We could be Catholic and just call the school "St. George of the Brazos."

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

We could be Catholic and just call the school "St. George of the Brazos."

---

Bezos on the Brazos

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

We could be Catholic and just call the school "St. George of the Brazos."

---

Bezos on the Brazos

---

That is gold. Our mascot could be the Giant Blue Astro-Phallus.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

It's additive, not cancelled. Good on 'em

---

Relocating the statue and removing any reference to the name of the former president from the plaza is not "additive," though I understand of course that's the way Baylor wants to spin it.

Personally Im not all that worked up over renaming the area. The problem is, there is no appeasing the woke mob, which is why I think it sets a bad precedent to even try.

---

Do you remember the mob that wiped clean any reference to students/union/building?

Yeah, me neither.

It was a name change to BDSC from SUB. Back before pearl clutching was so popular.

Pitchforks and torches oh my...

---

Sure, bro. Fact remains your statement was inaccurate. It was not merely additive.

You're wrong on most issues. This is but another.

---

The statue, is it removed?

No.

Was the name changed?

Yes. So ****ing what

Is additional info being added?

Yes

Additive.

I'm not your bro, guy

---

Changing your pronouns this late in life? Whatever floats your boat, sister.

---

Gay jokes, always a winner on this site. And a nice diversion from the discussion.

I'll quit wasting my time on you. Win win.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

It's additive, not cancelled. Good on 'em

---

Relocating the statue and removing any reference to the name of the former president from the plaza is not "additive," though I understand of course that's the way Baylor wants to spin it.

Personally Im not all that worked up over renaming the area. The problem is, there is no appeasing the woke mob, which is why I think it sets a bad precedent to even try.

---

Do you remember the mob that wiped clean any reference to students/union/building?

Yeah, me neither.

It was a name change to BDSC from SUB. Back before pearl clutching was so popular.

Pitchforks and torches oh my...

---

Sure, bro. Fact remains your statement was inaccurate. It was not merely additive.

You're wrong on most issues. This is but another.

---

The statue, is it removed?

No.

Was the name changed?

Yes. So ****ing what

Is additional info being added?

Yes

Additive.

I'm not your bro, guy

---

Changing your pronouns this late in life? Whatever floats your boat, sister.

---

Gay jokes, always a winner on this site. And a nice diversion from the discussion.

I'll quit wasting my time on you. Win win.

---

You assume preferring pronouns other than he/him automatically makes one gay? Transphobe.

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

It's additive, not cancelled. Good on 'em

---

Relocating the statue and removing any reference to the name of the former president from the plaza is not "additive," though I understand of course that's the way Baylor wants to spin it.

Personally Im not all that worked up over renaming the area. The problem is, there is no appeasing the woke mob, which is why I think it sets a bad precedent to even try.

---

Do you remember the mob that wiped clean any reference to students/union/building?

Yeah, me neither.

It was a name change to BDSC from SUB. Back before pearl clutching was so popular.

Pitchforks and torches oh my...

---

Sure, bro. Fact remains your statement was inaccurate. It was not merely additive.

You're wrong on most issues. This is but another.

---

The statue, is it removed?

No.

Was the name changed?

Yes. So ****ing what

Is additional info being added?

Yes

Additive.

I'm not your bro, guy

---

Changing your pronouns this late in life? Whatever floats your boat, sister.

---

Gay jokes, always a winner on this site. And a nice diversion from the discussion.

I'll quit wasting my time on you. Win win.

---

You assume preferring pronouns other than he/him automatically makes one gay? Transphobe.

---

Fight quash; fight the patriarchy.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

It's additive, not cancelled. Good on 'em

---

Relocating the statue and removing any reference to the name of the former president from the plaza is not "additive," though I understand of course that's the way Baylor wants to spin it.

Personally Im not all that worked up over renaming the area. The problem is, there is no appeasing the woke mob, which is why I think it sets a bad precedent to even try.

---

Do you remember the mob that wiped clean any reference to students/union/building?

Yeah, me neither.

It was a name change to BDSC from SUB. Back before pearl clutching was so popular.

Pitchforks and torches oh my...

---

Sure, bro. Fact remains your statement was inaccurate. It was not merely additive.

You're wrong on most issues. This is but another.

---

The statue, is it removed?

No.

Was the name changed?

Yes. So ****ing what

Is additional info being added?

Yes

Additive.

I'm not your bro, guy

---

Changing your pronouns this late in life? Whatever floats your boat, sister.

---

Gay jokes, always a winner on this site. And a nice diversion from the discussion.

I'll quit wasting my time on you. Win win.

---

I didn't call you gay and, even if I did, why do you find that offensive?

I avoided calling you bro and went the opposite direction and you find offense there. "Whatever floats your boat" clearly states I'm good with whatever you choose. I just don't know the term for "fluid"

Help a brother... uh, I mean me, out.

I think the George Floyd Fighting Fentanyls has a nice ring to it. Our mascot could be a big guy holding a gun to a pregnant woman.

C. Jordan said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Good for BU!

Acknowledging and confessing our sins is as biblical and conservative as it gets!

The only sad part is that it will take away a great BU legend.

Do you know why Burleson's hat is filled with cement.

Back in the 1920's, miscreant BU students would stuff rags in his hat and set them on fire.

Then they would call the Fire Dept., crying, "Burleson's on fire!"

Naturally, the Fire Dept. assumed this meant Burleson Hall, and dispatched firefighters.

Otherwise, he won't be missed.

---

We should replace him with a statue of George Floyd. You can be the first donor to the Baylor Woke George Floyd LBGTQ Fund.

---

You think mocking George Floyd is a positive way forward?

Really?

---

You don't think Fentanyl Floyd deserves a statue?

Pointing out absurdity by using the absurd

DAC said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Good for BU!

Acknowledging and confessing our sins is as biblical and conservative as it gets!

The only sad part is that it will take away a great BU legend.

Do you know why Burleson's hat is filled with cement.

Back in the 1920's, miscreant BU students would stuff rags in his hat and set them on fire.

Then they would call the Fire Dept., crying, "Burleson's on fire!"

Naturally, the Fire Dept. assumed this meant Burleson Hall, and dispatched firefighters.

Otherwise, he won't be missed.

---

We should replace him with a statue of George Floyd. You can be the first donor to the Baylor Woke George Floyd LBGTQ Fund.

---

You think mocking George Floyd is a positive way forward?

Really?

---

You don't think Fentanyl Floyd deserves a statue?

---

I think he should be on the $20 bill. Put Jacob Blake on the $1, Michael Brown on the $5, Breona Taylor on the $10.

I feel like if a school wants to make a moral stance like this they can. However, they owe significant restitution to the families of the founders. You can't hold onto the money otherwise, you are morally bankrupt.

This is like a child being taken care of by a parent who fed them, clothed them, took them to school and so on and then one day in adulthood pretending the father didn't do any of that and that they did it all on their own. Highly disrespectful and morally reprehensible.


When a charity gets money from the Klan or some other group they don't like, they simply return the money. Why shouldn't Baylor or whatever school be forced to do the same. Otherwise it shows their morality only extends as far as it does not effect their pocketbook. If they really think it is wrong, give the money back. It is the right thing to do. For if the founders knew they were going to be treated this way, they would likely have not given the money in the first place. Otherwise, they are saying it is ok to steal from people when it become politically expedient.

BaylorFTW said:

---

I feel like if a school wants to make a moral stance like this they can. However, they owe significant restitution to the families of the founders. You can't hold onto the money otherwise, you are morally bankrupt.

This is like a child being taken care of by a parent who fed them, clothed them, took them to school and so on and then one day in adulthood pretending the father didn't do any of that and that they did it all on their own. Highly disrespectful and morally reprehensible.


When a charity gets money from the Klan or some other group they don't like, they simply return the money. Why shouldn't Baylor or whatever school be forced to do the same. Otherwise it shows their morality only extends as far as it does not effect their pocketbook. If they really think it is wrong, give the money back. It is the right thing to do. For if the founders knew they were going to be treated this way, they would likely have not given the money in the first place. Otherwise, they are saying it is ok to steal from people when it become politically expedient.

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I feel like if a school wants to make a moral stance like this they can. However, they owe significant restitution to the families of the founders. You can't hold onto the money otherwise, you are morally bankrupt.

This is like a child being taken care of by a parent who fed them, clothed them, took them to school and so on and then one day in adulthood pretending the father didn't do any of that and that they did it all on their own. Highly disrespectful and morally reprehensible.


When a charity gets money from the Klan or some other group they don't like, they simply return the money. Why shouldn't Baylor or whatever school be forced to do the same. Otherwise it shows their morality only extends as far as it does not effect their pocketbook. If they really think it is wrong, give the money back. It is the right thing to do. For if the founders knew they were going to be treated this way, they would likely have not given the money in the first place. Otherwise, they are saying it is ok to steal from people when it become politically expedient.

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I feel like if a school wants to make a moral stance like this they can. However, they owe significant restitution to the families of the founders. You can't hold onto the money otherwise, you are morally bankrupt.

This is like a child being taken care of by a parent who fed them, clothed them, took them to school and so on and then one day in adulthood pretending the father didn't do any of that and that they did it all on their own. Highly disrespectful and morally reprehensible.


When a charity gets money from the Klan or some other group they don't like, they simply return the money. Why shouldn't Baylor or whatever school be forced to do the same. Otherwise it shows their morality only extends as far as it does not effect their pocketbook. If they really think it is wrong, give the money back. It is the right thing to do. For if the founders knew they were going to be treated this way, they would likely have not given the money in the first place. Otherwise, they are saying it is ok to steal from people when it become politically expedient.

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

---

Maybe. Fortunately they are addressing that hypocrisy.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I feel like if a school wants to make a moral stance like this they can. However, they owe significant restitution to the families of the founders. You can't hold onto the money otherwise, you are morally bankrupt.

This is like a child being taken care of by a parent who fed them, clothed them, took them to school and so on and then one day in adulthood pretending the father didn't do any of that and that they did it all on their own. Highly disrespectful and morally reprehensible.


When a charity gets money from the Klan or some other group they don't like, they simply return the money. Why shouldn't Baylor or whatever school be forced to do the same. Otherwise it shows their morality only extends as far as it does not effect their pocketbook. If they really think it is wrong, give the money back. It is the right thing to do. For if the founders knew they were going to be treated this way, they would likely have not given the money in the first place. Otherwise, they are saying it is ok to steal from people when it become politically expedient.

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

---

Maybe. Fortunately they are addressing that hypocrisy.

---

Why? Who asked it to? A majority of the alumni didn't. Couldn't have been the students as BU is the largest it has ever been. Faculty perhaps?

Got to stand up to bullies.

Israel to rename Star of David

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I feel like if a school wants to make a moral stance like this they can. However, they owe significant restitution to the families of the founders. You can't hold onto the money otherwise, you are morally bankrupt.

This is like a child being taken care of by a parent who fed them, clothed them, took them to school and so on and then one day in adulthood pretending the father didn't do any of that and that they did it all on their own. Highly disrespectful and morally reprehensible.


When a charity gets money from the Klan or some other group they don't like, they simply return the money. Why shouldn't Baylor or whatever school be forced to do the same. Otherwise it shows their morality only extends as far as it does not effect their pocketbook. If they really think it is wrong, give the money back. It is the right thing to do. For if the founders knew they were going to be treated this way, they would likely have not given the money in the first place. Otherwise, they are saying it is ok to steal from people when it become politically expedient.

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

---

Maybe. Fortunately they are addressing that hypocrisy.

---

Ridiculous. Doing nothing and letting history stand on its own while you move forward is a principled stance. Triangulating one historical character into figurative exile to save the others and the name of your university is the height of hypocrisy. We've either done something that shouldn't have been done at all (my opinion), or we've done a horrendously inadequate and embarrassing job of actually handling this.

I know who won't be missed its you and your far left posts

Robert Wilson said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I feel like if a school wants to make a moral stance like this they can. However, they owe significant restitution to the families of the founders. You can't hold onto the money otherwise, you are morally bankrupt.

This is like a child being taken care of by a parent who fed them, clothed them, took them to school and so on and then one day in adulthood pretending the father didn't do any of that and that they did it all on their own. Highly disrespectful and morally reprehensible.


When a charity gets money from the Klan or some other group they don't like, they simply return the money. Why shouldn't Baylor or whatever school be forced to do the same. Otherwise it shows their morality only extends as far as it does not effect their pocketbook. If they really think it is wrong, give the money back. It is the right thing to do. For if the founders knew they were going to be treated this way, they would likely have not given the money in the first place. Otherwise, they are saying it is ok to steal from people when it become politically expedient.

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

---

Maybe. Fortunately they are addressing that hypocrisy.

---

Ridiculous. Doing nothing and letting history stand on its own while you move forward is a principled stance. Triangulating one historical character into figurative exile to save the others and the name of your university is the height of hypocrisy. We've either done something that shouldn't have been done at all (my opinion), or we've done a horrendously inadequate and embarrassing job of actually handling this.

---

Agree. Baylor should either return all of its donations (with interest) to the Burleson family or do nothing. It's basically just virtue signaling so Linda can get a pat-on-the-back at the woke cocktail parties. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: "we're fine keeping ill-gotten gains from slavery but we just don't want to acknowledge it."

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

---

Maybe. Fortunately they are addressing that hypocrisy.

---

Why? Who asked it to? A majority of the alumni didn't. Couldn't have been the students as BU is the largest it has ever been. Faculty perhaps?

Got to stand up to bullies.

---

That's hilarious. On what issue have the majority of alum had an influence? I don't recall a majority of alums asking Baylor to kill the BAA. And once that was accomplished there's no good way to know what alumni think anyway.

Baylor follows the $ and the $ is exactly why enrollment is up as Baylor shifted to a tuition based budget.

I do appreciate the nice gaslighting of the oppressed as bullies. Kudos, have a star.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

---

Maybe. Fortunately they are addressing that hypocrisy.

---

Why? Who asked it to? A majority of the alumni didn't. Couldn't have been the students as BU is the largest it has ever been. Faculty perhaps?

Got to stand up to bullies.

---

That's hilarious. On what issue have the majority of alum had an influence? I don't recall a majority of alums asking Baylor to kill the BAA. And once that was accomplished there's no good way to know what alumni think anyway.

Baylor follows the $ and the $ is exactly why enrollment is up as Baylor shifted to a tuition based budget.

I do appreciate the nice gaslighting of the oppressed as bullies. Kudos, have a star.

---

Thanks for the star. There was NO reason to remove Burleson. There was no movement. There was no financial reason. There was no historical reason. Nothing more than complete woke bull*****

The "oppressed" are not oppressed and they are bullies if they demand otherwise.

Meanwhile, TCU trots out a formerly enslaved couple that was "indispensable" during the school's early days. This is a good lesson on how you turn bad news into good news. They aren't looking back through their history to find the bad guys, they're looking for opportunities to bestow "delayed recognition" upon those who deserve it. This is how you do it.

If Baylor uncovered this story, we'd probably submit to self flogging and maybe a bowl ban.

https://www.keranews.org/education/2022-06-01/tcu-research-uncovers-indispensable-contributions-of-formerly-enslaved-couple

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Complete nonsense. They have not been harmed in the slightest.

---

perhaps they've not been harmed but the institution has been harmed through its own hypocrisy.

---

Maybe. Fortunately they are addressing that hypocrisy.

---

Why? Who asked it to? A majority of the alumni didn't. Couldn't have been the students as BU is the largest it has ever been. Faculty perhaps?

Got to stand up to bullies.

---

That's hilarious. On what issue have the majority of alum had an influence? I don't recall a majority of alums asking Baylor to kill the BAA. And once that was accomplished there's no good way to know what alumni think anyway.

Baylor follows the $ and the $ is exactly why enrollment is up as Baylor shifted to a tuition based budget.

I do appreciate the nice gaslighting of the oppressed as bullies. Kudos, have a star.

---

Baylor enrollment being up might have something to do with the exponential growth of the state as well as the enrollment policies of the University of Texas.

Sam Lowry said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Good for BU!

Acknowledging and confessing our sins is as biblical and conservative as it gets!

The only sad part is that it will take away a great BU legend.

Do you know why Burleson's hat is filled with cement.

Back in the 1920's, miscreant BU students would stuff rags in his hat and set them on fire.

Then they would call the Fire Dept., crying, "Burleson's on fire!"

Naturally, the Fire Dept. assumed this meant Burleson Hall, and dispatched firefighters.

Otherwise, he won't be missed.

---

It may not be a disaster in itself, but it reveals a troubling lack of courage on the part of the school.

You'll call me crazy, but mark my words -- it's only a matter of time until they're endorsing LGBT groups on campus.

---

"A troubling lack of courage"? Really?

How is the confession of sin and repentance a lack of courage? It seems the opposite to me.

I think it's really important to acknowledge the sins of racism and slavery in a place like Waco, which was the site of one of the most horrific lynchings in history.

You might find it interesting that Burleson and those guys thought Catholics were more dangerous than anybody. B.H. Caroll, for whom several buildings were named, believed the Catholic Church was antiChrist. He and all those other guys saw the Catholic Church as apostate. But eventually, BU allowed Catholic student groups. A move that was regarded as "liberal" at the time.

Why not reflect on the fact that people of your faith were once considered just as sinful and dangerous as LGBTQ groups and that it's because of "liberals" that Catholics were even allowed on campus?

You want to stop the wave that changed the status of Catholics on campus?

---

Burleson was also the first to allow women on campus. You want to stop that wave?

The problem is that wokeness isn't a liberal movement. It's an anti-liberal movement with roots in the same philosophy that's been working to destroy Western culture for the last century. It's every bit as hostile to the secular values of the university as it is to the religious values of Baylor in particular. Anyone who cherishes academic freedom should be wary of pandering to the woke mob. They're not concerned with your ideals and can't be appeased.

---

You only get a pass if your ideas support the mob. So that means folks like Michel Foucault
and Karl Marx get a pass (even though they are far more despicable) but Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt do not. And the mob doesn't care about academic freedom as it will just be called institutional racism. If you stand up to them in even a slight way, pointing out conflicting evidence or disagreeing with their conclusions, they will try and often do get the person fired or at least censored. Things are going to get a whole lot worse on this front I fear as the mob finds it easier to find new targets to tear down than to do any inward self reflection. Ask yourself who really is pushing back against the mob. Who can people rally around?