We've had a lot of conversations of late on campus about BGSU athletics. On the one hand, the successes of Alissa Czisny (until last weekend's Worlds, that is) and the women's basketball team have provided a good deal of enthusiasm and positive attention. On the other hand, plans for building a new arena and the possibility of losing men's hockey have generated a good deal of anxiety and constertation. Perhaps I'll address the hockey team down the road, but for now let's focus on the arena.
Currently, Bowling Green plays its basketball and volleyball games, hosts guest speakers (including Sarah Palin during last year's campaign), and holds graduation ceremonies in Anderson Arena (technically, "Memorial Hall"). Affectionately known as the "House that Roars," Anderson was built in 1960. Frankly, it feels like it was built decades earlier. It is neither attractive nor adequate for its multiple uses. I've seen both graduation ceremonies and women's basketball there, and while it does have a kind of "old gym" aesthetic that is charming, it is otherwise a bit of a dump.
Thus, I think it makes good sense that university leaders are eager to build a new facility. That facility, to be called the Stroh Center (named for the building's major donor), is scheduled to open in 2011. In general, I am in support of the Stroh Center's construction. And I'm pleased that the new arena will only seat around 5,000 people, a decision that shows greater insight that say, my alma mater at Northern Illinois, whose 10,000 seat Convocation Center is often mostly empty.
That said, I find the price tag for the Stroh Center rather staggering. Although the Stroh family has donated the sizeable amount of $8 million, and other private donations will contribute $6 million, the total cost of (an estimated) $40 million leaves another $26 million to be found (65%). The source of this amount will be a $60/semester fee assessed to students beginning in 2011. With a total annual price tag of about $16,000 to attend BGSU, another 120 bucks doesn't seem like much. But with a crumbling infrastructure, outdated buildings and classrooms, and an underpaid faculty, some students have, quite rightly, questioned whether or not this is the best use of their extra cash (even if they know it's not their cash, but the cash of future BGSU students).
This led to some good old fashioned protest, with a group of undergraduates organized around the idea that they should at least have some say in how their money would be put to use. The group insisted that they were not necessarily opposed to the Stroh Center, they just felt as though university officials hadn't fairly included them in a democratic process. This isn't off-base, as the Ohio Board of Regents does "ask for some kind of expression of student support."
BGSU spokesman Dave Kielmeyer insisted that the administration had worked with student government to educate undergraduates about the proposal. I honestly can't say one way or the other on this--I tend not to read the BG News and I don't recall hearing any student conversations about the arena. Nevertheless, the protest group succeeded in arguing for a new vote; it was held this past Friday.
As I noted above, I am generally in support of the Stroh Center. But I was heartened to see students take an active interest in university politics, especially on an issue that will not directly affect the majority of those currently enrolled. These students displayed initiative, critical thinking skills, and concern for their community. Really, what better demonstration of a university education could we ask for?
All of this leads me, then, to the public relations effort that was mounted in response to these students, especially the words of President Carol Cartwright. In particular, faculty received an email last week from the president--which I foolishly deleted--encouraging us to support the Stroh Center and to "educate" our students about its necessity. Support the arena? Ok, I get that. But to "educate" them on this struck me as problematic. It assumed that the student opposition was uneducated, naive, or foolish. Moreover, it implied that to speak against the administration's wishes was to speak from ignorance. It thus affirmed the initial complaint made by the protestors--that their voices were being ignored by an administration that already had made its decision.
In the end, of the 2,630 valid votes cast, 69% were in support of the Stroh Center. That's all well and good in the picture, I think. Besides, does anyone really believe student opposition would have stopped the project?
3 comments:
Thanks for your post on this.
I have similar feelings about the Stroh Center. I am not against building it (though I do have issues with the timing and potential public perception of that). I do, though, like you, have concerns about the way in which it was handled. In particular, there was a rather heavy-handedness to the way that the administration (and to some extent some members of the university community) addressed it. Of note:
-- A letter from President Cartwright appeared in the BG News the day of the vote, urging students to vote for it. Alone, this seems potentially questionable as an imposition of power. The construction of her argument seemed to make it even more so. In particular, the letter starts out by praising students for their generosity at Dance Marathon the previous weekend. Then, it makes the move of equating that generosity with support of the Stroh Center, thus suggesting that the two are of equal concern and that a student is not so generous if he or she votes in a way that does not match the administration's view of the Stroh Center. I, for one, do not see Dance Marathon and voting for the Stroh Center as appropriately classified on such equalizing terms.
-- I have been told that when students went to vote, there was a long and lengthy explanation of all of the advantages and positive consequences that would come with a "no" vote (with "no" in this election, because of wording and precedure, being a vote in support of the student fee for the Stroh Center). There was no accompanying discussion of potential or actual limitations or negative consequences of the Stroh Center. Meanwhile, a "yes" vote was accompanied by no explanation of any kind--positive or negative ramifications. Again, I am not a student and, thus, did not vote, but this is what I was told.
-- I don't want to tell the Spirit Crew on campus (known as Sic Sic) what they can or can't do, but it did seem in poor taste to hang up signs on the Student Union saying "Pro Stroh Vote No," as if support for the Stroh Center was a litmus test for one's "school spirit," as it were. This wasn't the administration's official mouthpiece (at least, it better not have been pressured in any way to have been), but it is indicative of potential cultural silencing among the university community that may have occurred and the kind of poor taste that the Pro-Stroh (which, of course, is a problematic construction in and of itself) movement seems to have reflected.
Vote Maybe! It's Gravy!
Thanks for offering some reasoned and sincere commentary on something like this. We do, after all, love our student-athletes, don't we? I think it's fair to balance one's interests as a fan against the absurdity of the political economy of collegiate athletics. Especially in light of what's going on in Lexington, KY.
I know Kentucky fans. I travel to the SEC tournament every year with a group of six of them. And, let me tell you, these people are crazy. I've been bombarded with (though quite entertaining) obsessive emails about the status of UK hoops and John Calipari for the last three days. The sheer foolishness of his contract - relative to university spending priorities - does not faze them in the least. The way they see it, they just bought about a dozen final fours.
But, your comment on the Stroh Center situation forces two important issues into view: First, that the money that drives collegiate athletics makes one wonder about its continued utility to the university's central mission. I'm not being all stodgy about this (I hope), but apart from traveling with their pals to the next 10 SEC tournaments with that alumni chip on their shoulders, what did $4 million just buy the UK students? Really?
Obviously, a new stadium offers multiple benefits, and my comparison is a little unfair. But, democracy reaps what democracy sows. What if you put Coach Cal (and his essentially professional program) and his salary to vote among UK students? Right. They wouldn't have paid him four million, they would have paid him ten, and anointed him Everlasting Despot of Bluegrass. So the question is, what types of attitudes about the university's mission have programs like Kentucky's cultivated in the minds of its student body?
Don't mean to twist your insightful discussion of the Stroh Center into something it's not. But, is it possible to be both a fan and to be sane? I couldn't know, of course, but I expect that BGSU students have a reasonable expectation about what athletics can contribute to their collegiate experience as fans. In other places, they do not.
Oh yeah, I said there was a second issue. When will players start getting paid? Shouldn't students decide, ultimately, if it's OK for their university to exploit its labor?
$4 million for John Calipari... the guy runs a semi-pro club team now... wonder what his graduation rates are like...
It's best I say nothing about Calipari. I have an irrational dislike for the man. May UK stink it up!
Post a Comment