Baylor Opts Out

[oohrah]

"In his report to the board, Baylor President and Chancellor Ken Starr announced that after consultation with Baylor students, faculty and staff, Baylor will opt out of Texas Senate Bill 11 (known as the campus carry law), according to provisions allowed in the legislation, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on June 1, 2015. President Starr highlighted the robust debate by Faculty Senate and Staff Council and the extensive work of Student Government, who sought feedback through two weeks of educational events, a panel discussion, public deliberation session, focus groups and a student online poll."

[TexasJohnBoy]

No surprise here, unfortunately.

[Excaliber]

In former times folks at institutions of higher learning would have considered it obvious that vulnerability is not a defense.

Nowadays folks go deep into debt to be brainwashed into beliefs that have consistently led to ruin throughout history.

Go figure.

[flintknapper]

In former times folks at institutions of higher learning would have considered it obvious that vulnerability is not a defense.

Nowadays folks go deep into debt to be brainwashed into beliefs that have consistently led to ruin throughout history.

Go figure.

^^^^^^^^^^

Yep.

The irony of it is, these same folks who profess to be so 'smart' can not separate ideology from REALITY.

[anygunanywhere]

Do they accept any state or federal funding, grants, or subsidies? Do they push student loans?

If they do then they should not be able to opt out. Accepting any government assistance of any kind make them public not private.

[oohrah]

You are spitting into the wind on that argument, anygun. It is a moot point. Private universities do not get subsidized or funded by the govt. Students decide where their loan money goes. Research grants are no different than any other govt contract to provide a service or product, e.g., defense contractors. That's the way it is.

[anygunanywhere]

You are spitting into the wind on that argument, anygun. It is a moot point. Private universities do not get subsidized or funded by the govt. Students decide where their loan money goes. Research grants are no different than any other govt contract to provide a service or product, e.g., defense contractors. That's the way it is.

I do not accept "that's the way it is". Accepting the way it is has brought us to the shape this country is in now.

The fedgov produces nothing. Grants are income from taxes which at the levels we have now are simple extortion. Since grants are tax money private universities are benefitting from my money extorted from me by fedgov. Then said "private" university tells us they will not allow us to carry the means to protect ourselves? Accepting this as the norm is counter-intuitive to freedom.

[rentz]

so a university that allegedly helped cover up sexual assaults by a football player isnt allowing students to carry to defend themselves?
hmmmm

[Jusme]

so a university that allegedly helped cover up sexual assaults by a football player isnt allowing students to carry to defend themselves?
hmmmm

You know they can't play with bullet wounds!!

[treadlightly]

Do they accept any state or federal funding, grants, or subsidies? Do they push student loans?

If they do then they should not be able to opt out. Accepting any government assistance of any kind make them public not private.

Good point, but already fought and lost (by the bad guys).

Hillsdale College refuses government support and doesn't teach a leftist agenda. All students have to study the Constitution in ways that would have made Scalia proud.

Lefties tried to pressure Hillsdale into adopting policies the college leadership opposed on the basis suggested - since students got loans, or breathed air that had gone through a welfare office air conditioner someplace, or some such thing, they tried to argue Hillsdale got government support no how much they rejected it.

The argument failed.

The hubris of academics is nettlesome, though. Until crime and tyranny are eliminated, guns are necessary. Before smallpox was vanquished, everybody needed a vaccination.

A professor declaring guns have no place in society is sophistry.

[Scott in Houston]

so a university that allegedly helped cover up sexual assaults by a football player isnt allowing students to carry to defend themselves?
hmmmm

Get that crap out of here…
Seriously… just wrong. Are you a big fan of the Dallas Morning News? Those are the people pushing that line.

There's no cover-up. Could have been handled better? Maybe. No cover up.

BTW, you can't win… see "Duke Lacross" or this recent one

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ?tid=sm_fb

[Scott in Houston]

so a university that allegedly helped cover up sexual assaults by a football player isnt allowing students to carry to defend themselves?
hmmmm

Get that crap out of here…
Seriously… just wrong. Are you a big fan of the Dallas Morning News? Those are the people pushing that line. Those and everyone who is losing to Baylor in sports… so about everyone. lol

There's no cover-up. Could have been handled better? Maybe. No cover up.

BTW, you can't win… see "Duke Lacross" or this recent one

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ?tid=sm_fb

[rentz]

so a university that allegedly helped cover up sexual assaults by a football player isnt allowing students to carry to defend themselves?
hmmmm

Get that crap out of here…
Seriously… just wrong. Are you a big fan of the Dallas Morning News? Those are the people pushing that line.

There's no cover-up. Could have been handled better? Maybe. No cover up.

BTW, you can't win… see "Duke Lacross" or this recent one

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ?tid=sm_fb

i wasnt being 100% serious.
it's also not limited to baylor or duke, FSU just paid out a bunch of money to an accuser of winston.
based on your RG3 avatar i can only assume you are an unbiased baylor fan?


And you are correct it was a mishandling of the situation not a cover up I chose the words poorly for my statement that was meant in jest

[twomillenium]

Baylor had announced their opt out last year. This is not new news.

[The Annoyed Man]

You are spitting into the wind on that argument, anygun. It is a moot point. Private universities do not get subsidized or funded by the govt. Students decide where their loan money goes. Research grants are no different than any other govt contract to provide a service or product, e.g., defense contractors. That's the way it is.

I do not accept "that's the way it is". Accepting the way it is has brought us to the shape this country is in now.

The fedgov produces nothing. Grants are income from taxes which at the levels we have now are simple extortion. Since grants are tax money private universities are benefitting from my money extorted from me by fedgov. Then said "private" university tells us they will not allow us to carry the means to protect ourselves? Accepting this as the norm is counter-intuitive to freedom.

Oorah, respectfully, that is a dissembling maneuver and bovine manure, and here's why - using Baylor specifically as an example.

Baylor DOES accept government funding:

• https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunicati ... ory=124821
• http://www.baylor.edu/research/news.php
• http://www2.baylor.edu/baylorproud/2016 ... -to-do-so/
• http://blogs.baylor.edu/researchtracks/ ... f-defense/
• http://blogs.baylor.edu/researchtracks/ ... of-mexico/
• http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunicatio ... ory=159957
• http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunicatio ... ory=155184

Etc., etc., etc. It wasn't that hard to find those references.......took all of about 10 minutes, and I didn't even list all of them.

Now, here's why that funding DOES equate to being "funded by gov't":

I don't particularly care if Baylor receives funding from gov't sources for projects like these, as long as these are legitimate projects that provide a benefit to mankind and a true advancement to science, BUT.......without these grants/donations, Baylor would be forced to either use its own funds to conduct the research, OR not do the research. Baylor is in the same boat here as Planned Parenthood, which claims that no gov't money is used to provide abortions, but without gov't funding would have to choose (oh, the irony of being forced to choose ) to either use its own funds collected from other sources for abortions, decreasing the other services it (sometimes falsely) claims to provide, OR to stop providing either abortions or those other services. Without developing that particular line of thought any further vis-a-vis Planned Parenthood, because I don't want to turn this into a fight over PP and abortion, and without arguing whether or not it is a good thing that either PP or Baylor receive such funding, the FACT is that Baylor cannot legitimately claim that it operates independently of government funding......at least, not without cutting back on those kinds of extras that make it one of the better schools in the country, AND which add luster to its name. So, it accepts public money to burnish its image, so that it can continue to educate students, without having to cut back on the services it provides to those students in order to fund the name-burnishing projects.

Additionally, the gov't funded research is often actually conducted by unpaid graduate students who are receiving course credits for their work, credits which THEY paid for (unless the gov't separately paid for their tuition too), and who will use the results of their work as part of their dissertations for degree accomplishment...... In other words, gov't is funding their educations.......

My parents (as I'm sure many members of this board are tired of me repeating ) were both professors at Caltech, a PRIVATE institution which receives LARGE amounts of federal and state dollars for its part in owning NASA's JPL facility, assisting the U.S. Geological Survey Dept., staffing various NASA space missions, running various gov't atmospheric research projects, etc., etc., etc. These are all beneficial to the public, and as long as the accounting for the funding is on point, I don't necessarily have a problem with private institutions receiving public funds for research that is a benefit to society and/or expands man's knowledge of the universe in which he lives and of which he is a part. BUT....it is disingenuous to argue that they are not subsidized or funded by gov't......especially when you add in the gov't funded tuition for students who would not otherwise be attending these institutions. Whenever an institution accepts public funds so that it can do extra things - EVEN IF you couch it in terms of "fulfilling a contracted service", which by the way is often NOT the case, that is "gov't funding". An example in which that is NOT the case? My parents were both professors in the Humanities. Before my dad was hired by Caltech, you could not major in a Humanities subject there. My dad was instrumental in getting that changed, and over the years, Caltech has put together a humanities department which is competitive with those of other small, private universities, and you can now get a degree in History, or Literature, or whatever, at Caltech. THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if Caltech had not been able to divert funding from other operational costs in the sciences into hiring really good humanities professors; and that diversion of operational costs was made up, in part, by the monies received from gov't sources for research in those other disciplines. In instances where the gov't approaches the institution and says "we want you to research XYZ and give us the results", then yes, the institution is operating merely as a contractor. But when the institution proposes the research, and then goes out seeking gov't funding for it, it is no longer acting as contractor, but rather as recipient of gov't benevolence, and that is a horse of both a morally and legally different flavor.

The guiding principle is: if an institution receives gov't funding for research that it would do regardless of funding source, including funding it out of its normal operating budget, and that gov't funding therefore relieves the institution of the obligation to fund that research out of its normal operating budget (which includes the various costs of all of the other functions a university performs), then factually, that university is gov't funded, and claims to the contrary are simply eyewash.

But EVEN IF you don't want to accept that argument, and you want to insist that the funding relationship is always purely contractual, then consider this: gov't funded ancillary university research outside of the scope of the primary mission of eduction is tantamount to gov't-funded burnishing of that institution's reputation. In other words, gov't is paying for part of the institution's marketing program. The American university I am most in awe of is Hillsdale College, which makes it a foundational principle on which it operates that it will accept exactly ZERO government dollars, so that it may operate entirely free from gov't interference in how it educates its students.......which by the way receive one of the finest educations in the principles of classical liberalism and civics one can receive from any institution in the country. Schools which accept gov't funds for any purpose whatsoever, BY LAW, also accept gov't intrusion into how they operate.



THAT is not independence from gov't. Just sayin'.