http://www.finearts.ohio.edu/art/galleries/current.htm Prostitute/porn star turned sexologist/performance artist Annie Sprinkle is being brought in to Ohio University.  Her "art" and "show" is being sponsored by the Kennedy Lecture Series, Arts for Ohio, Ohio University, the Kennedy Museum of Art, and the School of Fine Arts. It's really ironic how the same people who consider this stuff as a wise investment of university funds dismiss athletics as a waste of money.  While "Sexecology" may be worth at least a look as a form of art, it's a questionable use of taxpayer funds in a time of fiscal austerity.  (If this event is being sponsored entirely by private and/or foundation funds, someone please enlighten me on this.)  Also, it's worth checking out the doctoral research being conducted in schools like Communications.  Some of the doctoral research is on topics so obscure and eccentric that it's hard to find any "public value" in it...especially in a time of fiscal austerity.

Yeah, pretty silly, eh Jeff?

Well, I agree with some of what you are saying.  But again, a lot of the opponents of athletics are using the "public value" argument. 

Agree that the liberal arts have value that cannot be quantified necessarily...that doesn't mean that the humanities and liberal arts should be cut from the curriculum.

But I would have to say that spending money on programs like "Sexecology" is pushing the envelope on wise expenditures of public funds when universities are trying to make their case with state legislatures for further funding. 

Huh......and she has a Ph.D.

Not ripping those who find her interesting.  Merely raising the question of whether public funds should be expended on this when the university is competing for scarce resources.

Being a "legend in her field" isn't enough justification.  We could do a lot of things just to draw a crowd. 

Vedder and I got together this afternoon and found 2,346...give us time and we'll come up with the other 553...

Your argument assumes that the entire $14.5 million to athletics is in the "questionable" pot.  Which I know you don't believe. 

To compare to the Sexecology expenditure and others, wouldn't you have to pull out those discrete parts of the athletic budget deemed "questionable"?  If you did that, the disparity between questionable athletics expenditures and those of the rest of the university might be a lot less. 

Rather than looking at the entire university budget on an aggregate basis per department, we would be wise to analyze it on a dollar by dollar basis.  No?