Picture yourself in Smith Hall. You’re in the basement, in room seven. The air conditioner doesn’t work. It’s a humid 96 degrees outside. The class is packed with 40 to 50 students. You’re trying to think and learn. But all you can focus on is the lingering body odor of everyone in the room.
Right outside the window and down the hill someone is sitting in the brand new $33 million Anderson Family Football Complex enjoying air conditioning and gigantic flat screen televisions.
Who is the University here to serve?
"There's an important piece of rhetoric we need to keep in mind: The students come first," Chancellor Robert Hemenway said in the Wichita Eagle’s article “Universities say jobs could be cut.” "Helping students work to a degree has to be the first thing we do. If the students aren't there, there's no reason for us being there,” he said.
But when I look around campus, I get the feeling that athletic programs are what matter most to the University.
The Board of Regents warned Kansas universities that they might face budget cuts next year. The cut for the University would be 2 percent, which is about $3.1 million, according to an Aug. 28 story in the University Daily Kansan. We could lose up to 125 staff members from the Lawrence campus alone.
A more recent article in the Lawrence Journal-World caught my attention about how Kansas Athletics made $1.55 million more than they had projected making off royalties this past year, bringing the department’s total income to $2.55 million.
I spoke with Jim Marchiony, associate athletics director, and he filled me in on where the money from royalties goes. He said $700,000 is used for scholarships for the general student body every year. The rest is kept for scholarships for athletes.
My thought is that we should use that $1.55 million in unexpected profit to better the University or fight against budget cuts that are certain to come.
These cuts are called “cut to base” as Lynn Bretz, director of university communications, told me, which means at least 2 percent of the budget would be cut every year. The state hasn’t specified yet if the budget cuts are a one-time deal or if it would be cut to base. The University said it is preparing for the worst because Bretz said the “tendency is to cut to base.”
A professor of mine told me last week that she didn’t much see the point of being in college if you don’t try to change things that don’t work.
Does the athletics program have an obligation to give money to the University? No, but that doesn’t mean the University can’t change its stance and force it to do so.
We can install a $33 million dollar football complex, but when the state warns us of a budget cut, staff members are the first to go. I don’t know about you, but to me it doesn’t sound like students and education come first.
Stewart is a Wichita senior in journalism.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
To an extent I agree and to an extent I don't. It does get frustrating in hot classrooms with way too many people and knowing that there is a $33 million complex just down the hill, when some of that money could have been spent bettering all of campus as opposed to a whole new building that isn't even open for what is done at a college- educating students. At the same time, athletics bring in all the money. People pay to see KU play football and basketball, so why shouldn't those sports directors use that money as they choose? KU won a BCS bowl and the NCAA championship last school year. No other school can say that. And the money from that should go to whatever it is that brought it in, if it's sports than so be it. If a student or group of students made a significant scientific discovery, chances are any money from that would go to building a new science room or building. Would people complain about something like that? There is some part of me, though, that says "How are the teams affiliated with KU, other than wearing the KU colors and mascot, if the money they make doesn't go to the school itself at all?" Overall, though, I think the athletic teams should use the money they bring in as they choose, because let's face it, I couldn't go out there and contribute in anyway to a winning football or basketball game. They do it because they are good at it and they should get rewarded for it. If they choose to give some of that money back to the school itself, then that's great. Of course that would open up the whole issue of how much goes to this department, why does this department get more, who needs it the most, which buildings and departments get the most use by the most students. Maybe it's better to keep the money for sports just to avoid any other argument or controversy it would bring.
missmia said: "People pay to see KU play football and basketball, so why shouldn't those sports directors use that money as they choose?"
Because the Football team would not exist without the University, and furthermore, represents the University - not the other way around.
It's a sham and a shame that people lose jobs while all this money is pouring in.
SHe also said "the money from that should go to whatever it is that brought it in"
Why in the world would you think that? Certainly the Athletics Dept. should take what they need, but if the school is floundering they should be required to help out. The football team might be a business - though it shouldn't be - but the school isn't.
And this shouldn't kill enthusiasm for and by our sports team: it should promote it. If everyone knew that the team's performance benefited the school in a very obvious and concrete way, we'd have even more support for the football team.
The relationship between the school and the AD should be cooperative, not one of subservience.
I think many people are missing the point that the Athletics Department doesn't completely stand on its own two feet. Not only do they profit from the KU brand itself, something the entire student body contributes to but they also tax the students every semester so they don't have to reach into their own pockets in supporting their non-revenue programs. I agree they deserve just about every penny they receive as they are indeed a business, but they do not have the right to rob the students because some of their sports make no profit. You can't have it both ways. Additionally the campus itself is property of the State, so designing and implementing new facilities comes at the Universities discretion. I think students need a say in the construction of additional sports buildings as they take away much needed real-estate for parking and better academic facilities. Is it not reasonable for the students to be compensated for the land taken for useless fields and extravagant sports complexes? This is a public institution, i'd rather not see it continue down this corporatist path. Stop the subsidization of the athletics department so we can end these drawn out debates over what money they should be allowed to keep. As it stands they owe the students quite a bit.
BaneMaler said, "This is a public institution, i'd rather not see it continue down this corporatist path."
Whoops, too late!
You're absolutely right about the Women and Non-Revenue Sports Fee. It makes me sick that the students sign a $12 million dollar check to Kansas Athletics Inc. each year. With all the donations they get and all the merchandise and tickets they sell you'd think they'd be able to fund the Title IX teams they're required to field. They receive something like $11 million a year in non-earmarked donations from the Roy Williams 'Educational' Fund and from other sources. Surely six million of that could've gone to build the Rowing Teams' boathouse. Instead, the money came from students.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.