Baylor Reportedly Fires University President Kenneth Starr [UPDATE: Hold the phone...]
EDIT: Looks like the reports may not have been totally accurate, though the regents weren't all that emphatic in refuting them: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/05/24/kenneth-starr-ousted-as-baylor-prez.html
The news is probably just premature. I doubt Starr survives this, since Baylor doesn't consider him integral to their goal of winning the Big 12, no matter what the cost. But I'm sure they have a perfectly good explanation for why Briles doesn't deserve any of the blame. /s
True, perhaps, but it's the sanctimonious hypocritical ones that get my dander up.
Sanctimonious, hypocritical people of any stripe do that to me too!
To say you are running a baptist university while sweeping rape allegations under the rug to protect football players is truly amazing in its hypocrisy and blindness
They certainly weren't as prim and proper about criminal behavior of football players as they were about the moral crime of dancing, which was banned for 151 years until the regents finally relented in... 1996.
NYT Blurb: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/19/us/after-151-years-dance-ban-ends-at-baylor.html
Baylor's president, Robert Sloan Jr., decided in February to lift the ban on dancing, which is still considered morally harmful by some strict Baptists. But he warned students against being "obscene or provocative." No pelvic gyrations; no excessive closeness; no "Dirty Dancing."
Baylor. You won't have the time of your life.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
You know, that hits pretty close to the core of the problem there. There's a total disconnect between the student body and a good chunk of the staff (the ones that are in direct contact with the students anyway, and generally the younger crowd) and the younger alums, as opposed to the people that run the place. The former group is surprisingly sane. The latter group, the people in charge, can't quite wrap their heads around the fact that umarried students at the school are having sex.
Which makes them completely incompetent to deal with issues involving consent. That whole vast area between violent assault by a total stranger and what married people do is a mystery to them.
Because it's the right thing to do? Because you care more about the safety of your students than winning football games?
football games, then your solution is perfect. But let's give Baylor a little credit here. I'm sure there are plenty of people there who place a high value on the integrity and reputation of their school. They can't be happy about sacrificing that to win games.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I suspect they only deal with the top position and leave all the rest of the hiring decisions to the President and department heads. It's quite possible they hire a new president with the stipulation that they clean house.
I did find this interesting tidbit about their board,
Regents are selected by election, with 75% of the membership elected by the Regents themselves
I assume that's typical of private enterprises in general, but it sure looks funny in print. I want a pay raise. I will elect to give myself a pay raise!
<smugness intensifies>
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
but Baylor's emphatic 'no comment' means he's a dead man walking. If they intended to keep him, they'd be spewing prepared lines about his value and leadership blah blah blah. He's not done now, but he will be by the end of the week
I suspect Starr is gone, but he and Baylor are working out some kind of financial agreement.
Of course nothing would be complete without a little Prevail & Ride...
http://prevailandride.blogspot.com/2016/05/baylor-has-rape-problem.html