By MATT VAUTOUR
@GazetteUMass
Last modified: Saturday, January 10, 2015
AMHERST — Thursday’s meeting was a blow to the cause of any University of Massachusetts Amherst Faculty Senate members who hoped to convince Chancellor Kumble R. Subbaswamy to join their opposition to the upgrade to Bowl Subdivision football.
Subbaswamy appeared irritated at times when several senators again began criticizing the school’s 2012 upgrade to college football’s highest level.
Max Page, the co-chairman of the senate’s ad-hoc committee on FBS football, began the discussion by reading highlights of its report on financing the program, renewed his objections to its increasing costs and listed suggestions about how to better spend its $8,294,094 budget.
Frank Hugus, a senator and professor of German and Scandinavian studies, made a motion proposing to poll the entire campus faculty on their view about participation in the FBS. But because the motion had not been on the official agenda, he was declared out of order. He then sought to suspend the rules so there could be a vote on polling faculty, and debate continued.
The debate regularly veered away from whether or not faculty should be polled as many senators used the opportunity to voice their opinions about football in general. Presiding officer Richard Bogartz attempted with limited success to get the discussion back on topic.
Subbaswamy appealed to senators not to vote for polling the faculty because of the perception it would create.
“I simply ask you if this really serves any purpose. Ultimately, the (fate of football) is not up to the senate,” he said. “Do you want to make your chancellor, who is working so hard to make this campus a top-20, academically-recognized campus, into someone who is in a war with his own faculty? Is that an accurate depiction?
“That is what everyone will write because, of course, they are hungry for these stories. Do you really want that to be the story for the next six months? That’s your call,” Subbaswamy continued. “I will continue to work hard no matter what. I will try to work against the negativity that will be written about because of this vote. Nothing else, but because of this vote. If you want to do so, that is your prerogative. I urge you not to do so. I fully understand that it your prerogative. No matter how you vote, I’m going to work day and night to advance this campus.
“Whatever it is that you find out from that poll that is non-binding and does not have any impact on what I decide to do or not to do about FBS football,” he added. “I will eventually always make the decision that I think is in the best interest of this campus based on all the information I have available. And so, this process of gathering information is, in my opinion, more harmful than helpful.”
Subbaswamy indicated he had grown tired of being involved in the same argument and singled out Page, an architecture professor who has been a vocal opponent of FBS football.
“This is at least the fourth or fifth time I’m hearing Senator Page speak on this subject. Even today, his intentions are very clear,” Subbaswamy said. “I’ve made my position very clear. The decisions on the FBS will be made and we will make all the information available to you and we will monitor the expenses so that they don’t get out of hand.”
Eventually the Senate heeded his appeal and narrowly voted against polling the faculty.
Page, who during the meeting publicly stated his approval of the chancellor’s job performance, said he was surprised that the motion to poll the faculty was defeated.
“I thought the report was good. I thought we made all the good points,” Page said. “I will admit I’m surprised that there’s such terror about getting information. I don’t quite get that. ... The Faculty Senate is to think about what to debate and what’s of interest to the campus. So when we start to say “All right, let’s check in with the chancellor and see if he likes us to even talk about this issue,’ that undermines the idea of the university democracy, where you have faculty debating issues.”
Nelson Lacey, the other co-chairman of the football committee, said during the spring semester the faculty Senate will have to vote whether or not to continue the ad-hoc panel because it will have completed it’s original three year charge. Lacey recommended ending the committee because he said the athletic department has displayed openness about its finances.
If the ad-hoc committee is dissolved, Page said he is considering another approach.
“Frankly, I wish we could discuss some of the issues about concussions and other impacts. We have a narrow charge, which is a charge on the finances. I wish we could focus on the other, bigger issues,” Page said. “I used to be much more ‘I don’t want to spend the money.’ But every day we learn more and more about the effects. You hear about three kids dying in high school football at the beginning of the year, the NFL is obviously spending billions because a number of those guys are ruined (from concussions).
“I think all of us have a growing concern about whether this is where we want to put our energy and money,” Page added. “.. I think I’m more and more feeling like I would rather us have great sports that are not centrally going to have an effect for sure on our students that will injure them.”
To read the ad-hoc committee’s report go to: http://ht.ly/FLxPw
Matt Vautour can be reached at mvautour@gazettenet.com. Get UMass coverage delivered in your Facebook news feed at www.facebook.com/GazetteUMassCoverage