Jaqua Center creates stir on Oregon campus
EUGENE — The John E. Jaqua Center for Student-Athletes, a new addition to the University of Oregon’s campus, has sparked quite the controversy among students on campus.
“I’d like to throw a brick through the glass and watch it shatter,” said one University of Oregon student, who chose to remain anonymous.
The controversy seems to stem from the Jaqua Center’s restriction concerning students who are not athletes; the top two floors of the building are reserved specifically for the 515 student athletes who attend UO.
“I understand that student-athletes have a heavy workload. I can’t even imagine, but they kept our dorms awake building it, they took our sleep and our money and we can’t even use it,” said UO student Elaine Canavor. “It takes me 20 minutes to walk to somewhere I can study when the Jaqua Center is just across the street.”
Tyler Gramson, a UO senior, expressed similar disdain for the building’s restriction.
“As a senior, who has spent over $60,000 at this university, I am not happy about the restriction, to say the least,” he said.
The beautiful and modern Jaqua Center features a plush, night club-esque interior, complete with open air gas fireplaces and modern yellow leather chairs. There is a room lined with bronze statues commissioned by a Spanish artist whose work is displayed at the Olympic Museum in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Not all of the non-athlete students see the Jaqua Center in a negative light.
“I feel like athletics bring a lot of pride to the UO, we’re well-known in the U.S. for our sports teams,” UO sophomore Paige Landsem said. “Besides, the new building has provided jobs to students who otherwise would be unemployed; my roommate just got a job there. Overall, I really don’t care about the restrictions on the building.”
And how do student-athletes feel about the controversy that has shrouded the Jaqua Center?
“The athletes need a place that has a learning environment, which the last building didn’t, and the Jaqua Center provides that. The last building didn’t even have a bathroom,” said one UO student-athlete, who preferred to remain anonymous.
“But I also believe that non-athlete students deserve a place like this just as much as we do.”
Related posts:
4 Comments
Leave a Reply
Serious inquiry – is the U of O the only campus with a student-athlete-only, restricted-access facility in the PAC-10? Nation?
If there are other such facilities on other campuses, do the student bodies, as a whole, exhibit as much jealousy as those on the Eugene campus?
If the general population has access to the 1st floor, isn’t that more study room than they had before the building was erected? Can the old “athlete-only” study area be transformed to benefit the general student population?
I was under the impression that the facility was paid for by private funding. If student fees were used to defray some of the cost, then there might be an issue here – but if not, then students need to give it (the argument against) a rest.
Now there’s talk of an expansion of the Casanova Center to accommodate new football offices and a football-only treatment area. Hard to swallow when tuition costs continue to mount, classrooms and dorms are crumbling and too many classes are being taught by GTF’s.
I’m a proud supporter of the football program and thankful to have benefactors like Phil Knight and Pat Kilkenny. But enough is enough.
Food for thought:
This building was privately funded. Completely. Period.
The NCAA REQUIRES the university to have a student-athlete ONLY study area. The university MUST provide a tutor service as well.
Football and other athletic programs bring money, prestige, and increasing enrollment to the university. Imagine Eugene’s identity without Oregon football. Imagine “Track Town” without track & field.
OSU takes more money for their athletic department from the state of Oregon than the U of O.
The SEC spends more money on athletics than any other conference in the nation. Vanderbilt, the SEC’s Washington State, makes and spends millions more than the university of Texas, mainly because of billion dollar TV deals and multiple BCS births.
The funding and complicated parking issues relating to this building are examined in detail at the blog called uomatters. Some of the funds for the building were private but the building is on PUBLIC land (public land that should have been used for a large UO dorm). UO undermines public support for all Oregon universities with these divisive sports projects.