Pushing the envelope on Campus Carry?

[J.R.@A&M]

For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

My impression of the Board of Regents is that they more represent the State's interests (and particularly the views of the governor who appointed them). The Board is like the political/business/citizen counterweight to the ivory tower academic bias that exists on campus. Even if that is accurate, I am not at all sure how individual Board members feel about campus carry. I'm sure that it varies.

[J.R.@A&M]

At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said in other threads regarding this topic. Public universities have had the option to allow in-building campus carry from the start. Not a single one has done so and will not do so until the new law goes into effect. The language of the bill gives the presidents and boards of regents some latitude - which they'll use to create a general carry prohibition with a few exceptions instead of vice versa as the law's author and sponsors intended. Although the bill's legislative supporters are publicly being optimistic, I have a feeling that they're preparing for round 2. This ain't over by a long shot, and I hope our legislature has the resolve to fix these issues once they have the data to back it up.

I can understand university administrators not allowing campus carry pre-SB11. They're risk averse bureaucrats who don't want to stir up trouble -- why would they invite a firestorm? But now it is a little different with the passage of SB11. And so it reduces to the trade-off that cb100rider highlighted. The risk averse bureaucrat is now probably more inclined to say, "Well, the legislature is making me do this..." At least, I hope that is the case.

[TexasCajun]

At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said in other threads regarding this topic. Public universities have had the option to allow in-building campus carry from the start. Not a single one has done so and will not do so until the new law goes into effect. The language of the bill gives the presidents and boards of regents some latitude - which they'll use to create a general carry prohibition with a few exceptions instead of vice versa as the law's author and sponsors intended. Although the bill's legislative supporters are publicly being optimistic, I have a feeling that they're preparing for round 2. This ain't over by a long shot, and I hope our legislature has the resolve to fix these issues once they have the data to back it up.

I can understand university administrators not allowing campus carry pre-SB11. They're risk averse bureaucrats who don't want to stir up trouble -- why would they invite a firestorm? But now it is a little different with the passage of SB11. And so it reduces to the trade-off that cb100rider highlighted. The risk averse bureaucrat is now probably more inclined to say, "Well, the legislature is making me do this..." At least, I hope that is the case.

They could have avoided the current firestorm by allowing concealed carry quietly on a case-by-case basis. But they decreed their empires sacred and their word unbreakable, short-sidedly thinking that building campus carry was a taboo that would not be touched. I don't expect that myopia to have been suddenly corrected with the passage of sb11. And since the administrations are doing nothing to quell the current storms, my guess is that they'll try to find a way to be as minimally complaint as possible. I do hope I'm wrong. But I believe we'll need legislative clean up next session and beyond.

[mojo84]

For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

My impression of the Board of Regents is that they more represent the State's interests (and particularly the views of the governor who appointed them). The Board is like the political/business/citizen counterweight to the ivory tower academic bias that exists on campus. Even if that is accurate, I am not at all sure how individual Board members feel about campus carry. I'm sure that it varies.

I have a completely different impression. Check out UT Regent Wallace Hall and how things are going there.

I think your idea is what they should be there for but I don't think that's the case in practicality.

[J.R.@A&M]

For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

My impression of the Board of Regents is that they more represent the State's interests (and particularly the views of the governor who appointed them). The Board is like the political/business/citizen counterweight to the ivory tower academic bias that exists on campus. Even if that is accurate, I am not at all sure how individual Board members feel about campus carry. I'm sure that it varies.

I have a completely different impression. Check out UT Regent Wallace Hall and how things are going there.

I think your idea is what they should be there for but I don't think that's the case in practicality.

Hall was presumably doing Perry's bidding, right? That was my point. Hall might have been sacrificed, but the Regents ultimately won, didn't they? The UT president ultimately was forced to resign.

[b322da]

Let us take care not to assume that the regents at UT are of the same calibre as those at A&M.

Jim

[mojo84]

For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

My impression of the Board of Regents is that they more represent the State's interests (and particularly the views of the governor who appointed them). The Board is like the political/business/citizen counterweight to the ivory tower academic bias that exists on campus. Even if that is accurate, I am not at all sure how individual Board members feel about campus carry. I'm sure that it varies.

I have a completely different impression. Check out UT Regent Wallace Hall and how things are going there.

I think your idea is what they should be there for but I don't think that's the case in practicality.

Hall was presumably doing Perry's bidding, right? That was my point. Hall might have been sacrificed, but the Regents ultimately won, didn't they? The UT president ultimately was forced to resign.

No, he was not doing Perry's bidding.

The board of regents is supposed to be the governing body for the system. Just as in the private sector, you can have strong boards or weak/friendly ones. Weak ones usually go along with the president or chancellor on almost everything they want to do.

[J.R.@A&M]

For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

My impression of the Board of Regents is that they more represent the State's interests (and particularly the views of the governor who appointed them). The Board is like the political/business/citizen counterweight to the ivory tower academic bias that exists on campus. Even if that is accurate, I am not at all sure how individual Board members feel about campus carry. I'm sure that it varies.

I have a completely different impression. Check out UT Regent Wallace Hall and how things are going there.

I think your idea is what they should be there for but I don't think that's the case in practicality.

Hall was presumably doing Perry's bidding, right? That was my point. Hall might have been sacrificed, but the Regents ultimately won, didn't they? The UT president ultimately was forced to resign.

No, he was not doing Perry's bidding.

The board of regents is supposed to be the governing body for the system. Just as in the private sector, you can have strong boards or weak/friendly ones. Weak ones usually go along with the president or chancellor on almost everything they want to do.

I definitely agree with that. Boards are different, individual regents are different. Their views on campus carry will likely be different. Hence we will likely see some variation in the campus carry plans that result.

[b322da]

A thoughtful approach, or ??

http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/task ... bf574.html

http://www.tamu.edu/statements/campus-carry.html.

Jim

[TVegas]

Let us take care not to assume that the regents at UT are of the same calibre as those at A&M.

Jim

[b322da]

A thoughtful approach, or ??

http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/task ... bf574.html

http://www.tamu.edu/statements/campus-carry.html.

Jim

No comments? Is that, I suppose, because usually the only comments on this forum are negative in nature, and perhaps the readers may have concluded that A&M may be approaching this issue in the right way?

Being a College Station resident I am really interested in our readers' views, so far as this has gone. So, as stated above, I will luxuriate in observing that there have been no slings and arrows thrown at A&M because of its approach.

Jim

[mojo84]

I don't have a problem with them soliciting input and considering what is best for them. I think A&M is flying under the radar on the somewhat because UT leadership are the ones that put up the most resistance to campus carry during the hearings. They also claimed it would cost the system 10's of millions dollars if it passed. I do not recall A&M jumping on the hyperbole train the UT was driving.

Maybe that's why others are less vocal and taking somewhat of a wait and see approach to A&M and Tech.

[TexasCajun]

A&M seems to be taking the new law at face value & doesn't seem to be trying to push the envelope. But they (like every other university) chose not to allow concealed carry in the buildings when they could have. So the jury is still out. I'd like to see them stay the course that they've set upon. But I have a feeling that the university heads may get together to compare notes and the more radical heads try to influence the ones just trying to adhere to the law without any monkey business.

[JALLEN]

There is ordinarily tension between the Regents and Chancellor, President, etc. It seems there always has been.

UT has a new President, a new Chancellor and a new AD. Those guys are still trying to figure where they fit in, testing the personalities they are forced to deal with, what can they get away with, and what they can't.

ADM McRaven is in a whole new game, although the game he was in as a Navy Admiral, has some similarities to this game, but he had ~37 years of experience at the old game. I think you can assume that he didn't rise to the very top of his profession, a VERY hard game, without being able to play at a pretty high level.

I don't know about the new Pres.

[J.R.@A&M]

A thoughtful approach, or ??

http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/task ... bf574.html

http://www.tamu.edu/statements/campus-carry.html.

Jim

No comments? Is that, I suppose, because usually the only comments on this forum are negative in nature, and perhaps the readers may have concluded that A&M may be approaching this issue in the right way?

Being a College Station resident I am really interested in our readers' views, so far as this has gone. So, as stated above, I will luxuriate in observing that there have been no slings and arrows thrown at A&M because of its approach.

Jim

A&M has laid out a straightforward process, pretty much like other schools. What I find encouraging is the statements by A&M admin. which appear to acknowledge the intent of the law. I also was encouraged by President Young's comment that he experienced this process at the Univ. of Utah without any subsequent problems.