"“University of Nike� by Joshua Hunt

4/5: I have long had a love-hate relationship with my alma mater, the University of Oregon.
I valued the education I received, and some of the professors I encountered, when pursuing my master’s degree there in the 1980s. To this day, I enjoy following several of the UO’s athletic teams, and I’m well aware that their success is attributable in large part to Phil Knight’s generous largesse.
But from the perspective of The Register-Guard newsroom where I worked for 30 years, I have long been troubled, and infuriated, and flummoxed, by what I came to regard as the university’s penchant for secrecy, disdain for transparency (and public records law) and general all-around hubris.
I was only mildly shocked a few years back when the university aggressively sought to hide rape charges against 3 basketball players (until they could compete in the NCAA tournament). But even I was stunned when officials confiscated the confidential therapy records of the players� accuser, in hopes of finding leverage against an expected lawsuit.
Joshua Hunt’s “University of Nike� helped me to better understand how those outrages were tied to the Nike-backed privatization of this ostensibly public university. Also, how corporate cash has infected universities across the country, and how corporate conflicts could compromise future research at the UO’s Knight Campus for Accelerating Science Impact.
I’m aware that Hunt’s book has generated a good deal of backlash, especially around his reporting surrounding Knight’s financial support of the Fanconi Anemia Research Fund, established by UO President Dave Frohnmayer and wife Lynn on behalf of their 3 daughters, who all had the rare genetic disorder.
I’m not sure how to assess those criticisms. I know that Hunt spent 4 years researching this book, that the endnotes documenting his research exceed 40 pages, and that his historical contextualization and connect-the-dots assertions generally ring true to me. Several sloppy typos did concern me, casting some doubt about his larger conclusions.
Mostly, I found this book affirming � of my own dismay about the university’s institutional arrogance. I’m glad that some of its shenanigans are getting wider circulation.
I invite those who see the UO in a better light to give this book a chance � commit to the first 50 pages, at least � before rendering judgment.

"