BOR aside, you're only getting one side of the argument because only one side is stooping to spewing out venemous e-mails to their entire constituency calling out the others supposed faults.
I can think of a few reasons why we might only get one version of the events described in the BAA timeline:
1. The BAA version is truthful and therefore cannot be rebutted.
2. If there is an "other side" of the story, it does not put the BOR in a positive light.
3. The BOR is secretive and totally unaccountable to anyone and therefore never, ever feels compelled to explain its actions to anyone.
What you call "spewing out venemous emails," some call telling the truth about factual events. They either happened or they didn't. Do you have facts that dispute the BAA's timeline? If so, put them out there.
What you call "spewing out venemous emails," some call telling the truth about factual events. They either happened or they didn't. Do you have facts that dispute the BAA's timeline? If so, put them out there.
I'm not taking either side or stating that what was said is or isn't factual, it's the way it was presented. The question I want to pose is this, how is it in the best interest of Baylor for this "factual" information to be distributed in the manner in which it was to Baylor alumni?
Ultimately, the BAA has to make a decision one way or another about this proposal. The way the information is being presented about it seems like a discussion between mom and dad where one of them is chirping on the side to the kids to get them to take their side. That's my biggest problem with the issue. I feel like the BAA is dividing the alumni on the issue by trying to get them to take sides.
Roy... You think Baylor will ever learn that their biggest problem is that they affiliated with the Baptist?
Oh no you don't Bear. You ain't dragging me into that one.
I will say that considering the guy that started the joint and the guy it's named after and most presidents since then have been Baptist ministers, no one should be surprised at our affiliation.
I will say that I'm okay with it. I'll leave the question of whether the Baptist denomination has evolved with it's adherents for another thread, possibly on the R&P board.
R.E.B. Baylor
District Judge and member of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas; Teacher of Law at Baylor.
Judge R.E.B. Baylor, for whom Baylor University is named, served as one of the first faculty members at the School of Law when it opened in 1857. He continued to teach classes until his death in 1873.
Baylor was born and educated in Kentucky. He read law under his uncle, Jesse Bledsoe, a congressman from Kentucky. Baylor served in the War of 1812, and later moved to Alabama, where he served in the Alabama Legislature.
In 1829, he served in the United States Congress representing the Tuscaloosa District. Failing to be reelected to Congress, he returned to the private practice of law.
He was converted in 1839 by the preaching of his cousin, Rev. Thomas Chilton, and soon became an ordained Baptist minister. In 1839, he moved to Texas, were he taught school. He became at once active in denominational and civil affairs and participated in the organization of the Union Baptist Association. He was later appointed by the Congress of the Republic of Texas as a District Judge, and later as a Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas. He was a member of the Constitutional Convention that met in Austin in 1845 to frame the Constitution of the State of Texas.
He was one of the original trustees and throughout his long life one of the most active supporters of Baylor University.
Then how many universities have a BOR that is self-perpetuating and without oversight?
I will assume by your defensive respones that we are in the minority on independant AAs. You assumed intent in my question. I am a go my own way kind of guy, and I don't really care who has an independant AA and who doesn't. I just wanted to know if we were bucking the trend or not.
I am looking at this issue from the "how will it affect me" standpoint. I can't think of anything the BAA has done for me other than send me the Baylor Line and make my family a "First Family." I like both of those things, but in the grand scheme of my life, it is not a high priority. The BOR has done more to affect me personally (although somewhat indirectly) by making campus improvements. I have no friends at the BAA. I have no friends on the BOR. What I do not understand is how the University absorbing the BAA will cause a black hole in Waco from which nothing can survive.
I always laugh when people say, "if this happens, I know 100 donors that will never give another dime to the University." No one really steps up and says, "I will not give another dime." It is always someone elses money people are talking about. I seriously doubt that BU absorbing the BAA will result in the financial destruction of the University, and if it does, BU wasn't strong enough to survive anyway.
I know emotions run high on issues such as these, and I encourage everyone to passionatley fight for what you think is right. I just hope that what ever becomes of the BAA, my lifetime dues will transfer.
I will assume by your defensive respones that we are in the minority on independant AAs. You assumed intent in my question. I am a go my own way kind of guy, and I don't really care who has an independant AA and who doesn't. I just wanted to know if we were bucking the trend or not.
I am looking at this issue from the "how will it affect me" standpoint. I can't think of anything the BAA has done for me other than send me the Baylor Line and make my family a "First Family." I like both of those things, but in the grand scheme of my life, it is not a high priority. The BOR has done more to affect me personally (although somewhat indirectly) by making campus improvements. I have no friends at the BAA. I have no friends on the BOR. What I do not understand is how the University absorbing the BAA will cause a black hole in Waco from which nothing can survive.
I always laugh when people say, "if this happens, I know 100 donors that will never give another dime to the University." No one really steps up and says, "I will not give another dime." It is always someone elses money people are talking about. I seriously doubt that BU absorbing the BAA will result in the financial destruction of the University, and if it does, BU wasn't strong enough to survive anyway.
I know emotions run high on issues such as these, and I encourage everyone to passionatley fight for what you think is right. I just hope that what ever becomes of the BAA, my lifetime dues will transfer.
I assume we are in the minority in terms of having an independent alumni association, and likewise assume we are bucking the trend. Have been for a long time now. My apologies for that reading defensive; I have just heard the comparison comment so much when it has really little to do with the effectiveness of such an organization. The devil in the details mind of mine would like to see proposals from both sides, in detail, how all this could work for everyone's benefit, especially Baylor's. That will come with discussions, hopefully and would include such items as your lifetime membership.
I envision too many problems for either polar opposite, and have heard or read too little about possibilities in the middle. Rather than agree to disagree, like silly Baptist preachers, I'd like for us to agree to agree, knowing full well there will be some issues on which we will not agree and will all have to live with.
Then how many universities have a BOR that is self-perpetuating and without oversight?
Brigham Young University is the property of the LDS Church. Its administration answers to LDS Church authorities. Some Roman Catholic universities answer to their local bishops; some to a Holy Order that operates them; all in some fashion, directly or indirectly, to the Vatican.
Other than those, I can't think of a private university-- granted that I am only familiar with a few and am no expert on university governance-- that does NOT have an independent, self-perpetuating "board of directors" (whatever it may be called).
The Texas Secretary of State is responsible for policing not-for-profits for possible abuse, and of course IRS effectively does, too. Many if not most private universities have boards that ARE self-perpetuating, and ARE NOT accountable except to their consciences in the absence of astounding misbehavior such as looting the charity's funds (or operating a for-profit under the guise of a not-for-profit, in which case the tax man may get involved).
Of course Texas state schools are ultimately answerable to Governor Perry.
I'm not taking either side or stating that what was said is or isn't factual, it's the way it was presented. The question I want to pose is this, how is it in the best interest of Baylor for this "factual" information to be distributed in the manner in which it was to Baylor alumni?
Ultimately, the BAA has to make a decision one way or another about this proposal. The way the information is being presented about it seems like a discussion between mom and dad where one of them is chirping on the side to the kids to get them to take their side. That's my biggest problem with the issue. I feel like the BAA is dividing the alumni on the issue by trying to get them to take sides.
I respect your opinion about this. But I disagree. In my opinion, your analogy about "getting the kids on their side" reflects the fundamentally different approaches of the BOR and BAA.
The BOR is an almost entirely self-perpetuating body. It is accountable to nobody. It takes great pride in the secrecy of its deliberations and decisions. It tends to view the other constituencies of Baylor (alumni, faculty, staff, students) as the "kids" who don't get a say and don't need to be informed of what's going on with its governance of the university we all love and in which those of us with degrees have much at stake.
The BAA on the other hand views its role precisely as the University used to view it and as is specifically defined in the current license agreement between the University and the BAA: as a "voice" of Baylor alumni with a responsibility to inform Baylor alumni and a right to express views even though they may be contrary to those of the current administration or the current BOR.
The BAA believes it would be shirking its fiduciary duty to its membership by not putting into the proper historical context the BOR's provacative "offer" to undo the license agreement and eliminate the BAA as an independent voice. The BAA doesn't think of the alumni base as "kids" who don't need to be dragged into Mommy and Daddy's fight. It views them as a constituency BAA has a duty to keep informed. I wish the BOR felt the same way.
Last edited by Fletch F. Fletch : 09-24-2009 at 03:25 PM.
I'm not taking either side or stating that what was said is or isn't factual, it's the way it was presented. The question I want to pose is this, how is it in the best interest of Baylor for this "factual" information to be distributed in the manner in which it was to Baylor alumni?
Ultimately, the BAA has to make a decision one way or another about this proposal. The way the information is being presented about it seems like a discussion between mom and dad where one of them is chirping on the side to the kids to get them to take their side. That's my biggest problem with the issue. I feel like the BAA is dividing the alumni on the issue by trying to get them to take sides.
Yes, why use email when you own a newspaper? Seriously, if your take on this is that the BOR is handling this in an adult manner while the BAA is being shrill and childish, then you really need to learn how to read between the lines.
First, the proposal itself is nothing short of insulting to the BAA. It is not fair or generous or anything other than a demand to dissolve, give us all your assets, and we'll throw you a few crumbs. Being someone who frequently has to try to communicate unpleasant messages in a friendly manner, I can say that this proposal almost looks like the BOR was being deliberately insulting.
Second, have you read the fluff pieces in the Trib? Which, oddly enough, was purchased by a major supporter of the key regents a few months ago. Veiled (and not so veiled) insults by regents and the interim president, mischaracterizations of BAA actions, and a very one-sided analysis of the source of the conflict. Frankly, I have yet to hear a credible explanation of exactly what the BAA has done that caused conflict, other than reporting factually on issues facing Baylor.
Third, there is a very clear pattern here, and it is driven by BOR--not BAA--actions. It is clear that the BOR/administration wishes that the BAA were no longer the official alumni organization, and it has been taking steps for the last several years to undermine the BAA. However, it is also quite clear that communication between the BOR and BAA has been minimal. How is that possible if the BOR is upset about the way that the BAA has been run? Isn't discussing your problems with your brother the Christian way of resolving conflict? If the BAA truly has been making overtures for greater communication which the BOR has rebuffed, the BOR is in no position to claim that they are making this proposal because they don't like the way that the BAA has been run.
Fourth, unfortunately, the other clear pattern is that the BOR is setting up grounds to claim a breach by the BAA of the license agreement. If the BAA refuses to accept this ridiculous deal, the only way that the BOR can have an official alumni association completely under the Board's control is to terminate the perpetual license granted to the BAA. If they choose to go this route, my guess would be a claim of default and a "termination for cause." That could put the BAA in the unenviable position of being forced to sue Baylor to enforce its right to use the Baylor name. That could be a PR nightmare for the BAA, regardless of who is right or wrong. Setting out this timeline now is basically just a way of letting interested alumni know of this chain of events now, rather than after the BOR tries to terminate the license agreement. It is icky, but if they wait until after Baylor claims they are in breach, the likelihood of the BAA's side of the story being perceived as an accurate description of events by less interested alumni drops.
In short, the BOR has demonstrated a lack of good faith over the last several years, and the response by the BAA frankly looks like a fairly desparate attempt to get a head start on the PR battle that is looking to be on the near horizon.
Malcolm B. Yarnell, III, Ph.D., dean of faculty and associate professor of historical theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that: "Self-perpetuating trustee boards violate historic Baptist principles."
Someone mentioned that West Texas A&M just made a switch like this with their alumni association, and y'know, if that works for them, fantastic. If their alumni base is happy with that, great for them. Problem is, we're not West Texas A&M, and it's glaringly obvious to me that a LOT of alumni here would NOT be happy with Baylor taking over the alumni association. At all. Baylor needs to do what's best for Baylor.
FormerFlash, if you want an example of parents dragging their kids to the fight, check out what the administration (via Kevin Jackson/Student Life) sent to the students about this whole debacle: http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=175932
I find the fact that the administration would go out of their way to try and drag the student body into this to be completely slimy, especially when they really only present us with one side of the story (because most people who read their e-mail won't click through to the links explaining the BAA's side of things). I can't ever recall getting such a propaganda-y e-mail like that asking for my support of any of the other decisions they've made, even during the last year of Bobby Sloan. Ever. This is the first of its kind, IIRC, and I hope it's the last.
Most of the people I knew who've mentioned Jackson's e-mail were highly offended at how they've underestimated us as students. If we weren't capable of thinking critically and making informed opinions of our own, we wouldn't be in college in the first place. To only present us with one side of the story like that in an argument most students don't follow and tell us that "future alums of Baylor University will benefit greatly" from this move--that's dishonest. Let us examine the evidence for ourselves and decide whether it will benefit us or not. After having given everything a solid look, I'm convinced that it won't, and I don't appreciate some administrator who just got here telling me that I should support a proposal that completely screws over a 150-year-old organization.
That ridiculous e-mail is a blatant attempt to use the student body when we're not political pawns in the administration's game--we're a diverse, intelligent group who deserves to know (among other things) why the administration has spent a lot of money duplicating the BAA's services in recent years, why they made a sudden flip-flop in policy from "the BAA's independence is key" to "the BAA should join the university" and, well, the nature of the alumni association itself: what it's chartered to do, how it works, etc., etc. Not to underestimate any other students myself, but many of us simply don't pay attention to the BAA yet because we're too busy trying to do the student thing first.
It looks like the BAA e-mail to its members happened after we received our e-mail from Jackson. I know I forwarded the student life e-mail on to the BAA after I received it, and I'm sure others may have done the same as well. A LOT of the people I know were unhappy with the administration's attempt to drag us onto their side of this. I don't blame the alumni association for sounding defensive. Even Student Senate complained that there was a "PR blitz" being put on by the administration. If you were being labelled ineffective, bad for the school, and all kinds of other nonsense in various media sources after not having really done anything to merit such comments, wouldn't you be defensive, too?
Last edited by vikingtheo : 09-25-2009 at 05:57 PM.
Someone mentioned that West Texas A&M just made a switch like this with their alumni association, and y'know, if that works for them, fantastic. If their alumni base is happy with that, great for them. Problem is, we're not West Texas A&M, and it's glaringly obvious to me that a LOT of alumni here would NOT be happy with Baylor taking over the alumni association. At all. Baylor needs to do what's best for Baylor.
FormerFlash, if you want an example of parents dragging their kids to the fight, check out what the administration (via Kevin Jackson/Student Life) sent to the students about this whole debacle: http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=175932
I find the fact that the administration would go out of their way to try and drag the student body into this to be completely slimy, especially when they really only present us with one side of the story (because most people who read their e-mail won't click through to the links explaining the BAA's side of things). I can't ever recall getting such a propaganda-y e-mail like that asking for my support of any of the other decisions they've made, even during the last year of Bobby Sloan. Ever. This is the first of its kind, IIRC, and I hope it's the last.
Most of the people I knew who've mentioned Jackson's e-mail were highly offended at how they've underestimated us as students. If we weren't capable of thinking critically and making informed opinions of our own, we wouldn't be in college in the first place. To only present us with one side of the story like that in an argument most students don't follow and tell us that "future alums of Baylor University will benefit greatly" from this move--that's dishonest. Let us examine the evidence for ourselves and decide whether it will benefit us or not. After having given everything a solid look, I'm convinced that it won't, and I don't appreciate some administrator who just got here telling me that I should support a proposal that completely screws over a 150-year-old organization.
That ridiculous e-mail is a blatant attempt to use the student body when we're not political pawns in the administration's game--we're a diverse, intelligent group who deserves to know (among other things) why the administration has spent a lot of money duplicating the BAA's services in recent years, why they made a sudden flip-flop in policy from "the BAA's independence is key" to "the BAA should join the university" and, well, the nature of the alumni association itself: what it's chartered to do, how it works, etc., etc. Not to underestimate any other students myself, but many of us simply don't pay attention to the BAA yet because we're too busy trying to do the student thing first.
It looks like the BAA e-mail to its members happened after we received our e-mail from Jackson. I know I forwarded the student life e-mail on to the BAA after I received it, and I'm sure others may have done the same as well. A LOT of the people I know were unhappy with the administration's attempt to drag us onto their side of this. I don't blame the alumni association for sounding defensive. Even Student Senate complained that there was a "PR blitz" being put on by the administration. If you were being labelled ineffective, bad for the school, and all kinds of other nonsense in various media sources after not having really done anything to merit such comments, wouldn't you be defensive, too?
Solid post! Thanks for sharing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsicanaBear
Given the other challenges we face the infighting needs to stop somehow, someway soon. But if I were BAA President I wouldn't subscribe to an unjust peace for the sake of peace.
You know what, you are probably right, it probably is about control. Now someone said earlier that the BAA is definatly not without it's faults and I think everyone agrees there. If those faults haven't been fixed over a few years, wouldn't you want control? If someone isn't doing their job, wouldn't you want to let them go? When they are supposed to be representing Baylor and the university doesn't believe they are representing them in a true light wouldn't you want the ability to fix that problem? I know I would. Go read the article on bayloralumniassociation.com about last Saturday. HOW SLANTED WAS THAT WRITTEN? My goodness, if that is how everything is written over there, they should be under the university so that negative shadows arent cast like that.
And to make you happy, West Texas A&M University just went through this process within the last year. They have uinversity financial support they didn't have, manpower they didn't have as well as input on the publications so their voice is heard.
(temporary) END OF PONTIFICATION
EVERYONE DOES NOT AGREE THERE. I could FAR more easily claim that EVERYONE agrees the BOR is completely full of crap. By your logic then, shouldn't we control THEM?
Let's see...you joined BFans this month and have seven posts...all on this topic. Thanks for your input BORfan.
Oh-and thanks for making me happy...by the way, you and West Texas aggy can KMA! SERIOUSLY????!!! Stifled laughter.
And to make you happy, I haven't read anything on bayloralumniassociation.com (never been to the website in fact) so save your strawman - i'm simply looking at the actions of the two sides. One acts publicly and transparently and the other sends messages to our students attempting to drag them into the sludge. I wasn't even aware of that sickness until I read this thread.
Again, your seven slanted posts on this topic are duly noted. What's your take on Griffin's role in the offense this week? Right.
I'm not taking either side or stating that what was said is or isn't factual, it's the way it was presented. The question I want to pose is this, how is it in the best interest of Baylor for this "factual" information to be distributed in the manner in which it was to Baylor alumni?
Ultimately, the BAA has to make a decision one way or another about this proposal. The way the information is being presented about it seems like a discussion between mom and dad where one of them is chirping on the side to the kids to get them to take their side. That's my biggest problem with the issue. I feel like the BAA is dividing the alumni on the issue by trying to get them to take sides.
The BOR choose to make the offer public. In making it public they choose to air the view that the BAA was working against Baylor's interests. The BOR used their new house paper, the Trib, to reinforce that argument. The administration pressed the argument to the student body which is pretty odd. In discussing the proposalthe administration again tried to lay the blame on the BAA again, with the "black eye" comment.
Under the circumstances (the BOR and the administration pressing a full scale PR campaign) I am sure if the timeline was inaccurate we would hear about it immediately. Assuming, it is true, the contents of the timeline show a BOR that is unbelievably petty and power hungry. So I have a very hard time seeing the BAA as the divisive force in all of this.
Reputation Points: 569
