College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Jaqua Center a vanity building?

Guest commentary

Published: Friday, January 8, 2010

Updated: Friday, January 8, 2010 03:01

Executive Director of Athlete Tutoring Steven Stolp needs a little tutoring himself. Quoted at length in Tuesday’s front-page story (“Athletes Learning in Grandeur,” ODE, Jan. 5), Stolp proudly rhapsodized about the new Jaqua Academic Center, comparing it to the Taj Mahal. What Stolp doesn’t realize is that the comparison, aside from referencing a standard of sublime beauty that the UO’s architects have hardly shadowed, also reveals some of the insidious aspects of the new building in the context of existing campus tensions.

The Taj Mahal in Agra, India, built in the mid-17th century by the Mughal ruler Shah Jahan was a “vanity building.” It was not built for the public good, but rather at the whim of an emperor, as a grandiose and costly mausoleum for his favorite wife. As is now the case on East 13th Avenue, where access to the Jaqua Center will be restricted to a privileged caste of student-athletes, only a rarified elite got to fully enjoy Shah Jahan’s original complex. 

Stolp’s comparison goes farther, though. As anyone who has visited the Taj Mahal in India can attest, the beauty of the mausoleum complex stands in stark contrast to the squalor and shocking poverty that cluster outside of its gates. There is a parallel at the UO, where academic programs suffer chronic underfunding and inhabit substandard quarters even while athletics-related construction sets national records and this new Taj Mahal rises in our faces.

In a splendid malapropism quoted in Tuesday’s article, Stolp claims that in the new building’s design, “there’s a lot of umbrage to the past.” I suspect Stolp may have meant “homage,” since “umbrage” actually means offense, annoyance or displeasure. But his clumsy handling of the language may carry unintended truth: the founders of the University of Oregon (and anyone else who believes that the university’s academic mission should not be overshadowed or belittled by its athletic mission) would surely take umbrage at this ostentatious new Taj Mahal and the misappropriation of resources it represents. 

(It is worth emphasizing that though the tutoring of athletes has some collateral academic benefits at the individual level, its actual purpose is to help athletes maintain eligibility, so that the coaches have fewer impediments to winning. Labeling the building an “Academic Center” barely camouflages the fact that those who staff it report to Athletic Director Mike Bellotti.)

The historical Shah Jehan was deposed in 1658 and spent the last eight years of his life under house arrest, declared incompetent to rule. And the Shah Jehan of our story is already deposed, though more gently: Dave Frohnmayer, under whose rule the Jaqua Center was conceived, has now retired.  We can only hope that, with his replacement, the demoralizing inequities and unwise appropriation of resources that characterized his reign might come to a stop.

opinion@dailyemerald.com

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

41 comments

Anonymous
Mon Apr 19 2010 19:54
Amen to this article! I'm sick of this crap. We're a university, not a sports team.
Caesar
Fri Mar 5 2010 13:33
Pathetic? What an idiot.
BlounTown
Fri Mar 5 2010 10:51
Jimmie: These stadiums were built with private funds ? Then why did UO get 200 million in public bonds for the pathetic 330 million dollar Nike arena ?
Incoming Freshie
Thu Mar 4 2010 20:54
Thank you Ahsan. Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about. Your comment puts all of this to rest.
Joe Stalin
Thu Mar 4 2010 18:20
Yeah, everyone go to UOmatters to hear the communist side of the story.
Anonymous
Thu Mar 4 2010 16:03
The bottom line is that everyone should get over it as it's Phil Knight's money and he can do with it what he wants. If you don't like it, stop buying his clothes, shoes etc. I wonder how anyone else would react if they had to take a public beating because they donated money to a university.
Ahsan A. Awan - '97 (Law '01)
Thu Mar 4 2010 14:35
This whole conversation is garbage. The Athletic Department is an independent entity that merely contracts with the UO to accept its athletic talent prospects based on money guarantees from the AD and an agreement to uphold academic standards of the UO that, in many cases, relies on the additional component of academic support services in order to remain in compliance with UO standards. That said, any money the AD brings in belongs to the AD and is appropriately used by the AD to enhance it's program. That non-athlete students at the UO complain about not having access to the Jaqua center based on the premise that UO is a public institution is narrow-minded and fails to recognize the independence of the AD. They essentially use the UO name and logo under license, and use UO property under the same or similar terms. Separately, what do do UO students have to complain about really? The library, the law center, the business school, the hub of the science department? Maybe the aged luxury of the Gerlinger Annex? Perhaps even the ODE/journalism facilities? How about the theater? How about the wonderful athletic facilities for general students... complete with a suspended track! How about the Ed school? No, this is more likely about Deady, Chapman, Columbia, and PLC. It's certainly not about Oregon Hall, the Dean's office, or even the Collier House - where you can sit down and have a beer right in the middle of campus. Because some buildings are actually protected as histprical monuments, you can't just go tearing them down - don't forget the fight to keep Deady, and the tension surrounding its "facelift." The opportunity for UO students to take pride in their university and celebrate the wonderful facilities they have is here now. You all need a lesson in what's possible. Maybe you should visit various buildings at UC - Berkeley; maybe you should sit in aging classrooms at places like Marshall (WV), or maybe you should take some classes in trailers at California State University Monterrey. Even your sporting event tickets are subsidized (by ASUO fees). Ask students at Cal, UCLA, or any number of other schools how nice that would be. It's time to stop this complaint train and acknowledge the many great privileges and resources you already have.
IMayNotBeElouent,ButIAmAnnoyed
Fri Feb 19 2010 03:14
It is ridiculous to deny that the University of Oregon cares primarily of their football team. Their art program is embarrassing, and frankly not worth the time or money required to go through it. Instead of re-doing the football stadium for the umpteenth time, or creating this new and unbefitting building, they should be allocating funds more equally throughout their programs. I would like to learn. That is why I went to college. I did not spend all of my money on tuition so that I can watch football games. As far as the new building is concerned, I think it was a wild attempt to make campus appear far more modern, advanced and well-off than it is. The worst thing is that it segregates the majority of students from accessing it. There should be no place or service available to one that is not available to all. I laugh at having to say that because of all of the fuss the institution makes over 'equality' , and here they have a building that represents the opposite. This school cares only about money. I am just a peon to drain cash from. They sell us $150 parking tickets that do not guarantee us a parking space. That's like selling the same plot of land to 15 different people and asking them to fight over it. Also, most of the parking on campus is staff parking only, which is ridiculous, because the student body is so much more vast. Not to mention, if you park in any way that displeases them, they have hordes of ticket-writers milling around the area to charge you $30 dollars. We get student discounts on books, unless they are text books, in which case they jack the price up. If we want, we can buy a beat up book for 2 cents less. At the end of term we can sell our books back for about 1/4 of the original cost, but next term they will be selling that bool for the same 'used' sale price. I'm sure all Universities are deplorable in this same way. I'm just sick of paying so much for a mediocre education. I might just take my money and run. They can suck someone else dry.
Hob Nobber
Sat Jan 23 2010 14:36
"The first floor is open to all"

So, the general student body DOES have access to this building?

What's the problem?

Not a Cheerleader
Thu Jan 21 2010 21:19
In response to Hob Nobber's question: "I presume, the band and cheerleaders are not allowed similar access (?)."

Yes, cheerleaders are considered athletes too. Thus, they are allowed access. Additionally, the first floor is open to all. I recommend studying next to the fire.

Hob Nobber
Wed Jan 20 2010 23:23
Supportive Former Student Athlete -

"By many teams standards you are REQUIRED to study at the SA services building for specified hours and meet with tutors each week, thus not even giving you a choice of whether you would like to study at it's location. My only saving grace in not having to study in that old building for a required 10+ hours a week was that I was able to maintain a 3.0 every term throughout my time at Oregon. As a serious-student athlete I “gave a rats ass” ..."

Thanks for adding to this discussion. I didn't know that student athletes were required to study in certain places, but I can see how that makes sense as the teams have to ensure their students get proper grades to keep teams (as well as students) eligible.

I also heard yesterday that the student athletes work 'way' harder than most students. I don't really agree with this, as I was like many students at Oregon who worked while taking full time studies. Then again, I do realize that what with practise, travel and games, there are probably more hours involved coming from your end.

That being said, there is something about this that still just doesn't sit right. The idea of a glitzy, dare I say 'over the top' venue that treats student athletes like First Class air travellers still doesn't work for me. You said that you could get out of having to go to the old place because you 'gave a rats ass' and managed to stay above 3.0. You were able to pull that off studying at other places aside from the old one. This seems to reinforce my point that serious student athletes don't need a new Trump Hall to get motivated.

But where does this leave us? It sounds more and more like this place is really for subpar student athletes, who aren't interested in getting good grades - although now it will surely be a popular place for the better ones as well. I get that not everybody is a good student, but maybe the best thing, if we have to have a student-exclusive venue, would have been to simply renovate the original place. This is still too over the top for my liking, and by all indications this is still to elitist because, I presume, the band and cheerleaders are not allowed similar access (?).

But thanks again for your contribution. This matter seems somewhat more complicated than I had first thought!

Your name
Wed Jan 20 2010 14:53
I should have expected the small outrage from the liberal hippies on this campus. I am fairly appalled at the lack of knowledge that many of them poses about their whim protests. I have heard this point before but I would like to bring it up again. For years, let me repeat that YEARS the student athletes have had a NCAA mandatory building next to Mac court that was very small and lacked resources. It was hot and broken down. This older building was also off limits to students however because of its lack of appeal no student cared. Now a private donor wants to spend some of his money on building a new one and people are in a hissy fit about it. And on boards like this they come out of the wood works and spew opinion all over. Is what most people don’t realize is how little the Athletic department takes from the student fund. The university of Oregon athletics takes around 2% or just over a million from the student fund while Oregon State takes a whopping 19%. Also another fact that people don’t realize is that student athletes’ scholarships get paid to the U of O. Most athletic programs around the country default a student athletes scholarship writing them off as not being there. However at the U of O this money is paid to the University. Hearing how many people are making gross claims based on no facts is discouraging to me and to consider they will have a degree from the same University as me is frightening. I am honestly worried that employers will see a business or law degree as being unimportant from this school because of the many people like the ones who have left comments on this board that seem to create problems where there should be none. If you’re pissed about how a man spend his billions then make your own and spend them how you would like to. Or better yet vote for someone who will add funding to this school so we can produce something better then complaining hippies. Lastly I have an idea for all of you take your sociology degree build a commune in the woods and sit around thinking about stuff and never taking action.
Supportive Former Student Athlete
Wed Jan 20 2010 13:06
Hob Nobber : As a former student-athlete from 03-06 who graduated with honors and has now gone on to own my own business I believe you are misguided when you state, "Besides, serious student athletes won't give a rats ass if they are studying there, the EMU, or the library." The previous services for student-athlete's learning center was cramped, loud and functionally obsolete. By many teams standards you are REQUIRED to study at the SA services building for specified hours and meet with tutors each week, thus not even giving you a choice of whether you would like to study at it's location. My only saving grace in not having to study in that old building for a required 10+ hours a week was that I was able to maintain a 3.0 every term throughout my time at Oregon. As a serious-student athlete I “gave a rats ass” about where I studied because my goal was to succeed in the classroom and the old SA study hall did not meet my standards to do so. I am grateful that the current student-athlete's now have a much more sufficient place to study and get the instruction they need to succeed beyond the athletic world.

And to Nick Snyder: Not all student-athlete's receive full-ride scholarships. I myself was one who did not. In fact, I was responsible to cover almost all of my out-of-state tuition costs. You group all of us student-athlete's into one entity when in fact many student-athlete's are hardworking, tuition paying students at U of O just like yourself. We are not only maintaining full academic schedules, but also balancing the rigors of athletics, jobs, personal lives and familial obligations.

Hob Nobber
Wed Jan 20 2010 01:41
I really don't like the idea of having a separate and glitzy space for athletes. It smacks of elitism, and as such, I would hope, is contrary to the philosophy of Oregon. To think that a place is being set up on the middle of campus that excludes the 'common' student really turns my stomach. What's next, a plantation?

Besides, serious student athletes won't give a rats ass if they are studying there, the EMU, or the library... they are there to learn. If the state coughed up any money for this building, then I say shame on them. Even with Phil footing the whole bill, this place should never have been built if indeed it only functions as an exclusive country club.

Bringit
Fri Jan 15 2010 17:39
Metrosexuals like Harper have no business judging the merits of an athletic facility. If we need an interior decorator, we know who to call.
Jahan
Tue Jan 12 2010 21:33
I agree with Professor Harper. Let's tear down the Taj Mahal since it's obviously so frivolous.
Ozzie
Tue Jan 12 2010 21:33
what you guys don't realize is that all of the people that donated the money for this knew what the money was going to and yet they still gave them the money which means they wanted that money to be spent in a specific way. so if there is any body all you people out there hating on the hard working athletes that bring in millions of dollars every year for what they do. they not only do what every student goes through every day but they also have to got to a 3-5 hour practice every day and then do there homework, and they have to do there work around traveling. so all of you who are so quick to judge, do you really work harder then they do? what do you do that is so much harder then what they do?
Random PhD in Public Finance
Sun Jan 10 2010 20:16
To Russ C -

That's an easy one. There is no way it makes sense to spend $15 million in public money on a building that will be used to benefit only 515 student athletes. No way at all, even if Knight did spend another $12 million to tart it up.

Of course, Dave Frohnmayer was on Phil Knight's payroll when he agreed to this, and for a suitable fee I too might change my mind.

Russ C - Oregon Grad
Sun Jan 10 2010 19:33
Random PHD in public finance -
when someone approaches you and promises to spend 20 million on a project that costs, what did you say . . . 35 total . . . you don't spit in their face. Building a better campus and university experience isn't free and it wouldn't be nearly at the scale is right now (especially in this economy) if it wasn't for help from private groups/alumni.
Random PhD in Public Finance
Sun Jan 10 2010 19:18
Do the math: If Knight donated $20 million to build this, his after tax cost would have been about $12 million. Taxpayers paid the rest - about $2 million from Oregon, $6 million from the US as a whole. The land - apparently an outright gift from the academic side of UO to the athletics department - was worth say $7 million. In total then, we paid $15 million, and Phil Knight paid $12 million.

Keep those numbers in mind when you read arguments like "It's his money and he can spend it as he likes."







log out