Lay blame where it properly belongs
UNM regents, not administration, are behind the athletics mess
Regarding the editorial, “Lujan Grisham earns red card for UNM pandering” (Journal, Sept. 21): No, the red card goes to the Journal’s editorial board for unnecessarily inflammatory language and blatantly focusing on only one side of the issues.
Yes, over the years University of New Mexico regents have been criticized for being “political sycophants who merely carry out the campaign promises of the governor who appointed them.” But the editors omitted noting that although UNM’s president and athletic director are new to the job, the regents are not. They are hardly immune to this charge, especially when the most egregious episodes in this “monumental mess” occurred on their watch. Ultimately the regents are responsible for these decisions, not the UNM administrators, so our comments should be directed to them.
To imply that UNM’s administrators were allowed to independently assess this problem without constraints or any other form of interference from the very regents who hired them and were party to the problem in the first place beggars belief. To further assert that these same regents should now have full discretion on how to address it without effective oversight from the public, what the editors term “meddling,” is truly outrageous.
Moreover, the process the regents used was not transparent, nor did it welcome input. The regents’ first meeting was set when students were gone for the summer and with only overnight notice. In response to the attorney general’s admonishment, the regents organized a second meeting in which the UNM administration spent the first 45 minutes merely re-justifying the decision they had already made. Students, faculty, and community — including several elected state legislators — had to wait their chance to provide input within their strictly enforced three minutes. Despite our hopes, the regents clearly had no serious intention to gather, let alone consider, input; their decision was already made.
In the end, their proposed solution fails to effectively address the two key goals stated by the regents. Independent analyses — at least one by a nationally recognized expert — have demonstrated UNM administration’s analysis was seriously flawed, the financial savings from their “solution” grossly overstated. Even more appallingly, it does little to resolve UNM’s Title IX disparities.
Many have pointed out there are other options that would more effectively address both concerns. But the regents were not willing, as so many pleaded, to step back, take a deep breath, and explore these other options first. Rather they rushed through a decision that will not come even close to accomplishing their stated goals. Furthermore, it eliminates athletic teams that provide vital support to community programs throughout our state; serve as nationally recognized models for athletic programs in educational institutions; and highlight the unique multicultural heritage of our state. To top it off, it eliminates athletically and academically successful programs that help UNM stand out as a unique, special place as it tries to address its worsening recruiting problems.
The UNM regents have badly mismanaged this entire situation from the get-go. It should not surprise anyone that both Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham and Congressman Steve Pearce have severely criticized their decision, nor that the congresswoman insisted upon better accountability. We depend upon our elected officials to provide exactly this kind of principled oversight over our public institutions on our behalf.
This problem is difficult. Instead of personal diatribes, we need a healthy, mutually respectful, inclusive debate. Many on both sides have been trying to maintain the discussion at this high level, avoiding personally disparaging comments, even as we disagree. Commendably, among those who are urging all their supporters to maintain such a high tone are the very coaches of the sports the regents are cutting!
By presenting these issues in such a one-sided fashion and unnecessarily using demeaning and inflammatory language such as “undermined,” “pandering,” “meddling,” “hypocritical,” and “cut off at the knees,” the editorial board is doing us a disservice. It is not helping to further a healthy discourse toward a much better, inclusive solution for UNM and our entire community.