YoakDaddy said:
BrooksBearLives said:
YoakDaddy said:
NoBSU said:
YoakDaddy said:
BrooksBearLives said:
YoakDaddy said:
BrooksBearLives said:
LBKBEAR said:
BrooksBearLives said:
LBKBEAR said:
As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.
As to this post-
I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.
Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.
I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.
It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.
Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.
The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.
How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?
This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.
If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.
Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?
Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.
This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.
First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.
For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.
I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.
And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.
Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.
But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.
Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.
Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?
Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.
They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.
The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.
But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.
Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.
Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.
BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.
Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.
First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.
Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.
It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.
But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.
I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.
You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?
Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.
Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.
