University of Iowa
January 29, 2002
Aikin, S. Armstrong, J. Berg, C. Berman, D. Bills, T. Boles, J. Cowdery, D.
DeJong, K. Diffley, C. Dungy, L. Dusdieker, R. Hamot, R. Hegeman, , P. Heidger,R.
Hurtig, S. Kurtz, S. Larsen, R. LeBlond, P. Lloyd, C. Lynch, D. Manderscheid, T.
Mangum, K. Marra, A. McCarthy, P. Muhly, G. Parkin, J. Polumbaum, C. Porter, A.
Qualls, M. Raymond, C. Ringen, J. Ringen, P. Rubenstein, R. Slayton, L.
Snetselaar, C. Sponsler, W. Stanford, K. Tachau, L. Troyer, R. Valentine, E.
Wasserman, , R. Weir, P. Weller, J. Westefeld,
Abdel-Malek, J. Altman, N. Bauman, R.Bork, P. Chang, H. Cowen, B. Fallon, V.
Grassian, L. Hunsinger, M. Klepser, P. Kutzko, J. P. Long, J. Menninger, R.
Miller, S. Moorhead, J. Moyers, W. Nixon, I. Nygaard, T. OíDorisio,
S. Stromquist, S. Vincent
Ballas, D. Brown, J. Jew, B. Muller, H. Seaba
Senate Officers in Attendance: Amitava
Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice President; Carolyn Colvin, Past
President; Erin Irish, Secretary
Colangelo (BICOA), Tony Robinson (Daily
Iowan), Charles Drum (University Relations), Betsy Altmaier (BICOA), Rachel
Coolman, Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen),
Bonnie Slatton (BICOA), Dave Martin (Staff Council), Jon Whitmore (Provost
Office), Maile Sagen (Ombudsperson), Lee Anna Clark (Provost Office), Steven
Hoch (Provost Office), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
meeting was called to order at 3:35
Minutes: Faculty Senate, December 4, 2001
minutes were accepted by consensus.
Recommended Council/Senate and Committee Replacements
replacements were accepted as recommended.
Senate Elections Roster
Prof. Berman has recently taken on the role of
Chair of the Elections committee. As part of her duties, she presented the
current faculty roster to the Senate and then described roster traditions.
She hopes to update current practices to make ballots more accurate, both
in listing all faculty as well as how many Senate seats will be open for the
next year. Her tally sheet also
explains how the Senate make-up is determined.
She asked the Senators to examine the roster and notify her of any
errors. She explained that faculty
who are expected to retire to resign by the end of the year are still to be
listed, as those tallies are used in assuring proportional representation for
the Senate. She hoped that by next
year, the rosters would be more explicit in listing non-tenured and
clinical-track faculty. Associate
Provost Lee Anna Clark suggested that this can be done quite easily.
Report of the Board in Control of Athletics (N. Colangelo)
provided some background to this discussion by explaining that when he took
office, one of the first things he did was to ask faculty for items of concern
that Faculty Senate might consider. Problems
in intercollegiate athletics figured prominently in the responses he received.
He did not act on it at the time because he realized that this issue was
too big to be addressed by just this university.
Then, the CIC drew up a
resolution addressing common concerns about intercollegiate athletics.
This resolution was passed by those attending the CIC faculty leadership
conference last fall. As a result, faculty at the individual institutions that
comprise the CIC have been asked to consider this resolution. Once they have
considered the principles that govern athletics, the resolution will go back to
the CIC to see what has been individually approved.
So far, the faculties at Indiana University, University of Minnesota, and
Northwestern University have approved the resolution, and Pennsylvania State
University is currently considering it.
continued that one good thing that has already come from this resolution has
been the opportunities to hear from the Chair of BICOA (Nick Colangelo) as well
as the faculty representatives to NCAA and the Big Ten, Betsy Altmaier and
Bonnie Slatton. The resolution
tells us what to look out for, but it also tells us what Iowa is already doing
right. For example, every member of
BICOA is chosen by the faculty here, which is not true at every university.
He urged the Senate not to look at the resolution as a list of criticisms
of Iowa. Rather, it should be viewed as a tool to empower presidents
of universities to improve athletics across the country. Faculty Council has voted for the resolution (just the items
above the line) as it was written except for the deletion of one clause.
Prof. Colangelo, the
current chair of BICOA and a member for the past six years explained how BICOA
works, assuming that it is a bit of a mystery to many faculty.
BICOA is made up of 11 faculty members, who are nominated by the faculty
and chosen by President Coleman. There
are additional members who are students or alumni.
In addition, administrators serve as ex officio members, such as Lola
Lopes (Office of the Provost) who is concerned with academic issues. Other faculty members on BICOA include Profs. Altmaier and
Slatton who represent the University of Iowa in the Big Ten and NCAA.
BICOA committees oversee the amount of travel by student-athletes, as
well has tracking their academic progress.
There are committees concerned with equity and the budget.
Prof. Colangelo stressed that faculty and staff play an important role in
making decisions about the athletics program.
Prof. Colangelo explained
that the attention that sports generates in the newspapers is quite different
from the rest of the academy. Athletics
needs to do things well, because if they donít, there will be a strong
negative impact on the university. Revenues
that are generated by athletics all come from football and menís basketball,
as do all the horror stories. Revenues
come from ticket sales and television contracts.
Illustrating the magnitude of effect athletics has on the university,
Prof. Colangelo said that whereas he regards himself as a good lecturer, he
believes that he could never get 70,000 people to come hear him speak; that many
people will come to a football game, and many of those have nothing else to do
with the university. He viewed this
as a positive for the university. On
the other hand, there are other forces, like networks, that do not share our
goals of educating our athletes. BICOA
members work very hard to oversee athletics.
Prof. Colangelo agreed with President Bhattacharjee, that every year
Faculty Senate should hear a formal report from the Chair of BICOA.
Report of the Faculty Representative to the Big-10 Conference and NCAA
(B. Slatton and E. Altmaier)
Prof. Slatton explained her
and Prof. Altmaierís roles as faculty representatives.
They are not representatives of athletics, but rather represent the
interests of the university and the Office of the President to the Big Ten and
NCAA. It is important to realize
that BICOA is made up of faculty, not the staff of athletics.
She saw the value of the CIC resolution in starting a dialogue among
faculty regarding the value of athletics to universities.
She understands that some faculty members believe that athletics has no
place in institutions of higher education and that if we cannot get
intercollegiate athletics under control, it should be eliminated.
She explained that she and Prof. Altmaier approve all athletics
schedules, paying close attention to potential conflicts with exams.
The competitive argument is always used in athletics --ďIf we donít
spend this, we wonít be competitive any longer.Ē Of course, there are real
concerns that budget cuts are impairing our competitiveness across the
university. Some 44% of
athletics programs (at 40 institutions), including Iowa, are fully funded.
But when institutions drop an academic program and then pay a coach $1
million, there is cause for concern. Referring
to the original CIC resolution, she felt that we cannot have it both ways,
cutting commercialization and academic subsidies.
Addressing the concern of some faculty that athletes are admitted under
lower standards than are other students, she reported that only 2% of the
substandard admissions were athletes. President
Bhattacharjee added that President Coleman has been very supportive of this
resolution, except for one item. He felt that in the long run, the adoption of this resolution
will empower university presidents.
CIC Resolution on Intercollegiate Athletics
then read excerpts from a letter from Professor Robert Eno, Faculty Senate
President at Indiana University and also chair of the CIC committee on
athletics. (The complete text of
Professor Enoís letter is attached.) President Bhattacharjee had reported to
him the outcome of the Councilís deliberations, in which an amended form of
the resolution was passed. Prof.
Eno is an advocate of the resolution, but has come to realize how complex the
issues are. Intercollegiate
athletics programs are becoming increasingly unstable on campusesóhe would
like to see national unanimity of voice to effect a change.
Striking that item by Faculty Council, he understood, stems from an
unusually strong support of womenís athletics at the University of Iowa.
reported that he had voted in favor of the (intact) resolution at the CIC
meeting. He is concerned by the
escalation in costs of supporting womenís athletics, and asked what we should
do in apportioning ever-decreasing state support of the university. The Council nonetheless favored not cutting General Fund
support for athletics.
Prof. Manderscheid moved and Prof. Tachau seconded the following:
MOTION: To adopt the (amended) CIC resolution.
Prof. Tachau moved and Prof. Hurtig seconded the following:
MOTION: To substitute
the amended resolution with the original wording reinstated (above the line).
Prof. Kurtz argued against
this substitution. He had liked
General Counsel Schantzís point made at the Council meeting, namely if we
leave out football and basketball, what would we have?
Rowing, swimming, and so on. Wouldnít
we like to have this for our students? They
come here not just to learn history, but also to learn to be adults.
This learning process properly includes the opportunity to compete as
athletes. It is disingenuous to
expect football to support all the other sports at a university.
Prof. Tachau responded that from reading the minutes she saw that there
were two reasons for voting to striking the clause. The first was to comply with Title IX, a reason with which
she agrees; it is a matter of law. She
did not agree that the only way that this can be done is by contributing from
the General Fund. Why not ask the
men to support womenís athletics? They
could raise ticket prices. The
second argument was that we have no way as a university to control
commercialization if we do not contribute funds.
Prof. Tachau believes that we do have a moral right to do so, independent
of dollars. Most revenue raised by
athletics comes in because they use the universityís name.
Perhaps we are selling it too cheaply.
Also, athletics uses the physical plant of the university (with
tax-exempt status). The $2 million
General Fund contribution to athletics could support the entire history
department, which teaches 124 courses each year.
Noting the $300,000 cut in library book and journal acquisitions, she
thought that without the athletics subsidy, we not only would avoid those cuts,
but also might restore some previously cancelled subscriptions.
Or, we could support two philosophy departments, and add faculty to teach
courses in Islamic history and culture.
Prof. Hurtig pointed out
that there are many units in the university aside from athletics that subsidize
or are subsidized by other units. Coming
from a science department that is very successful in generating indirect costs,
he knows that those funds go in part to support other departments that cannot
generate revenues beyond state appropriations.
He found it reasonable that revenue sports underwrite nonrevenue sports,
and urged the Senate not to think in terms of gender (men supporting women) but
in terms of revenue vs. nonrevenue sports, and suggested a new accounting
method. He has been bothered for
years by the arms race in intercollegiate sports, and added that it is driven by
outside forces. If there was no
other source but the General Fund, we could hold a cap on the arms race, but
coachesí salaries, etc. are driven by forces outside the university.
We hear how the costs of higher education increase at a rate much higher
than that of inflation, but the costs of intercollegiate athletics has been
increasing at an even greater rate. Prof.
Hurtig is happy that his indirect costs help support Philosophy, but would not
like to see it going to athletics; thatís not what NIH had in mind.
Prof. Cowdery asked what
the net flow of funds between the university and athletics is.
Prof. Colangelo answered that $2.5 million from the General Fund goes to
athletics, up from $500,000 or $600,000. This
support was instated when Womenís Athletics was set up.
Football and basketball support all of the other menís sports.
He added that it didnít make sense to him to have a unit that is
regarded as a part of the university, but then refuse to support it.
He agreed that it would be helpful to see how the funds, especially those
from the General Fund, are spent. Prof.
Lynch stated that one way that money flows back to the General Fund is through
athletic scholarships. The almost
20% tuition increase is reported to cost athletics $1 million more; i.e. they
are paying $5 million in tuition into the General Fund currently.
Addressing Prof. Tachauís suggestion of increasing ticket prices, he
explained that if we did so we would drive people away.
Also, if we donít have competitive teams, people will not come.
He was pleased to learn of President Colemanís support of the
resolution. Prof. Muhly shared
Prof. Tachauís concern; nevertheless he had voted for striking the clause in
Council. He asked who controls the
budget. Prof. Slatton answered that
BICOA, the Director of Athletics, even the Regents do.
Regarding the increase from $0.5 to $2.5 million dollars, she explained
that prior to President Coleman coming, we had been in gross violation of Title
IX. When two womenís sports were
added, there was a huge expenditure that quickly brought us into compliance.
She agreed that there should be a yearly reporting of the budget, and the
amount appropriated to athletics should be determined yearly, so that if
athletics has a great year they should give money back to the university.
She reported that there are 700 varsity athletes.
The University of Iowa supports athletics less than do ISU and UNI.
Completing Prof. Tachauís
list of reasons why the Council struck the clause in the resolution, Prof.
Westefeld added that there had been a third reason, which was more symbolic:
if the door is 100% shut, what does that say about our relationship to
athletics. Prof. Cox pointed out
that reportedly there is an inverse relationship between success in fundraising
and in athletics, contrary to what we usually hear.
His point about the CIC resolution is that here is $2.5 million that is
going for the public good. Maybe
that amount is too high, but the resolution demands that it be zero. We canít stop commercialism without putting some money into
it. Prof. Colvin added that Iowa
has had a long tradition of supporting womenís athletics, unmatched by other
similar institutions. One or two
years ago we blended menís and womenís athletics.
Some faculty believe that as a result, women athletes have lost out.
As General Counsel Schantz explained earlier, 99% of the $2.5 million
goes to two womenís sports. Until
we know that womenís sports will have other sources of support, we must
continue our support. Prof. Tachau
responded that she appreciated the thoughtful comments that were made.
She also agreed that there are important differences between local and
national athletics. But, in these
hard budget times, we are an easy target for cuts.
We cannot sacrifice our teaching missionówhy donít we send the
menís golf team on fewer trips? Prof.
Hurtig added that any unit that knows that it has a protected pot of money
wonít look so carefully at how it is spent.
The argument for merging was that there would be one budget, so you
canít really argue that the General Fund money goes toward womenís sports
because technically it is simply going to athletics.
Prof. Mangum asked what would happen if we cut General Fund support yet
still complied with Title IX, and then called the question.
Prof. Slatton answered that the university cannot not fund athletics.
She added that whereas football and basketball bring in a lot of money
they spend more. She reminded the
Senate that we are trying to get a national resolution.
With that we can lean on university presidents.
Athletics canít do it along, nor can faculty alone.
What we can do is put pressure on presidents to restore sanity.
Cost containment, rather than raising revenues, is the critical issue. Why canít we pay coaches less?
Prof. LeBlond seconded Prof. Magnumís:
MOTION: To call the
question on voting for the substitute motion.
The motion carried.
MOTION (from above): To
restore the struck phrase to the resolution. With 19 in favor and 25 against, the motion failed.
Returning to the amended
resolution, Prof. Lloyd explained why Prof. Coxís amendment was added.
There had been sentiment that we did not want to imply that there would
be no limit on General Fund support of athletics.
Prof. Stanford observed that someone has to decide how much athletics
will get, asking who that is and why a certain amount.
Prof. Kurtz responded that it seemed to him that the Athletics department
submits a budget to the Vice President for Finance, who confers with the
President. Prof. Stanford responded
that it seemed like this would be a nonissue for the Senate. President
Bhattacharjee pointed out that Jessup Hall is very mindful of the actions of the
Prof. Cowdery moved and Prof. Westefeld seconded the following:
MOTION: To call the
question. The motion carried.
MOTION (from above): To
adopt the CIC resolution. The
Prof. Tachau moved and Prof. Cowdery seconded the following:
MOTION: To adopt Prof.
Prof. Kurtz inquired what
kinds of proposals are ever rejected by BICOA, or whether it is a rubber stamp.
Prof. Colangelo answered that it is hard to give him the information he
wants, as Athletics knows there are some things they just shouldnít ask for.
Prof. Hurtig added that when he was on BICOA athletics would routinely
ask for another game to be scheduled and BICOA would turn them down.
Prof. Kurtz clarified that he didnít want the information immediately,
just wanted to see a summary of what BICOA approved or did not approve.
Prof. Slatton pointed out that a difficulty in providing this list could
come from the fact that requests move through several committees, where they can
be modified, so that usually by the time they make to BICOA they are in an
acceptable form. Prof. Kurtz said
that he just wanted to know what kind of control BICOA has.
Prof. LeBlond did not want to see additional wording added to the Cox
resolution: perhaps the Faculty
Senate President could work with the Chair of BICOA to determine the format of
the report. Associate Provost Clark
asked whether such a report is already required.
After further discussion Prof. Lynch suggested that the discussion be
tabled in order to work out a nonfragmented resolution.
Prof. Lynch moved and Prof. Kurtz seconded the following:
MOTION: To table the
discussion. The motion carried.
meeting was adjourned by consensus at 5:17.
27 January 2002
To: Faculty Senate, University of Iowa
From: Bob Eno, Indiana University
Chair, CIC Faculty Ad Hoc Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics
on Intercollegiate Athletics
Professor Bhattacharjee has let me know that the Resolution
on Intercollegiate Athletics will be discussed at your January 29 meeting, and
heís filled me in on some of the issues that have shaped the approach of Iowa
faculty to the resolution to this point. I
thought that it might be useful to write a letter touching on some relevant
aspects of the matter. Iím an
advocate of the resolution, but through discussions in the CIC and our
experience here at Indiana, where Iím president of the faculty senate this
year, Iíve come to appreciate how complex the issues surrounding the
The resolution was prompted by a perception that I think is
widely shared among faculty: that the role of intercollegiate athletics on
campuses Ė never unproblematic Ė has become increasingly unstable.
If current trends in expenditures, commercialization, media dependence,
problems of conduct, and impact on campus life continue, there is a prospect
that in a decade or so, universities will have lost control of athletics and of
the ability to protect their academic identities and values.
Control of these matters lies with the presidents of NCAA member
institutions, and the goal of the resolution, building on the earlier one
endorsed by Pac-10 schools, is to bring a national faculty voice to these
matters that will help reform-minded presidents to gain leverage in these
matters. In our discussions in
Indiana, where there were a number of calls to modify the resolution to more
closely reflect our local situation and views, we concluded that unlike campus
policy documents, this resolution was a political statement intended to generate
faculty interest and participation on a very broad level.
If it were to be successful in having practical impact, it would only be
after long negotiation among NCAA presidents, during which the very varied
conditions and commitments of local schools will refine the direction reform
ultimately takes. Given present
conditions, it will require a very unusual degree of faculty persistence and
unanimity of voice to lead to any meaningful reform at all.
These arguments led our senate members to endorse the main resolution
unanimously and also to adopt all appended items by strong votes. But I also described to CIC leaders a number of constructive
amendments proposed, and noted that if an opportunity were provided for these
and others to be incorporated through a subsequent round of votes, the Indiana
senate would welcome it.
Professor Bhattacharjee has told me that at Iowa the most
controversial aspect of the main resolution has been the phrase: ďAthletics
should not be subsidized by the academic side of the institution,Ē and that
the phrase has been deleted in the draft proposed to the Iowa senate.
I understand that this has been prompted by an unusually strong tradition
of commitment to womenís sports at Iowa, and a concern that this commitment
and Iowaís obligations under Title IX could be undermined if reallocations
could not be drawn from the academic side.
I think most who support reform in intercollegiate
athletics also support the principles of fairness reflected in Title IX and the
obligations of institutions to come into compliance with the law.
This obligation is uncompromised by the resolution. As stand-alone budget
entities, athletics departments would be responsible for fulfilling these
provisions through intra-departmental cross subsidy and through cost-cutting
measures in menís sports, such as reductions in the number of football
scholarships. Any negotiation for reform among NCAA member institutions would
necessarily require changing the contexts of competition that currently inflate
the cost structures of menís revenue sports, so as to allow reallocation to
womenís sports without destroying the competitive balance in menís athletics
that generates revenue. Currently,
the level of competition is driven by the ďarms raceĒ; scaling back in a
coordinated way will create greater opportunities to enhance non-revenue sports
for both genders.
Just as the faculty senate at Indiana generated suggestions
for ways that the resolution and addenda might be modified if an emended draft
were circulated after the current one had been endorsed, the Iowa senate might
indicate its view by suggesting that the third point be modified with the
addition of a clause concerning Title IX, to conclude, for example:
Athletics should not be subsidized by
the academic side of the institution, and athletics departments should operate
under the same principles of budget accountability that characterize other
units, consistent with relevant federal
regulations, such as Title IX.
If the opportunity did arise for revision among
institutions that had adopted the resolution, I expect such an addition would be
non-controversial. In any event,
were Iowa to modify the resolution in its current vote by such an addition,
rather than by removing the initial clause, I believe it would be less likely to
bring into question the degree to which endorsing institutions were, in fact,
expressing a shared faculty voice.
Professor Bhattacharjee added one other point with which I
have great sympathy. He indicated
that Iowa senate members might feel they lacked the degree of expertise required
to take responsible action. Faculty
at Indiana raised the same concern, and I share it. At Indiana, our Athletics Committee, NCAA representative, and
Athletics Director all participated in our discussion to provide information
(and, as it turned out, strong support), but ultimately we acted with far less
confidence in our knowledgeability than is normally the case (which may only
mean that for once we were under no illusions). If faculty senates nationally do provide pressure for reform
through such resolutions, this will generally be the case.
Few of us have deep knowledge about these issues, but many of us share a
sense that if we do not take concerted action, weíll be evading responsibility
to address a destructive situation. Ultimately,
senate members at Indiana decided to suspend their doubts, and weíve learned
that senates groups at Minnesota and Northwestern have also done so (unanimously
in both cases). I hope that
colleagues at Iowa will decide that they are able to join us, despite their very