Hired for political reasons? In other words, any so-called conservative hired into that position has to be a political hire? Funny. He never was given a chance, had student protests before he even got there and faculty never gave him a chance, and the media joined in against him as well. He had an excellent record prior, made some mistakes, but should not have been treated like he was treated. Well glad we have a woke president now, things are so much better.
Trajan to Arkansas
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
No, not because he was conservative. He was unqualified based on our own criteria as he did not hold a doctoral degree, he has no experience in fundraising, and his only other offer was some for-profit technical program. He was not one of the finalists for the position until Gov. McMaster began some armtwisting of the BOT members and threatened a few he appointed with their positions on the board. We were investigated for it by SACS, our accrediting organization. Lose your accreditation....close down the school.
And to top it all off...if you did not believe he was incompetent before...he plagiarized his graduation speech to the graduates and congratulated them on being graduates of the "University of California." And if he weren't drunk during that speech....he has a bad problem slurring his words.
And y'all need to find a better term than "woke" because the opposite of woke is asleep. Actually that pretty much fits....as it explains the extremes of both sides.
Last edited:
The only individuals that I have ever heard use that term were not liberal.
Just saw her pic, She definitely has no man in her life, (bit--h
Oh, yay, we’re litigating Caslen again.
Conservatives believe he got a raw deal and was railroaded to appease the liberal students.
Liberals believe he was an unqualified hack who was exposed.
Conservatives believe he got a raw deal and was railroaded to appease the liberal students.
Liberals believe he was an unqualified hack who was exposed.
Wonder how Molly feels about biological men competing in women`s sports. Something tells me she is fine with it. I could be wrong.
I didn't learn anything new from that, I assumed everybody here knew all of that. He explained the speech and no he didn't have a doctorate, and that makes him unqualified? If having a doctorate's is a requirement then he should never have been put in, but if it is a requirement, it is ridiculous. It isn't a requirement at many universities, I surely don't know the answer to if it's required, as in specifically required by state law. But that had nothing to do with the political assault that he was given, before he even arrived here, and to say the "politics" didn't play a part is just not true. If you looked at his military career, I assure you many of those positions included fundraising and he was likely part of the fundraising at Central Fla. All I'm saying is that all previous Presidents didn't have a doctorate degree, yet that makes him unqualified? I'm not saying I agree with McMaster in pushing him, but I'm also saying, once here, he was never given the chance to succeed. I'm just saying that if you look at his military career and career after that, I assure you he did plenty of fundraising
Last edited:
My recollection is that it was originally used by the left until the right picked up on it and started using it as an insult.
I agree it's used mostly on the right now.
I don’t get it. It’s not like we are a bastion of academia. We went through a similar, stupidly when we were in the ACC. We were trying to compete without a number of our best, instate players. I can name a bunch of them we lost to GA and Tenn, also Tampa University and Kansas State. With those academic requirements putting us at a disadvantage in the SEC, I am going to rethink the NIL donations I give out.
Please forgive me for this, because I do respect your opinion, but I have to call BullschuseI. I guess you were not around when we were in the ACC. All football teams in the ACC were punished for wanting a nationally recognized, football program. ACC schools were put at a disadvantage recruiting football players,because of racist tactics along Tobacco Road. That was because basketball was the favored venue of Duke, NC State and UNC, so they could keep their teams white by recruiting Northern players who had no problem making 800 on the SAT. The advice given to SC and Clemson was “ just don’t schedule them. We still played teams from other conferences, especially from neighboring states or regional, and I might add, big money games. We usually recruited against Auburn and GA too. Georgia recruited many of best players from SC. A disadvantage in recruiting is a creeping disease that gradually will keep our athletics constantly mediocre, well into the future. if you look, you can still see the evidence of that ACC policy today, just by looking at the poor ACC football today. Very few blue chippers go to the ACC schools because they say: “ I want to play football in the ACC. We hear it constantly from SEC recruits. This is just one more reason for supporters like me and many others to stop giving serious money to an “unserious about winning“ school policy. How long do you think the “senior group,” of donors who make up the largest money donors to SC will keep it up? I would assume that stat is about equal through the SEC.
Last edited:
Nothing you said was wrong.
I wasn't around for the ACC exit, but I still believe it was the worst decision ever made by the University of South Carolina.
Maybe...I agree it was harmful, up to 1992. From that time, however, we have done better in the SEC, than we could have hoped in the ACC. Not talking about, just sports. A few years after the 800 rule was abolished the ACC started to get better. Then their expansion came along. I used to go to Vellas for a card, on Saturday AM. I remember having a discussion with a few folks. We were all wishing we played in the big leagues. Would it be great to host So for around 20 years we wandered the dessert of college football. How do you like us now? During those 20 years, we would have been under the thumb of the ACC powers and we would have fared no better than Clemson. I would rather have that one, Eastern Division, SEC title than 10 ACC ones. IT JUST MEANS MORE. LOL
Last edited: