AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Mark Kennedy new, but soon to be old CU President - Official CU president Thread
- Thread starter buff4bcs1985
- Start date
I’m pretty well convinced they’ll be so focused on hiring the anti-Kennedy that they’ll hire an equally worthless candidate who happens to be a democrat. I hope I’m wrong.
If the anti-athletic wing of the BoR gets their way that's exactly what will happen. Judith Albino all over again.
I won't judge by party affiliation. But I will judge by the faction of the party the person represents. A Romney type who is great at raising money & governed a blue state would be a great choice, imo. A Tea Party / Trump type should be rejected out of hand as being wrong for CU.
Yup. Nor should it be some radical off the reservation weirdo like kroll
The fact that guy had the backers to be a viable candidate in the first place is an indictment of the entire BOR system.
Anyway, my guess is that the different direction they will go in will be someone who checks an ethnic or LGBTQ box and has some academic credentials. If that's the case, the person is likely to be somewhat moderate since that's usually the case when someone has to be a Jackie Robinson and break a barrier.
I have angered many on this board by talking about how the Dems on a national level need to take the high road and take leadership in returning to bi-partisanship.
In the case of the BOR we have a couple of Dems who are unreasonable. For the good of the university this now needs to be reversed.
The Republicans when they had the majority were responsible for creating this absolute partisan divide. Now we have a BOR that is 5 Dems, 4 Repubs. What this means is that if two of the Republicans are willing to be real leaders and find common ground with at least three of the Democrats to provide a majority that is making rational decisions for the good of the university.
Now having a coalition that is 3-2 Dems is going to mean that the balance of decisions is going to lean to the Dems side but done right it will mean at least they can get some compromise instead of being on the losing end of every decision and at the same time they can neutralize the extreme views of the Krolls as well as the extreme of the Republicans. They can also reset the way things are done on the BOR to be functional regardless of the political balance.
If this is possible I don't know. Depends on how Trumpy the Republican members want to be.
I wish I could agree with this fully but after the last four years and especially the last year, I can't not judge an unknown (to me personally I mean) individual running for a position of power that chooses to identify as a Republican. It's now the party of Trump as the majority of that party will vote for him or someone like him. I understand the sentiment but until the party changes or a new, less radical one spawns from it with Romney types, I won't be able to remove the stain they've created for themselves the past 4+ years.
Yeah. I hear you. Especially in CO, I think we're much more likely to find a business-minded, moderate Dem than a Pub who shares values with the majority of faculty and students
This is a very real threat, in my opinion. If we get an “academic” who has no use for athletics, all the progress that has been made with the CU AD is gone. Say what you want about Kennedy, one thing he did was allow athletics to succeed. He didn’t cut off resources, make unreasonable demands or restrictions.
Can someone summarize what he did at CU to get fired?
I dont disagree he was not the best choice to start with, but since he has been here, I am not quite sure what he did, other than have a bunch of people upset about what he did previously.
Also note: I an unaware of what he may have done bad, but I am also unaware of what he did good...
I dont disagree he was not the best choice to start with, but since he has been here, I am not quite sure what he did, other than have a bunch of people upset about what he did previously.
Also note: I an unaware of what he may have done bad, but I am also unaware of what he did good...
There are a few things he did with some of his hiring, initial reluctance to forgo salary while everyone was furloughed, and some things around diversity.... but the truth is those are all pretty minor.
This is all politically motivated
100% agree this is politically motivated. And, it’s not enough for Kennedy to be fired, he has to be degraded, humiliated and branded as a racist by the faculty. The same faculty that’s overwhelmingly white and ignored significant efforts Kennedy made to address racial disparities at CU.
I'd like to hear more about this, for one. I must have missed it.
Just like his criticisms, he also didn't do anything positive of note. His diversity items were pretty minor.
Honestly folks - this is just the Democratic BoR righting a perceived wrong in his appointment 2 years ago
Are you able to name the specific leadership qualities and actions that Kennedy exhibited that lend to the argument for his retention? It's a serious question and I'm open to learning and being swayed.
Where I am now:
For me - and this isn't just aimed at you - this big bad faculty argument is tiresome. The job of the President is to build relationships with faculty, staff and community, share a vision and surround himself/herself with qualified people to execute it. Oh, and something, something fundraising.
Where is the accountability here?
TallBuff
Well-Known Member
Meh. The hiring itself was an overt political act by a group that was woefully out of touch with the politics of the state and the area. Did people honestly not expect a reaction to that? Of course it was doomed from the start. Kennedy was a milquetoast conservative hack who was in way over his head and had no business sitting at the helm of Colorado's flagship university.
Here's a link to the faculty censure motion.
Look, this **** just isn't that difficult. Every white bread corporation in this country is going all-in on DEI. Is most of it just lip service and noise? Absolutely! The thing is, that lip service and noise works so well that said corporations won't have to make any substantive changes to how the operate and who they hire and promote. That this Kennedy guy could not figure out how to do the same is why he failed.
I'm not crying over Kennedy, please trust me on that. Just go back and read my rants in this thread. I don't even disagree with your assertion and I don't blame the BoR for doing what they're doing!
But I think it is important to also be fair, and Kennedy didn't have much time to actually get much done.
I wasn’t aware the President of the University was a political appointment. I mean, I suppose that the regents are elected, and therefore anybody they hire could technically be considered a political appointment, but I honestly never viewed it that way.
It’s also hilarious because the dude is unqualified for the job. Always has been. Continued to be.
So I completely agree he was not the right hire, and politics are politics.
What I am surprised of, is the messaging. I would have expected some kind of BS low performance statement, looking to go another direction, etc. Instead it seems like they tried to make it sound like it was a mutual parting of ways, but allowed the messaging that happened, happen, which shows it was not. Just seems like you are stumbling all over yourself.
What I am surprised of, is the messaging. I would have expected some kind of BS low performance statement, looking to go another direction, etc. Instead it seems like they tried to make it sound like it was a mutual parting of ways, but allowed the messaging that happened, happen, which shows it was not. Just seems like you are stumbling all over yourself.
I don't have any inside knowledge on this - but reading the initial messages makes it seem to me like Kennedy pulled the ripcord and peaced out - so the broader University may not have had time to craft a narrative
From some of the libs on the BoR voting against a football coaches contract or extension, to Kennedy's hiring, its just another example of how disfunctional that group has been. They choose to make their jobs polictical, then cry victim when they receive public criticism. Its sad.
The Heidi Ganahl, Linda Shoemaker, Jack Kroll types need to be weeded out.
The Heidi Ganahl, Linda Shoemaker, Jack Kroll types need to be weeded out.
CPVbuff
Well-Known Member
This whole process by all parties involved is an embarrassment. The President, the BOR, and most disgustingly the Professors and other administrators.
Don't underestimate that impact the technology changes that were coming that would have impacted some of the bozo professors
Don't underestimate that impact the technology changes that were coming that would have impacted some of the bozo professors