Surprise! Ex interim president Garland, aka Flanders, got an award today from our illustrious BOR! Circle jerks for everyone!!

HarryJohnson said:

---

Surprise! Ex interim president Garland, aka Flanders, got an award today from our illustrious BOR! Circle jerks for everyone!!

---

(Picture compliments of Yogi.)

Unbelievably believable

As some famous Colonial revolution kind of patriot once mumbled, "we must hang together or hang separately."

Lifetime Achievement Award?

Shocked I tell you shocked.

Now if only Ramsower can get a lifetime achievement award, the BOR "circle" will be complete.

Will someone explain to me why anyone has any issue whatsoever with David Garland? Seriously some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read on this site.

Bearish said:

---

Will someone explain to me why anyone has any issue whatsoever with David Garland? Seriously some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read on this site.

---

"I don't recall." "To the best of my recollection, I am not aware of anything."

"No university faced with similar circumstances has moved as decisively to change leadership at its highest levels - its President, Athletic Director, and Head Football Coach. Conversely, the Baylor Board of Regents has had no resignation whatsoever because, you know, they are all my friends."

"This is not an institution of football. People should be glorifying our fine Christian example. Our University's actions will lead so many to Christ. ESPN will be a conduit to our glorification."

"Young women engaging in pre-marital sexual activity or drinking alcohol have mental conditions and should be dealt with appropriately. Young women are willing victims."

Ok, so maybe some of that is paraphrased, but surely we can agree that there is no contradictory evidence from him spoken or through action. He is not the kind of leader our University needed out front and center during any part of this fiasco.

Bearish said:

---

Will someone explain to me why anyone has any issue whatsoever with David Garland? Seriously some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read on this site.

---

Though I'm certain a fine man, he was chosen to be a simple mouthpiece of the BOR. Besides that he said a few things that made him seem incompetent to the task, though I'm sure if given more chain, he could have been fine.

He wasn't .

Did TommyeLou get a prize, too?

extremely tone deaf decision to use the social justice warriors favorite phrase. Honor him privately if you feel like you must. Lacks common sense.

A lot of people have this guy all wrong. He was not a BOR puppet. He was for the group that wanted transparency but could not come out and say it. He stepped in twice to bail out Baylor after the Board made a couple of mistakes. Give him some credit and a break.....

He was a BOR mouthpiece. And a terrible face for BU. He testified before the Texas Senate and made an ass of himself and pissed off the politicians questioning him. There's a Baylor alum senator whose frustration is quoted as well. Garland admitted he didn't even know the details of the PH report (!!!!). Absolutely stunning for the President of Baylor to not know the details of the current scandal as he testifies before the State legislature. Then as the senators ask why PH report recommendations regarding overhauling the Board of Regents were not being followed....Garland of course goes to bat to defend the BOR against reform of any kind. Not a mouthpiece, huh?

Read this beauty.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/29/frustrated-texas-senators-call-transparency-baylor-after-rape-scandal/

Garland argued that the breadth of Baylor's response to its problems is unprecedented. But his testimony at times frustrated senators and other people in the room. At one point, he said he had been hired to implement the recommendations made by the Pepper Hamilton firm. But he acknowledged that he still didn't know all of its details of what it found.
Senators answered by arguing that the lack of a written report made it look like Baylor was trying to prevent information from being made public. Garland said he disagreed, saying it might have taken six months more to produce a report in writing.
"What they wanted to do was take action as quickly as possible," he said of the board. Left unsaid was that Pepper Hamilton worked for eight months prior to giving its report verbally.
Senators also questioned whether the university's board of regents was covering up its involvement in the scandal, noting that Pepper Hamilton had recommended changes to how the board governed itself. Garland said he didn't think that Pepper Hamilton's recommendations weren't in response to a board coverup, but that "coaches could go directly to regents and get special considerations."

GhettoHEBear said:

---

He was a BOR mouthpiece. And a terrible face for BU. He testified before the Texas Senate and made an ass of himself and pissed off the politicians questioning him. There's a Baylor alum senator whose frustration is quoted as well. Garland admitted he didn't even know the details of the PH report (!!!!). Absolutely stunning for the President of Baylor to not know the details of the current scandal as he testifies before the State legislature. Then as the senators ask why PH report recommendations regarding overhauling the Board of Regents were not being followed....Garland of course goes to bat to defend the BOR against reform of any kind. Not a mouthpiece, huh?

Read this beauty.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/29/frustrated-texas-senators-call-transparency-baylor-after-rape-scandal/

Garland argued that the breadth of Baylor's response to its problems is unprecedented. But his testimony at times frustrated senators and other people in the room. At one point, he said he had been hired to implement the recommendations made by the Pepper Hamilton firm. But he acknowledged that he still didn't know all of its details of what it found.
Senators answered by arguing that the lack of a written report made it look like Baylor was trying to prevent information from being made public. Garland said he disagreed, saying it might have taken six months more to produce a report in writing.
"What they wanted to do was take action as quickly as possible," he said of the board. Left unsaid was that Pepper Hamilton worked for eight months prior to giving its report verbally.
Senators also questioned whether the university's board of regents was covering up its involvement in the scandal, noting that Pepper Hamilton had recommended changes to how the board governed itself. Garland said he didn't think that Pepper Hamilton's recommendations weren't in response to a board coverup, but that "coaches could go directly to regents and get special considerations."

---

I watched that hearing and it was plain as day to me that he was both underprepared and operating on a very short leash with a lot of things he was not supposed to say. I have met Garland and I do not think he is that disingenuous or flighty.

I blame the regents and other administration who did not want the hearing to be anything but a self immolation session for Baylor and the Baylor legal department who, apparently, did nothing meaningful to prep him for that hearing.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

"No university faced with similar circumstances has moved as decisively to change leadership at its highest levels - its President, Athletic Director, and Head Football Coach. Conversely, the Baylor Board of Regents has had no resignation whatsoever because, you know, they are all my friends."

"This is not an institution of football. People should be glorifying our fine Christian example. Our University's actions will lead so many to Christ. ESPN will be a conduit to our glorification."

"Young women engaging in pre-marital sexual activity or drinking alcohol have mental conditions and should be dealt with appropriately. Young women are willing victims."

Ok, so maybe some of that is paraphrased, but surely we can agree that there is no contradictory evidence from him spoken or through action. He is not the kind of leader our University needed out front and center during any part of this fiasco.

---

That's not paraphrased, that's fictionalized.

303Bear said:

---

GhettoHEBear said:

---

He was a BOR mouthpiece. And a terrible face for BU. He testified before the Texas Senate and made an ass of himself and pissed off the politicians questioning him. There's a Baylor alum senator whose frustration is quoted as well. Garland admitted he didn't even know the details of the PH report (!!!!). Absolutely stunning for the President of Baylor to not know the details of the current scandal as he testifies before the State legislature. Then as the senators ask why PH report recommendations regarding overhauling the Board of Regents were not being followed....Garland of course goes to bat to defend the BOR against reform of any kind. Not a mouthpiece, huh?

Read this beauty.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/29/frustrated-texas-senators-call-transparency-baylor-after-rape-scandal/

Garland argued that the breadth of Baylor's response to its problems is unprecedented. But his testimony at times frustrated senators and other people in the room. At one point, he said he had been hired to implement the recommendations made by the Pepper Hamilton firm. But he acknowledged that he still didn't know all of its details of what it found.
Senators answered by arguing that the lack of a written report made it look like Baylor was trying to prevent information from being made public. Garland said he disagreed, saying it might have taken six months more to produce a report in writing.
"What they wanted to do was take action as quickly as possible," he said of the board. Left unsaid was that Pepper Hamilton worked for eight months prior to giving its report verbally.
Senators also questioned whether the university's board of regents was covering up its involvement in the scandal, noting that Pepper Hamilton had recommended changes to how the board governed itself. Garland said he didn't think that Pepper Hamilton's recommendations weren't in response to a board coverup, but that "coaches could go directly to regents and get special considerations."

---

I watched that hearing and it was plain as day to me that he was both underprepared and operating on a very short leash with a lot of things he was not supposed to say. I have met Garland and I do not think he is that disingenuous or flighty.

I blame the regents and other administration who did not want the hearing to be anything but a self immolation session for Baylor and the Baylor legal department who, apparently, did nothing meaningful to prep him for that hearing.

---

I agree. I don't think Garland is a bad guy. He is an effete little academician who was sent in with orders to apologize on behalf of Baylor but steadfastly oppose any change in the Board of Regents or the administration. The mission was to follow every recommendation of the PH report except the recommendation that the BOR governance be reformed.

He accomplished that mission (thus the award he has received) but looked feckless and weak in the process.

303Bear said:

---

GhettoHEBear said:

---

He was a BOR mouthpiece. And a terrible face for BU. He testified before the Texas Senate and made an ass of himself and pissed off the politicians questioning him. There's a Baylor alum senator whose frustration is quoted as well. Garland admitted he didn't even know the details of the PH report (!!!!). Absolutely stunning for the President of Baylor to not know the details of the current scandal as he testifies before the State legislature. Then as the senators ask why PH report recommendations regarding overhauling the Board of Regents were not being followed....Garland of course goes to bat to defend the BOR against reform of any kind. Not a mouthpiece, huh?

Read this beauty.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/29/frustrated-texas-senators-call-transparency-baylor-after-rape-scandal/

Garland argued that the breadth of Baylor's response to its problems is unprecedented. But his testimony at times frustrated senators and other people in the room. At one point, he said he had been hired to implement the recommendations made by the Pepper Hamilton firm. But he acknowledged that he still didn't know all of its details of what it found.
Senators answered by arguing that the lack of a written report made it look like Baylor was trying to prevent information from being made public. Garland said he disagreed, saying it might have taken six months more to produce a report in writing.
"What they wanted to do was take action as quickly as possible," he said of the board. Left unsaid was that Pepper Hamilton worked for eight months prior to giving its report verbally.
Senators also questioned whether the university's board of regents was covering up its involvement in the scandal, noting that Pepper Hamilton had recommended changes to how the board governed itself. Garland said he didn't think that Pepper Hamilton's recommendations weren't in response to a board coverup, but that "coaches could go directly to regents and get special considerations."

---

I watched that hearing and it was plain as day to me that he was both underprepared and operating on a very short leash with a lot of things he was not supposed to say. I have met Garland and I do not think he is that disingenuous or flighty.

I blame the regents and other administration who did not want the hearing to be anything but a self immolation session for Baylor and the Baylor legal department who, apparently, did nothing meaningful to prep him for that hearing.

---

I watched that hearing also. You are 100% correct in your assessment.

Mutual masturbation

bobo said:

---

Mutual masturbation

---

There is only one way to rock.

Bearish said:

---

Will someone explain to me why anyone has any issue whatsoever with David Garland? Seriously some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read on this site.

---

You're welcome.

He admitted he "owed" and was "indebted" to the BOr for naming a building after his wife. He was put in a bad position for one reason. He would do no harm to the BOR and toe the line. He was out of his league for actual crisis leadership when we needed it most. But again, that's not why he was highered. The BOR used him. Plain and simple. The irony, in the end, it was his testimony under oath during depositions that confirmed everyone's suspsiscions regarding the BOr.

Bearish said:

---

Will someone explain to me why anyone has any issue whatsoever with David Garland? Seriously some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read on this site.

---

You obviously haven't paid attention.

Dman said:

---

He admitted he "owed" and was "indebted" to the BOr for naming a building after his wife. He was put in a bad position for one reason. He would do no harm to the BOR and toe the line. He was out of his league for actual crisis leadership when we needed it most. But again, that's not why he was highered. The BOR used him. Plain and simple. The irony, in the end, it was his testimony under oath during depositions that confirmed everyone's suspsiscions regarding the BOr.

---

When crisis leadership was needed most, Ken Starr was president and the institution was basically silent. When Garland showed up, there was not much that could be done. He managed as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Dman said:

---

He admitted he "owed" and was "indebted" to the BOr for naming a building after his wife. He was put in a bad position for one reason. He would do no harm to the BOR and toe the line. He was out of his league for actual crisis leadership when we needed it most. But again, that's not why he was highered. The BOR used him. Plain and simple. The irony, in the end, it was his testimony under oath during depositions that confirmed everyone's suspsiscions regarding the BOr.

---

When crisis leadership was needed most, Ken Starr was president and the institution was basically silent. When Garland showed up, there was not much that could be done. He managed as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

---

Let's get this straight. He may be a fine man, in not attacking him personally. But to address your post, HE WASNT HIRED TO MANAGE ANYTHING. So I agree, he "managed" as well as he could under the circumstances. He was hired because he was SAFE and to buy the BoR time and not "dig" in the wrong places. Plain and simple. So to expect anything different is unrealistic.

Dman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Dman said:

---

He admitted he "owed" and was "indebted" to the BOr for naming a building after his wife. He was put in a bad position for one reason. He would do no harm to the BOR and toe the line. He was out of his league for actual crisis leadership when we needed it most. But again, that's not why he was highered. The BOR used him. Plain and simple. The irony, in the end, it was his testimony under oath during depositions that confirmed everyone's suspsiscions regarding the BOr.

---

When crisis leadership was needed most, Ken Starr was president and the institution was basically silent. When Garland showed up, there was not much that could be done. He managed as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

---

Let's get this straight. He may be a fine man, in not attacking him personally. But to address your post, HE WASNT HIRED TO MANAGE ANYTHING. So I agree, he "managed" as well as he could under the circumstances. He was hired because he was SAFE and to buy the BoR time and not "dig" in the wrong places. Plain and simple. So to expect anything different is unrealistic.

---

Like I said, he managed as well as he could under the circumstances.

He was appointed to push the Football Failures narrative in order to cover up the blatant systemic institutional failures. He failed catastrophically in both commissions.

He is a fine man. He willingly let himself be put in a bad position, which included a short leash. It was a fairly selfless act on behalf of the school, which he loves. The execution could be questioned.

Robert Wilson said:

---

He is a fine man. He willingly let himself be put in a bad position, which included a short leash. It was a fairly selfless act on behalf of the school, which he loves. The execution could be questioned.

---

He did it twice. That is a pattern denoting agreement in philosophy to me. Somebody on the regents has some very old loyal relationship with him or he is very oblivious for this selfless act.

NoBSU said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

He is a fine man. He willingly let himself be put in a bad position, which included a short leash. It was a fairly selfless act on behalf of the school, which he loves. The execution could be questioned.

---

He did it twice. That is a pattern denoting agreement in philosophy to me. Somebody on the regents has some very old loyal relationship with him or he is very oblivious for this selfless act.

---

I like the guy very much so will lean his way, but that's fair.

He needs to stick to preaching and not running a university. Worthless piece of crap. When he should have defended this institution he did nothing and our BOR praises that leadership. Well, let's all hold each wieners and walk in a circle.

Robert Wilson said:

---

He is a fine man. He willingly let himself be put in a bad position, which included a short leash. It was a fairly selfless act on behalf of the school, which he loves. The execution could be questioned.

---

Let's not make him into a saint. He Willing took a position where he "owed" and was "indebted" to a body under scrutiny and in pure "cover their own ass" mode. He knew why they chose him. That testimony to the legislature and his testimony under oath was total ineptitude. It was embarrassing. I felt bad for him. But he chose to do their bidding.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Dman said:

---

He admitted he "owed" and was "indebted" to the BOr for naming a building after his wife. He was put in a bad position for one reason. He would do no harm to the BOR and toe the line. He was out of his league for actual crisis leadership when we needed it most. But again, that's not why he was highered. The BOR used him. Plain and simple. The irony, in the end, it was his testimony under oath during depositions that confirmed everyone's suspsiscions regarding the BOr.

---

When crisis leadership was needed most, Ken Starr was president and the institution was basically silent. When Garland showed up, there was not much that could be done. He managed as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

---

With one massive exception. He has admitted that he made zero effort to learn what was found by PH and I believe he said he had no interest in individual cases involved. Being the person named as the leader of the various task forces charged with implementing PH's recommendations, that should have been one of the most important things to learn. Otherwise it is impossible to know if the issues are addressed.

There are other things I would hold a President accountable for that he did not do, but being a lame duck, I really wouldn't have expected him to.

Robert Wilson said:

---

He is a fine man. He willingly let himself be put in a bad position, which included a short leash. It was a fairly selfless act on behalf of the school, which he loves. The execution could be questioned.

---

I guess I'll say first "Who wouldnt do the same thing?", but I have trouble each time I read the word "selfless" in relation to Garland taking over the Presidency given its 6 figure salary. Particularly when you read just how disinterested he was in earning that salary per his Senate testimony.

BU84BEAR said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

He is a fine man. He willingly let himself be put in a bad position, which included a short leash. It was a fairly selfless act on behalf of the school, which he loves. The execution could be questioned.

---

I guess I'll say first "Who wouldnt do the same thing?", but I have trouble each time I read the word "selfless" in relation to Garland taking over the Presidency given its 6 figure salary. Particularly when you read just how disinterested he was in earning that salary per his Senate testimony.

---

I do not know the man's financial situation, but I would not have taken that job on a dare at that point in time.