Mark Kennedy new, but soon to be old CU President - Official CU president Thread

[DBT]

DBT isn't wrong that there is political bias at play, but it is just as prevalent from folks like DBT who give him a pass because of his political leanings as it is from the liberals who are upset at his voting record.

Outside of politics, you have to question his experience since he has never managed a system remotely this large, his record at UND and relationship with the ND legislature and the fact that he has at least had a few complaints levied against him (Title IX complaint at UND, discrimination complaint against him at Georgetown by a gay employee).

He has seemed willing to pad the pockets of his political supporters using his position (approved his Chief of Staff at UND to a $180k salary AND allowed that person to expense the University $25k/year to commute from Texas. When criticized, he claimed everyone was being racist and no one would do the job for less).

You have to question his ability to raise money when the biggest donors to UND refused to donate money while he was there.

You have to question why he was only at UND for two years, and within that timeframe he already tried to get hired at UCF.... and you have to wonder why UCF ultimately rejected him.

You have to wonder why many, many at UND are happy as can be to see him leave

You have to wonder about his judgement when he sends out a letter more or less quitting at UND before he was even officially offered the position at CU and killed the ability for the school to properly announce him.

You have wonder why hardcore conservative like Flounder hates this guys guts after seeing him in action at UND.


But let's say you're fine with all that - what has he done since his announcement

- Bungled a number of interviews
- Inability to answer basic questions about higher education, such as not knowing what the Pomona Letter is, or whether UND has any DACA students
- Complains about how unfair it is that people question is voting record in Congress, but then references that same voting record when it suits him
- Seems to have zero grasp of CU. Much of what he says he would do already exists on campus
- Complete inability to paint any sort of vision for the University. Commentary basically devolves into 'schools can do what they want, and I won't get in their way, but I also won't advocate or fight for the University values and culture'



My final comment is this. If it was a Democrat being put forth for this position, and that person had a direct and recent history of slashing athletics like Kennedy has done, then this forum would be burning down in rage.

Wait a second! I never said or even implied that I give him a pass because if his political leaning.

 

[Darth Snow]

Wait a second! I never said or even implied that I give him a pass because if his political leaning.

What the **** have you been doing then?

 

[DBT]

What the **** have you been doing then?

Uh, been saying politics should NOT be a factor and that for a lot of people it is.

 

[Uncle Ken]

You and I have a different opinion on how we got to this point. I had a long and arduous discussion on why his politics weren’t relevant, and was told in no uncertain terms that they were. Eventually, that discussion abated and we began to really look at the guys actual qualifications. But how we got to this point doesn’t really matter. We are here now.

I don't think that conversation was complete, to be honest. I didn't feel particularly heard, or responded to.

IF we had a political figure who had voted against the right of white males to marry the person they loved and wanted to commit their lives to, would that be relevant in the discussion of whether or not that the politician would be able to credibly recruit and lead white males as staff, faculty and students while serving in the role of a university president? What would your response (or DBT's if he'd like to join this conversation) be if a prospective university president had taken a stand against white male marriage?

I happen to think that if Kennedy has voted in a manner that many of his staff, his faculty and potential students personally find discriminatory, it calls into question his ability to lead that demographic. There might be a good answer, and it might be fine. But I believe the question still has to be asked.

So I'm trying to understand why you believe his politics are irrelevant to the position. I don't think Republican or Democrat is relevant. I do think a vote against specific rights for people that he will be charged with leading is quite relevant.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Uh, been saying politics should NOT be a factor and that for a lot of people it is.

And yet probably three quarters (or more) of the posts that challenge the nomination aren't about politics. However, you've decided--against the evidence--that it IS about politics. And I sense that you are unwilling to challenge that position.

How you reach conclusions continues to confuse me.

 

[Not Sure]

I don't think that conversation was complete, to be honest. I didn't feel particularly heard, or responded to.

IF we had a political figure who had voted against the right of white males to marry the person they loved and wanted to commit their lives to, would that be relevant in the discussion of whether or not that the politician would be able to credibly recruit and lead white males as staff, faculty and students while serving in the role of a university president? What would your response (or DBT's if he'd like to join this conversation) be if a prospective university president had taken a stand against white male marriage?

I happen to think that if Kennedy has voted in a manner that many of his staff, his faculty and potential students personally find discriminatory, it calls into question his ability to lead that demographic. There might be a good answer, and it might be fine. But I believe the question still has to be asked.

So I'm trying to understand why you believe his politics are irrelevant to the position. I don't think Republican or Democrat is relevant. I do think a vote against specific rights for people that he will be charged with leading is quite relevant.

At the incredible risk of re-opening a discussion I had hoped was, if not settled, at least arrived to a point where we could agree to disagree, I don’t see how any votes in congress over ten years ago has any bearing in his ability to lead. Any concerns regarding his ability to lead certain demographics would be addressed pretty quickly. Those concerns, while I can certainly appreciate them, are incidental to the larger issues. So I can concede that politics aren’t completely irrelevant, but are very, very far down the list of pertinent issues and not really worth spending a lot of time debating.

 

[Uncle Ken]

At the incredible risk of re-opening a discussion I had hoped was, if not settled, at least arrived to a point where we could agree to disagree, I don’t see how any votes in congress over ten years ago has any bearing in his ability to lead. Any concerns regarding his ability to lead certain demographics would be addressed pretty quickly. Those concerns, while I can certainly appreciate them, are incidental to the larger issues. So I can concede that politics aren’t completely irrelevant, but are very, very far down the list of pertinent issues and not really worth spending a lot of time debating.

Would you attend a university if the president had demonstrated an anti-white-male agenda? What would it take to explain it away?

Your response feels very dismissive of others’ desires to feel equal.

Also, why did you hope this conversation was over? I don’t think we got to the mutual disagreement stage, as I don’t remember you responding to this issue.

 

[Not Sure]

Would you attend a university if the president had demonstrated an anti-white-male agenda? What would it take to explain it away?

Your response feels very dismissive of others’ desires to feel equal.

I wouldn’t care one way or the other. The school has protocols in place to protect all classes of students and faculty. If I saw evidence that the President was actively trying to circumvent those protocols, I’d have a problem with it. But I’m not going to assume he will throw out all the rules based on a vote he cast 10 years ago.

 

[dio]

Would you attend a university if the president had demonstrated an anti-white-male agenda? What would it take to explain it away?

Your response feels very dismissive of others’ desires to feel equal.

Also, why did you hope this conversation was over? I don’t think we got to the mutual disagreement stage, as I don’t remember you responding to this issue.

An atheist congressman voted to ban Christians from praying in public spaces. 10 years later, he is now the sole candidate to be President of CU. Does his previous vote matter?

 

[Not Sure]

An atheist congressman voted to ban Christians from praying in public spaces. 10 years later, he is now the sole candidate to be President of CU. Does his previous vote matter?

Not to me. Not in the slightest.

 

[DBT]

And yet probably three quarters (or more) of the posts that challenge the nomination aren't about politics. However, you've decided--against the evidence--that it IS about politics. And I sense that you are unwilling to challenge that position.

How you reach conclusions continues to confuse me.

Go back and read my posts. You’re just assuming ****.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I wouldn’t care one way or the other. The school has protocols in place to protect all classes of students and faculty. If I saw evidence that the President was actively trying to circumvent those protocols, I’d have a problem with it. But I’m not going to assume he will throw out all the rules based on a vote he cast 10 years ago.

You’d have a problem with it, and if you had other choices?

I’m concerned about his political past because I’m afraid that it will impact our ability to attract top talent across the board.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Go back and read my posts

I think I’ve read them all. Can you give me a post # you’d like me to review? Happy to do so.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Not to me. Not in the slightest.

Not willing to take a broader perspective on building community?

 

[DBT]

I think I’ve read them all. Can you give me a post # you’d like me to review? Happy to do so.

Then I either don’t explain myself well or you read with prejudice.

 

[Darth Snow]

Go back and read my posts. You’re just assuming ****.

I guess the six interview candidates and trusting the regents posts were about politics?

 

[Uncle Ken]

Then I either don’t explain myself well or you read with prejudice.

Help me understand what you’re saying here. Thanks in advance.

Uh, been saying politics should NOT be a factor and that for a lot of people it is.

 

[jizzrag85]

And I thought the recruiting forums were a battleground.

 

[manhattanbuff]

You and I have a different opinion on how we got to this point. I had a long and arduous discussion on why his politics weren’t relevant, and was told in no uncertain terms that they were. Eventually, that discussion abated and we began to really look at the guys actual qualifications. But how we got to this point doesn’t really matter. We are here now.

I think you (like other republican territorial people) misperceived the order of the criticism AND the validity of the political critiques. If the dude is going to say that his political background is an asset, he’s opened himself to that criticism.

 

[DBT]

I think you (like other republican territorial people) misperceived the order of the criticism AND the validity of the political critiques. If the dude is going to say that his political background is an asset, he’s opened himself to that criticism.

If he said that, and I trust you’re correct, I’d imagine he wasn’t talking about his political viewpoint but about his ability, in his mind, to work with people with differing opinions.

 

[patebuff]

And I thought the recruiting forums were a battleground.

Politics!

 

[DBT]

Help me understand what you’re saying here. Thanks in advance.

I’m going crazy I guess. I’m being accused of defending him because he’s a Republican. At least that is my perception. So I’m trying to make the point that I do not care what his affiliation is and that his affiliation should not play into the decision one way or the other.

And I’m saying that I believe many that oppose him are swayed by his political affiliation and stances he took in Congress back to 2007 and not by his qualifications for the duties of a university President.

I’ve clearly said that the fact that he administered a university 1/10th the size of CU and his lackluster record in fundraising at UND are legitimate concerns.

I did say that he was a unanimous selection over other candidates but I agree with those who question the ability of the BoR to select the best candidate.

And I said that I believe the University of Colorado would attract very good candidates and that it is a premier job, on which some disagree with me.

So my point, which may be flawed, is that I believe CU probably attracted very good candidates and if Kennedy came out on top by a unanimous vote, that we should trust the process. And I think those that argue otherwise certainly have grounds to do so.

 

[Darth Snow]

I wonder... who is more swayed by Kennedy's politics. DBT, or everyone else?

 

[goalline]

I wonder... who is more swayed by Kennedy's politics. DBT, or everyone else?

Everyone else.

To summarize:
Many posters objected based on political grounds. Other concerns were subsequently raised.

DBT made it clear he didn’t think Kennedy should be dismissed due to political history. He then defended him as a candidate based on other qualifications and trust in the system.

“Everyone else” attacked his position as having political bias.

He then conceded some of the same concerns (non political) that have been raised.

You need to read his posts with less bias.

 

[Darth Snow]

Everyone else.

To summarize:
Many posters objected based on political grounds. Other concerns were subsequently raised.

DBT made it clear he didn’t think Kennedy should be dismissed due to political history. He then defended him as a candidate based on other qualifications and trust in the system.

“Everyone else” attacked his position as having political bias.

He then conceded some of the same concerns (non political) that have been raised.

You need to read his posts with less bias.

Hmm. So because DBT didn't admit bias, he's less biased?

 

[goalline]

Hmm. So because DBT didn't admit bias, he's less biased?

Obviously, DBT has his biases, but other than treating the situation with a receptive attitude, I don’t think he jumped to conclusions in this instance based on those biases.

 

[Darth Snow]

Obviously, DBT has his biases, but other than treating the situation with a receptive attitude, I don’t think he jumped to conclusions in this instance based on those biases.

So, his defenses of the guy are due to his belief in the regents and the process? I just want to understand your stance here.

 

[Not Sure]

I think you (like other republican territorial people) misperceived the order of the criticism AND the validity of the political critiques. If the dude is going to say that his political background is an asset, he’s opened himself to that criticism.

I’m not a Republican.

 

[Darth Snow]

I’m not a Republican.

Just very much right. Let's not get bogged down in titles

 

[goalline]

So, his defenses of the guy are due to his belief in the regents and the process? I just want to understand your stance here.

I’ve answered your question. DBT can speak for himself.