BlogU

  • The Oregon Trial

    By UD August 22, 2007 3:17 pm

    The University of Oregon, a once-proud school, is proceeding briskly toward the status of Oklahoma State, a third-tier football factory run by a sports-mad billionaire alumnus. In the case of Oklahoma, it's T. Boone Pickens of oil; for Oregon, it's Phil Knight of shoes.

    Unlike OSU, however, Oregon's professors are putting up a fight. Their belligerence has annoyed boosters, who've fought back with ... well, you know the drill... denunciations of pointy heads, egg heads, and bald heads who care whether students graduate... Whether they learn anything...

    One booster, Mike deCourcy, asks "why athletes aren't treated more like students in similar disciplines... [S]tudents who major in theater, dance, and music are presented academic credits and degrees in those subjects, whereas athletes [who] do similar work in their sports are said to be performing strictly extracurricular activities....[C]oaches who work for colleges study their sport and innovate within their sport with as much rigor as any ballet teacher or voice instructor. [Nay-saying professors] dismissively call basketball or football "a game," as if it's no more sophisticated than Parchesi [ sic]."

    deCourcy's complaint allows UD to clarify the distinction between subjects of thought and objects of entertainment.

    Let's start with deCourcy's own distinction. He differentiates between sport and game, with sport designating a sophisticated academic discipline, and game having to do with unsophisticated pleasurable time-passing, as in Parcheesi. A football event on the gridiron or a basketball event on the court may be a singular game, but football or basketball writ large is a field of study with its own history, innovations, and skills. It is equivalent to the study of voice or ballet.

    It is, in other words, an art (deCourcy does not use examples from physics or biology), a performative art, a branch of aesthetics. Football concentrators at universities are engaged in rigorous study toward the perfecting of their art, and should be judged and rewarded in the same way that music and dance students are judged and rewarded. Coaches are performance professors who study the history of their sport and make intellectual and creative contributions to it.

    Certainly sport, as a subset of human play generally, is a subject worthy of academic interest. Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga is a scholarly classic on the subject of our drive toward play, and many educated people have it on their bookshelves. UD can imagine a serious college major the subject of whose final thesis - within, say, anthropology - would be forms and meanings of play throughout history and among cultures.

    But I think it's precisely within that word "meanings" that deCourcy's attempt to incorporate football into artistic performance majors runs into trouble. Drama, oratorio, dance -- these all express something. They have culturally significant meanings. The actor, singer, and dancer convey these meanings through their interpretations of texts. The football player, on the other hand, is carrying out a coach's plan in order to win a game. His audience may find his 400-pound bulk slamming up against another 400-pound bulk on its way to kill a quarterback beautiful, but this aesthetic charge is incidental to the intent of the activity, which is to do whatever possible to make a touchdown.

    The meaning of football activity is that games are good to win. Football audiences may take a win to mean all sorts of things - that their school is really great, truly superior; that their fellow students on the field (no, they never see them in class... never, come to think of it, see them on campus... but they're sure the players share their own sense of deep pride in and identity with their school... after all, their jerseys have the name of the school on them...) are really talented sportsmen, that their state is the best state in the union, that they themselves are absolutely terrific people because of their association with these winners - but the win doesn't mean these things. It doesn't mean anything. Or it doesn't mean anything that serious people would find interesting and worth thinking about, much less constructing an academic discipline around.

    UD happily acknowledges that millions of people need the excitement and gratification of NASCAR and the Bowl Championship Series. She acknowledges that McDonald's has sold billions of burgers. We are not yet, with these numbers, at an academic discipline.

Advertisement

Comments on The Oregon Trial

  • Oregan Trail: Boosters vs. Faculty
  • Posted by Polar Capsule , It's an Egg Toss, or is it a Chicken Toss at Univ. Michigan Alum; Vanderbilt Alum on August 23, 2007 at 6:40pm EDT
  • Sounds like Oregon's pursuit to become a third tier college football factor and the ensuing dispute between faculty and alumni is similiar to the age old question...what came first, the chicken or the egg. Aside from learning through DNA that the Dinosaur came before the Chicken, it sounds like society has forgotten the origin and specializing of higher education. Higher education is meant to lead society to offer well researched and therefore, well founded means to advance society through seeking truth...Now since truth is relative to society's foundation, Democracy and Capitalism, yes, the faculty win their argument and so do the boosters. What started out as college camraderie, collegiate sport clubs and varsity teams invoke emotion and identity, so much so, peolple are willing to spend money on it to generate more good feeling and identity. It's easier for the majority to participate in academia through the pursuit of a degree for four years and a lifetime of reveling in their mascot's successful sports for the fifty years after they graduate, rather than supporting academics, which aside from a few alumni does not invoke the same emotional addiction from a spectator...you can't watch a scientist in the lab while drinking beer or tailgate infront of a doctoral student's dissertation. It's a shame, those boosters that want college athletes to receive academic credit for their atheletic participation aren't able to realize the primary purpose of academics. Yes, there are vocational schools, but there are also non-collegiate pathways to pursue professional employment as an athlete,i.e. NBA, NHL farm teams. Interstingly, there isn't a farm system for football..and I think that's where the bifurcation occurs. We love our gladiators from a primal basic sense of survival. We acknowledge our scientists and academics, but would rather be a doctor or lawyer, also according to our primbals survival instincts for resource acquisition and security.

    Perhaps Gordon Gee can consult Oregon after the next three years transferring his Vanderbilt perspective on atheletics to the Buckeyes...but then again, one toxic nut can only be embraced by an indigenous nut bowl.

  • Oregon trial
  • Posted by Lynne Isaacson , Dr. at Concordia College on August 27, 2007 at 8:50pm EDT
  • If "coaches who work for colleges study their sport and innovate within their sport with as much rigor as any ballet teacher or voice instructor," should coaches then receive salaries more in line with those of ballet teachers and voice instructors?

  • Sports as art
  • Posted by Mike DeCourcy on September 10, 2007 at 10:35am EDT
  • I appreciate that the author "UD" at least attempted to draw the distinction between what colleges perceive as arts worthy of curricular status and the athletics they deem to be extracurricular.
    But drawing the line at "expression" seemed to me to be slicing the onion as thinly as possible.

    "MD"