If you remember, Boren was at the center of one of the situations where oil and gas interests were being accused of pressuring researchers to change their findings and Boren aides with the oil and gas companies as far as the public was concerned so he wasn’t the protector of integrity that you’re acting like he was.

And I agree with you. I am not offering Boren as a saint...far from it. However, it does point out the dangers. I was in favor of finding someone to lead OU that was a leader in academics and NOT associated with special interest groups and strong backwards politics.

And I agree with you. I am not offering Boren as a saint...far from it. However, it does point out the dangers. I was in favor of finding someone to lead OU that was a leader in academics and NOT associated with special interest groups and strong backwards politics.

The worst thing was the search committee was not transparent. We don't even know the other candidates.

I worked at the OU under Boren for a few years, the environment was toxic and incredibly political. I appreciate the moves Boren made to make the university a better place, but he perpetuated a separate set of issues. I don't agree with Gallogy's politics, but it is completely disingenuous to act like increasing research opportunities at the university does not improve the university a great deal. Gallogy's "agenda" as far as any of us are aware is to balance the books, improve private research partners, and generally improve OU's standing. Rover, we probably agree on quite a few things politically, but you need to remove the tinfoil hat.

Boren brought in too many people who had been too immersed in the political world which well-adjusted people should be able to understand how polarizing this could be... particularly when these people stood in such extreme contrast to the mainstream thoughts of a very strong majority in this state’s population, including the OU BOR and most of the states elected and business leadership and many OU employees.

Every OU employees I know that I have spoken with are happy that both Boren’s are now gone...This also includes people working at the OUHSC in significant supervisorial positions. Most feel Boren stayed on too long. For years they have all spoken about the wasteful practices at OU caused by the Borens.

They also talked about the toxic atmosphere where a many people grew biter. A biter working atmosphere is not an efficient or good work place (I expect more cuts at OU that will mostly come from the ranks of the toxic employees)

Not everyone I know understood this as soon as others... but they now understand how they and OU both suffered when Boren pissed off the states leadership class and by publicly embarrassing OU on several occasions...It’s looking like many more people are now realizing this^ and how damaging it was to OU.

People who depend of charts, grafts and statistics are well behind the reality and are often poorly informed.

The worst thing was the search committee was not transparent. We don't even know the other candidates.
Not knowing who the other candidates are and protecting their identity is a very common practice....
The pool of candid’s is reduced when they are made public....They don’t want to risk backlash against them at the current place of employment if they are not hired.


For example Boren and Joe C have long hired virtually all of their coaches in complete secrecy without complaints....By comparison the entire OU BOR (appointed by the governor) and others were involved in this hire.

PS: Boren was the king of special interest groups...he hired many people with his brand of political ideology. We see the results being corrected and put more in line with the rest of the state.

What brand of political ideology are you referring to and who are the people who shared it? What special interest groups are you talking about? The ones that he served on the board of directors?

PS: Boren was the king of special interest groups...he hired many people with his brand of political ideology. We see the results being corrected and put more in line with the rest of the state.

You're probably right. Boren did bring in a bunch of persons with special interest in inclusiveness, progressiveness, academics, global excellence, worldliness. And you are also right in that OU is being brought in line with the rest of the state... tea party rightists, lack of support for academic excellence, lack of support for cultural development, extreme pro oil and gas interests, etc. We should be right in our group of sub-standard states... Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana.

What brand of political ideology are you referring to and who are the people who shared it? What special interest groups are you talking about? The ones that he served on the board of directors?According to multiple sources a toxic atmosphere was not uncommon. People hated it when Molly showed up. In this atmosphere with no pay raises, benefit reductions, turf wars that never seemed to end... people grew biter some left for other jobs or retired. Unless you’re like Rick, living under a rock... it’s not hard to understand why. For many years this was tolerated by OU’s BOR and others who shared Boren’s thoughts. Some were going along to get along yes people and have been fired.

This is sad to see but not unexpected
This man has done very good things for OU and our state

https://twitter.com/SoonerScoop/status/1090737619263242241

University of Oklahoma business is officially underway. Chairman Clay Bennett has resigned from the Board of Regents due to health reasons.

The OU daily article about it:

Clay Bennett resigns as chair of OU Board of Regents due to health concerns (http://www.oudaily.com/news/clay-bennett-resigns-as-chair-of-ou-board-of-regents/article_dff9228a-24dd-11e9-8e82-237bae26fee5.html)

https://twitter.com/SoonerScoop/status/1090742334734635009

Regents Frank Keating, Natalie Shirley and Renzi Stone all publicly voice their support for President Gallogly moving forward. "We are family and there's no room for this kind of behavior. We will move forward and take this task on," Gallogly concluded.

Also
President James Gallogly is currently addressing the racist video and the reaction across campus. "We have to create a culture of equity, respect and safety on our campus.

Ryan Aber


@ryaber

OU President Jim Gallogly says undergraduate student fees will remain flat for next academic year. Says it's the first time in a decade they haven’t risen. #Sooners

According to multiple sources a toxic atmosphere was not uncommon. People hated it when Molly showed up. In this atmosphere with no pay raises, benefit reductions, turf wars that never seemed to end... people grew biter some left for other jobs or retired. Unless you’re like Rick, living under a rock... it’s not hard to understand why. For many years this was tolerated by OU’s BOR and others who shared Boren’s thoughts. Some were going along to get along yes people and have been fired.

Your reply failed to answer any of the questions I posed.

Nice...With this and OU's much improved recruiting and hiring better coaches Riley is going to be at OU for a very long time.

We do need to start seriously considering how we complete the very major stadium improvements to the west and north sides of the stadium.

https://twitter.com/GuerinEmig/status/1090752991123128322

If my math is right, here's what Lincoln Riley is getting over terms of new 5-yr deal:
2019 -- $6 million
2020 -- $6.15 mil
2021 -- $7.3 mil
2022 -- $7.45 mil
2023 -- $7.6 mil

Clay Bennet just resigned from the OU Board of Regents due to health reasons.

If you've seen recent photos of him, he looks very gaunt.

You should see him in person....the photos don’t do his situation justice. This shouldn’t be a shock
The man needs our thoughts and prayers

Clay Bennet just resigned from the OU Board of Regents due to health reasons.

If you've seen recent photos of him, he looks very gaunt.

I just Googled him. Crap, he looks like he's got one foot in the grave. That sucks.

https://twitter.com/CareyAMurdock/status/1090820091162357762

Was told earlier tonight that Clay Bennett didn't step down as the Chairman of the University of Oklahoma's Board of Regents because his health is degenerating. Just that he's battled issues and was comfortable stepping away now. So no need for panic that things are dire.

Also interesting note that OU sold 2.4 million dollars worth of land to the City of Norman on Hwy 77. I assume where the senior center is going to go for the city. I found it interesting that OU even owned that land over there.

Also interesting note that OU sold 2.4 million dollars worth of land to the City of Norman on Hwy 77. I assume where the senior center is going to go for the city. I found it interesting that OU even owned that land over there.

You’d be surprised where all universities own surface land and minerals. Not sure if the history on this parcel (probably a university purchase) but schools often get real property donations sometimes they are willed the properties and other times just outright donated.

The land is supposedly next to the YMCA. OU still owns a significant amount of land in the area near the airport.
The airport was used as a WWII training base. Once the Navy decided they no longer needed this base the land and buildings were donated to OU.
FYI: Clay Bennett has been battling cancer for the last several years.

This deal was supposed to happen last year when there were simultaneous discussions about a new arena to be built in the UNP area. After the failure of the arena deal OU quit talking about the land sale on North Base. Interesting coincidence that the same day Bennett resigned from the BoR for health reasons OU made the sale of North Base lands to the City of Norman.
https://www.normantranscript.com/news/university_of_oklahoma/bennett-resigns-from-ou-board-of-regents/article_f06d116d-7179-5f05-8b8f-2b61d0c00cc2.html

https://twitter.com/CareyAMurdock/status/1090820091162357762

Was told earlier tonight that Clay Bennett didn't step down as the Chairman of the University of Oklahoma's Board of Regents because his health is degenerating. Just that he's battled issues and was comfortable stepping away now. So no need for panic that things are dire.

That's an interesting spin.

That's an interesting spin.

I think it is health reasons. At least that is the quote from the new Chair.

https://twitter.com/jordanrmillerr/status/1090737815699292166

"Chairman Bennett has resigned from the board, effective immediately due to health reasons, acting chairman Leslie J. Rainbolt-Forbes says."

Bennett has a big scar on the side of his head, has lost most his hair and dropped a bunch of weight.

Having gone through this with a loved one, I'm all too familiar with the unmistakable signs of serious brain cancer.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/ou-regents-close-ranks-in-support-of-president-james-gallogly/article_d0373535-240d-51e1-b7f9-a911e1617f44.html
OKLAHOMA CITY —
Meeting at the OU Health Sciences Center, four of the five regents present took turns speaking in support of Gallogly.
The fifth regent, Phil Albert of Claremore, said afterward that he agreed with the others. “Don’t take my silence to be any less supportive of what the other regents said,” Albert said.
Gov. Kevin Stitt will appoint a replacement for Bennett.

^

It's the same exact group that selected him.

^
Yes it is and they all unanimously voted to make Gallogly OU president.

With this report from the media its confirmation of other post in recent days that had indicated the OU BOR was still supporting Gallogly.

You can bet your very last dollar that Governor Kevin Stitt appoints OU BOR members who are just as willing to support Gallogly or a person much like him for OU’s president over the next 8 years.

For at least a generation it will be the same basic situation with any republican governor who is elected in our state. This is in part due to the situation that Boren left OU in but also the dem’s swing to the very hard left... This makes it virtually impossible to see a Dem governor appointing regents in this state for a very long time.

IDK many details but the same basic situation is supposedly occurring in other states.

History is filled with incidences of lots of public support by superiors quickly followed by them dropping the ax.

Not saying that is going to happen here, but when a group feels compelled to restate their support for someone they just hired few would regard that as a positive.

History is filled with incidences of lots of public support by superiors quickly followed by them dropping the ax.

Not saying that is going to happen here, but when a group feels compelled to restate their support for someone they just hired few would regard that as a positive.
This BOR is in lock-step politically and Gallogly is of the same ilk. Diversity of opinion is not in their vocabulary.

History is filled with incidences of lots of public support by superiors quickly followed by them dropping the ax.

Not saying that is going to happen here, but when a group feels compelled to restate their support for someone they just hired few would regard that as a positive.
The show of support the OU BOR is very genuine. It would be a mistake to think that it’s anything else, or that it changes. They and others of note have been reaffirming their support in other settings.

By one report OU leaders are learning things they did not know about OU almost every day that had been hidden from them either by design or by incompetence under Boren.

The BOR, much of OU business community and a significant percentage of the states elected leadership knows that OU stands at a cross roads but they also know that OU has a very real opportunity to advance its self securely into the AAU... if OU will continue on the present path with the needed changes and take full advantage of all opportunities that advance OU.

One of those opportunities is the Oklahoma’s Simpson Group that’s magnitude is just now starting to be understood... (There are also similar out of state opportunities that can benefit OU interest)

The leadership knows there is nobody in the world who is better qualified to find benefits for OU in this huge (dollar) opportunity than Jim Gallogly. This is a transformative historical opportunity for OU and our state... if we handle our resources efficiently. OU and our state cannot reach its full potential by wasting resources that have very low rates of return to OU and the state.

OU leadership at virtually every level will not let a very small number of loud Gallogly critics who they know are almost entirely coming from the extreme left, mostly driven by ideology, instead of what is best for OU block the changes, the goals and opportunities that can help make OU a truly great university.

Many OU people did not like how Boren handled several issues and programs at OU. Until his last few years most people were not that critical. I don’t believe anyone wanted to see Boren fail like we see a small number of people (in the grand scheme of things) so invested in wanting to see Gallogly fail.

As L. Rainbolt Forbes (a democrat) said it's time to move on... IMHO as an OU person you’re either on board with the goal that makes OU one of the best public universities in the nation... or you are not! There is no in-between!

As Bob Stoops indicated many times there is a season, time and place for everything...This is the time and place for the abilities of Jim Gallogly...In another 5 to 7 years OU will be in a much stronger position and Gallogly will likely be ready to see the job of OU’s president handed to someone else.

LOL. Soonerheart = Sarah Sanders.

Next to come ... God wanted Gallogly at OU

This BOR is in lock-step politically and Gallogly is of the same ilk. Diversity of opinion is not in their vocabulary.

As I said above, I think Boren pissed some people off and Gallogly was hired to come in and be a hatchetman. I think there's a lot of anger over how ultra-liberal a lot of other universities have become, and Boren was seen as sympathetic to those positions.

Now maybe Gallogly's "bull in a china shop" approach is exactly what they wanted, but I don't think it's in OU's best interest as an institution.

As I said above, I think Boren pissed some people off and Gallogly was hired to come in and be a hatchetman. I think there's a lot of anger over how ultra-liberal a lot of other universities have become, and Boren was seen as sympathetic to those positions.

Now maybe Gallogly's "bull in a china shop" approach is exactly what they wanted, but I don't think it's in OU's best interest as an institution.

Wasn't Boren more of a blue dog Democrat?

Could you provide some examples of other universities becoming "ultra-liberal" or taking a "very hard slant to the extreme political left?"

What "extreme leftist policies" were Boren sympathetic to? Did he advocate for no tuition and free housing for everyone on campus or something similar?

Wasn't Boren more of a blue dog Democrat?

Could you provide some examples of other universities becoming "ultra-liberal" or taking a "very hard slant to the extreme political left?"

What "extreme leftist policies" were Boren sympathetic to? Did he advocate for no tuition and free housing for everyone on campus or something similar?

A real wild eyed lefty while in the Senate
https://newsok.com/article/2215425/boren-tops-list-as-conservative

Wasn't Boren more of a blue dog Democrat?

Could you provide some examples of other universities becoming "ultra-liberal" or taking a "very hard slant to the extreme political left?"

What "extreme leftist policies" were Boren sympathetic to? Did he advocate for no tuition and free housing for everyone on campus or something similar?

He was definitely a southern Democrat and voted for things, like tax cuts and SCOTUS nominee Robert Bork, that would have excommunicated him from the party today.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what he was. I’m talking about how he was perceived.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what he was. I’m talking about how he was perceived.

By "ultra conservatives" who see a centrist as "ultra liberal"? You can't just ignore evidence and make up your own perception.

As I said above, I think Boren pissed some people off and Gallogly was hired to come in and be a hatchetman. I think there's a lot of anger over how ultra-liberal a lot of other universities have become, and Boren was seen as sympathetic to those positions.

Now maybe Gallogly's "bull in a china shop" approach is exactly what they wanted, but I don't think it's in OU's best interest as an institution.
In all fairness Boren strongly advocated for higher state funding for education. In this state that IS a radical leftist agenda, I guess. Some legislators were embarrassed when his public efforts to do that made them appear as backward as they are.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what he was. I’m talking about how he was perceived.
And that’s a big part of the problem... people are generally too lazy to find the truth about who someone actually is and what they stand for. And with leadership trying hard to debunk truth (call everything fake news) it let’s opinion triumph over truth. That doesn’t help the good guys, just provides cover for the bad guys.

By "ultra conservatives" who see a centrist as "ultra liberal"? You can't just ignore evidence and make up your own perception.

No, I'm correct here. Boren angered somebody, or Gallogly wouldn't have been able to come in and act like he has. Now I like Boren. I've said so in this very thread. I think he was a great president for OU. So why does it seem that the new president of the university is intent on trashing his legacy?

Boren pretty clearly wore out his welcome with the movers and shakers in Oklahoma. You can call them ultraconservatives if you want, it doesn't matter. I'm a moderate conservative, and the last few years, I've been horrified at the "safe space/microaggression/trigger warning" culture that appears to have taken root at many of our national universities. Now OU has always been more politically conservative than the average, and I bet it's still that way (a lot of rich Edmond Republicans send their rich Edmond Republican kids there). But Boren was seen as sympathetic to what was going on at those other schools, at least to the people who hired his replacement.

And that’s a big part of the problem... people are generally too lazy to find the truth about who someone actually is and what they stand for. And with leadership trying hard to debunk truth (call everything fake news) it let’s opinion triumph over truth. That doesn’t help the good guys, just provides cover for the bad guys.

I'm just explaining what happened and why.

I'm just explaining what happened and why.
Not calling you out, just saying “people”.
By the way, people who think this is just will of the people need to research more into R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and the Koch Brothers long term funding and recruitment for this exact kind of move.

I've been horrified at the "safe space/microaggression/trigger warning" culture that appears to have taken root at many of our national universities.

BTW, most people that are mad at this stuff honestly haven't taken much time to understand it.

For example, trigger warnings are often aimed at military veterans or rape survivors with PTSD because reviving those experiences during class can impede their short-term ability to participate and learn. Are you really against providing students with traumatic experiences a choice of how they want to approach those situations?

Microaggressions basically provide reminders to faculty not to stereotype students. For example, I was at an event recently where a faculty member asked every person at the table to tell us about their research interests, but when he got to two Chinese faculty he changed the question to, how did you learn English? His intent wasn't harmful, but his question was insulting to those faculty and made them feel like outsiders within the group. While it should be common sense just to ask them the same question as every other person, understanding microaggressions can help people re-think their stereotypes when talking with people different from them. Is that really that bad of a thing?

Finally, I've worked at three universities for 8 years and I've never heard anyone ever mention safe spaces on campus. However, it also just does't bother me for students to have somewhere to go on campus where, for example, if they're facing serious trauma, where they could receive support. I don't honestly know if my campus has a 'safe space,' but I just don't understand the idea of people being mad about it. Most often, the complaint that students are pampered or sheltered, and that is an uninformed stance. Most of my students have faced more crap than I can imagine in their lives. This generation is tough and we've built an entire system of loans and raising tuition that stacks the odds against them unlike previous generations. Yet, they persevere. I always tell people that this generation of college students constantly impresses me.

Again, conservative media has created these narratives about college campuses being these terrible places where students don't have free speech or hear different perspectives. This take is so far off from my experiences on campuses where there are wide varieties of professors and speakers with competing views every single day. My colleagues and I are all over the political spectrum and we all get along well. In practice and with explanation, a lot of these vilified practices are practical.

BTW, most people that are mad at this stuff honestly haven't taken much time to understand it.

For example, trigger warnings are often aimed at military veterans or rape survivors with PTSD because reviving those experiences during class can impede their short-term ability to participate and learn. Are you really against providing students with traumatic experiences a choice of how they want to approach those situations?

Microaggressions basically provide reminders to faculty not to stereotype students. For example, I was at an event recently where a faculty member asked every person at the table to tell us about their research interests, but when he got to two Chinese faculty he changed the question to, how did you learn English? His intent wasn't harmful, but his question was insulting to those faculty and made them feel like outsiders within the group. While it should be common sense just to ask them the same question as every other person, understanding microaggressions can help people re-think their stereotypes when talking with people different from them. Is that really that bad of a thing?

Finally, I've worked at three universities for 8 years and I've never heard anyone ever mention safe spaces on campus. However, it also just does't bother me for students to have somewhere to go on campus where, for example, if they're facing serious trauma, where they could receive support. I don't honestly know if my campus has a 'safe space,' but I just don't understand the idea of people being mad about it. Most often, the complaint that students are pampered or sheltered, and that is an uninformed stance. Most of my students have faced more crap than I can imagine in their lives. This generation is tough and we've built an entire system of loans and raising tuition that stacks the odds against them unlike previous generations. Yet, they persevere. I always tell people that this generation of college students constantly impresses me.

Again, conservative media has created these narratives about college campuses being these terrible places where students don't have free speech or hear different perspectives. This take is so far off from my experiences on campuses where there are wide varieties of professors and speakers with competing views every single day. My colleagues and I are all over the political spectrum and we all get along well. In practice and with explanation, a lot of these vilified practices are practical.

Several university’s cancled/delayed finals after the presidential election. Don’t remember them doing that post Obama

Also emery university and others apologized to the student body and hired councliers Because trump 2016 was written in chalk on campus.


Also please show me anytime a liberal speaker event was cancled on a college campus ?

Several university’s cancled/delayed finals after the presidential election. Don’t remember them doing that post Obama

No, and they didn't for Trump, either:


What's True
Some academic obligations at Yale were shuffled due to the hectic events surrounding the 2016 election.

What's False
Students neither requested nor received accommodations in the cited classes because they were "upset by Donald Trump," the affected students were supporters of both candidates, and most students adhered to the pre-election exam schedule without requesting any changes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/yale-cancels-midterms-after-students-were-upset-by-trumps-win/



Also emery university and others apologized to the student body and hired councliers Because trump 2016 was written in chalk on campus.

Wrong, again:


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

Subsequent media reports have tried to frame this case as one about “coddled” and “oversensitive” students; however, LET US BE CLEAR: We are not scared of the chalk. We are not mad about being politically challenged. We are rightfully angry because we also exercise our first amendment right to freedom of speech and there are people on this campus, and in this country, who as a result choose to threaten us and twist the truth to protect their own bigotry. Firstly, we are not asking that these students censor their politics, nor are we asking that administration chooses to intervene in student politics. Rather, what we are asking for is equality and equity — we want a streamlined, consistent method of communication to deal with instances of unrest on Emory’s campus. This means race, color and economic status should not determine whether or not the University needs to be prompted to send out a response of acknowledgement of events. Secondly, we ask the Emory University Student Body and individuals nationally to fight for our right of freedom of speech the way they have for Trump supporters.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/emory-students-trump-graffiti/


Also please show me anytime a liberal speaker event was cancled on a college campus ?

Three strikes and you're out!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/why-liberty-university-banned-an-anti-trump-christian-author-from-campus/544571/

Your first two points are great examples of stories originating from blog posts or social media and becoming part of right wing canon, regardless of their validity.

Is anyone able to provide an example of a university becoming "ultra-liberal" or taking a "very hard slant to the extreme political left?"

No, and they didn't for Trump, either:





Wrong, again:





Three strikes and you're out!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/why-liberty-university-banned-an-anti-trump-christian-author-from-campus/544571/

Your first two points are great examples of stories originating from blog posts or social media and becoming part of right wing canon, regardless of their validity.

Is anyone able to provide an example of a university becoming "ultra-liberal" or taking a "very hard slant to the extreme political left?"

Others:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/18/incidents-harvard-and-catholic-universities-run-counter-narrative-about-campus

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

https://medium.com/informed-and-engaged/campus-speech-protests-dont-only-target-conservatives-though-they-frequently-target-the-same-few-bda3105ad347

To BoulderSooner, we’ve already had the discussion you’re bringing up. In my post, I shared my experience and offered some context for educational strategies many people don’t have much experience with and thus rely on media narratives. Your post, which quotes mine, in no way responds to anything I posted so I’ll pass on getting in some larger, unproductive partisan debate.

As we all know Gallogly has been catching all kinds of grief since taking over as OU president.
While sitting 2 rows behind and a few seats down from President Gallogy and his wife this past Friday evening at a sports event he needed no special security. Nobody harassed them all night in spite of dozens of students and others walking by him...He needed no safe place..... Gallogly attended a Saturday night sports event too

We are not doing students any favors by not teaching them how to deal with unpleasant problems... If they can’t learn how to deal with difficult people they will never hold down a good job with a major corporation and will suffer in many other areas of their lives.

I believe virtually all of these people have preexisting issues and motivations even before their OU days.

Is this just a theoretical discussion? Do we even know if OU has 'safe spaces' and, if they do, for what functions they are used? I haven't seen anything on this aside from complaining about a concept that hasn't even been described. If we're going to keep discussing this very specific topic maybe we should have some info to go on, right?

I would bet any 'safe spaces' at OU likely exist for specific populations who face discrimination or bullying at high rates like LGBTQ students. And, yes, ethical employers actually should confront issues of discrimination that exist in their companies, particularly because employers don't want to lose segments of their base due to "unpleasant problems." And, guess what, you can get fired for bigoted or intolerant behavior in the 'real world.' See the recent Dallas Mavericks case where their company failed to create a 'safe place' for women to report sexism, sexual harassment, and even abuse. The worst abuser in the Dallas Mavericks organization was actually an OU graduate so maybe OU actually needs to address these issues with even more sensitivity than they're currently doing.

Claiming that universities don't prepare students for "unpleasant problems" misrepresents how employers actually do and should address these issues also.

Is this just a theoretical discussion? Do we even know if OU has 'safe spaces' and, if they do, for what functions they are used? I haven't seen anything on this aside from complaining about a concept that hasn't even been described. If we're going to keep discussing this very specific topic maybe we should have some info to go on, right?

I would bet any 'safe spaces' at OU likely exist for specific populations who face discrimination or bullying at high rates like LGBTQ students. And, yes, ethical employers actually should confront issues of discrimination that exist in their companies, particularly because employers don't want to lose segments of their base due to "unpleasant problems." And, guess what, you can get fired for bigoted or intolerant behavior in the 'real world.' See the recent Dallas Mavericks case where their company failed to create a 'safe place' for women to report sexism, sexual harassment, and even abuse. The worst abuser in the Dallas Mavericks organization was actually an OU graduate so maybe OU actually needs to address these issues with even more sensitivity than they're currently doing.

Claiming that universities don't prepare students for "unpleasant problems" misrepresents how employers actually do and should address these issues also.

As far as I know there is the LGBTQ lounge in the union and the old SAE house has a lounge for Veterans.

As far as I know there is the LGBTQ lounge in the union and the old SAE house has a lounge for Veterans.

That's great to hear. Both groups need support. I have struggled with helping veterans finding the resources, space, and support they need. I have had veterans drop school based on recurring PTSD, depression, and it's our tasks as a university to help such students. Of course, LQBTQ, especially transgender, students often need support too. In most cases, 'safe spaces' function to support students facing very real trauma and these spaces provide support to prevent dropping out.

As we all know Gallogly has been catching all kinds of grief since taking over as OU president.
While sitting 2 rows behind and a few seats down from President Gallogy and his wife this past Friday evening at a sports event he needed no special security. Nobody harassed them all night in spite of dozens of students and others walking by him...He needed no safe place..... Gallogly attended a Saturday night sports event too

We are not doing students any favors by not teaching them how to deal with unpleasant problems... If they can’t learn how to deal with difficult people they will never hold down a good job with a major corporation and will suffer in many other areas of their lives.

I believe virtually all of these people have preexisting issues and motivations even before their OU days.

Yes, and people who bully always believe the others side should just toughen up. Real Americans should just act however they want towards anyone they want...right? Our manifest destiny.

That's great to hear. Both groups need support. I have struggled with helping veterans finding the resources, space, and support they need. I have had veterans drop school based on recurring PTSD, depression, and it's our tasks as a university to help such students. Of course, LQBTQ, especially transgender, students often need support too. In most cases, 'safe spaces' function to support students facing very real trauma and these spaces provide support to prevent dropping out.

No offense meant, Dankrutka, but this IS Oklahoma and you say you've only worked in 3 schools and have seen few "safe places." All you have to do is enter a Google search about what safe spaces are provided at individual schools and they all have the usual places for LGBTQ, African American, Muslim, etc. Many schools indicate multiple other SSs.

Perusal of answers to various queries on various search engines showed articles from across the general media questioning the proliferation of these spaces. Even sites considered pretty liberal such as VOX and the dreaded Huffpo are critical. It used to be organizations were set up to foster understanding and education. Now they are created as safe spaces where women can go (no men allowed), Islamic spaces (no Jews allowed), African American safe space (no whites allowed), etc, etc.

There are dozens of examples from all over the country just too easy to Google .... too many to just deny it is rampant.

My last point is in the workplace. Ive worked before going on my own in a call center. It's a professional job that requires a college degree and multiple licenses. As someone from the old school who can compare to the present, college grads are simply not as emotionally able to handle adversity. Customers are not as nice as they used to be but the reps get far too upset. They don't seem to be able to build phone callouses. Conflicts between reps are more frequent. Employees turned down for promotions are far more unable to just accept the turn down. It always seemed to be someone elses fault, it was discrimination, it was racism. Employees wanted to move up NOW. Employees who couldn't handle it so some simply didn't show up for work. These are degreed, licensed professionals - not lawn mowers. It's a symptom that grads today can't handle adversity as earlier generations. It's a symptom colleges are not preparing grads for a real world without safe spaces.

No offense meant, Dankrutka, but this IS Oklahoma and you say you've only worked in 3 schools and have seen few "safe places." All you have to do is enter a Google search about what safe spaces are provided at individual schools and they all have the usual places for LGBTQ, African American, Muslim, etc. Many schools indicate multiple other SSs.

Perusal of answers to various queries on various search engines showed articles from across the general media questioning the proliferation of these spaces. Even sites considered pretty liberal such as VOX and the dreaded Huffpo are critical. It used to be organizations were set up to foster understanding and education. Now they are created as safe spaces where women can go (no men allowed), Islamic spaces (no Jews allowed), African American safe space (no whites allowed), etc, etc.

There are dozens of examples from all over the country just too easy to Google .... too many to just deny it is rampant.


You're googling skills must be better than mine. Searching for Muslim/Islamic safe spaces brings up only the case of an Australian organization asking a province to support a place for young Muslims to hold discussions. And which was quickly opposed. The number of Islamic safe spaces banning Jewish people in US Universities? Zero.

Likewise, I couldn't find any actual, existing examples of African American safe spaces at American universities which ban white people. I ran out of steam on women's only spaces, but as far as I could tell it was overwhelmingly proposals with maybe a couple of isolated examples.

Hardly rampant. Just because something gets a lot of media coverage or, worse, internet fury, doesn't make it a real thing. Even if they do exist, I don't think something used by dozens of students at a school with tens of thousands of students is going to move the needle one way or the other. If you want to blame someone on the ills of today's youth, I'd look elsewhere.

Besides, shouldn't we be discussing OU? I'd rather talk about what is actually happening in our own backyards then what might be happening somewhere else.

You're googling skills must be better than mine. Searching for Muslim/Islamic safe spaces brings up only the case of an Australian organization asking a province to support a place for young Muslims to hold discussions. And which was quickly opposed. The number of Islamic safe spaces banning Jewish people in US Universities? Zero.

Likewise, I couldn't find any actual, existing examples of African American safe spaces at American universities which ban white people. I ran out of steam on women's only spaces, but as far as I could tell it was overwhelmingly proposals with maybe a couple of isolated examples.

Hardly rampant. Just because something gets a lot of media coverage or, worse, internet fury, doesn't make it a real thing. Even if they do exist, I don't think something used by dozens of students at a school with tens of thousands of students is going to move the needle one way or the other. If you want to blame someone on the ills of today's youth, I'd look elsewhere.

Besides, shouldn't we be discussing OU? I'd rather talk about what is actually happening in our own backyards then what might be happening somewhere else.

Bingo. This honestly seems like a boogeyman. And if there is an LGBTQ lounge, of course straight people are allowed -- how would they even police such a thing? It's just a designated spot where people know they can feel comfortable, not an exclusive club. My first semester here I got taunted and called a f*g from a passing car while walking on main campus. If people knew what that felt like they might better grasp the need to have a single place on campus where I know that won't happen again.

No offense meant, Dankrutka, but this IS Oklahoma and you say you've only worked in 3 schools and have seen few "safe places." All you have to do is enter a Google search about what safe spaces are provided at individual schools and they all have the usual places for LGBTQ, African American, Muslim, etc. Many schools indicate multiple other SSs.

Perusal of answers to various queries on various search engines showed articles from across the general media questioning the proliferation of these spaces. Even sites considered pretty liberal such as VOX and the dreaded Huffpo are critical. It used to be organizations were set up to foster understanding and education. Now they are created as safe spaces where women can go (no men allowed), Islamic spaces (no Jews allowed), African American safe space (no whites allowed), etc, etc.

There are dozens of examples from all over the country just too easy to Google .... too many to just deny it is rampant.

My last point is in the workplace. Ive worked before going on my own in a call center. It's a professional job that requires a college degree and multiple licenses. As someone from the old school who can compare to the present, college grads are simply not as emotionally able to handle adversity. Customers are not as nice as they used to be but the reps get far too upset. They don't seem to be able to build phone callouses. Conflicts between reps are more frequent. Employees turned down for promotions are far more unable to just accept the turn down. It always seemed to be someone elses fault, it was discrimination, it was racism. Employees wanted to move up NOW. Employees who couldn't handle it so some simply didn't show up for work. These are degreed, licensed professionals - not lawn mowers. It's a symptom that grads today can't handle adversity as earlier generations. It's a symptom colleges are not preparing grads for a real world without safe spaces.
Lol. Colleges have always had their safe places. They called them sororities and fraternities. And there was the Jewish Student Union. There were other social Cubs and meeting areas.

And in the real world, the practical safe place was the old white men clubs that dominated board rooms, executive positions, etc.

This idea that today’s youth can’t compete in the real world is establishment propaganda. It is fear that the old guard doesn’t know the new rules and they themselves won’t be able to compete. If you are losing your protected position it feels like you are being discriminated against, not being brought back to a level playing field.

Every single aging generation swears up and down that the world is going to the dogs and the younger generations are irrepsonsible, incapable, soft and to blame for everything.

And yet, here we are, with a ridiculous standard of living for the average American; so much so they have copious amounts of time to sit on their home computers, next to their home theater, in a house with 5x the amount of SF per person as that of just 1 or 2 generations previous, eating out 2-4 times a day, etc. etc.... And complain about how the world is going straight to hell, despite being completely surrounded by ample evidence to the contrary.

^^^
*Retweet*

Way too political; we have a completely separate forum for that ~ Mod

Every single aging generation swears up and down that the world is going to the dogs and the younger generations are irrepsonsible, incapable, soft and to blame for everything.

And yet, here we are, with a ridiculous standard of living for the average American; so much so they have copious amounts of time to sit on their home computers, next to their home theater, in a house with 5x the amount of SF per person as that of just 1 or 2 generations previous, eating out 2-4 times a day, etc. etc.... And complain about how the world is going straight to hell, despite being completely surrounded by ample evidence to the contrary.

You could say the same about the youngsters who find everything about the existing world to be a horrible injustice and terribly unfair, while they post on the internet from their iPhone.