Contact Us

Advertising

Comics

Crossword

The Arizona Daily Wildcat Online

Catcalls

Policebeat

Search

Archives

News Sports Opinions Arts Classifieds

Wednesday July 18, 2001

Dave Matthews Band Photos

 

PoliceBeat
Catcalls
Restaurant and Bar Guide
Daily Wildcat Alumni Site

 

Student KAMP Radio and TV 3

A necessary evil?

Headline Photo

Photo Illustration by Eric M. Jukelevics

By Ryan Finley

Arizona Summer Wildcat

Arizona administrators, activists take sides on corporatization of campus

Goodbye, Wilbur.

It seems that nowadays, UA's new trademarks could very well be the Nike swoosh and the Pepsi logo, both of which seem to be emblazoned on everything from baseball caps to soda cups.

The trend is not exclusive to the University of Arizona - in fact, most large universities seem to have a shoe contract through the athletic department or a campus-wide soda contract - but it has raised suspicions throughout the UA community. On one side, school officials say that a lack of public funding and an unwillingness to raise tuition costs leave the university no option other than soliciting public funds to help defray rising costs.

On the other side, opponents of the corporatization of the university say the auctioning off of campus facilities and contracts to the highest bidder prevents the school from completely fulfilling its academic purpose.

The Joy of Giving

Of the corporations that donate money to the school, the two most visible are Nike and Pepsi, Arizona's official athletic equipment and beverage provider. Both provide the school with an extra stream of revenue that, according to Jerry Hogle, the interim chair of the University Committee on Corporate Relations, helps funnel money into worthy on-campus causes.

"Entering into some relationships with corporations is beneficial," he said. "In an ideal public university setting, we would have state and tax support to do what we want to do. But, of course, we don't. One other solution would be to raise tuition. That's not good either. The customers benefit (from Nike and Pepsi) provided the university doesn't sell its soul."

When Pepsi and UA officials signed a contract in 1998, making Pepsi the official on-campus beverage supplier, the cola company responded by giving UA $3.4 million to help build the new Memorial Student Union Center and $50,000 over two years to be used on the university's annual "Spring Fling," the UA's student-run carnival. All told, the university will receive more than $8.3 million over the 10-year length of the contract, which will end June 30, 2008. Should the UA reach certain allocated "performance incentives," the school could receive $16.8 million in commissions alone.

UA law professor Andrew Silverman, a member of the UA's Committee on Corporate Relations, said the university needed Pepsi's contributions to make the construction of the new union a possibility.

"The union's a worthy cause," he said. "Pepsi provides (the university) with money for the right to distribute Pepsi on campus. Pepsi wants money for themselves and money for the university."

According to Ed Ackerley, a UA marketing professor and partner in Ackerley Advertising, 7754 E. Broadway Blvd., Pepsi is trying to target the 18-25-year-old demographic by implementing a working relationship with the university.

"They're practicing integrated marketing communications, a combination of marketing, advertising, promotions and public relations all bundled together in a package bigger than straight advertising," he said.

"They're doing more than trying to be the only beverage provider on campus. They start their affiliation with the athletic department and then move into university affiliates - the greeks and the student union - to make multiple contacts with large markets. It pays off in the long run."

It's got to be the shoes

While Pepsi owns the school's official "pouring rights," Nike's contract - which ends next summer - provides the UA athletic department with equipment, uniforms, apparel and donations of $102,000 per year, $50,000 of which goes toward a general scholarship funds. In exchange, the university permits Nike to aggressively market UA merchandise such as basketball shorts, baseball caps, as well as numerous jerseys, T-shirts and other apparel.

Lisa Valentine, the university's licensing coordinator, said Nike's major contribution may be the globalization of the Arizona name and trademark.

"Nike is the king of branding," she said. "It's important for every school to get their name out there. They provide great products that are good-looking and always up to date. It's good to be a Nike school."

UA athletic director Jim Livengood said Nike's contract with the school provides all 19 intercollegiate sports with an apparel provider that some of the school's non-revenue programs might not have been able to acquire on their own.

"It allows us to treat all 19 sports as equally as we possibly can," he said. "It's just as important - if not more important - for golfers, tennis, and track and field athletes. We get far more from them than they get from us."

Silverman isn't so sure Nike is the right apparel provider for the university, considering the company has been accused of inhumane labor practices, including the use of sweatshops to manufacture numerous products.

"Clearly, Nike created much more of an uproar because of the whole sweatshop issue and the feeling that Nike seems to be making much greater investments across the country," he said. "We are conducting what seems like a pro-athletic program in some sports - that's a different question in itself. We need to worry about what kind of effect our sports have on the school."

Sarah Warren, a member of UA's Students Against Sweatshops, agreed.

"With Nike and the whole sweatshop issue, the school had to compromise," she said. "It shouldn't be necessary to compromise. I think Students Against Sweatshops wants to use the university as a way to push Nike from using sweatshops. It must be hard for the university."

A slippery slope

UA officials warn that the danger of accepting private money - be it from companies or individuals - is the risk that the school's academic reputation may become tarnished.

"You can't compromise," said UA Director of Corporate Relations Mike Proctor. "You constantly have to be aware of your basic institutional message of teaching, research and outreach."

Proctor said industry and universities have had long-standing relationships and that the key to managing private money is to stay vigilant against possible conflicts on interest.

"Look at MIT and Stanford - they're very well-renowned academically with great industry-related (donations)," he said. "As long as you're doing private-dollar research, the issue (of corporatization) will always be there. Outreach is one of the three prongs of a land-grant institution. That may come through a drug company or a particular agricultural project. It comes through in a whole range of areas. The bottom line is that collaboration and academic integrity are not mutually exclusive."

In an attempt to avoid becoming "open for business," the university established the Committee on Corporate Relations, a group to monitor the companies that go into business with the university.

"If it's handled right, it's a benefit to the university," Hogle said of the contracts. "We're here to make sure it's handled right. For instance, suppose a corporation supports a research center. They cannot insist that the research results in strategic findings for them - funding cannot be contingent on the research that benefits the corporation."

Green Party leader Ralph Nader has proposed limiting agreements between corporations and universities, many which he believes compromise institutions' academic integrity.

"More and more, universities are for sale as they become corporatized," he said in an October speech.

Hogle said corporate money, in the end, is necessary to survive at the level Arizona is used to.

"Like with all things, we have to benefit from the good and try to keep the bad from happening," he said. "You can keep it in realm of balance so the excesses don't destroy education."

Still, some student leaders say that corporatization can hurt the university.

SAS member Tim Bartley said he feels that immediate action must be taken to stop an already-deteriorating situation.

"In the last 10 years, you've seen an increase in corporatization - that demonstrates the slippery slope has already begun," he said. "We can't let it go any further."