If I haven't responded to someone's question, it's probably because I've got about half the people in this thread on ignore. Sometimes there'll be like 9 posts in a row that are blacked out. But the answer to your question really belongs in the politics subforum, not here.

I'd be interested in seeing your answer, and I'd bet a lot of others would too, why don't you go ahead and create a thread in Politics for it?

Soonerheart,

AGAIN, this all could be done without the grandstanding, chest-beating, finger-pointing and general ham-handedness.

All of that is completely contrary to the ostensible goals of making OU better.


It's very clear you have some personal stake in all of this and for integrity's sake, you should reveal what that is.

I represent nobody but myself. I spend 100+ hours a year on OU’s Norman campus but I do not work for OU. I have never met Gallogly or most current OU BOR. None would know me... but I do know people who know them and several other people who are very much part of what I call the OU power structure that exist in this state and to a degree out of state. I know many people who work for OU. Virtually all these people are happy that Boren is gone...Most like the job Gallogly is doing because they see what they have known or suspected.... and now that it’s being unveiled some of the insanity that some have been putting up with for a long time.
My only interest is to sincerely see OU become the very best university that it can become for our state’s economy and to see our state become the most prosperous place that it can become... This cures the most amounts of problems for the largest numbers of people in our state. The previous OU leadership was incapable of accomplishing this because of their own misplaced priorities that exhibited poor common sense on too many occasions.

OU cannot be at its best without sound fiscal management and without using mainstream accounting / purchasing methods or by pouring so many resources into near worthless degree programs that are often little more than indoctrination degrees with few to no jobs in our real world society.

I don’t care if they were donated..... Foreign branch based campuses offer low rates of return for the state but likely provide staff / facility ways to take cheap low cost vacations...IDK but perhaps at the university expense? The professor’s bitching the loudest could have been taking these trips? This should be investigated and in the name of transparency revealed to state tax payers and our leaders.

What you call “ grandstanding, chest-beating, finger-pointing and general ham-handedness” was to a degree required so that it call attention to the rotten way OU has been handling is affairs on way to many occasions....

You can’t act like this is a one way street and be honest...If Boren and his people would have kept their big mouths shut after Boren resigned and not way overplayed their hand, I suspect the intensity would be significantly lower...But it wasn’t and this pissed off a very large percentage of very important people who are now very willing to take the gloves off.

There are many people sick and tired of the excesses in education that do not represent mainstream USA values.

There are many people sick and tired of the excesses in education that do not represent mainstream USA values.
This is the Trump “many people say”. By mainstream you obviously mean nationalist right wing anti globalist who think social sciences, art, culture, the humanities, history, etc, don’t matter because they are just liberal agenda studies meant to weaken our society.

I’ll say one thing, you are stiffly in lock step.

I didn’t like some of the things that happened under Boren’s Watch. In particular, some of the leadership appointments and the alleged interference with the Oklahoma Geological Society stand out in my mind.

That being said, I don’t like how any of this current stuff is being handled.

To save 10% in efficiencies at the cost of 30-40% of your revenues is obsurd. That’s not a savings.

To make corrections so publicly and with little nuance or subtlety at the cost of the university’s legacy and ability to function going forward is extremely short sighted. It does feel like an agenda being pushed, whether that’s the intention or not.

To me, it seems that Boren was trying to follow the economic model of what technology and pharmaceutical companies most often implement ... one of High Growth. For whatever reason it seems to be a model that isn’t appreciated in these parts. I feel like part of what is going on is directed at that, and isn’t a fair criticism. Whether or not it’s more than that I guess we will find out after the investigations.

I didn’t like some of the things that happened under Boren’s Watch. In particular, some of the leadership appointments and the alleged interference with the Oklahoma Geological Society stand out in my mind.

That being said, I don’t like how any of this current stuff is being handled.

To save 10% in efficiencies at the cost of 30-40% of your revenues is obsurd. That’s not a savings.

To make corrections so publicly and with little nuance or subtlety at the cost of the university’s legacy and ability to function going forward is extremely short sighted. It does feel like an agenda being pushed, whether that’s the intention or not.

To me, it seems that Boren was trying to follow the economic model of what technology and pharmaceutical companies most often implement ... one of High Growth. For whatever reason it seems to be a model that isn’t appreciated in these parts. I feel like part of what is going on is directed at that, and isn’t a fair criticism. Whether or not it’s more than that I guess we will find out after the investigations.

Regarding the savings part. Short-term pain for long-term gain. You have to spend money to save money long-term, occasionally. The rest, I do not know enough about to speak on.

This is probably the fairest and most accurate informative article I have seen about where OU has been and why, where OU is right now and why... and where OU will likely go.
There will be difficult decisions ahead but there is no question that OU will eventually end up as a better, more well-adjusted university that is more responsive to the needs of this state with exceptional transparency shown to state leaders and voters.

http://www.oudaily.com/crimson_quarterly/ou-s-relationship-with-state-legislature-may-improve-under-gallogly/article_276f96ac-361e-11e9-af0a-f73b3935d479.html

If I haven't responded to someone's question, it's probably because I've got about half the people in this thread on ignore. Sometimes there'll be like 9 posts in a row that are blacked out.

That's probably not the reason you don't respond since you quoted these questions and continue to provide no answer.


But the answer to your question really belongs in the politics subforum, not here.

Then why do you keep bringing it up in this thread without being able to articulate a single "ultra-lefty" idea or poilcy? Maybe you need to lay off the ultra-right - oh, pardon me - "conservative" media sources.


I'd be interested in seeing your answer, and I'd bet a lot of others would too, why don't you go ahead and create a thread in Politics for it?

There is already a thread for Fake News (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=42907). The answer belongs there (because no, it's not real, and is completely made up).

The obvious point to be made here is that if OU and other state colleges are some sort of liberal brain-washing operations (which is the point not so subtly being made by many) then...

How is that Oklahoma is the reddest of red states?

Where are these armies of extreme leftists hypnotized by evil OU administrators and professors pushing for 'excesses in education that do not represent mainstream USA values'?

Boren was president at OU for 24 yet the state has only become more conservative, not less.


I went to OU and know tons of people who did. And most are just about as far right as you can get.


Absolutely nobody is arguing that change isn't needed and most (including me) thought it was time for Boren to go. But these two things are easily accomplished without burning down the entire university and constantly putting the school in the headlines for embarrassing things that could have just as easily be handled discretely. Like every other respectable company and instituation conducts themselves.

Stitt announced a new OU BOR member today

Eric Stevenson is the new OU BOR member. He graduated from OU with a finance degree...on edit
Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management.

He has stayed connected with OU by serving on an Price advisory board.
Currently works for Nation Wide as a SR vice President of retirement...Lives in Columbus Ohio

This very much continues the trend of strong business minded people being appointed to the OU BOR. Stevenson seemed like an impressive man in his introductory speech.

Stitt indicates that Stevenson has a very strong business background and shares the same vision of business oriented reforms for OU that Gallogly and the other OU BOR members 100% have.

Stitt indicated that appointing someone with very strong business skills was very important to him...which as I have said many times would likely be the case for many, many more years to come....not only at OU but at all of our states colleges and universities.

^

Stevenson is replacing Clay Bennett.

Not like this is some big shift in favor of pro-business members on the BOR.

^

Stevenson is replacing Clay Bennett.

Not like this is some big shift in favor of pro-business members on the BOR.
It is an accurate description of what will becoming for the next 8 years, at least ! More of the same.

He isn’t just Bennett's replacement... he will serve a full 7 year term.

Bennett term was set to expire in another year or 2 I think?

Stitt announced a new OU BOR member today
Eric Stevenson is the new OU BOR member. He graduated from OU with a finance degree and a Kellogg MBA

He has stayed connected with OU by serving on an Price advisory board.
Currently works for Nation Wide as a SR vice President of retirement...Lives in Columbus Ohio

This very much continues the trend of strong business minded people being appointed to the OU BOR. Stevenson seemed like an impressive man in his introductory speech.

Stitt indicates that Stevenson has a very strong business background and shares the same vision of business oriented reforms for OU that Gallogly and the other OU BOR members 100% have.

Stitt indicated that appointing someone with very strong business skills was very important to him...which as I have said many times would likely be the case for many, many more years to come....not only at OU but at all of our states colleges and universities.

That’s true.. it’s about the profit, not the products. Business vs academics. Training vs teaching.

Stitt indicates that Stevenson has a very strong business background and shares the same vision of business oriented reforms for OU that Gallogly and the other OU BOR members 100% have.

Stitt indicated that appointing someone with very strong business skills was very important to him...which as I have said many times would likely be the case for many, many more years to come....not only at OU but at all of our states colleges and universities.

Link? I haven't seen anyone report anything even close to that.


From the Oklahoman:


Stitt said it was Stevenson’s great business acumen that made him a top choice for a regent’s appointment, but noted that Stevenson’s African American heritage was definitely a “bonus.”

The obvious point to be made here is that if OU and other state colleges are some sort of liberal brain-washing operations (which is the point not so subtly being made by many) then...

How is that Oklahoma is the reddest of red states?

Where are these armies of extreme leftists hypnotized by evil OU administrators and professors pushing for 'excesses in education that do not represent mainstream USA values'?

Boren was president at OU for 24 yet the state has only become more conservative, not less.


I went to OU and know tons of people who did. And most are just about as far right as you can get.


Absolutely nobody is arguing that change isn't needed and most (including me) thought it was time for Boren to go. But these two things are easily accomplished without burning down the entire university and constantly putting the school in the headlines for embarrassing things that could have just as easily be handled discretely. Like every other respectable company and instituation conducts themselves.
Pete, this isn’t an Oklahoma thing. It is a national thing. I have heard others from other states repeat the very same message being propagandize here by the most prolific poster on this site almost verbatim. It is a crusade by the right. There are deep resentments about a culture of free thinking and is in support of anti intellectualism. It is more about obeying and discipline than creating and free will and a sense of inclusion. It is a deep resentment of title 9 rights for women and minority advancement. They blame student loans and social sciences.

This isn’t about improvement, it’s about control.

Pete, this isn’t an Oklahoma thing. It is a national thing.

I understand that very well but just wanted to make the point that if this so-called liberal influence was actually true in any way, we should see a whole generation of OU grads who were somehow swayed by these evil-doers.

And yet, the state has only moved further to the right during this time.

These two things don't even remotely reconcile.

So now we're pissing and moaning about this pick? Goodnight. I know it's easy and more fun to complain, but I fail to see how this is bad. In any way.

So now we're pissing and moaning about this pick? Goodnight. I know it's easy and more fun to complain, but I fail to see how this is bad. In any way.

Who is complaining?

Sounds like a great hire.

Who is complaining?

Sounds like a great hire.

I just hadn't seen much positive after it was posted he was hired. I like the appointment. Always good to get qualified, diverse board members.

Link? I haven't seen anyone report anything even close to that.


From the Oklahoman:

I posted what I remembered from watching the press conference live...It’s basically accurate...
As very often the case most of the local news out lets come up short on their details..In this case with regard to the Governors, the OU president and OU BOR desire for very strong business background

You can watch and judge for yourself what was said by Stitt, Rainbolt-Forbes and Eric Stevenson about business at today’s press conference on this link.

I’m personally very impressed with the past experience of Stevenson and his skills.
He says he has the same vision for OU as president Gallogly, as does the rest of the OU BOR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FUzryVNX44

^

You have merely pulled out a few words and completely misquoted them to shape your slanted narrative and agenda.

People should watch that clip than compare it to what you wrote.


If you are going to post things as facts, you better be able to back them up.

someone should do an audit of how many tax $$ were wasted by mrs borens change orders

someone should do an audit of how many tax $$ were wasted by mrs borens change orders

So please enlighten us vs throwing out a vague passive aggressive accusation. What change orders, when, what was the specific context of each, and give both sides to the argument. And, what is your personal knowledge of and involvement in the determination of the project execution?

After 3 decades involvement with construction I can say that change orders are usual. There are many reasons that these happen and to make them sound unnecessary or arbitrary, or wasteful is disingenuous or misleading.

So basically Glugly is fixing the financial situation by being a sh-tty, terrible fundraiser. Snort.

https://newsok.com/article/5624555/at-ou-cash-donations-fall-pledges-rise?earlyAccess=true

someone should do an audit of how many tax $$ were wasted by mrs borens change orders
I do know of one instance, there was an addition built onto the Price College of Business that was supposed to be a snack bar. It was fully built out, custom cabinets, counter tops, just needed food to be able to open. It was decided it was too large of a space so all of the cabinetry and stone countertops were torn out. Only thing that could be re-purposed were the appliances. I worked at OU for 8 years, I don't have a dog in this fight, I think Boren did great things for the University. But it was probably time for some fresh ideas.

I do know of one instance, there was an addition built onto the Price College of Business that was supposed to be a snack bar. It was fully built out, custom cabinets, counter tops, just needed food to be able to open. It was decided it was too large of a space so all of the cabinetry and stone countertops were torn out. Only thing that could be re-purposed were the appliances. I worked at OU for 8 years, I don't have a dog in this fight, I think Boren did great things for the University. But it was probably time for some fresh ideas.

And you know this was ordered by Mrs. Boren and not the Dean of the Business School?

What was the space ultimately used for?

Another example of that was the new Couch center.

If you aren't aware, they tore down the old Couch and then buildt a really pretty new facility. Problem is, it's NOT owned by OU. It's contracted. It has a total room for something like 4k students and it's maybe 15% full from what I've heard. Several of the retail tenants have already closed up shop there. The salon and restaurants seem to be doing alright.

This was one of the last things Boren did. And while it looks pretty, it's sort of a money pit. There has been talks from Gallogly to back out of the contract on ou's part and just leave it to the ownership company to deal with. It's hasn't worked out as well as they had planned. ESPECIALLY since OU doesn't own it.

Also, when this was opened, I guess in the contract it was agreed to close the Kate Center food court/cafeteria. This was done to drive more students to these new restaurants. Again, OU doesn't own them. OU owns and operates Kate and Kate made them a lot of money and was also more convenient to get in and out of. So while not a TON of money lost there, it's still been a problem. And many people want it open again.

^

Counch dining wasn't torn down, it was a remodel.

OU owns the building and land and has contracted for food service for a long time, which is common at universities and corporations.

Same with the union and a bunch of other campus dining locations.

^

Counch dining wasn't torn down, it was a remodel.

OU owns the building and land and has contracted for food service for a long time, which is common at universities and corporations.

Same with the union and a bunch of other campus dining locations.

Sorry sorry, I meant Cross Center, not Couch.

Ah, gotcha.

Remember that the new residential colleges were slow to fill and are now highly occupied.

Last report I saw indicated that heading into last fall Cross was 28% leased. I'm not even sure all the units were completely finished by the time school started.

I'd be incredibly surprised if OU could just back out of the contract with the housing company that built Cross. No way a company builds a huge complex like that and doesn't have a long-term contract. From reports, it sounds like OU is just leasing the land to this housing developer.


Gallogly was complaining the residential colleges lose money. But the entire point was to provide nice housing on campus that was somewhat reasonable and to keep students engaged. All types of studies show great benefits to universities for keeping students on campus, such as higher retention and graduation rates.

They weren't supposed to be a money-maker. How much profit do any of the university buildings generate? That's not the point of it all.

Such a strange way to look at things. Should each building constructed on campus generate enough money to pay for itself? This isn't the business world where every project is judged by its own P&L.


BTW, OU did something similar with Traditions Square apartments on the site of the old Yorkshire Apartments near the law center.

I absolutely hear you. I have a good buddy who manages some important stuff at Headington. He's met with some of the BoR and with Gallogly himself about making experiences better for OU's athletes, as well as doing the same at the other dorms. And he's said, from Gallogly himself, that Gallogly would prefer to just get out of the Cross contract. Now that might just be frustrated talk and nothing that would actually happen, but Gallogly is definitely not happy and it definitely wouldn't have been built had he been president a few years ago. For good and bad there.

I'm just bringing it up since its somewhat interesting to look at the contrast between Boren and Gallogly outside of political mindsets. Boren was ALL about stuff like Cross and Traditions. With Gallogly, there is NO WAY that stuff would have been built.

Honestly, I hope he's not in Norman long enough that to do anything but somewhat balance the books and move on.

If he stays for more than a couple of years I'm sincerely worried about the long-term damage to the university and its reputation.

Honestly, I hope he's not in Norman long enough that to do anything but somewhat balance the books and move on.

If he stays for more than a couple of years I'm sincerely worried about the long-term damage to the university and its reputation.

I expect someone new by Summer 2020. I think the books will be balanced in his view and they will bring someone new in. I am not 100% sure he really enjoys being president of OU.

Gallogly looks at housing as apartments where Boren looked at it as STUDENT LIVING CENTERS. Big difference. To Gallogly and his ilk it is just real estate and spreadsheets. Boren saw the campus as a way to improve the student experience and attract a high quality student body while Gallogly looks at it as just a maintenance problem. Boren saw a QUALITY education as worth more, and Gallogly just sees education as a commodity. Boren is Nordstrom’s, Gallogly is Amazon.

Gallogly looks at housing as apartments where Boren looked at it as STUDENT LIVING CENTERS. Big difference. To Gallogly and his ilk it is just real estate and spreadsheets. Boren saw the campus as a way to improve the student experience and attract a high quality student body while Gallogly looks at it as just a maintenance problem. Boren saw a QUALITY education as worth more, and Gallogly just sees education as a commodity. Boren is Nordstrom’s, Gallogly is Amazon.

Right on. Except that's an insult to Amazon.

Gallogly looks at housing as apartments where Boren looked at it as STUDENT LIVING CENTERS. Big difference. To Gallogly and his ilk it is just real estate and spreadsheets. Boren saw the campus as a way to improve the student experience and attract a high quality student body while Gallogly looks at it as just a maintenance problem. Boren saw a QUALITY education as worth more, and Gallogly just sees education as a commodity. Boren is Nordstrom’s, Gallogly is Amazon.

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.
First, you are making assumptions based on one sided propaganda. Secondly, even assuming there can be a tightening of controls, applying controls still should be consistent with the prime directive of the organization. Failure to understand the difference between a corporation seeking profit and a University trying to educate and inspire leaders for tomorrow is just arrogance, ignorance, or worse (political agenda as in right wing social engineering). This is not to mention the ham handed and vindictive style in which it was done.

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.

As has been pointed out a million times in this thread, OU was carrying similar debt to many peer institutions all the while creating one of the best campuses in the country. The transformation of OU's entire campus under Boren is absolutely stunning.

Money doesn’t grow on trees at OU as evidenced by the debt load. Someone had to put the fiscal house in order and Gallogly is the bad guy for doing it. It is easy to be Santa Clause, but it cannot go on forever.

This article was linked once already but it really does a great job of explaining what brought us to this point...

‘’At OU, tuition has increased by nearly 69 percent since the 2006-2007 school year. And there have been major building projects on campus in the last decade, including new dormitories and classroom buildings. Even though the percent of OU’s budget that was covered by state dollars continued to decline — it’s 20 percent lower since fiscal year 2008 — OU’s budget overall was increasing, growing 51 percent in the same time period.

“With higher education, I think there was this mentality that the funding was cut, but they raised tuition even more and kept right on going without looking for efficiencies or ways to save money and to not increase tuition any more than necessary on students,” Hickman said. “And so that was an issue, one of several that strained relationships between legislators and the university.”

This financially strained relationship was exacerbated by the clashing political ideologies and ways of doing business between Boren and the growing Republican presence in Oklahoma’s state government. No longer did calling in favors to long-standing colleagues, writing editorials in newspapers or trying to persuade legislators across the aisle — all things Boren was used to doing — work, Hickman said.

The tipping point was in 2016, when Boren was heavily promoting his penny tax initiative to raise the state’s sales tax by one cent to support common and higher education, which voters turned down in November 2016.

There was significant opposition to Boren’s campaign, and legislators weren’t pleased he was injecting himself back into their political process.‘’

http://www.oudaily.com/crimson_quarterly/ou-s-relationship-with-state-legislature-may-improve-under-gallogly/article_276f96ac-361e-11e9-af0a-f73b3935d479.html



..

As has been pointed out a million times in this thread, OU was carrying similar debt to many peer institutions all the while creating one of the best campuses in the country. The transformation of OU's entire campus under Boren is absolutely stunning.

Just because everyone else is in debt doesn’t mean we need to be keeping up with the Jones’s. OU can provide a quality education without having the best and fanciest stuff. One would then ask why would students go to OU without fancy stuff. The answer is lower tuition.

First, you are making assumptions based on one sided propaganda. Secondly, even assuming there can be a tightening of controls, applying controls still should be consistent with the prime directive of the organization. Failure to understand the difference between a corporation seeking profit and a University trying to educate and inspire leaders for tomorrow is just arrogance, ignorance, or worse (political agenda as in right wing social engineering). This is not to mention the ham handed and vindictive style in which it was done.

The prime directive of a college is to educate students. Not be in deep debt because we bought a bunch of fancy stuff. It has nothing to do with “right wing social engineering.” It is reality.

Just because everyone else is in debt doesn’t mean we need to be keeping up with the Jones’s. OU can provide a quality education without having the best and fanciest stuff. One would then ask why would students go to OU without fancy stuff. The answer is lower tuition.

A university like OU can carry debt, but having a high quality education and beautiful campus is part of the selling point to attract students, bring back alumni, and create a quality place to work. Any increase in debt can almost completely be explained by the state legislature, which slashed spending. Boren literally promoted a solution to the problem the legislature created and voters turned that down. Yes, you can quit worrying about campus beauty and amenities, cut tuition well below peer institutions, and guess what? If OU starts acting like a lower tier institution then students, faculty, and alumni will start treating OU like one. No problem. I work at a tier 1 univesrity in the region and we're beautifying our campus and building amenities to make our campus more attractive. Our campus community would love to see OU continue to lower its standards as you suggest*.

*Obviously, as an OU alum I do not actually want to see this even if a decline at OU would benefit us.

Glugly is screwing the pooch, and he knew he would wilt in Boren's shadow. That's why he is trying to destroy his legacy. His job was to perform a political hit, get paid, and move on. He doesn't give a s-it about the college experience. He already is failing at fundraising and has no clue how to run a prestigious academic institution. I hope Clay Bennett survives his brain cancer and has time to reflect on his effing terrible decision to hire this assclown.

Ah, gotcha.

Remember that the new residential colleges were slow to fill and are now highly occupied.

Last report I saw indicated that heading into last fall Cross was 28% leased. I'm not even sure all the units were completely finished by the time school started.

I'd be incredibly surprised if OU could just back out of the contract with the housing company that built Cross. No way a company builds a huge complex like that and doesn't have a long-term contract. From reports, it sounds like OU is just leasing the land to this housing developer.


Gallogly was complaining the residential colleges lose money. But the entire point was to provide nice housing on campus that was somewhat reasonable and to keep students engaged. All types of studies show great benefits to universities for keeping students on campus, such as higher retention and graduation rates.

They weren't supposed to be a money-maker. How much profit do any of the university buildings generate? That's not the point of it all.

Such a strange way to look at things. Should each building constructed on campus generate enough money to pay for itself? This isn't the business world where every project is judged by its own P&L.


BTW, OU did something similar with Traditions Square apartments on the site of the old Yorkshire Apartments near the law center.

Hmmm...

"I discovered on July 2nd, my first day in office, that we had significant items of expense - rent - that we were paying to the Cross Apartments," Pres. Gallogly said, referring to the new, third-party upper-class housing at Asp Avenue and 4th Street.

Gallogly says both he and the OU Regents had been told that the school had no financial responsibility for any of that. "Today," he stated, "I know that we have 7-plus million dollars a year of expenses related to that, and prior management told me that was zero."

http://www.news9.com/story/39234678/news-9-investigates-university-of-oklahoma-overspending

^

Even if true, yet another Gallogly dig and right out of the gate.

Why not merely say, "We are going to look into how to reduce costs in student housing" rather than making an allegation of deliberate lying by 'prior management'?

Do you know how many things I found to be different than what I was told by prior management in jobs I've had? You merely learn, understand, fix it and move on. That's why new people get hired.

Maybe there was simply a misunderstanding? Why not give the benefit of the doubt and concentrate on solutions? I suspect 'prior management' would have a different opinion of what was actually shared about this situation.


I've never heard so much bellyaching and blaming by anyone in that type of position, other than maybe a president who keeps blaming their predecessor 2 or 3 or 4 years into their own term... And everyone but their most blind supporter knows it's incedibly weak and just silly politics.

^

Even if true, yet another Gallogly dig and right out of the gate.

Why not merely say, "We are going to look into how to reduce costs in student housing" rather than making an allegation of deliberate lying by 'prior management'?

Do you know how many things I found to be different than what I was told by prior management in jobs I've had? You merely learn, understand, fix it and move on. That's why new people get hired.

Maybe there was simply a misunderstanding? Why not give the benefit of the doubt and concentration solutions? I suspect 'prior management' would have a different opinion of what was actually shared about this situation.


I've never heard so much bellyaching and blaming by anyone in that type of position, other than maybe a president who keeps blaming their predecessor 2 or 3 or 4 years into their own term... And everyone but their most blind supporter knows it's incedibly weak and just silly politics.

+1 I quit donating to OU until this guy is gone. It appears others have as well. Let his wealthy supporters on the Regents and the legislature make up the shortfall

The prime directive of a college is to educate students. Not be in deep debt because we bought a bunch of fancy stuff. It has nothing to do with “right wing social engineering.” It is reality.
Reality as per agenda as promoted through the propaganda.

Hmmm...

"I discovered on July 2nd, my first day in office, that we had significant items of expense - rent - that we were paying to the Cross Apartments," Pres. Gallogly said, referring to the new, third-party upper-class housing at Asp Avenue and 4th Street.

Gallogly says both he and the OU Regents had been told that the school had no financial responsibility for any of that. "Today," he stated, "I know that we have 7-plus million dollars a year of expenses related to that, and prior management told me that was zero."

http://www.news9.com/story/39234678/news-9-investigates-university-of-oklahoma-overspending
If the BOR doesn’t review major obligations then shame on them. They have time to attend games and social events and then blame someone else because they don’t know what’s going on. Since they aren’t experts in education and they don’t know what is going on fiscally then what the devil are they there for?

Since they support the legislature that keeps cutting support they have to blame someone for the bad effects, so go to the Trump playbook and find someone who doesn’t agree with their bs and trash them publicly. Good defense is an offense I guess.

Leaked messages reveal multiple members of OU College Republicans condoning racist incidents, making racist jokes (http://www.oudaily.com/news/leaked-messages-reveal-multiple-members-of-ou-college-republicans-condoning/article_e21ec58a-410f-11e9-93c8-733f824ffa69.html)

OU President James Gallogly says community continues to wrestle with 'respectful dialogue' after racist incident involving College Republicans (http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-president-james-gallogly-says-community-continues-to-wrestle-with/article_446de320-413c-11e9-a85f-332a4bc0b782.html)

OU College Democrats and OU Student Leftist Union call for disciplinary action after racist messages from OU Republicans (http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-college-democrats-and-ou-student-leftist-union-call-for/article_b4af7828-4156-11e9-85fb-136bed9c9e4e.html)

Leaked messages reveal multiple members of OU College Republicans condoning racist incidents, making racist jokes (http://www.oudaily.com/news/leaked-messages-reveal-multiple-members-of-ou-college-republicans-condoning/article_e21ec58a-410f-11e9-93c8-733f824ffa69.html)

OU President James Gallogly says community continues to wrestle with 'respectful dialogue' after racist incident involving College Republicans (http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-president-james-gallogly-says-community-continues-to-wrestle-with/article_446de320-413c-11e9-a85f-332a4bc0b782.html)

OU College Democrats and OU Student Leftist Union call for disciplinary action after racist messages from OU Republicans (http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-college-democrats-and-ou-student-leftist-union-call-for/article_b4af7828-4156-11e9-85fb-136bed9c9e4e.html)
So Gallogly is giving cover? I guess it is consistent. Boren kicks them out and Gallogly is wish washy.

I'm not sure l see where Gallogly is giving cover. He gave a politicians answer with the expected "we are investigating." In light of several recent incidences of people jumping to conclusions, including Jussie Smollett's apparently fabricated allegations, l think it's wise to look into seeing exactly what happened before kicking people off campus. I think it may be important to see more of this conversation and not just the juicy snippets someone put on an unknown persons Twitter account.

I'm not sure l see where Gallogly is giving cover. He gave a politicians answer with the expected "we are investigating." In light of several recent incidences of people jumping to conclusions, including Jussie Smollett's apparently fabricated allegations, l think it's wise to look into seeing exactly what happened before kicking people off campus. I think it may be important to see more of this conversation and not just the juicy snippets someone put on an unknown persons Twitter account.

Yes, I’m not really sure what everyone wants Gallogly to do here other than say the university doesn’t condone their actions and they’re investing. Gallogly legally has no ability to discipline any of the students or ex students involved in any of the incidents that have happened at OU recently. I suppose he could’ve grandstanded like Boren did and claim he kicked out a two students that he legally couldn’t expel and had already withdrawn anyway...but what point is there in doing that?

Also this is all based on a private conversation coming to light that was never intended to be public. Handing out punishment for that would be a really slippery slope. Not to mention that the rest of the organization itself didn’t seem to condone the actions of the students making the comments and said so in their group chat.

I'm not sure l see where Gallogly is giving cover. He gave a politicians answer with the expected "we are investigating." In light of several recent incidences of people jumping to conclusions, including Jussie Smollett's apparently fabricated allegations, l think it's wise to look into seeing exactly what happened before kicking people off campus. I think it may be important to see more of this conversation and not just the juicy snippets someone put on an unknown persons Twitter account.

Yes, who are we going to believe... our eyes and ears, or a press release that says they are good people, and after all, fostering hate is an American protected right, so let’s wait.
Btw, what people say and do when they don’t think others will find out is the measure of their character. When these things come to light, I am reminded that most of the iceberg is below water.

All l saw were tethered clips seen on someone's Twitter (admittedly, l may have missed some things not on this site). I also see Gallogly saying he will be reaching out to those who made the statements to point out hurtfulness and that the upset minorities are good people, worthy of respect and dignity.....not those who made the statements. And yes, even those making such statements have a right to make them. Thats sort of protected under the Constitution, like it or not. If they investigate this, they may find more of the iceberg. Again, let's not make the mistake others have recently made jumping to conclusions. See if he does what he says he will do.

I think the two problematic points here are 1. one of the stories says the students when granted access to the board were explicitly warned to think about what they were about to say on what was essentially a public forum, and 2. the group's name associates itself with the university. I mean the name is right there in the title. To think that the university doesn't have some way of extracting consideration if they want to is kind of mind-blowing to me.

In addition, it looks like they have several web pages on OU's servers.

All l saw were tethered clips seen on someone's Twitter (admittedly, l may have missed some things not on this site). I also see Gallogly saying he will be reaching out to those who made the statements to point out hurtfulness and that the upset minorities are good people, worthy of respect and dignity.....not those who made the statements. And yes, even those making such statements have a right to make them. Thats sort of protected under the Constitution, like it or not. If they investigate this, they may find more of the iceberg. Again, let's not make the mistake others have recently made jumping to conclusions. See if he does what he says he will do.

Having the legal right to say something doesn’t mean there can’t be repercussions and consequences. It is a constitutional right to have a gun but illegal to kill someone with it. Hiding behind the argument of free speech to enable hate speech is contemptible.

Having the legal right to say something doesn’t mean there can’t be repercussions and consequences. It is a constitutional right to have a gun but illegal to kill someone with it. Hiding behind the argument of free speech to enable hate speech is contemptible.

Except several court cases have ruled that hate speech is in fact protected speech under the first amendment so that is a fact of law...and whether you find that contemptible or not, it makes punishing a student at a public university for what some may view as hate speech unconstitutional. For the record, it takes a fine tooth comb to find anything that could truly be labeled hate speech in that PRIVATE text thread.

Also, it is not illegal to kill someone with a gun under certain circumstances.

Except several court cases have ruled that hate speech is in fact protected speech under the first amendment so that is a fact of law...and whether you find that contemptible or not, it makes punishing a student at a public university for what some may view as hate speech unconstitutional. For the record, it takes a fine tooth comb to find anything that could truly be labeled hate speech in that PRIVATE text thread.

Also, it is not illegal to kill someone with a gun under certain circumstances.
Sounds like good right wing logic. Defending hate and killing under constitutional rights. This is what makes America Great I guess.

Sounds like good right wing logic. Defending hate and killing under constitutional rights. This is what makes America Great I guess.

LOL!! stop! You're killing me! Damn that Constitution and that First Amendment!

Sounds like good right wing logic. Defending hate and killing under constitutional rights. This is what makes America Great I guess.

It sounds like Supreme Court rulings and the law. Are you really that dense or desperate to prove a point? At this point you’re no better than Soonerheart on the other side of this. It’s not defending hate, it’s defending a person’s right to speak freely without being censored or punished by the government just because others or the government don’t agree with you.

And yes, killing is defended under the constitution. What’s the point of being allowed to bear arms if they can’t be used under certain circumstances to defend yourself?

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”