In response to the university’s defunding of the men’s golf team, alumni and other donors have raised enough money to fund the program into the near future. The goal of the initiative is to raise enough money to endow the program, donating such a significant sum that the interest from those funds can finance the program indefinitely.
While beneficial for the team’s members, coaches, and personnel, the continued existence of the men’s golf program does not diminish the significance of the Board of Trustees’ decision to eliminate funding for the team. In essence, the administration decided to eliminate an entire program. These painful cuts serve as an example of the kind of difficult decisions the university may be forced to make in the future. Moreover, these cuts are necessary to reduce Furman’s deficit without onerously increasing costs for all students. In the future, these eliminated programs may not be externally funded like the golf team. Nearly all programs are already facing cuts across the board, and no program is entirely safe.
The decision to eliminate the golf team was met with outrage, disbelief, and concern. How could the university do this? What about the students and employees directly affected, forced to pursue their interests and careers at other universities? Why would Furman eliminate this program instead of others? What about the new football stadium or lacrosse teams and the new funding they received through donations? Shouldn’t existing programs or programs in danger of being cut have priority over new programs or programs requesting additional funding? Although the announcement that the golf team would continue next year serves to alleviate some of these worries, we should not refrain from asking these questions, or act as though the defunding of the men’s golf program was an isolated problem that has now been solved. Although this situation may no longer qualify as news for the golf community or outside media, the trustees’ decision to defund the men’s golf program is still symptomatic of the university’s larger budgetary problems. Celebration or a sense of relief should not eclipse the ongoing seriousness of Furman’s financial situation, and it should not stop us from facing these kinds of issues head on.
Finally, the existence of the movement to save the men’s golf program offers one example of the complex relationship between Furman’s donors and the institution itself, a relationship that will only become more important in coming years as Furman continues to weather financial hardship. Donors often contribute to specific projects and for specific purposes, a reality that can leave some areas of the university’s budget underserved while other areas and programs receive more than adequate funding. This is why the University Center — now the Trone Student Center — one of the newest buildings on campus, was renovated before other older buildings. The circumstances surrounding the defunding of the men’s golf team highlight the need for open lines of communication between donors and the university’s administration. The administration should openly and publicly communicate Furman’s financial needs, and external donors must take the initiative to meet those needs instead of simply funding popular or high-visibility projects.