Your aid’s almost finalized, we just need you to sign here, here, and kick this field goal
Edit 11/12/2009: Check the comments for updated discussion about this topic. It appears that the money comes from an insurance policy the school purchased. I’m not changing perception of these contests; they’re still offensive for the reasons below, but it’s important to consider new information as it’s available.
So, 2009, financial crisis, etc., etc. The school’s been grabbing for ways to save money any way it can–not watering the lawns, reduced RAZ hours, and stringent rules regarding student employment are all tangible examples of the institution’s belt-tightening. Try as Student Financial Services might, there were some students whose need for aid could not be fully alleviated, and those students are not at school this semester. I have friends from the past three years who, because of the economy, are not going to be graduating with me this May. I’m sure most returning students know people who were put in similar situations–continuing college for ’09-’10 was simply not an option given the financial circumstances.
In general, I don’t think there’s much else that can be done. SFS has a tough job of distributing its funding so that as many of us can return as possible, and I think that, for the most part, they do their job very well. Sometimes, especially when money is tight, there are inevitably going to be some students whose needs cannot be fully accommodated.
In light of this reality, I find it patently offensive (especially this year) that my college would decide to allocate a total of $22,500 to be awarded as prize money in two upcoming half-time competitions ($5000 for a field goal, $17500 free-throw contest) in an attempt to boost attendance.
I wish I could say this was photoshopped for the blog post. I can't say that.
These events appear to be sponsored by the Pioneer Athletic Club–our sports boosters–which is part of the Athletics department. Let’s first examine if this is a valid use of PAC money.
According to the PAC website on lclark.edu,
We continually strive to improve facilities and annual funding at Lewis & Clark so that our teams can compete at the highest level. The college has been very supportive in covering basic expenses for travel, uniforms, and equipment. However, there are always areas in which additional support will enhance students’ experiences and opportunities for success. Gifts to the PAC provide the much-needed annual support to supplement our teams’ annual budgets.
That’s all well and good, I think. So when I donate to this noble organization, how can I expect my funds to be used?
All gifts to Athletics are used to support our teams and programs. Specific needs vary from year to year, but the primary areas supported by Pioneer Athletics Club include services and facility improvements as well as equipment purchases that are not otherwise funded. Computers, weight room equipment, public address systems, scoreboards, and many other amenities for our student-athletes have been made possible thanks to PAC memberships. Only small amounts of unrestricted funds are used to pay for expenses associated with the Pioneer Athletics Club (e.g., printing, mailing costs)
Or, if we want to believe what is written on the lcpioneers.com version of the PAC website,
Over the years, PAC funds have enabled the athletics program to obtain equipment and services that are not otherwise funded. Computers, weight room equipment, public address systems, scoreboards, and countless other amenities for our student-athletes have been made possible thanks to PAC donations.
Clearly, these funds are intended to help improve the quality of life for LC athletes, as well as the quality of our sports teams as a whole. So, how does a halftime contest constitute a valid use of money that should be spent improving our sports programs, especially in a time when our community is constantly asked to sacrifice privileges and aesthetics in the name of the institution’s well-being? Even if we consider how many more people will be in the stands waiting to win a butt-load of money cheering for our team (for two isolated matches, before half-time), I think it’s almost impossible to argue that there isn’t a better use of this money, especially at a division 3 college with a student body notorious for its apathy towards anything that involves teamwork and sweat (unless the game in Frisbee or is only popular on other continents).
For argument’s sake, let’s just allow that this money may be spent on such a contest without compromising the mission statement of the benefactor… we must now examine it from the angle which I *actually* find offensive–Lewis & Clark Athletics is taunting us with $22,500 while my peers are dropping out of college months from graduation because they can’t pay up. Even in the entirely likely situation that no one completes whatever semi-impossible athletic task set is before them, this is still an important matter of principle. The college has chosen to wave its money around while simultaneously claiming that it can’t squeeze out one more dollar for aid (and that when it can, it does).
One may argue that these contests are going to help us. After all, a lucky winner will come away with a lot more financial security. But that’s exactly why we have Student Financial Services in the first place. The students who actually *need* that money, for whom that money might make the difference between a semester in Portland and a semester on mom & dad’s couch, are not going to have any better chance than those of us who are already able to afford tuition. Let’s not forget that the students who really-really need the money won’t even be in attendance, because they’re not even here this semester–
Hell, let’s even grant that a student who really needs the money is going to be the one selected to compete. Is it not insulting that the college would put one of its students in the demoralizing situation of having the continuation of his/her education rest on how accurately s/he can throw a basketball?
This is a poorly (and callously) planned publicity stunt. If PAC wanted to help athletes specifically, it would be spending that money on something useful for our athletes. If PAC wanted to help the student body as a whole, it would be giving that money to Student Financial Services, who has the resources to make an effective allocation to students in need.
$22,500 may not seem like a lot of money (and in the scope of an entire college’s budget, it’s not), but it is the difference that would allow a student (two students? three? more?) to finish the semester(s) they need in order to graduate. To literally gamble it on a sensationalized spectacle is a disservice to the students and alumni of our community.
[Administrator]
Cary
kennner
dshack
maishaparadox
angelalc
As a varsity swimmer, I just have to point out that having people in the stands really matters and an important consideration that the Mr. Young leaves out of his argument. Though I agree that this concept is kind of bogus. I have to plug that the swim team has its first home meet of the season Friday night at 6pm.
Word, Erik. But couldn’t one also argue that two well-attended sporting events are not worth as much as an equipment upgrade or something else that might benefit the quality of our program over the course of months or years? I don’t disagree that having fans at a game is integral to the experience/ambiance, I just think that this money could see better use. It’s not that hard to coax people to show up to something; as Alex points out, pizza and t-shirts can often do the trick.
Honestly, I don’t care how badly the sports teams need attendance. Ply people with t-shirts or free pizza! When the school is not meeting all of the demonstrated financial need I am absolutely sickened by the fact that this much cash can just be given away.
When I saw this promotion, I was disgusted. Our athletes do need support, but spending this much money on such a transient promotion is—quite frankly—idiotic. As the program is currently set up, no student can count on winning the money so students must plan to make it through college without this scholarship. That means for the winner, the money is a windfall, but not necessary to make it through school. Wouldn’t this money be better spent aiding someone who absolutely needs it?
As for the other benefit of this program, raising attendance at athletics events, I’ll take an unpopular position. Lewis & Clark students are engaged in many amazing activities&emdash;such as the Multicultural Symposium going on this week. Then there’s theatre, music ensembles, research, community service, athletics, and art. Why should athletics events be prioritized over these other pursuits. If students don’t attend football, basketball or volleyball, it is because they feel more engaged by another pursuit. Why does the school determine which activities students should be interested in by offering ludicrous tuition discounts?
Because we knew this school’s spending priorities coming in, and they have drastically changed over the past few years. I matriculated in part because I knew that the school supported community engagement (two all-day shuttles), accessible arts and athletics (accessible, not competitive…at 5’4″ and 130lb, I could have gone out for football my freshman year), and meaningful, ambitious academic and social justice projects. I was happy to enter a school whose priorities were in line with mine, and now I feel that my tuition money is being spent on issues only important to a small minority of staff and students.
BTW, word on the streets is that the college is not actually investing cash money in these prizes, but has taken out an insurance policy that no one will win the contest. Hence, we pay a risk-adjusted premium to the insurer, but it’s significantly smaller than the full amount. Still, I don’t want my money anywhere near this crap.
Thanks for the clarification David. I obviously didn’t understand the exact nature of the prize. While it is a bit sneaky to not have at least one person guaranteed to win, it is more fiscally responsible. Depending on the price of the insurance, this promotion may be an affordable way to increase attendance.
Thank you for writing this, Cary. I enjoy going to athletic events once in awhile to support my friends who are athletes, and a fun halftime show (such as Administration vs. ASLC) or the promise of free food or t-shirts is often enough to ensure that I attend that particular event. I am so insulted by the way our college is allocating its money with this “win a disgusting amount of money” contest that I probably will not attend these events. Call it a boycott or a protest.
I fought hard to be rehired as a tourguide after two years of employment: I worked without pay for the first three weeks of this semester, training the students who became my replacements; my supervisor and I both petitioned the Student Financial Services to award me LC Work Study; and still I was denied a position that only earns me about $30 a month. I didn’t buy textbooks this semester to compensate for that small amount of income I was counting on, relying instead on Summit and ILL and sympathetic classmates who will allow me to borrow their books for a few hours here and there. And now the College is going to wave $17,500 in my face for making a shot that unathletic me is unlikely to have any sort of realistic chance at? It is insulting.
Dear Lewis & Clark: If you want athletics to be more popular, do not offend the students who would support you. They will resent your flagrant misuse of funding at a time when they are struggling financially to even attend college.
Cary,
While I totally agree with pretty much every word you said, there’s just one hyperbole that I disagree with. Even in today’s pathetic economy where jobs are hard to come by, if I couldn’t afford a semester at college, sitting on “mom & dad’s couch” would be the last place you could find me. Certainly I’d be applying for internships (paid or unpaid), hunting for jobs, or finding a worthwhile career-building past time.
I just recently heard about this spectacle, and frankly I am disgusted. I think an appropriate response would be a student boycott of the event. Students need to show that we are not going to be bribed to support sub-mediocre athletics at a division 3 school. I’m not shy about letting people know I have a bias; I hate competitive athletics, and Lewis and Clark just gave me another reason to continue my disdain for competitive sports on this campus.
I learned from the comments on here that the college isn’t actually going to be doling out $22,500 cash, but this is a matter of principle. We all pay good money to attend school here, and as far as I am concerned, we shouldn’t be investing 1 cent in this.
I hope someone has some good ideas. I don’t think I can sit back and watch this happen. What is happening to this school?
For those of you choose to disdain sports on this campus, that’s your choice. Though please do not call our sports teams sub-mediocre; it devalues the dedication and passion that the athletes have. Consider that some sport teams like the L&C swim team for example practices approximately 20 hours a week on top of the workload that comes with attending this school. And that the L&C Pioneer Men’s Swim Team is 2-0 so far this year.
Javen–fair enough, sorry about that! :-/
So, as we have since established, and as I have been informed by two of our awesome ASLC Senate members, the school purchased insurance which would cover the cost of the contest in the event someone wins.
“it cost $150 (from a donor) to offer up $5000 for the football [contest]”
That’s a relief, in a way, but it still doesn’t erase the real issue, which Michael and others have highlighted–it implies that we can be bought, and it implies that the college is willing to give us a long-shot chance at aid on the condition that we dance for it. It’s a remarkably insensitive promotion.
WHEN R THE GIVEAWAYS?
I WANT 2 WIN. BEEN PRACTICING FIELD GOALS AND FREE THROWS DAILY.
PLEASE ADVISE. THX.
lol
Cary, I agree about a lot of what you’re saying.
However, I think somebody needs to point out that this kind of promotion is not SUCH a novel absurdity, even in college sports. Granted, most of these kinds of promotions come from schools which have a larger sports program, and a student body that actually gives a damn about its athletic teams (I find a problem with the average LC student’s lack of interest in our sporting program, but I’ll leave that discussion for another day); but I really don’t think that is reason enough to challenge LC’s strategy in this promotion and not, say, University of Alabama, or Ohio State, or even private schools like Northwestern. The intention remains the same: to get butts in seats… and that’s exactly what Lewis & Clark is trying to do with this promotion. If it’s not 20 grand, it’s a brand new sports car. Or a home theater system. Something like that. There are students there, too, who are having to drop out. And it’s not like those games are getting iffy attendance numbers, either: so shouldn’t THOSE schools be bastards for dangling around this money when in reality they’re getting a solid attendance every game – while WE’RE just trying to get SOME kids to go to a goddamned basketball game?
So I guess my point is, as insulting as it is for the school to be waving around half a year’s tuition based on a lottery and the ability to shoot a basketball, it’s not all that rare, and I don’t think we should get all up in arms about such a spectacle that is neither new, nor rare, in the world of intercollegiate sports.
Is it a problem? Hell yes. But I feel like instead of addressing the real issue here, we’re speaking just about our own.
Another thing (extending my role as the devil’s advocate):
I think it should be known that the money used to put up this insurance was all given by the Alumni association, for the sole purpose of this promotion.
So, should the college have said “no,” because it might offend some students?
I think part of the issue here is *which* sports are being supported. Few people seem to have a problem with the school flying our frisbee team to vegas every year, because it’s a sport which pulled itself up by the bootstraps, has a lot of student support, seems to embody a lot of the values of this school, and is actually competitive. Football, on the other hand, needed a big infusion of money and administrative support to get any momentum whatsoever.
Why can’t we pay people to go to the Ray Warren Multicultural Symposium? Or the International Fair? Or the plays in the theater department?
I actually think this wouldn’t be a big deal if they advertised who the sponsor was- say “A group of alumni are offering $xxxxx to one lucky attendee of our next football game.” If you’re explicit about where the money comes from, and it’s completely separate from endowments and tuition money, there’s less of an issue.
Robin: The college should have said, “This is really not the best way to use the money you want to donate for this purpose, can we use it for something else like a, b, c?”
I think even a $500 prize would have drawn students to the game, and while it’s still a lot of money, it’s not as outrageously excessive as $5,000 or $17,500. It would have had the same effect and been less offensive.
I certainly can’t claim to speak for the alumni who provided the funds, but I’m willing to bet that the answer would be, “No, you may not spend it on a, b, c; you must spend the money on the promotion.” These kind of stipulations are made all the time. The Flanagan Chapel is a good example: LC lobbied very hard to use the money to build a science center instead. The donors weren’t interested in a science center; they wanted a chapel, and a chapel they got. Likewise with the promotion money. To use the old cliche, beggars can’t be choosers.
The way to consistently get “butts in seats” is not through silly promotions (are they going to do this at every single home game?) The way to do it is to win games. Doesn’t matter if you do it through football, women’s or men’s soccer (UP Pilots don’t have a problem filling seats), lacrosse, or basketball – you need one winning season built on the next winning season, followed by another winning season, etc.
Many Colleges of LC size are getting rid of their football programs altogether because they are too expensive and not all inclusive (girls not allowed) and in exchange, they are creating men/women soccer, lacrosse, and other programs that don’t cost nearly as much.
I think this promo is interesting. I disagree with it on a fundamental level but understand why the school is attempting something of this kind. However…there are definatly better ways to get people to games. And one more thing that I think should be pointed out; its not just Football and Basketball that need the student body’s help. Your lovely Pioneer swimmers would like to have a meet where the stands contain more then just the other team’s fans. I guess what I am trying to say is this school needs a little more spirit; and a little less anger/apathy towards the athletes trying to compete.
This blog actually made me sad… I’m a non-athlete but I came to L&C because it was supposed to be a tolerant and thoughtful community. I didn’t know much about the promotion but the blog apparently started with a lot of misinformation but had the chance to flourish on the internet. Very little funds (donated) by outside groups have been used to increase attendance and increase entertainment. Right or wrong – the chance to win money – is entertainment. We use our actual student funds (tuition dollars) for entertainment all the time on campus bc that is a REAL part of the experience. If L&C was using our tuition money for this, I would be extremely angry… but it makes sense to me that a department fundraises to promote itself and shouldn’t be bashed for accomplishing their goal. I have not been harassed on campus because I love mountain biking and don’t feel like any group should be because of their passion…at least not at L&C.
I hope it doesn’t come off that we’re trying to harass athletes. I’m not, and knowing Cary, I don’t think he is either. In fact, for a time, I was an LC athlete (rowing Crew and playing Ultimate, which both have almost no student spectators) and I’ve been out to basketball, football, volleyball and lacrosse games.
Our objections were to the way the administration’s fiscal irresponsibility promoting specific advents (which turns out to be a big misunderstanding on our part). I think many of the reactions–mine included–are almost entirely to the misunderstanding of how much money was being spent and where it was coming from. As more light has been shed on the subject, virtually all of my concerns have been alleviated.
I see your point, which is why I edited the post to add the note about reading the comments before coming to a final conclusion. I think it’s pretty clear, however, that it was not my intention to harass athletes (or anyone, really). I even argued that we should spend the promotion money on something that they can actually use. I don’t think athletes as individuals should even factor into the argument (any more than any other LC student, I mean)… the issue is how the promotion was pitched to us, in a time where financial well-being is on most students’ minds.
Hey all
I play on the women’s basketball team, and I just wanted to add my two cents to the conversation. First, I am really disappointed in the misinformation that was transmitted over this blog. The fact that the time was not taken to understand the promotion or its implications is careless and extremely unfair to the athletes that dedicate so much of their time in representing YOUR institution in athletics. As a female athlete, I spend over 4 hours in the gym everyday and have given so much of my time that could have been spent with friends or participating in clubs to something that most of the college campus doesn’t even really care about. When I found out that the institution was attempting to create a more positive environment for college athletics I was beyond excited. Oftentimes sports feel more legitimate when they have fans at the games. While you may argue that playing basketball is a choice, it is a defining part of who I am, just like having brown hair or green eyes, or just like you may define yourself through art or LCMC. I feel privileged to have been able to continue to play basketball after high school for Lewis and Clark because it is so much a part of my being. I am really saddened that there are so many people that are “disgusted” by the promotion, especially considering the fact that the amount actually being spent is under $500. There are so many clubs on campus who receive thousands of dollars from the college and yet there are no students demanding that they don’t get this money; that it should instead be given out as tuition. You argue that Lewis and Clark is not known for its athletics, that they aren’t really important, I answer this as yes they are. There are so many students here at Lewis and Clark that are athletes, shouldn’t they be able to be proud of their institution and their activities just as you are. As it has been mentioned before, this kind of promotion is common, especially at large institutions, and while we may not be a large institution the function is the same. We are trying to create a fun way to get people to go to the games, perhaps you wont win, perhaps it is too hard to win, but its not like you loose anything in playing. One of my favorite parts of Lewis and Clark was how accepting and supportive the student body was supposed to be, yet I am finding little acceptance or support from a large portion of them. The most “disgusting” part of this whole ordeal is that it has taken all of this to even recognize the fact that there are athletic events on campus. All I ask is that you please think before you put misrepresentative information on the Internet especially considering the extremely negative effects that it has had.
The reason there was “misinformation” is because that information was not available when I was writing the post. As you can see, I edited it once more was brought to light. I take issue with the way this was promoted, and I still argue that the money could have been spent more productively than on an insurance policy, but that’s another thing altogether. If ASLC, or LCMC, or anyone else had tried to bribe people in the same fashion, I would have written the same post.
We (or at least I–and most of the people I’ve talked to) are not disgusted that the school is promoting athletics; that’s good! It’s just that this promotion missed the mark, and I wanted to say how I felt, so I wrote some stuff on the internet.
I have nothing against athletics, nothing more than I would have against Slam Poetry, LCMC, theatre kids, or the Co-Op.
Furthermore, I’d like to make this distinction: I am not the PioLog, I am not a journalist. I sincerely try my best to get as much information as I can, but I write what I see and then comment. That’s not to say that I intentionally mislead, but it’s an important distinction to keep in mind when reading this (or any) blog; opinion is part of the package. If the website says [paraphrased] “PAC is providing the money,” and then a giant photoshopped check made out from Lewis & Clark Athletics… there’s really only one way to interpret that, I think.
If you would like to post for lclark.us so you can provide a perspective that I don’t have (athletics at LC), I would love it.
The point of what i wrote was not to attack at all, i understand that the promotions may have been confusing, and i am glad that people are willing to talk about things like this. My response was not directly to you really Carey, and i appreciate that you corrected the information. I was simply trying to provide another perspective, an athletic perspective on how important athletics are to the population that dedicates so much time to them, and I agree with Jessica, all the information should be out there and understood before people make assumptions. For all of those out there that have commented, don’t let something like this deter you from coming to athletic events, and please don’t boycott them, you are not sticking it to the institution, you are being disrespectful to your peers who put in a lot of time and effort into something they really enjoy.
also for those who have continued to show support despite the way it may have seemed to be advertised, thank you.
I want to make a quick comment because I have real information from inside SAAB. First of all, I love LC, I deal with the high tuition because it’s worth it and I love going to sporting events. I think that the high prize money sounds a little worrying at first. But I support it as an awesome promotion and the insurance policy is actually quite savvy. For the football game “Win $5,000 with a 45 yard field goal”, LC put up only 5% of the potential prize money. That means we spent only $250 which we spend if someone wins or not. I imagine that the basketball promotion might have similar figures. Furthermore, this money came from private donations that were given specifically for the purpose of athletic promotion. It is someone’s money that they can do what they want with and the college gets a pretty sweet deal. Maybe we’re just trying to be a little more well-rounded. I’m not trying to take sides really, or argue 1 point. I just want people to have all the information before they judge the issue. The school really isn’t out anything seeing as the money came from private donations. And our sports teams get a boost. Not such a bad deal afterall.
~Jess~
I think it should also be noted that the nature of the contest inherently favors men to receive the money. While I’m not familiar with the terms of the basketball free throw contest, I think it can at least be said that kicking a 45 yard field goal effectively eliminates women from competing for the money. Football is a male only sport so no woman would have the same sort of preparation for such an athletic attempt. How many women would actually feel confident enough to try, given that you’d be trying in front of a crowd of peers?
If PAC chooses to support their student athletes by setting up such competitions, they must find a way to support both female and male athletes.
I dunno, I think a talented female soccer player could kick a 45-yard field goal. Football teams often pull soccer players in as kickers. When I was a kid, the University of New Mexico had a female kicker. Football is definitely a male-only sport, but the one exception might be kicking.
I was initially disgusted by this promotion (please see my earlier comments) and one of the reasons I was so pleased that Cary wrote this article is because it generated conversation. I am very pleased that PAC responded to students’ concerns as promptly as it did. From what my athlete hallmate reports, all of the fliers related to the football and basketball promotions are being removed from campus, and new fliers that better explain where the money came from (information that Cary was lacking when he wrote the initial article, largely because it was not publicised) and how the contests work are being posted in their place. I think students’ concerns about the promotion speak well of Lewis & Clark: our students think critically about what our institution is doing and how, rather than simply seeing a photoshopped image of a blank check and running straight to the stadium to jump for it.
In my opinion, the promotion was financially responsible, but the initial publicity did not reflect that, hence the initial widespread negative reactions. Cary’s article (and the comments) did what I had hoped they would do: they encouraged a change. Thank you PAC for listening to student concerns and responding in the way you have done.
While I still believe there are better ways to invest $500, I respect that donors may choose on what to put their money. My suggestions for future donors would be to try to play to LC students’ strengths and talents better: imagine if the prize money was awarded to a student for his/her ability to create the best cheer (judged by audience applause levels) or to attend a game in the best spirit-related outfit or costume, rather than a lottery- & athletic skill-based contest. Contests that encourage students to invest a little more thought and true support into their attendance would help to boost athletic events attendance in the long-run — students would actually be making the effort to support the team, rather than to fill a seat for a long-shot chance at cash.
I agree with Maisha (now that PAC has provided some information), the promotion was “financially responsible.” However, that does not redress my biggest grievance with the competition. During a time when The United States is in the “biggest financial crisis since the great depression” it is incredibly insensitive for the athletics department (and for the administration to allow) an event of this type. Lets call it what it is: It is bribery, and an unethical attempt to get students into the seats using the fear (desperation, and insecurity) the credit crunch has created for all of us. It is just in bad taste.
I’ll be honest, free pizza and a t-shirt would have convinced me to go. After this incident…no way in hell I’ll be seen there. No way in hell…
Not to mention that the contest reeks of ableism.