This Knight Has Tarnished Armor

Nike, Greek goddess of victory, is a fitting symbol for athletic apparel. There may not be any victors, however, in the showdown between Nike CEO Phil Knight and his alma mater, the University of Oregon.

Knight, the school’s most generous donor, cut the philanthropic cord after UO President Dave Frohnmayer signed the university up with the Worker Rights Consortium. The consortium monitors firms that use overseas labor to make goods such as running shoes.

There are valid debates around Nike’s labor practices. Are they as dubious as the WRC contends, or as exemplary as Knight insists? Is the WRC is a better watchdog than the Fair Labor Association, which Knight favors because it includes industry representatives?

But a larger issue arises from Knight’s expectation that his private contributions buy influence over the public university’s policies.

Knight’s decision will cost the University of Oregon dearly, most conspicuously in the withdrawal of $30 million he was expected to give toward an $80 million expansion of UO’s football stadium.

Knight has been a major supporter of academic facilities, too. His name is on the campus library, his father’s on the law center. Thus, anxiety over his decision extends beyond sports programs - and it should extend beyond Oregon.

Intercollegiate athletics are not merely a trivial distraction from higher education’s more serious missions. Success in the arena generates pride and excitement among alumni who respond with dollars that strengthen academic undertakings as well as athletic.

The more private donations underwrite public institutions, the less taxes have to. That’s a relief to taxpayers and politicians alike.

Without constant oversight to keep it from souring, as the Oregon episode shows, that comfortable relationship has the potential to contaminate a university’s integrity.

As it is, Frohnmayer entered an agreement far milder than that being pushed by the loudest sweatshop critics. It would have lasted one year, not five, and would have included other safeguards that may well have been crafted with Knight in mind.

If Frohnmayer were to renege under pressure it would damage his university’s reputation more than any amount of corporate giving could repair.

Worse, the example could tempt other donors to encourage the same kind of prostitution on other campuses, in Oregon and beyond. Not even Nike, goddess that is, would declare that a victory.