Phil Knight / University of Oregon / Nike
- Thread starter jerseyshorejohnny
- Start date
I read this piece In the Post this morning and had to shake my head -- not at Phil Knight or the UofO, but at what passes for reporting/journalism these days.
Goodness knows, Nike pulls some strings and schools may feel pressure to compromise their principles in pursuit of big money donors sometimes, but this read like a total hatchet job to me. To hang some of the issues (I.e.higher tuition) on Knight seemed a little one-sided.
Now I'll have to compromise my own principles and buy the stupid book just to confirm it is what I think it is.
Goodness knows, Nike pulls some strings and schools may feel pressure to compromise their principles in pursuit of big money donors sometimes, but this read like a total hatchet job to me. To hang some of the issues (I.e.higher tuition) on Knight seemed a little one-sided.
Now I'll have to compromise my own principles and buy the stupid book just to confirm it is what I think it is.
Last edited:
thought it was a good artlice overall and telling how private individuals have that much control of a is supposedly a public education model.
As with so many issues in today's media universe, it comes down to a matter of perspective.
In my view, UO could have said no to Phil Knight at any time. But it needs to be understood that Phil Knight can steer his support any direction he chooses. I disagree with turning him into a villain for expecting input when he's given $1 billion to the university.
It's a paragraph like this that really annoys me:
"While Knight’s corporate contributions boosted the University of Oregon’s athletic department, this led to greater expenses, with the outside money only flowing toward sports. When a stadium renovation cost the school $89 million, Knight kicked in $60 million and much of the rest came from other donors. But there was still a $2 million shortfall, and to cover this, the school raised its tuition, leaving the bill for students who received no benefit from Nike."
As I see it, generous donors ponied up $87M toward the $89M facility. So UO (and its students) had to find only $2M for a massive upgrade to their campus community. That looks like a pretty sweet deal to me.
And maybe most students won't play in those facilities, but student life improved with better amenities and an active community. And there is no denying that the profile that comes from successful athletic programs benefits every student marching out of Eugene with a UO degree.
The reality is that public funding for universities is changing. Private sector support (and expectations) are going to drive change. I don't think demonizing the men and women sending in the cash is helpful.
Just one guy's view...
In my view, UO could have said no to Phil Knight at any time. But it needs to be understood that Phil Knight can steer his support any direction he chooses. I disagree with turning him into a villain for expecting input when he's given $1 billion to the university.
It's a paragraph like this that really annoys me:
"While Knight’s corporate contributions boosted the University of Oregon’s athletic department, this led to greater expenses, with the outside money only flowing toward sports. When a stadium renovation cost the school $89 million, Knight kicked in $60 million and much of the rest came from other donors. But there was still a $2 million shortfall, and to cover this, the school raised its tuition, leaving the bill for students who received no benefit from Nike."
As I see it, generous donors ponied up $87M toward the $89M facility. So UO (and its students) had to find only $2M for a massive upgrade to their campus community. That looks like a pretty sweet deal to me.
And maybe most students won't play in those facilities, but student life improved with better amenities and an active community. And there is no denying that the profile that comes from successful athletic programs benefits every student marching out of Eugene with a UO degree.
The reality is that public funding for universities is changing. Private sector support (and expectations) are going to drive change. I don't think demonizing the men and women sending in the cash is helpful.
Just one guy's view...
