I just got back from a discussion with UI BOT member Tom Lamont, which he held to address questions and student concerns over the pending imposition of a student fee to compensate the DIA's budget deficit.
I asked a question.
You see, there is no question that the DIA is faced with a dilemma; find extra revenue, or cut back its programs. I wont bore you with the details as I do in fact trust the money people who run the Board of Trustees and the sports program. I accept this fact.
I do not accept the idea that students are the the ones who should account for the extra revenue. At least, I do not accept this idea unconditionally. The Board, or someone, I don't really care who and everyone seems eager to pass the buck, have been trying hard to duck a student referendum on the issue.
The argument for Athletics, in my opinion, seems at best questionable. We are a University, we are not a sports organization. Our first goal is education, not athletics. That's where our priorities should be. Lamont's suggestion is that Academics is important to us, because we are the flagship University, a Big Ten school - we are the University of Illinois. It's the Fighting Illini you know. "We want athletics."
My question was something along the lines of who this "we" is. I don't care so much for athletics - I might support an increased fee for it if I thought it on the whole beneficial, but I would think that if athletics is not the primary responsibility of our institution, and if it requires extra money or it would face cuts, that we shouldn't lose sight of the question of how bad we want athletics.
Who is this we? Is it the fans, who voluntarily buy tickets? Is it the people of Illinois? Is it the students?
If the students are the 'we' who feel that athletics is important, then I see no reason not to call for a binding student resolution on the issue - ask the students: "Given a choice between paying $34 per semester and seeing cuts made to the academic program, which do you prefer?" If the majority of students were in favor of the fee, cool. If they thought it better to fuck over the DIA, well then obviously that segment of 'we' is not the segment that values the athletic program enough to pay for it.
If it's that serious, maybe the state could fund it? If the state doesn't want to fund it, the students don't want to fund it, benefactors don't want to fund it, and ticket sales can't fund it, then who wants the sports program anyway? This 'we' sounds potentially quite hypothetical. I am certainly not a very loyal 'we'. Instead, Mr. Lamont makes starry-eyed statements like "our future" and stuff ... like students in the future are so worried whether we have a football team or not. University of Chicago has no football team. Instead, they have good pizza places. They have Rockefeller Chapel. Go figure.
It's fucked up. And I think the BOT does understand this on some level, and that's why they'd rather just squeeze the students more rather than really take a serious look at the issue. These are public officials, and public officials don't usually fare too well when major changes take place on their watch. If the University of Illinois were to make a pronounced move away from athletics, well that's controversial, even moreso than Chief Illiniwek.
And Chief Illiniwek was the topic of discussion at dinner. i made a remark about the DIA being the same bit of the University that has the offensive mascot, and Brian and Anatoly sprung to his defense.
What, may you ask, is my beef with the chief?
As mascots go, he is in poor taste. Let's say, hypothetically, that you conquer and pretty much destroy a people. Then you decide to honor that people by taking a symbol of leadership and spirituality, and have one of your own people dress in that manner to dance around at a football game. Honor? That seems disrespectful. I tried to make an argument, what if we were to use Jesus as a mascot? the pope? A rabbi? I implored of 'toly that if the mascot were Jesus Christ dancing the Macarena and the majority of the 80% Christian population of our country were left a little offended if that might not be grounds for changing our mascot. He conceded that point. My next rhetorical argument was that why then did the same standard not apply when the offended group was an underrepresented racial minority ... and he started to sound eerily Libertarian ... the sort of attitude that if people can not defend their own, then there is nothing wrong with them getting fucked over.
that is not a positive attitude, might does not make right.
Anyway, I did not dissuade either of them, but I do believe given the food for thought, that our argument may have an effect on them. I was once in their shoes too, thinking that all this Chief-bashing was counterproductive and inspired by over-zealous political-correctness. But as I asked Goth Dan, how he felt about the Chief, he said "I think it's dumb." - It's a mascot, er, a "symbol" in poor taste, that is kept around in large part due to institutional inertia.
And I have a fetish for fighting institutional inertia.
I would have been more productive tonight, but this journal entry was slowed and ultimately hampered by my helping people in the lab, particularly FreeCiv players, who are beginning to multiply in number ... oh dear, what have I started?
Anyways, I'm thinking, that as I drop ECE 291, I should keep a consistent schedule of getting up no later than 0900h, and trying to do something positive with the morning time. I shouldn't drop class for the sake of slacking off. That is no longer morally acceptable, for me, I think. I hope. If my theological principles are to compete with those of Christians or the like, or rather I should say that if they are to be competitive with, then I need to stick to my principles, with diligence and loyalty.
But be sure to watch for blind fanaticism. It's a tough road to travel you know? You risk fanaticism on one side, apathetic laziness on the other ... I see this so well illustrated in our people, in both ways, these days. It is something that upsets me. Ultimately a larger issue I would hope to address.
But I shouldn't worry so much at this hour. 'tis now past midnite. It is tomorrow. Time to prepare for the whole sleep thing, so I can wake up tomorrow and face a long work day. I would be less happy, and more stressed, I think, if I had spent time working on ECE 291 MP1 this week.
We shall see.
My hopes are too grandiose.
16 September
<<
1997
>>
24 September
H O M E