<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa, wait a minute! I never said anyone was “beyond criticism.” I said I don’t personally criticize them. There’s a huge difference between those two statements. </p>
<p>And I wasn’t specifically referring to “public” D-III colleges, which are actually quite rare, though they do exist. Here in Minnesota, for example, we have 18 D-III colleges, of which 17 are private. The 18th, the University of Minnesota-Morris, is a (rare) public LAC operating as part of the larger University of Minnesota system. It does have intercollegiate sports at about the same level as the private LACs in the region, against which it competes both athletically and for students. I have no problem with that; I don’t think intercollegiate athletics consume a disproportionate share of Minnesota-Morris’s budget, and without that athletic dimension I don’t think the school could plausibly represent itself as providing an affordable public alternative to the private LAC experience. Others may disagree, as is their prerogative. I’m not trying to tell anyone else who or what they may criticize.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally speaking, intercollegiate athletics at D-III schools, public and private, is more like an extracurricular activity and less the public spectacle that it becomes at D-I schools. I have no problem with colleges and universities, public or private, subsidizing extracurricular activities, be it track and field, tennis, a debate team, a capella groups, theater groups, student orchestras, or whatever. I would hope they would allocate those funds wisely and well, supporting a mix of activities; that they would not spend more than they can reasonably afford; and that any funds going to athletics would be equitably apportioned between varsity sports and intramural and club sports. But frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest to stick my nose into every college’s business to examine their finances and second-guess their spending priorities. That’s the sense in which I “don’t criticize them” (my words). They need to manage their own finances, according to their own priorities. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be accountable; of course they should be accountable to their students, to the parents who are paying the bills, to their alumni, and to their trustees, and if they are public, to the taxpayers of the state. But I’m not going to insist that they be accountable to me, because frankly in most cases it’s not my concern. Again, I’m not going to criticize them; but I never said they were beyond criticism, and if their spending priorities are out of whack, they should be criticized by the parties affected.</p>
<p>It does concern me more if I’m sending my kids to the school; or if I’m otherwise supporting the school financially; or if I’m a taxpayer in the state. Then it becomes my business. But for the schools that fall into those categories, I’m reasonably satisfied at present. I do think my DD1’s (private) LAC spends a bit more on intercollegiate athletics than I’d like, and more than the norm for schools its size, but I also think she’s getting an outstanding education in return for our dollar, so I’m not going to gripe about it too much because clearly it’s not undercutting educational priorities. My own alma mater, which I support with modest financial contributions, is fully self-supporting and then some in its athletic programs; I’m cool with that, and frankly the knowledge that my contributions are going directly to support academics rather than athletics makes it much easier for me to contribute. Our state flagship’s athletic program gets a modest subsidy from the university (about 0.05% of the university’s budget), but it’s been declining annually as the university tries to wean the athletic department away from it. It’s at least going in the right direction, but it will probably take a couple of years of winning football to hit the break-even point. So I guess that makes us one of the wannabe’s in a conference where most schools are among the haves. But we’re close.</p>