Last updated on 10/18/2016
|
And, courtesy of UO communications, more links:
The Wall Street Journal Nike Co-Founder Phil Knight Gives $500 Million for University of Oregon Science Center
Washington Post With the largest gift ever to a public university, the University of Oregon has big plans
Inside Higher Ed Nike Co-Founder Gives U of Oregon $500 Million
Oregon Live Phil and Penny Knight will give $500 million to University of Oregon for science complex
Phil and Penny Knight’s charitable contributions top $2 billion
Register Guard Knights pledge $500 million to University of Oregon for academics, science construction
Oregon Public Broadcasting UO Gets $500M Gift From Phil And Penny Knight
Portland Business Journal Phil and Penny Knight give $500 million to University of Oregon
Around the O This changes everything: President announces historic Knight gift
Chronicle of Philanthropy Daily News Roundup: Phil and Penny Knight Pledge $500 Million More to U. of Oregon
KGW Phil Knight gives $500 million to University of Oregon for science campus
KEZI UO Receives Generous Donation
KATU University of Oregon announces $500M gift from Phil Knight for science center
KVAL Phil and Penny Knight donate $500M to new UO science campus
KOIN Phil Knight donates $500m for UO science center
Oregon Daily Emerald
UO receives $500 million donation from Knight family for three-building research campus
UO President Michael Schill officially announces Knight Campus
Footwear News Nike’s Phil Knight Donates $500 Million to University of Oregon
The Comeback Phil Knight Donates $500 Million To Oregon So It Can ‘Change The World’
Beaverton Patch Nike Founder Phil Knight Donates $500 Million to University of Oregon for Science Complex
The Daily Progress (Charlottesville, VA) Nike co-founder pledges $500 million to University of Oregon
American School and University Nike co-founder pledges $500 million to University of Oregon for new science complex
University Herald Nike Co-Founder Donates $500 Million To University Of Oregon
247 Sports Phil Knight donates $500 million to Oregon
Fantastic news for the UO!
Well, I have to hand it to him, Schill is starting to bring home the lamb chops!
Bravo! I got chills reading this.
This really shows what kind of people the Knights’ really are!
Indeed this is good news and there is a lot of background and legwork here. Bottom line is that this gift will greatly help the UO to become a better and more significant research University which should greatly improve our graduate student profile.
This is great news. I’m all for converting parking lots into academic buildings, but people are still going to need to get to campus. An investment needs to be made in supporting transportation alternatives.
You mean like bike racks and transit passes?
Those are both great, but it isn’t enough. OSU has 2 FTE devoted to transportation options, which doesn’t include their Bike Program staff. They run shuttles around campus and have programs incentivizing people to bike.
Hard to take the “mass transit” when the hours of operation to my house area is approx 7:30-6pm — meaning working late means I don’t have a way home. And I work late often. Also, it would take an hour to commute both ways, when I can drive in 10 minutes.
Would love to take mass transit as a daily option. I love taking the bus in general. Unfortunately, just simply not realistic.
The suggestion that biking and mass transit should be encouraged does not mean that _everyone_ necessarily can take advantage of this, just that it would be better if more people would.
Should have thought about that before you bought your house.
The UO could work with LTD to expand route times.
This gift reinforces something that is well-known, but which often seems ignored on this blog: There is an obvious synergy between Div. I athletic programs and alumni academic giving.
Phil Knight’s giving to the UO, which includes gifts for the Knight Library, Knight Law School, and other academic programs, is a direct outgrowth of UO athletics. Such athletic giving is usually not an either/or to academic giving, but athletic giving can serve as a gateway to significant academic giving. Similarly, Knight’s athletic giving pays obvious dividends to the University as a whole.
It is nice to see that giving celebrated, especially on this blog which oft times seems unfairly hostile to athletic givers.
I think, while I know, there is a considerable backstory here that involves nothing to do with athletics – it is certainly not a “direct outgrowth” – this was a sustained, targeted initiative for the
last 2-3 years, which ultimately proved successful but
yes the entire UO community will benefit considerably, eventually
Anyone who thinks that Phil Knight’s giving to the UO is not an outgrowth of UO athletics has a considerable memory hole. Make a timeline of Knight’s involvement with and giving to the UO and see what conclusions you can draw. Arguing that Phil Knight’s academic giving, which is an outgrowth of his emotional attachment to the UO, is not correlated to his deep involvement with athletics is absurd. I seriously doubt that the people responsible for that obtaining that gift think it could have been obtained absent Knight’s considerable history and involvement with the athletic side of the UO.
I suggest directly asking the people responsible for this gift about the role of athletics. There was no
discussion about it. Ask Chuck Lillis if you want,
I am pretty sure he reads this blog.
Knight cares a lot about applied research and medical issues (hence the gift to OHSU) – this is largely a continuation of that
I would not expect there to be discussion of athletics in the solicitation of this academic gift. That would be absurd. The point you are missing is that this gift is an outgrowth of Knight’s history of giving at the UO and his emotional ties to the University. And both those are an outgrowth of athletics, with this giving progressing from very significant athletic gifts to very significant academic gifts.
Knight has given gifts to OH&SU for cancer research. That is clearly a very important issue to his family in light of the death of their family friend. That gift is really not a traditional academic gift. It is more a health care gift. But, in any event, the bulk of his academic giving until this date has been for non-science academics and athletics. This $500 million gift is his first significant gift for non-cancer science. Hard to see it as an outgrowth of the OH&SU gift.
Maybe it just means that PK has changes his priorities and wants to change the previous donation trajectory.
But you can continue to call it an outgrowth as if somehow this was a natural end state …
And this “obvious synergy” between athletic and academic giving explains the Knights’ previous $500 million gift to OHSU how?
Always thought it was curious if not downright hypocritical for PK to pull donations from UO because of WRC membership, then donate hundreds of millions to Stanford, a WRC member.
Knight did not make his big donation to Stanford, $105 million for the Business School, until 2006. By then, the controversy over the WRC that blew up in 2000 had gone away.
From Knight’s perspective, I think, most of the WRC controversy was about how it was handled by the Admin. Knight had given the UO hundreds of millions (mostly to athletics) prior to 2000, and I suspect he felt badly treated.
Stanford clearly did a better and different job of handling the issue in 2006. I don’t think, for example, protestors were parading around with “Take a hike Nike” signs. Stanford is a Nike school, so clearly whatever is happening with the WRC at Stanford is not being construed as anti-Nike.
So Phil stopped his giving to academics not because of his principled opposition to the WRC but because some UO students appeared in sufficiently grateful. You’d think someone whose fought tough business battles his entire career wouldn’t be so thin-skinned.
I think that Phil Knight is a human just like the rest of us. I suspect all of us would feel less generous if we felt wronged. I’m surprised you don’t get that. Here, I think he was probably more concerned by the actions of the Admin than by students.
It is worth noting that most of us who grew up in Oregon, which I think includes you, rightly or wrongly view the institution now known as OH&SU as a wing of the UO. It was initially the University of Oregon Medical School staring a hundred years or so ago and continuing until past the time Knight attended UO. It did not achieve administrative independence until the early 1970s, and even then was dubbed the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center. While it was renamed again several times starting to the 80s (OHSU was one old name) to its present title (OH&SU), a guy of Phil’s age (or even mine) likely does associate that institution with the UO.
But, in any event, the Knight’s initial $100 million gift in 2008 was made in honor of a close family friend of the Knights who died of cancer for cancer research. I view that more as “health care” giving than as “academic” giving — a distinction that most fundraising professionals, such as my wife, recognize as important because the motivations are entirely different. The subsequent $500 million gift was also cancer specific. The OH&SU example really doesn’t help your argument, Andy.
I’m not privy to the Knights’ philanthropic motivations. It is your blanket statement: “There is an obvious synergy between Div. I athletic programs and alumni academic giving” to which I take exception. First, even if the Knights’ $500 million UO gift is motivated by its athletic program, extrapolating from one donor to the universe of higher education giving is silly.
How does your “obvious synergy” explain the following members of the top 15 U.S. university endowments?
# 1 Harvard
# 2 Yale
#7 MIT
#11 Columbia
#12 University of Pennsylvania
#13 University of Chicago
#15 Washington University
Yes, the Ivy League schools are nominally Division I, but without athletic scholarships to offer, they field few competitive teams (except #5 Princeton, which I omitted from the list because it kills it in squash). None of the others is Div. I.
Homework for the dedicated reader, test for correlation between the 100 richest universities and the top athletic performers.
The general lack of synergy between big-time college sports and academic excellence is well documented. A good starting point is these two *NCAA* commissioned reports:
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/empirical_effects_of_collegiate_athletics_interim_report.pdf
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/empirical_effects_of_collegiate_athletics_update.pdf
and then there’s the boozing and sexual assaults.
That said, any chance I can get anyone to comment knowledgeably about the science that the Knights’ generous $500M gift will support?
Is the argument here that if the UO treated athletics as do those on the selective list of private schools you mention that then we would enjoy a comparable or at least much larger endowment? Because that is silly.
Your causal claim is weak but even if it was strong, it does not imply reverse causality: that if we deemphasized athletics at UO that *we* would enjoy a larger endowment.
Those are a collection of some of the most prestigious private institutions in the world, 4 of which are significantly older than the UO. Perhaps I misunderstand your argument. There are many reasons those schools have enormous endowments that have nothing to do with their relatively modest athletic programs. They do not support your argument.
The *public state schools* on the list, the ones you choose to exclude for some reason, include Stanford (private, but great in athletics as well as academics), and public institutions like Texas, the UC schools, Michigan, etc. In other words, the public state schools with huge endowments all have strong athletic traditions. This seems to contradict the argument you are trying to make, unless you think Oregon more like MIT and Harvard than Michigan, Texas, Minnesota, etc. I don’t.
Indeed, the ONLY US state schools in the top 30 on that list all have large athletic profiles. That is the relevant correlation and it is 1.0.
Trond’s comment is exactly right.
But here’s my precise point: Alumni are more likely to donate to their alma mater if they have maintained a connection and interest in the school. Do you agree?
For the big research Universities which make up Div. I, that connection is enhanced for many alumni by college athletics. Following their University’s teams creates a bond for the Alumni who are, in this case, proud of how the Ducks are doing. Do you disagree?
The specific example we are discussing here, Phil Knight, seems a case study of what I’m suggesting.
P.S.
Bill, we both know that the studies you link conclude only that they cannot determine whether there is a negative or positive linkage between the quantum of expenditure on sports and the quantum of alumni giving. We also both know that is not the issue being discussed here.
The question at issue here is does the EXISTENCE of sports programs have a positive linkage with alumni giving. I would submit based on the anecdotal evidence that the answer is a resounding “YES!”
Frankly, I would laugh at anyone who claimed that increasing the athletic budget 10% would necessarily increase alumni giving X (or even any) percent. (Does your study address whether an increase in sports success has a correlation to increases in alumni giving?) But, I would also laugh at anyone who asserted that cutting athletics would not lead to a decrease in alumni giving.
What I don’t think you get, Bill, is that athletics are not an intrinsic evil. Athletics do pose a challenge for administrators in making sure that the potential negatives of athletics (win at all costs culture, potential drain on the general funds, etc.) are managed. And, frankly, UO does a much much much better job of that than the vast majority of institutions do.
As for the “boozing and sexual assaults,” that is a cultural problem that is not unique to athletics, and an issue on which you seem too often to take mutually contradictory positions.
I like your blog, Bill, for the way it brings to light real issues that UO needs to address. As an Alumni, it is a great source of UO news. But, I think you do your credibility a disservice with some of the positions you take and, more importantly, the way in which you address them. I am all for freedom of speech and I’ll defend to the death your right to use whatever tone you like, but I wish you’d temper your comments with more wisdom so that this blog was not a place where people feared to post under their own names.
While you’re at it, run the correlation between 100 richest universities and age of university.
People who remember OHSU as the “UO Medical/Dental School” are all over 55. Anyone younger than that sees OHSU as a separate independent University from UO.
Phil Knight is 78, so you are making my point. But, I think you are a little wrong. I’m ONLY 50, ’89 grad, and I associate it with UO.
The synergy in this special case is evident. Be glad it has worked out the way it has. Don’t try to draw more from it than the situation will bear. Very few people are ever going to become megabillionaires in the sports business and then become academic and science philanthropists.
Myself, I was horrified at the WRC fiasco with PK back in 2000 and thereabouts. I’m glad that he has finally been gracious enough, and willing enough to let the past go, that he is again contributing to UO academics.
I find myself often seriously at odds with many things going on at UO. I’m nonetheless happy to see this great contribution to aspects of UO science.
I hope that this will broaden out in the sciences, and eventually beyond the sciences, in the near and distant future.
There is plenty more where that $500 million came from, and the Knights obviously have been eager to give more, as when they offered to set up an $800 million endowment if the state matched it, a few years ago in the time of “the Hat.” The state spurned that deal, somewhat as UO spurned the Knights back in 2000. A lot of people in and out of UO might not like this characterization of those events, but there it is.
I hope that UO will have the grace, tact, and vision to draw more from the Knights and other similarly situation alumni and patrons.
Great news. Great day to be a Duck. Things are looking up. Thanks to the Knights. And keep plugging away Mike Schill!
I wonder, will the same MO be used in building these structures that were used to build the Jock in the Box?
This is important. The “not the final” rendering is uninspired, and makes everyone anxious for the millrace and the urban farm.
Everyone? The millrace and the urban farm sure don’t make me anxious, DogRat. We’ll have to move some dirt, which is easy enough. This is a great gift for important research.
Clearly ‘everyone’ isn’t concerned. Rather than focusing on minutia, consider DogRat’s point, which is that there is an opportunity cost to consider. For example, what could have been done with the ‘mostly’ unused parking lot across from the jock box? I think everyone realizes that this is a great gift. No need to argue straw men.
For god’s sake commenters, Uncle Phil just gave us $500M for science.
And you’re commenting about parking? The Millrace? Organic tomatoes? Bike racks? Are you all in shock or something? You got nothing else? Nothing?
I’ll pony up a “University of Nike” (TM) t-shirt or coffee cup for the best comment of the thread: http://www.cafepress.com/universityofnike
Having talked to several people about this today:
– yes, it’s fantastic news for UO
– yes, it’s like everyone is in shock
The size of the gift is amazing, and it makes people pause and think about how to really make major impacts on UO and beyond. It’s not like the standard topics of hiring or not hiring a few people, or engaging in some worthwhile but small program, but rather something much bigger and qualitatively different, that isn’t easy to do justice to in quick little comments. The lack of deep comments doesn’t mean people aren’t thinking, though!
(Not a deep comment: We need a plan for saving Evergreen, or at least warning its owners!)
I’m a Taste of India guy myself. Is that wrong?
If you build it they will come.
This is exactly what bothers me about the Knight gift. The OHSU gift was for something they were already doing well, and their PR materials reflect that. The UO gift is something New! Exciting! Interdisciplinary! for a program that doesn’t even exist.
It will probably cost more than $500M to build and sustain a quality program quite literally from the ground up. Is this another situation where UO is going to end up on the hook for the back-of-house budgeting after Phil gets the glory? What about all of UO’s already cash-strapped programs?
As distasteful as it is to look a gigantic gift horse in the mouth, this has the feel of yet again Uncle Phil saying “Jump!” and UO dutifully responding “How high?”
once again this is more background on this – basically this New Interdisciplinary approach is primarily targeted at the graduate level to improve our graduate school participation and degree programs – again a lot of other Universities have done something similar with nothing but success
OK, but the UO project is going to be in direct competition (for students, faculty, donations, grants, etc.) with the already-established PSU/OHSU/OSU Collaborative Life Sciences program. Guess who wins that one?
expansion creates opportunities, not necessarily competition. Its a new world, I don’t claim to know much about it, but many of the commentaries on this thread reflect the legacy world – and that needs to change.
500M will help
I completely disagree. The gift covers a need many of us have identified here at the UO: the lack of an engineer school that can “create” and generate patents, grant money etc. This was a great handicap to our campus.
The institute will be even better than an engineer school, because it will be formed to be interdisciplinary–it will include engineers but not JUST engineers. The field of view will be wider, the potential synergies with the rest of campus much more exciting.
can we call them applied researchers instead of
engineers – it is more apt …
You’re right – its not enough money to build a quality program from the ground up, so let’s just give the money back.
“…that will launch an initiative to rethink and reshape research at the University of Oregon. The Phil and Penny Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact will fast-track scientific discoveries into innovations, products, and cures that solve problems and improve our quality of life.”
That is to say, research that doesn’t produce something of monetary value will not be part of this ‘reshaping’. I guess Economics is probably safe. Less sure about some other CAS departments.
Once again this is an unnecessarily crass comment since
a) this is very fluid situation and the future can not be forecast at all
b) nationwide many research universities are rapidly and successfully moving into applied interdisciplinary research/science in order to better deal with real world problems (which are many). The UO needs to play in this new Arena. This has nothing to do with monetary value, it has all to do with research that is more impactful in the real world than it has traditionally been.
I’m pretty certain you don’t believe that any project is good as long as it has money …
Wouldn’t you find it a little sad for a sub-campus, intended to work on the “world’s problems”, to begin life by destroying good things?
Pretty sure that Schumpeter nailed that issue in 1942
http://economics.mit.edu/files/1785
Dude,
Myopia and Pet Interests run this place, indeed, some of that is behind the 500 Million, but hell, that can buy a shitload of Pets so most are happy.
Well said Dog, but I’m still hoping for 1,000 words explaining what CASI will do.
Would Uncle Phil have made the donation:
Without privatization? He donated hundreds of millions before when the UO was still under the state board.
Without football? He donated a similar sum to OHSU without football.
Without Schill? The donation has been worked on, talked about and anticipated by many people long before Schill.
With WRC workers rights advocacy? Stanford got a similar gift with the WRC.
Seems like there’s now a big research rivalry between OHSU and OSU and the UO.
Is this what the old state board was supposed to prevent? Should it have?
Set up endowed chairs to poach OSU researchers and start swinging the research dollars south…
That’s thinking big!
I believe the closest alliance will be with OHSU and the initial thrust of the Accelerate Scientific Impact Research will be related to medical sensors, markings, imaging and big data problems in such.
There is a lot of biology, chemistry and physics in all this but I believe materials and medical “devices” will
be the initial thrust and hence the OHSU collaboration.
Then again, I could be full of shit …
I think that’s a smart alliance.
THANK YOU UNKLE PHIL!!!!!
I applaud any academic and scientific gift, but that is a lot of money for a campus, buildings, and construction. Where is the money in an unrestricted endowment to pay for the heat, cooling, lights, and all the professors who will be occupying this campus and teaching the small costly science courses?
Also, what sciencey things are they going to be doing? Anything medical really is better served in Portland at OHSU, and Uncle Phill has given there. Is the UO going to ramp up an Engineering School to compete with OSU much less Stanford?
Again I love that Uncle Phil came through with about a quarter or half of what he promised to get rid of the old State Board and look forward to the rest going to the Endowment unrestricted so that we can at least keep the lights on in all these new fancy buildings.
There something happening here. What it is isn’t exactly clear. But, folks on this site are way to critical of a family that has given UO over $1 billion. I mean, really, your complaint is that there is no “unrestricted endowment” to pay for the utilities? C’mon.
And the question as to what “sciency things” are they going to be doing? Don’t you folks realize that UO has folks on campus who are the leaders in their scientific fields? Just as an example, the research being done at the UO on the migration of humans to North America is ground breaking leading edge stuff. Don’t you folks read your alumni magazines, at least? Or are faculty members left out of the loop and unaware of what other departments are doing?
Even anthropologist don’t get excited about anthropology
PBS disagreed about this particular research.
PBS = excitement!
Alec,
states ” your complaint is that there is no “unrestricted endowment” to pay for the utilities? C’mon.”
Absolutely.
We may need more buildings but LISB and Lokey seem to be housing a lot of sciency things. But it takes money and people to run these buildings and rockstar professors to fill them. And one day in the future even these buildings will be like PLC just a pile of concrete glass and steel (and perhaps asbestos, mold and lead in the case of PLC).
The easiest part is building buildings especially when you lease the land to Phit for a buck. However, lets look at the Sports campus edifice; did it make UO into BAMA? No we are still the UO with our bottom of the pack record. Did shiney buildings, or the X-Box, air conditioner, italian leather and pony in every locker keep us at the top? No. Did it even put us at the top? No, that was dubiously attributed to the rockstar coaches in the buildings but was more likely the result of recruiting transgressions. Ask athletics where the money comes from to keep the lights on and the buildings maintained, and the rockstars happy, especially when you can’t fill the seats.
As a news article said (link below) at $117M the UO’s research dollars are anemic. This is less than half OHSU or OSU and not even double PSU. Add all the Oregon research dollars and they do not even come close to UW’s $1.3 Billion or any of the higher education powerhouses.
Even Bama has a billion or so in the bank. I just hope we get serious about research and education, and I think it would be better if we had an endowment to support students and research, and not just another pile of glass and steel (think PLC).
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/10/phil_and_penny_knights_gift_to.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd
It starts when you’re always afraid You step out of line, the man come and take you away.
Paranoia runs deep. But, I think UO can afford electricity and heat.
Sure we can soak the students to keep the lights on. Like we make students pay for unfilled stadium seats to pay off coaches and plush athletic digs and operations, I guess we can make the students pay for plush offices, labs and operations waiting for the billions in competitive research dollars to flow in.
I doubt the state support will come back, and I wonder what Roger’s view is of the long term viability of the underprepared Californian and International students to prop up our finances… and even if they do come are these really the students who will be doing the kinds of research to support those billions in research dollars and become the kind of Alum who will replace Phil?
Just in case it got lost: Thank you uncle Phil and aunt Penny for all you do for the UO and all that I am sure you will do in the future. Now, we need to work on getting at least a three billion dollar endowment if we want to become a top university or at least remain viable. It is not sexy but necessary.
But the Knight money isn’t going to a building. That’s why the UO needs state bonds. The day-to-day operation will be largely endowed, with dozens of endowed faculty, endowments for students, and an endowment for research funds. It is really the complete opposite of your worry of money for a building and no money for everything else.
mostly right
indeed and if this is a specific endowment management then the operating budget for the Knight Campus would be
20 M per year.
One concern I have is if say 50-100 M of the 500 M isn’t used for constuction – then the physical building of
the infrastructure will take longer
If this is really a research endowment, then why does all of the press say it’s the “Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact,” with the part about endowing faculty positions in fine print, if it’s mentioned at all? What percentage is going towards the endowment? Where are you getting your information from?
This is my feeling as well. If UO was the party who got to decide the best way for Phil to support research with a massive donation, yet another ego edifice probably wouldn’t top the list. Notice that the only things anyone seems clear on is (1) where the building will be located and (2) that it will have a skybridge.
endowment is 4% per year of capital; e.g. 20 Million
Everyone keeps forgetting that the new institute will be able to compete for new avenues of grants, from federal funds to private enterprise funds. The lights will stay on all right.
“Where is the money in an unrestricted endowment to pay for the heat, cooling, lights,…”
I believe this is the purpose of charging F&A on all research.
It sounds like there will be dozens of endowed faculty and endowment money for some postdocs and students. The utilities etc should be at least partly offset by the ~50% indirect costs on grants which is supposed to be used for that sort of thing. At full steam those indirects should be $15-25M.
As to the sciencey aspect, I think there is lots of room that is not part of the traditional silos of “medicine” or “engineering”. How about someone data mining millions of genome sequences for clues to metabolic pathways that could be drug targets? New physics research and technology development for imaging cellular activity? Nanomaterials for capturing environmental or bodily toxins? I think the key is to not try to partition someone’s research into a pre-existing label but force interactions between basic and applied researchers.
This is counting an awful lot of chickens before the eggs are laid.
Well that is the vision – now the UO (i.e. the eggs) could still operationally screw this up but the vision is to use this to expand research and scholarship in new directions – some of these directions are currently constrained by departmental and college obstacles. Launching this at the graduate level (I.e. the chickens) will help overcome some of these hurdles (which hopefully will natural being to fade as the UO slowly wakes up to the reality of the current world).
Which part? Things could change, but I was responding to how would they pay for the faculty, and the current plan is that they would be endowed. Sure, who knows how much new grant money comes in, I was just going off the projections. The sciencey part is total rambling, of course.
I think the part I am referring to is the actual
research areas of critical mass – we need to have
new hiring practices and just not continue to hire
clones of ourselves and our research
Oh, I agree, Dog. The bad threading in the comments made my “which part” unclear. It was in response to just different (which I think was in response to me).
I hope the UO Libraries will see some of this money come their way, for staff as well as materials. Instead of having to take cuts (last year, was it because everyone else has to?) they should be funded at a level to engage in ramping up staff support of researchers (in all departments!) as well as supplies support: books, journals, databases, access to you-name-it. A great institution is also known by its great libraries, and some of us were very disappointed to see the library’s budget take a hit last year.
I agree that libraries should be fully funded. But, there is nothing wrong if this donation goes a different direction since that was the donor’s intent. He has given to the library in the past, and any complaint by the science guys would have been unjust. UO should make library fundraising a priority. UC Berkeley has library fundraising staff. Does UO?
We have an incredible Library fundraising staff, led by the venerable, tough, and friendly Keri Aronson. She’s kicking ass and taking names.
I’m a grad student. I am a little in shock that this character I’ve spent so much time haranguing for his athletic and privatization obsession is coming through for all of us to make my degree more valuable and this institution greater.
How long have you been a grad student at UO?
The “Hat” was the impetus for privatization. The impulse was due to the lack of public funding. While I don’t love the idea, I think the point is a fair one. So I’m not sure why you’d “harangue” anyone about that, especially Phil Knight (who offered to match Legislative funding for the UO).
Also not sure why you would harangue Phil Knight for donating to UO Athletics in addition to his many academic donations. Those donations also benefit the UO. That’s the attitude that this blog sometimes exhibits which I think is unfounded.
UO Matters asks for knowledgeable commentary on the science the Knights’ gift is likely to support. Instead, I speculate that the UO might double-down on its pioneering zebrafish model. Tim Boyle’s $10 million zebrafish gift earlier this year may be only the start. It would not be the first time that these two generous families have supported the same initiative, e.g., OHSU cancer research.
Not to take anything away from the half-dozen UO basic research PI’s working with zebrafish, one could argue that the UO has under-invested in Streisinger’s seminal zebrafish work, particularly in regard to biomedical applications. This might be the chance to do so.
biomedical applications are likely a priority but, the research areas and impacts will ultimately be determined by the catalytic kind of researcher that might be interested in this new enterprise.
Picking out subject areas in advance and trying to
fill them with specific people (which is what departments due) will likely narrow the overall focus of this initiative. Its not bad to do this, but it continues tunnel vision and legacy
In light of all of the conversation here in regards to athletics, can someone explain to me why American universities have athletic “departments” in the first place? What pedagogical purpose does having a commercial football team serve?
It’s bizarre that Americans unquestioningly accept the existence of “college athletics,” as if the two words have anything to do with each other. Imagine how silly it would be if Oxford suddenly started offering scholarships to students who were good at soccer…
Americans also like the Rhodes scholarship, which offers a scholarship to Oxford based on four major criteria, one of which is: “Energy to use one’s talents to the fullest, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports.” Those crazy Brits!
Since it’s obvious I’ve lost all control of this comment thread, lets go there. Here’s Cecil Rhodes of the Rhodes Scholarships, from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
I’m hoping most Americans don’t approve, and the American counterpart to the Rhodes, the Marshall Scholarship, does not appear to place any weight on the jock stuff: http://www.marshallscholarship.org/applications/criteria
Bill,
Are you really trying to draw a link between supporting college sports and Apartheid? C’mon. This is the kind of credibility destroying post that you would be wise to avoid.
Do I really need to explain to you the role that sports played in the development of post-Apartheid S. Africa both as a training ground for governance at Robben Island and as a means for national reconciliation?
Good comparison. Clearly the Rhodes scholarship is pedagogically equivalent to College Gameday on ESPN presented by Home Depot.
I had forgotten about how Oxford sells jerseys so fans can support their favorite Rhodes scholars, then sells tickets to the public to watch their scholars compete against scholars from the LSE, all while selling television rights to channels who specialize entirely on the competition between the Rhodes scholars.
Having struck out by claiming that Oxford didn’t offer scholarships that took into account athletic prowess (contradicted by the Rhodes example), you now double down on your inapt example. Problem is that Oxford’s “Sporting Federation” provides support to 80 sports organizations at Oxford “by giving funding both to clubs and individuals (grants and scholarships), administering their competitions (BUCS and Varsity) and offering support and advice on development, sponsorship, funding and more.” To reiterate, Oxford students do get sports scholarships.
For your information, “BUCS” is the “British Universities & College Sports” organization.
Oxford is very proud of its record in BUCS competitions, stating on its website: “Most major sports compete against other universities in BUCS on a regular basis, often every Wednesday. The strength of Oxford teams has seen us consistently placed in the top ten in the country. As well as BUCS, most clubs have a fiercely-contested annual Varsity match against Cambridge which is the highlight of the club’s calendar. These matches alternate annually between the two cities, apart from the high profile Rugby, Rowing, Football and Hockey Varsities which take place at Twickenham, on the Thames, at QPR/Fulham FC and at Southgate HC respectively.”
To pick just one example, “The Boat Race” is an annual race between Oxford and Cambridge teams which are widely televised with BBC holding and selling the worldwide rights. “The Boat Race” is not officially called that anymore, as it is now named after their sponsor which changes (past sponsors include liquor, gambling, investment, and insurance companies).
Your Oxford example was a stretch when you made it, as no one should be comparing UO to Oxford, and its looks not only inapt but inept when the true facts about sports at Oxford are considered.
Oh … and here’s a link for you to pick up some supporters clothing for the Oxford University Boating Club:
http://www.oushop.com/Sport-and-Leisure/Varsity-Sport/OUBC
P.S. In that picture of the Oxford University Boating Club on the Oxford University Store site you’ll see the student-athlete wearing uniforms with the word “xchanging” emblazened across their chest. Xchanging” is an insurance related company that was a sponsor of the OUBC. So, at least in this one respect, Oxford is even more crass and commercial in its college sports sponsorship deals than UO.
The Skybridge idea is very interesting. Franklin is a huge overbuilt car moat for the UO. Ever try crossing from the basketball arena to Tracktown for pizza? Drop Franklin down a little and cover it with a wide plaza/park near Villard Hall where 11th and Franklin split (and there is already a 20-foot elevation change) to reconnect the UO with the Millrace, river, science center, etc.
I’ve got to say that I really like this idea, although this is not in my bailiwick. I’m guessing that the costs would be astronomical and that the ground water issues would be stifling. Nevertheless, it is difficult to think of a better way of really joining the campus together and also creating a large public plaza for the university and the city.
you should goggle on the plan for the sprinfield/gleenwood part of Franklin because its very much like that which was described
Then the Dominos pizza could be moved between the Knight campus and Onyx and the people in the skyway could peer down and see the pizzas being made.
This idea has come up at campus planning committee meetings before. Dropping Franklin probably wouldn’t work, but a slight rise to the ground level over a big overpass, or a well-designed pedestrian bridge, could. Most people on campus are probably not aware of the recently completed Campus Physical Framework Vision Project, which looked at all of these longer-therm campus design considerations as a whole, rather than as a series of disconnected local decisions (as had been our process earlier). The report is available at https://cpdc.uoregon.edu/policies-and-documents/policies-and-documents/campus-physical-framework-vision-project, and is worth reading. I’d argue that before we start proposing individual gerbil tubes over Franklin, the university as a whole should think about the big picture of linking the north and south sides. PSU has quite a few terrible skybridges, which they’d now like to remove, but can’t, as they incorporate utility lines.
Exactly. In fact, the proposed location is probably the one place on Franklin where a skybridge makes absolutely no sense.
Phil Knight just gave $500M for science. And the UO Matters commenters have descended into arguing about parking, and where to put a skybridge. Please just stop.
As a model of appropriate behavior, here’s President Obama commenting on a science gift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjvhrFV9TJo
On being redundant
1. This is a 500 Mill ENDOWMENT “gift” – meaning we don’t get to spend the 500M now to make an impact.
2. To get the buildings and other infrastructure built will require a bond/public donation match.
3. Operational costs from the endowment are estimated to fund *only* 30 Faculty (in new research areas). While I agree that 30 new Faculty is good, I think an
actual IMPACT would mean 150 new faculty …
The Knight gift is being hyped as a construction project, so that’s the content of the commentary. Even assuming Dog’s info about 4% going to an endowment is correct (source please), that’s still not anywhere near enough money even for 30 faculty. And UO is going to need bonds to build it? That doesn’t worry anyone?
There might be actual solid scientific vision behind this project, but where is it? Everything I’ve seen sounds conjectural and pie-in-the-sky. BS is still BS, even when it’s buried under a huge pile of money.
Because if we talk about the money that comes in, and the science that comes out, theres really no point in talking about anything in the middle, like how you actually spend a few hundred million dollars on buildings, and set the direction for all future science campus expansion? Glad that you decided to become an economist, and not a designer.
This gift is and will be more impactful than anything any of you ever do. It must really suck to be stuck in that shadow, but at least you won’t have to deal with making money any time soon.
I’m happy to be stuck in that shadow, as long as I am with people who do not use the word “impactful”.
Of course a $500M gift will make an impact. But you assume that what motivates you and what you value is true of everyone else. I know many happy faculty who value making a difference in individual student’s lives and leading a life of inquiry. I doubt they think it “sucks” to be doing so rather than making large gifts.
1. 4% is the standard rate of return by the Foundation on any endowed gift (like endowed chairs, etc)
2. 4% of 500M is 20 M per year – faculty costs, in round numbers, 100K per year (or maybe 150 now)
150K * 30 = 4.5 Million, well within 20 M
The bonds are needed for capital construction
After I posted I thought this was what you might have meant. But none of the press I’ve seen about this says that the entire Knight gift was a research endowment, which is a very different matter. Again, where are you getting your information from?
I am a bit on the “inside” and the strategy has been
to treat this has an endowment that gives operational
expense. That may change, particularly if the bond
match goes slowly.
When is the press ever accurate on details?
Aha. The difference between a $500M endowment entirely in UO control and yet another showy named building on UO’s “leased” land is certainly no detail. Maybe the UO PR machine held back because they thought the general public would get more excited about some stupid architectural renderings, but the UO community has been down that road before. Schill should know better.