OU President Gallogly

[Rover]

They aren't. But, for the most part, they are qualified for those jobs. If a white person were given a job solely on his skin color, I would agree with you. There are numerous examples of that. So I guess until there is a greater balance, we need to solely look to color or women?

Your bias totally ignores that QUALIFIED minorities are often overlooked. The assertion that overwhelmingly white men are chosen because overwhelmingly white men are the most qualified is ignorant and arrogant. To say that there aren’t enough qualified minorities to have fair representation shows a persistent and pervasive characterization perpetuated in this country.

Ten old white guys who play golf together every Saturday interview a white golfing buddy from the country club and one black female of same or better qualifications, which one do you honestly think gets picked? You can’t be so naive as to believe they both have an equal shot.

Some boards have added token minority representation because they can still overwhelmingly choose who they want for top positions because they still hold the vast majority of the votes, so they aren’t threatened.

I’m not even saying this is a conscious choice, but I am saying it is pervasive.

[jonny d]

Your bias totally ignores that QUALIFIED minorities are often overlooked. The assertion that overwhelmingly white men are chosen because overwhelmingly white men are the most qualified is ignorant and arrogant. To say that there aren’t enough qualified minorities to have fair representation shows a persistent and pervasive characterization perpetuated in this country.

Ten old white guys who play golf together every Saturday interview a white golfing buddy from the country club and one black female of same or better qualifications, which one do you honestly think gets picked? You can’t be so naive as to believe they both have an equal shot.

Some boards have added token minority representation because they can still overwhelmingly choose who they want for top positions because they still hold the vast majority of the votes, so they aren’t threatened.

I’m not even saying this is a conscious choice, but I am saying it is pervasive.

I am not ignoring totally qualified minorities. There are plenty, and I acknowledged that there are numerous examples of people given jobs and titles solely because of their skin color. I am wondering if, all things equal, are you saying that the minority should be picked, regardless of all other factors? I honestly do not know how to answer that, since I am a white male, and no matter what I do, it will either be seen as prejudiced or, like you said, the token choice. What should be done?

[mkjeeves]

I am not ignoring totally qualified minorities. There are plenty, and I acknowledged that there are numerous examples of people given jobs and titles solely because of their skin color. I am wondering if, all things equal, are you saying that the minority should be picked, regardless of all other factors? I honestly do not know how to answer that, since I am a white male, and no matter what I do, it will either be seen as prejudiced or, like you said, the token choice. What should be done?

I suppose if all things (measured) are equal 100%, diversity could make the pendulum swing? Was that already taken into account, or was it devalued and ignored in favor of sameness, which is usually institutionally favored instead? There is value in diversity.

[jonny d]

I suppose if all things (measured) are equal 100%, diversity could make the pendulum swing? Was that already taken into account, or was it devalued and ignored in favor of sameness, which is usually institutionally favored instead? There is value in diversity.

I am not disagreeing, at all. I agree that diversity is important. But my thing is putting diversity above qualifications. Now, if there is a qualified candidate found of a minority, I hope the Board will give them a fair chance. I have no idea if they will, which is not a great thing.

[mkjeeves]

I am not disagreeing, at all. I agree that diversity is important. But my thing is putting diversity above qualifications. Now, if there is a qualified candidate found of a minority, I hope the Board will give them a fair chance. I have no idea if they will, which is not a great thing.

Nope. Everyone in this thread including you in the post I quoted (except some detractors maybe) have agreed that all candidates must be equally qualified.

[BoulderSooner]

OU literaly just hired a minority to be the president of OU ..

[mugofbeer]

I didn't say anything close to this and realize there are many not open to what I actually said.

This is what I am referring to.

It can create an exclusionary cycle and sometimes change has to be forced.

While I understand you are referring to broad subject's such as racism or gay issues, if you apply this to hiring for leadership positions, you are bowing to mediocrity. Yes, there are many qualified minorities out there. I was the one who suggested J C Watts for the OU position. But to put people in positions of leadership purely on the basis of pushing statistics instead of hiring those who are most qualified and have worked the hardest to get there is correcting one wrong with another.

I know you were not the one who inferred a merit based system is racist, that was referring to another poster.

[Pete]

While I understand you are referring to broad subject's such as racism or gay issues, if you apply this to hiring for leadership positions, you are bowing to mediocrity. Yes, there are many qualified minorities out there. I was the one who suggested J C Watts for the OU position. But to put people in positions of leadership purely on the basis of pushing statistics instead of hiring those who are most qualified and have worked the hardest to get there is correcting one wrong with another.

I know you were not the one who inferred a merit based system is racist, that was referring to another poster.

Instead of using extreme examples the whole point is that if there is a pool of qualified candidates, it is often correct, proper and advantageous to give special consideration to those who diversify the group, particularly when seeking to lead and serve a diverse population.

And sometimes that means actively recruiting people who fit those descriptions instead of hiring cronies.

[mugofbeer]

What is extreme about what I said? I have no problem with hiring anyone as long as that person is qualified. I won't repeat what I have already said other than it is simply wrong to try to correct an unfairness by creating an unfairness.

[Rover]

I am not ignoring totally qualified minorities. There are plenty, and I acknowledged that there are numerous examples of people given jobs and titles solely because of their skin color. I am wondering if, all things equal, are you saying that the minority should be picked, regardless of all other factors? I honestly do not know how to answer that, since I am a white male, and no matter what I do, it will either be seen as prejudiced or, like you said, the token choice. What should be done?

“Regardless of all other factors”. What would those be?

You seem to feel like white men are the ones who are victims. Even when there isn’t a bias AGAINST certain groups, there is quite often a bias FOR older white protestant hetero men. That is the power club.

[Rover]

I am not disagreeing, at all. I agree that diversity is important. But my thing is putting diversity above qualifications. Now, if there is a qualified candidate found of a minority, I hope the Board will give them a fair chance. I have no idea if they will, which is not a great thing.

You assume that the boards set criteria objectively. People tend to make criteria based on what they themselves value, and things at which they themselves achieved. Do you honestly think that most white dominated boards consider graduates from traditional black schools like Spelman or Howard universities the same as from schools like Norte Dame (4% African American) or Texas A&M (3% African American)? How many diversified candidates make it into executive training paths at most companies? Etc, etc, etc. Let’s not be naive about how it works in the real world.

Btw, if you think I am angry because I’ve been one of the oppressed, I am not. I am an older white man who has been privileged to be at the executive and even c-suite level. I have worked for multinational companies and smaller ones. I believe I have a very pragmatic view of how it works.

[hoya]

Instead of using extreme examples the whole point is that if there is a pool of qualified candidates, it is often correct, proper and advantageous to give special consideration to those who diversify the group, particularly when seeking to lead and serve a diverse population.

And sometimes that means actively recruiting people who fit those descriptions instead of hiring cronies.

I don't think the white vs minority subject even came up at OU. Selecting Gallogly was a political power play and nothing more. This had everything to do with pro-Boren vs anti-Boren.

[mugofbeer]

You assume that the boards set criteria objectively. People tend to make criteria based on what they themselves value, and things at which they themselves achieved. Do you honestly think that most white dominated boards consider graduates from traditional black schools like Spelman or Howard universities the same as from schools like Norte Dame (4% African American) or Texas A&M (3% African American)? How many diversified candidates make it into executive training paths at most companies? Etc, etc, etc. Let’s not be naive about how it works in the real world.

Btw, if you think I am angry because I’ve been one of the oppressed, I am not. I am an older white man who has been privileged to be at the executive and even c-suite level. I have worked for multinational companies and smaller ones. I believe I have a very pragmatic view of how it works.

Serious question, when hiring someone to run a school that is to prepare our children for the realities of life, competing against the rest of the world, what significant differences would you think a white, hetero, protestant BOR would set as requirements than that of a diverse BOR?

[Rover]

Serious question, when hiring someone to run a school that is to prepare our children for the realities of life, competing against the rest of the world, what significant differences would you think a white, hetero, protestant BOR would set as requirements than that of a diverse BOR?

The BOR doesn't run the day to day, but provides oversight . So, who they choose to make the decisions about the direction of the school and how they reward them for it is essential. If who they choose is anti diversity (either actively or PASSIVELY) then there can be great impact. If they choose someone with isolationist nationalistic interests over a world view, then it can have great impact. If they choose leadership who isn't familiar with academic realities, it can be a problem. If they choose leadership with a social or political agenda, it can be a problem.

I'm curious what you think "competing against the rest of the world" means. (I note you use the word "against" as if it is a win/lose binary choice in living in the world). I've done business in about 30 countries over two decades. I absolutely don't think competing means "Americal Only" or "America Alone". I think the study abroad and international studies are important sections of the educational experience for working for success in the worldwide arena. I think fair and unbiased introspection of the history of the world is important. I think a real and unbiased study of economic systems and their histories of successes and failures is important. I think a real and unbiased study of cultural and faith histories is important. Certainly an understanding of political system is important.

[Rover]

Serious question, when hiring someone to run a school that is to prepare our children for the realities of life, competing against the rest of the world, what significant differences would you think a white, hetero, protestant BOR would set as requirements than that of a diverse BOR?

BTW, what do you think the "realities of life" are exactly? And, WHOSE realities?

[mugofbeer]

The BOR doesn't run the day to day, but provides oversight . So, who they choose to make the decisions about the direction of the school and how they reward them for it is essential. If who they choose is anti diversity (either actively or PASSIVELY) then there can be great impact. If they choose someone with isolationist nationalistic interests over a world view, then it can have great impact. If they choose leadership who isn't familiar with academic realities, it can be a problem. If they choose leadership with a social or political agenda, it can be a problem.

Well, this is certainly true and it pretty much defines whether or not the person is "qualified" or not. But there is a lot more - see below.

I'm curious what you think "competing against the rest of the world" means. (I note you use the word "against" as if it is a win/lose binary choice in living in the world). I've done business in about 30 countries over two decades. I absolutely don't think competing means "Americal Only" or "America Alone". I think the study abroad and international studies are important sections of the educational experience for working for success in the worldwide arena. I think fair and unbiased introspection of the history of the world is important. I think a real and unbiased study of economic systems and their histories of successes and failures is important. I think a real and unbiased study of cultural and faith histories is important. Certainly an understanding of political system is important.

You can't compete in today's world with an "America Only" or "America First" agenda. Otherwise, it's pretty self descriptive. I think there are a lot of schools that offer a lot of programs that don't properly prepare students to live in the real world.

Along with what you describe above, the UP's job must consist of a person who can sell the school and convince the wealthy and businesses to give to the University on a large scale basis. Yes, in OK that means working with Oil and Gas since that's the primary industry here. The UP is also an administrator and has to be able to pick and choose the highest quality educators - and in my opinion, avoid goons on both ends of the political spectrum. You can have speakers come to the school if you want the extremes. The UP, like a corporate CEO, should set up a successor management process so the school doesn't go through what OU is going through now.

As I've said all along, I would prefer to see someone from the state (simply because I think that person will be the most loyal to the school) but I could care less if the person is white, male, protestant, female, black, brown, purple, or whatever. He/she should be the most qualified person available. Period.

[Stew]

Baby Boomers say the darnedest things.

[Plutonic Panda]

How do you know for a fact that the BoR has only considered white men so far? How do you know that men and women of color have not been considered? Have you been involved in the search process? You are making the BoR out to be a bunch of old white racists because of who they have and haven’t “considered” for the job and have provided very little if any proof to back up the comments that you continually make.

So based on your comments, you are going to be angry if they determine that the most qualified candidate for the job is a white person no matter how the selection process plays out.

For the record, Herroz is Lebanese, not white so there you go.

Thank you for adding some sense. I usually respect what Dan has to say but whenever I hear someone use a term like “white men” than act like their on their high horse riding against the winds of racism and bigotry, I can’t help but laugh my ass off at the double standard. As a white male, I want to see racism die along with any bigotry. It has no place in our future society as I’m sure you agree. As a white male, whenever I hear the phrasing used in Dans post, I get turned off and don’t even bother with reading anything else in his post. It’s counterintuitive to what he wants and he’s a smart guy. There has to be a better way to get that sort of message across.

Now OU has a non white male as President? Gasp.

[mugofbeer]

BTW, what do you think the "realities of life" are exactly? And, WHOSE realities?

You're an adult and support yourself (and maybe others). I think you can figure this one out for yourself.

[Pete]

Citizens, students and taxpayers are still owed an explanation for Gallogly's abrupt resignation and ultra-fast move to have him completely out within days. He's was leading commencement one Friday, Sunday he suddenly 'resigns' and by the following Friday we have a new president and Gallogly is walking across the North Oval with a box of his office crap.

People should be very uncomfortable for the lack of transparency that seems to characterize the actions of the board of regrets for the last several years.

[jn1780]

I doubt an explanation will ever be given. Some people are fine with the explanation that a millionaire was butt hurt because of criticism from his biggest critics. You know because millionaires have never heard criticism before.

[Rover]

You're an adult and support yourself (and maybe others). I think you can figure this one out for yourself.

Are you saying everyone’s life is the same... same realities of status, education, family stability, etc ? Some people’s realities involve survival, fighting stereotypes, overcoming disabilities, etc. Some other people’s realities involve taking care of inherited money and position in society, having money to never have to work while getting an education, having a position waiting for them in daddy’s friend’s company, etc. There are lots of realities of life. Which are you referring to?

[mugofbeer]

All of the above and dozens more.

[Rover]

All of the above and dozens more.

So then, what was your point in bringing it up if it means everything and nothing at all?

[David]

Interesting write-up of the Cross Village situation in The Chronicle of Higher Education. I think it should be viewable to anyone since I got this from their twitter feed and it has an access key in the URL.

How a $250-Million Campus-Housing Deal Went Bad

David L. Boren had grand plans for Cross Village.

As the long-serving president of the University of Oklahoma, he planned to expand the Norman campus’s capacity for housing upperclassmen without incurring any debt. Cross Village would feature about 1,200 beds arrayed in apartment-style suites, as well as accompanying parking and some ground-floor retail space, all set to open in the fall of 2018. The project would be built through a $250-million deal that used none of the university’s money, just private capital.

By the fall of 2019, however, Boren was gone. Cross Village was only about a third full, and the ground-floor retail space was deserted. The bonds issued for the project have been downgraded, and the company that borrowed the money for the project could default on its loan payments. Accusations fly between the university and the borrowers and bondholders, and soon, so may lawsuits.

The deal-gone-sour between Oklahoma and the Cross Village developers provides a cautionary tale for colleges and private firms entering such agreements — called public-private partnerships, or P3s — which are an increasingly popular workaround to tight college budgets.

The standoff also highlights the importance of leadership to the success of long-term projects, the risks inherent in rocky presidential transitions, and the potential for problematic projects to cause reputational damage for universities in a time of rising skepticism of higher education.

Boren was following a well-worn path by pursuing a P3, which is designed to offer something valuable to every party to the deal. Colleges get access to money to build without having to borrow or raise millions. Private-capital investors can put their money into seemingly safe vehicles — public colleges, for example — that are typically defined by their stability and longevity.

The Cross Village deal, as agreed to in 2017, was fairly standard. The university owned about 10 acres of land where it wanted to build a dormitory. So it entered into an arrangement called a “ground lease” with a subsidiary of the Provident Resources Group, a nonprofit development and finance firm.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Provident subsidiary leased the site for 50 years and borrowed about $250 million to finance the deal. Balfour Beatty Campus Solutions, the actual developer, oversaw the design and construction of the residence hall and parking garage.

Provident was supposed to receive the revenues from student-housing fees until the bonds were paid off. The university was supposed to rent the 1,000 parking spaces and about 40,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space from Provident, collecting student-parking fees and charging commercial tenants rent, and then making an annual lease payment back to Provident.

The housing fees and the rent from the university, in turn, would help Provident pay off its debt.

According to Steve E. Hicks, the founder and chief executive of Provident, if Boren had remained in office for another year or two, the project would have been an “outstanding success.”

But that’s not what happened.