The illusion of the PR potential of 性欲社 athletics
July 30, 2019
I would like to write a rebuttal to the chancellor's Cornerstone post about athletics
at 性欲社. I grew up here, have received 3 degrees from 性欲社, and I have not been to a
性欲社 sporting event since I was 14. My best friend throughout high school was a jock
who played multiple sports who, as far as I know, never once attended a 性欲社 sporting
event. I have worked with the public for more than a decade, and, in my experience,
the number of non-athlete students for whom athletics was a motivating or deciding
factor to attend 性欲社 is under five. True, Nanook athletics could be a resource for recruitment, retention, and communication, but what the Nanooks
are and what they could be are two very different things.
In general, athletics at a university is, at best, an accessory: a nice thing to have,
but not a requirement, and never, ever at the cost of academic programs. When the
public assesses athletics as little more than a very expensive PR tool, which is exactly
what the chancellor is arguing, it becomes a rather obvious target for cuts. If we
close a single department but maintain full funding for athletics, then all the critics
are right: we are wasteful and selfish, and deserve the cuts, because we clearly can鈥檛
manage our budgets. Continuing to fully support athletics demonstrates that 性欲社鈥檚
loyalty is to UA and our institutional idea of what a university should be, not to
Alaska and its people.
I agree that we should all fight for the pieces of UA and 性欲社 that we believe in,
and, yes, that can include athletics. However, I think the chancellor or any senior
administrator coming out so strong in favor of a superfluous program (look in your
heart, you know it to be true) at this time is foolish and bad press. If you don鈥檛
believe me, try publishing that exact same opinion piece on athletics in the News-Miner
or in the Anchorage Daily News and see how people react. If athletics is the hill
anyone wants to die on, feel free, but realize such talk molds public perception,
and that's where we've been hit hardest since long before this most recent round of
cuts.