Someone help me understand how this is just now coming up, after 2+ years of conversation and fundraising.


http://www.thepostathens.com/news/faculty-senate-votes-to...

Can someone smarter than me explain why fundraising efforts were launched for the project if there was a possibility that it could be prevented from materializing? Just doesn't strike me a wise strategy to go out and secure a major lead gift if you might have to return it one day or ask if it can be spent on something else.

I know there is likely more to this than a one sided Post story but it strikes me as more of a collaborative project between athletics and the academic staffing that will potentially be serving the athletes in the facility.

I'm fully confident that BA's collective knowledge will help me make sense of this!

I'm guessing that this has been essentially approved by the trustees if not officially so. Has to have been discussed at that level already.

I'm at a loss to see how this project won't help the student athletes improve academically.

If the Center was being constructed with entirely public funds I could understand the Faculty Senate's opposition and be somewhat in agreement. However, if my understanding is correct and the facility is being built entirely with private funds, then what business is it of the Faculty Senate's?
Maybe I'm missing something here.

THE POST: "In a May 2 general body meeting, the senate passed a resolution calling on the university to “abandon” its efforts to construct the Perry and Sandy Sook Academic Center, adding that if it does not, the senate will urge the Board of Trustees to withhold its approval of the project."

ME: So what. The decision is on the Board of Trustees and I'd be disappointed that they'd turn down $5.66M in pledged donor support to improve the university.


THE POST: “Our objections to this project stem more from academic reasons, notably our opposition to the practice of segregating athletes from the student population,” Faculty Senate Chair Joe McLaughlin said in an email. “However, it also raises serious issues about the fundraising and capital spending priorities of the university's administration and the faculty's role in deliberations about those priorities.”

ME: I actually understand the rationale, but how is this different if the J-School, Engineering School, Music School, etc. get private donations and separate fundraising for resources dedicated to those students?



THE POST: "It isn’t the first time, however, Faculty Senate has voiced its opposition to policies that separate student-athletes and other traditional students.
In November 2014, the senate passed a resolution calling upon university administration to “strive to integrate the academic support, study space and recreational facilities for student-athletes with those for other OHIO students,” citing the need to “align private giving for academic facilities with OHIO’s academic needs.”"

ME: Might this center free up academic space at Alden and other computer labs for the general student population? As a compromise, could the Sook Center include the general student population in certain areas, but still keep an emphasis/priority on student-athletes?


THE POST: “We have arrived at a situation in which athletes are no longer allowed to be student athletes … facilities like this are band-aid approaches that treat the symptom and not the disease, i.e. the fact that our athletic program places unreasonable demands upon athletes,” McLaughlin said in an email. “If we really cared about the academic welfare of student athletes, we would look to the more fundamental problems.”

ME: What exactly is the disease and what is the prescribed treatment? I really dislike the generalities here. If there is concern over academic support for athletes, WHY ARE YOU OPPOSING SOMETHING THAT CAN HELP THEM? And secondly, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS YOU THINK NEED TO BE MADE?

In addition to the many other fine points raised on this thread, it seems clear that The Faculty Senate views giving like this as competitive to academic giving. As I've showed more than a few times over years, it's actually complimentary. Schools with more athletic success not only get more athletic giving, they also have higher than average growth in general fund. Meanwhile, other than Ivy league schools, or other very top schools, schools without athletic success have seen their general fund growth languish.

Is it right that general fund growth giving should be tied to athletic success? No. In my opinion they should be unrelated, and the fact that they are related reflects misplaced priorities. Nevertheless, it clearly wrong to view athletic giving and academic giving as competing for the same dollars except in unusual cases.

Almost posted a thread about this, but thought my comments came off a little too harsh... Faculty Senate doesn't matter. They can oppose whatever they want, I'm not changing my donation. Further, from economics perspective, had this center not been built, would I have donated my money to some other more deserving (in eyes of McLAUGHlin) department? Nope. I'm already donating where I feel is deserving. Faculty Senate "opposing" this construction does nothing. They aren't stopping anything.

Only debate worth having is what group is more pointless: Faculty Senate or Student Senate. Maybe McLaughlin should dump a bucket of red-dyed water on his head for affect?

#1 on your list (and mentioned by others) is probably the most important thing on here besides the point about having taken the idea up with the trustees prior to solicitation of donations. In the end, those who have said it are right, this is nothing more than a select group of faculty making a fuss that may not make a difference.

I like the idea of using either Peden, or The Convo, or adjacent academic buildings, as the Visitors Center. The only reason I'd say Peden is best is to allow some space for parking, and make it easy to find. I've been told by people who have made recent campus visits that it's hard to figure out parking, and where the visitors center is. This is coming from folks that have never been to campus.

Don Quixote also tilted at windmills.

I think faculty senate should also oppose water flowing down the Hocking River. That would be equally as valuable a use of their time.

And this is precisely the reason why I will never endow a chair at OHIO.

So they would turn down 5.5 million of improvements basically out of spite? It's private donations so no guarantee that even if rejected that the donors would choose to use the money elsewhere. I sense a great divide and jealousy between some bitter faculty members and athletics.

If I get this right - we're "building a wall" - and "They" (Sooks/donors) are paying for it? The Trump proposition of course has no merit or credibility - but this is pretty much the case here - correct?

Get used to this. The current Faculty Senate chair will be condemning athletic spending for the next 12+ months. They don't care about any fall-out with donors or anything else. I predict the Fall will bring vote after vote against football and athletics.

I would actually rather see the donations being used endow athletic scholarships. Heck just about all fundraising now should be focused on scholarships/affordability.

Unless there is a change in administration you will not see the endowed scholarships come back. That program was buried too long ago.