Faculty senate: stop subsidizing athletics

The Faculty Senate passed a motion last week urging University of Memphis President Shirley Raines to stop subsidizing the athletic department $2.2 million from education and general funds.

After almost an hour of debate, 25 members voted for the motion, five voted against and six abstained.

Besides the athletic department subsidy, which increased from $1.5 million last year, education and general funds pay for scholarships, equipment upgrades, employee raises and other amenities to benefit students and faculty at The University.

David Cox, executive assistant to the president, said Raines will make a decision soon about the subsidy as part of the regular budgeting process at The University.

Some senators argued that academic departments should have first dibs on the money.

Ed Perry, faculty senator and mechanical engineering professor, said he supports some subsidization of the program, but more money should be spent on the educational programs.

"There's a lot of money being spent (in the athletic programs)," said Perry, a 40-year fan of Tiger athletics who grew up in Memphis. "Should we spend more?"

The University's $300 million budget, which is spent on everything from salaries to electricity, is divided among roughly 20,000 students, Perry said.

"It turns out to be approximately $15,000 per student," he said. "Take the athletic budget, roughly $33 million, and divide it by the number of student-athletes. A lot more money is spent (per student-athlete)."

However, athletics contribute a substantial amount to scholarships, so subsidizing that department could have a positive impact on other students, said Cox, who represents Raines at Faculty Senate meetings.

"It's a balancing act," he said. "(The athletic department) makes contributions, and there are finances that have to go into it."

In a down economy, though, The U of M's academic departments need funds more than its athletic departments, Perry said.

"If monies were given to academic departments, they could increase operating expenses, which are pretty much bare bones right now," he said. "Students could also have access to more scholarships. If you give money to one entity, you have to take it from another."

David Burchfield, faculty senator and professor of public health at The U of M, cast one of the few nay votes. He said much of the debate centered on which branch of The University was more entitled to money from the education and general fund.

"I don't have a problem with giving money to the athletic department, as long as (academic departments) have access to funds," he said.

Some senators, Burchfield said, argued that The U of M should subsidize the athletic department because it attracts students to The University.

"There was some discussion about the dollars that are brought in by the athletic department (for athletic scholarships)," Burchfield said. "But that money is brought in by the community, not the state."

Burchfield said the motion's wording had no constraints on how the money should be spent if academic departments' finances were "in dire straits," which bothered some senators who were in favor of the money's benefiting academics instead of athletics.

In the past, senators have typically voted unanimously and with little discussion on motions, Burchfield said.

"We have lots of motions at Faculty Senate meetings," he said, "and this has been the most highly debated one."