that bears no relation to the mores of education (see more specifically C.3a below): "Coaches' salaries�are considered as though they have nothing to do with the traditions and principles of the universities in which they are housed. This lack of academic connection is the fundamental corruption of the original rationale for both sports and coaches on campus: that they are integral components of a well-rounded student life and a useful complement to the universities' other central pursuits. What we now have is a separate culture of performers and trainers�unconnected to the institution that supports them." (pp. 18-19)
10) "There is a rush to approve cable and television requests for � games on weekday evenings� So much for classroom commitments." (p. 19)On generating postseason revenues: "In allowing commercial interests to prevail over academic concerns and traditions, presidents have abdicated their responsibilities." ( p. 20) Unfortunately, Oregon and Oregon State exemplify perfectly the disregard for academic scheduling by moving the Civil War game to early December, conflicting with deadweek. In addition, they both voted to resurrect Pac-10 post-season basketball, which also interferes with academics. In both cases the pursuit of money has ignored the mission of our respective institutions. Now is the time to convince the Pac-10 to scrap post-season play.Let us draw strength in this battle from the Report: "No academic institution should allow television to arrange its class schedule; neither should television control college athletic schedules." (p. 25) (See also A.12)
11) "Meanwhile�manufacturers inundate prominent coaches and universities with goods and money in exchange for exposure--advertisements of all kinds on campuses, stadiums�" (p. 20) In Oregon, the logos painted on the endzones of Autzen stadium would appear to illustrate this observation of the Report. One could understand if the Autzen family coat of arms were displayed on the endzones, but other logos don't seem appropriate and require some explanation.
12) Related to number 10 above: "The NCAA Manual also says that postseason play is meant to be controlled to 'prevent unjustified intrusions on the time student-athletes devote to academic programs, and to protect [them] from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.' Yet the number of postseason bowl games has grown� and the men's Division I basketball tournament is three weeks long�." (p. 21)
B. THE REPORT'S CALL TO ACTION
It has long been obvious that only the presidents of the institutions making up the NCAA and the various conferences can affect change. This view finds a place in the Report: "But a determined and focussed group of presidents acting together can transform the world of intercollegiate athletics." ( p. 26) (my underlining).These individuals have the power to reform and create a level field so no one institution feels it is at a competitive disadvantage against all the others. One solution is for presidents to agree not to use athletics as a tool for fund raising. It is high time administrators admit the fact that, as the Report states (and backed other sources) : "Most Americans believe �universities are about teaching�not winning and losing�Most pay only passing attention to athletic success or failure.And many big donors pay no attention at all to sports. "(p. 23)Let us strive to be competitive by the quality and creativeness of our educational programs, not by the winning records of our teams. It is time for administrators to think of new strategies for raising funds, strategies that shield institutions from the heavy-hand of the sports- industrial- complex and the escalating costs engendered by professionalization and commercialization: "Expenditures roar out of control because administrators have become more concerned with financing what is in place than thinking what they are doing. And the market is able to invade the academy both because it is eager to do so and because overloaded administrators rarely take the time to think about the consequences." (p. 29) Now is the time for new, creative thinking on fundraising and demythologizing its relationship to athletics.
But the Report also stresses, and quite rightly, that faculty also have a role, even though it is limited (but not insignificant): "They must defend the academic values of their institutions. Too few faculty speak out�" (p. 25).Fortunately, under the leadership of the past Senate president, Professor James Earl, the University of Oregon Senate has passed two resolutions defending academic values. But the faculty needs to encourage a more thoroughgoing reform if athletics is not to undermine the quality and freedom of academics at Oregon. We the faculty cannot do this alone. Reform efforts have to be led by presidents and athletic directors.
C. SOME OF THE REPORT'S REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS
1) "The length of playing, practice and postseason must be reduced both to afford athletes a realistic opportunity to complete their degrees and to enhance the quality of their collegiate experiences." (p. 27)Oregon has been going in the wrong direction and needs to change course. The sports establishment and presidents need to reduce the number of games so students are not playing during school days.Tournaments in the various sports should be arranged for weekends--period. An academic-centered reform is the only way to go. It is the only way to get students back into the classroom. In the process, competition levels may drop, but we should not be training professionals. With less professionalism and fewer games, revenues will diminish and this can serve in a natural manner to self-correct the escalating salaries of coaches and other costs. (See also A.12)
2) Related to C.1 above: "Insist that institutions[I would substitute faculty] alone should determine when games are played�" ( p. 28)
3) "Consider coaches' compensation in the context of the academic institutions that employ them. Coaches' jobs should be primarily to educate young people. Their compensation should be brought into line with the prevailing norms across the institution."( p. 27)This is exactly what needs to be done, but how to do it is the toughest question. First, I would like to offer suggestions as to how coaches can be more like faculty and partake in a common educational ethos. Secondly, I have some suggestions on how to control salaries, and in the process, the escalation of bowl and tournament games that eat into academic scheduling.
a)Coaches should be offered a salary without incentives, and let them live with that basic pay, just as faculty have to.Do not offer things that teaching faculty do not get. Eliminate bonuses for filling the stadium. Despite the extra work of grading and advising that comes from having full and overenrollments in their classes, faculty are not monetarily rewarded for this (nor should they be). Do not offer coaches bonuses for graduating even a single student. We the faculty work hard to advise and teach students to excel and graduate at no extra fee. If coaches regard themselves as educators, then they need to recognize that filling classrooms or stadiums and graduating students are simply a part of everyone's job description at a university. The reward is the satisfaction that comes from educating students and preparing them for life.
b) A basketball coach at a midwestern university (not in Indiana) recently signed a contract that will pay him about a $1 million. In addition (as if this is not enough for living comfortably), he will make (as reported in Bloomington's Herald-Telephone, 8 June 2001) "an additional $250,000 if, for any three year period of the contract, his program has produced at or above a .600 aggregate winning and over a 60% graduation rate� [there are also bonus for even better win records]. Then there are bonuses for winning a Big Ten regular season title ($50,000), winning a Big Tentournament title ($25,000), qualifying for the NCAA tournament ($20,000), making the Final Four ($100,000) and winning an NCAA title ($250,000)." So do faculty get such rewards for publishing their books, most of which earn few royalties? Is it any wonder that we have a proliferation of postseason tournaments, and that there is little concern among athletic personnel if these disrupt the academic schedule and are destructive to the study of their players? Where is the educational ethos? How are coaches the educators they so often claim to be? One way to reform escalating salaries is simply to ban bonuses and let coaches be rewarded with the satisfaction of having done a good job.And for heaven's sakes, let us not put so much emphasis on winning; there should be other values upon which job security is based.
4) "Prohibit athletes from being exploited as advertising vehicles�" (p. 28).The giant New York billboard, with the corporate logos plainly visible (how couldthey not be when the student-athlete is 10 stories tall?), is an unfortunate case in point (in addition to increasing the advertising arms race). New Yorkers certainly see it as an ad, whether that was or was not the intention of the parties responsible for this poster. There are now many theories as to what this billboard was intended to accomplish and who was responsible for it. None of this speculation is healthy for our university.
5) The Report also states that "Athletics cost must be reduced." ( p. 28). Rightly so.I refer to an article in the NCAA News, 4 June 2001. We should oppose the NCAA plan to increase the number of sports required for Division I status if we wish to cut ballooning expenditures. The NCAA Football Study Oversight Committee, composed of college presidents, which made this recommendation, is out of touch with the Knight Commission (and with education itself): "Other alternatives includedletting the market drive scheduling..." So much for getting student-athletes into the classroom on the part of our top "educators." Does the NCAA really care about academics?
6) "The independence of athletics foundations and booster clubs must be curbed." (p. 38).And on p. 47: "All funds �will be channeled through the institution's general treasury, not through independent groups, whether internal or external."While all of us appreciate boosters and alumni for support they give to the university, be it for athletics and/or academics, there seems to be a problem with the way these well-meaning groups interface with the university. This is a murky area; clarity and forthrightness would be most welcome.Since money is often an issue and it is private, we are told that we cannot ask questions about the identity of booster groups and their motives, even as they appropriate the name of our university, thereby involving us all in their cause. Statements from the administration regarding the recent ad in New York (which has been interpreted in many different ways, and in many cases negatively be the media and the NY public) suggest that a private group was involved in its conception and sponsorship, and thus all questions about the billboard are out of bounds. The Knight Commission recommendations, if adopted, would help create a more open and trusting relationship between the university faculty and booster groups. Especially with regard to athletics, the faculty should not be shut out from discussing initiatives that affect or involve the university and its image as an academic institution. We have an Intercollegiate Athletics Committee that is willing to serve the Athletic Department and the administration, but it cannot do so if these act without first seeking the opinions and advise of the committee, the faculty body duly charged with overseeing athletics.
7) "Coaches should be offered longterm contracts." p. 39.This could begin to address the escalating costs of salaries. Eliminate bonuses. Let us acknowledge that there is value in other things besides winning.
D. OUR OPTIONS NOW -- THE ROAD AHEAD
The Commission reports that "there are no downsides to thoroughgoing reform. When and if accomplished, athletic contests would still be attended by their fans and covered by the media even if the players were students first and athletes second� But if there is no downside to deep and sustained reform, continued inattention to the problems described here is fraught with potential dangers�The search now is for a will to act." (pp. 30-31)
In essence there are three options with regard to athletics: REFORM IT; FRANCHISE IT; or ELIMINATE IT.
The middle option seems to me the wrong way to go: Why have a program that is organically disconnected from the university?
Those who believe that athletics is an integral part of the college experience (this is not the thinking or practice elsewhere in the world) should opt for reform, both for the good of academics and of athletics. I think we now have a 50-50 chance to affect real, profound change. I most heartily agree with the Knight Commission's final words:
"If it proves impossible to create a system of intercollegiate athletics that can live honorably within the American college and university�then the nation's colleges and universities [should] get out of the business of big-time sports." (p. 30)
So, as I see it at least, the two options are either reformation or elimination. My comments on the Knight Report as it pertains to Oregon athletics are intended to suggest what needs be done here (and elsewhere) in order to reform the sports program, in other words to engage the first option.
To me the status quo is not acceptable for in the long run it will ruin academics. It is already ruining the major intercollegiate sports.