I know that President Frohnmayer and Provost Moseley are well aware of the salary inequities facing the University of Oregon. I also know that they very much want to change the status quo, and to that end they have worked with the Senate to craft a viable plan for raising faculty salaries. I appreciate and applaud these efforts and offer the following comments as a concrete step -- yes a real and doable one, however modest it may be -- toward resolving the issues before us.

1. OBSERVATIONS AND CRITIQUE OF THE WHITE PAPER When it was first announced that we would seek to increase salaries without the infusion of state funds -- that, somehow, we could do this ourselves, from our own resources -- I was quite skeptical, and I still remain so today. The White Paper suggests two possible ways of addressing our current woes. One of these is simply pie-in-the-sky because the required resources are simply unavailable now and are not likely to materialize in the near future, if indeed ever. Here I am speaking of the proposals in Section 4 B and C, on pages 4 and 5. These proposals look at enrollment and tuition increases to fund salary raises. All this is highly unrealistic when we are currently heading downward in student population. Surely, raising tuition under such circumstances is simply suicidal.

The White Paper does put forth, as points for discussion, other proposals which are on the whole more feasible. These proposals draw from monetary sources that are currently available. It is simply a matter of diverting funds from one set of priorities to another, in this case toward salary increases. I am referring to the proposals listed under "Tradeoffs" on page 5. Yes, we could increase student-faculty ratios and class sizes, and yes, we could decrease the number of faculty and also decrease library funding even more. All these schemes could indeed garner us more salary money. But it seems to me that the Administration (and/or Senate) has raised false hopes about salary improvement by throwing the whole problem back on the faculty, and on the integrity of our academic programs, all the while leaving athletics untouched in the present crisis. These proposals for increasing class size, not hiring faculty when vacancies occur, and not filling library shelves, are totally unacceptable. How dare we cannibalize the very budget that is at the heart and soul of our mission, teaching and research? However low my salary is, and however much an increase would help defray some of my research expenses, I do not want a pay raise under such terms.

2. CONCRETE PLAN FOR INCREASING ACADEMIC FUNDING: SETTING OUT THE PROBLEM

I would like to offer a concrete and doable plan for increasing academic funding. Personally, I think new-found funds should first go to restoring losses to academic programs and preventing another round of serials cancellations. For the sake of context, I must preface my proposal with some remarks and observations (no doubt familiar to many of you, so you may wish to skip the next 10 lines or so). As I have indicated in various memos and in a guest column in the Register-Guard (14 Jan 2000), the University is currently providing some $2.2 million of state funding to keep the athletic budget in the black, thus allowing the Ducks to compete at the highest level of intercollegiate sports. Since 1991 the University has subsidized Duck Athletics in the amount of $20.5 million, and will spend some $10 million more in the next five years or so (the years keep stretching to as much as seven, which gives cause for worry). The Autzen expansion is intended to eliminate this subsidy. Many of us have been living under the illusion that the Athletic Program is self-supporting and that it even generates money for the University. Well, it does earn some money, but not enough to be self-sustaining, hence the annual subsidy out of general funds. Section 5 of the White Paper, on page 5, ends by saying: "With the expansion of Autzen stadium, the University has assured the SBC (Senate Budget Committee) that the current $2.2M subsidy [to Athletics] will be eliminated completely as increases in athletic revenues are realized." The potential for backsliding I think is great, and I believe the "assurances" given by the Administration need to be examined very critically. There are several reasons for questioning these assurances. For example, an email I received from an Administration officer on November 30th maintains that the Autzen expansion will allow football to generate more income, but it also acknowledges that other sports programs will experience annual cost increases. Now here we have a realistic appraisal of the situation. We should therefore be wary of the claim that the stadium project will yield all the intended results. (I shudder to think what will happen to us if Sizemore's tax-cutting initiatives are one day accepted by Oregon voters.)

The White Paper, following the rationale offered by the Administration, also states in the section I just referred to that "In the case of athletics, $2.2M of University funds are used per year to support non-revenue sports and Title IX compliance programs within the athletic department." The problem here is that such a claim shifts attention from the real issue, thus impeding a possible solution to some of our academic woes, not least of which is the privileged treatment athletics gets from this university and the Oregon University System. The burden of the $2.2 million subsidy should not be put on the shoulders of women sports and gender equity. Women are not the real reason why the Athletic Program is not self-sufficient. The real reason is that the University decided several years ago that we should be in the Pac-10 and in NCAA Division I. In order to participate in this elite company, the athletic establishment requires its members to field a minimum number of sports. To do this is expensive, and the requirement that there be gender equity has only exacerbated what was a difficult situation even prior to Title IX. There is a partial solution to this. The rules of the NCAA and the Pac-10 are not divine Commandments written in stone. Their rules can be modified to require fewer sports from member institutions. These athletic organizations could also begin reforming themselves, thus reversing the trend toward ever greater professionalization and commercialization. We should not forget that amateurship was once a noble concept, and it could be so again. It is time to make athletics subordinate to the academic institutions within which they operate and on whose existence they rely. There is simply no excusing Oregon's Athletic Department for demanding that members of the tennis team cut 15% of class days this term in order to participate in tournaments . This is pedagogically unsound and thus totally repugnant; it should not be tolerated by anyone in education; it is a complete corruption of why we are here, hence the need for a fundamental reform of intercollegiate athletics. This much is owed to our student athletes; they should be allowed to be students first and athletes second, the exact reverse of the present situation. These students should be working for their education, not the Athletic Department. We need to reset our priorities in Oregon and throughout this country. Changes in NCAA and Pac-10 rules would be beneficial not only for us in Oregon, but for college athletics as a whole. With fewer teams to sponsor, less inflated coaches' salaries and more noble aspirations, like those which inspired the original Olympic games, the Ducks could continue to participate in the highest level of intercollegiate athletics. I urge President Frohnmayer and Provost Moseley, as well as Mssrs. Moos, Bellotti, Kent and Ms. Runge, among others, to begin the process of reforming and restructuring college sports along a model that puts academics first and foremost. If requiring students to cut classes for sports is the only way of running an athletic program, then it should be abolished. I think it is possible to keep sports in academe by exercising some creative thinking and recognizing that athletics need to change. All this can be done, but since the NCAA obviously has an interest in feathering its own nest, the road ahead is steeper than Mt. Hood, but this summit must be scaled in order to assure the integrity and future well-being of academic programs here and in all institutions of higher learning.

3. THE CONCRETE, DOABLE PLAN For the time being, there is a solution, one that would allow the Ducks to participate at top level, but without needing the full $2.2 million allocation. In other words, the Athletic Program can and should make certain strategic cuts in its operating budget. These would not hurt Oregon's standing in the NCAA, yet they would free up several thousand dollars, and these could then be diverted to academic programs. How exactly can this be done? Let me begin by applying to athletics the same principles that the White Paper advocates for academics. This document, as I have already indicated, suggests decreasing the number of faculty and increasing the faculty-to-student ratio. Why not ask the same of athletics? Just recently one of the assistant football coaches resigned his position. This slot could simply be cut right now, and this would result in a saving of some $90,000, maybe more. This would reduce the coaching staff from a current ten FTE to nine FTE. Why should athletics, which for years has been relying on state support, not tighten its belt and take the same kind of hits proposed for the academic faculty? And even with this reduction in staffing, the coach-to-football player ratio remains enviable by academic standards. For example, this winter term I have 16 students in my graduate seminar (an absurdly high ratio, especially for a 607 seminar). For my 300-level course the ratio is 1-50 and for my 200-level survey it is 1-238. Another saving, just to stay within the football program, is to eliminate one or both full-time graduate assistants. Our GTF budget in Art History has been cut so we can no longer offer discussion sections as we did some four years ago. So why not athletics? By eliminating these two football assistants the Athletic Program stands to save some $30,000. We in academics are expected to keep doing more and better with less, so why exempt athletic personnel from doing their share of the same for this University? There are other areas where the Ducks can cut without jeopardizing their NCAA status. Most post-season games simply lose money; last year this amounted to just under $325,000, so here is another area where considerable savings can be realized. It is worthwhile to point out that Oregon is not required to engage in post-season play. I have read in the Register-Guard that some schools, for reasons that were not specified, declined participation in bowl games.

If the White Paper is meant as a step in reducing inequities in salary, why stop with academics? Why not extend this process to include sports as well? After all, with a $2.2 million infusion of state funding yearly, coaches' salaries are in part state-funded. Just recently the Athletic Department hired a coach for volleyball. This is not one of the revenue-generating sports. Notwithstanding the economic loss this sport represents, the new coach has been offered a salary of $75,000. Let me for a moment descend to the crass commercialization driving today's world. Just this winter term alone I am teaching a total of 304 students in three courses. This translates into 1216 credit hours and well over $92,000, a tidy sum for the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. Here I am, as many of you, in the trenches, doing the mission of this University, and I have done so since 1983, but my salary is $33,000 less than the new hire in volleyball. Finally, I have heard that coaches get bonuses, and that these are often linked to ticket sales. If so, an increase of 12,000 seats at Autzen should translate into a handsome reward for the coaching staff. If such is the case, this windfall in ticket revenues should instead be put toward reducing the athletic subsidy since the coaches, at an average of $90,000 or so, are not poorly paid. It is only fair to ask that they reinvest in the institution, and academics in particular. None of us in the teaching faculty get bonuses for accepting more doctoral students. Our salaries remain fixed whether we direct one dissertation, five or ten. By the logic reigning in athletics, we too should get bonuses.

If we simply take the figures I have given above, the $90,000 relating to the assistant football coach, the $30,000 for graduate assistants in football, and not losing $325,000 in post-season plays, these figures add up to a total of $445,000, almost half a million dollars. Thus, the subsidy for athletics could be reduced this year from $2.2 million to about $1.7 million. This means that in the year 2000 $445,000 could be applied to boosting academics, and by the indigent standards under which we operate on this side of the Millrace, a half a million bucks is a veritable treasure, one that would make a vital difference for us and our students.

4. UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR ACADEMICS I have had emails, letters, phone calls, face-to-face talks, and thus far two letters in the Register Guard and at least one in the Eugene Weekly supporting the views I have expressed here and elsewhere. These comments have come from faculty and students throughout campus, as well as from members of the Eugene community. I now know more than ever that I am not just one voice. I urge the Administration to take action on the concerns I have outlined above. I also urge the UO Senate to fashion a scheme by which athletics does not overwhelm and shortchange the University's academic mission. Should all these things come to pass, it will go far in restoring confidence and respect for this institution and all who serve it on either side of the Millrace. Let us build a bridge over this watery divide! And let us start now!

 The White Paper's tradeoffs on p. 5 (on increasing student-faculty ratio to 21-1, and selective increase of class size) prompted me to gather the following statistics on my upper-level/graduate lecture courses from Winter 1984 to Winter 2000. I did this census very quickly so it may not be 100% accurate, but it is close enough) . The chart below explains why I am not enamored with the idea of increasing class size as a possible way of boosting salaries. As one can see from these statistics, enrollments in my classes have climbed steadily, with a few downs from time to time, but the general trend in any case is upward.

400/500 Greek Architecture W84 to F99: 42/31/28/18/28/46/44

400/500 Roman Architecture S84 to W96: 30/24/25/20/26/49/40/63

400/500 Romanesque Arch. S86 to F 98: 9/20/38/43/64/33/45

400/500 Gothic Arch. I W85 to W99: 31/10/14/29/35/42/47/36

400/500 Gothic Arch. II S87 to S99: 19/12/35/27/35

300 Pacific Islands Art I F86 to W00: 18/25/41/44/49/50

300 Pacific Islands Art II W92 to W96: 33/47/44