Graduation Stories

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 06:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you are just going to keep repeating yourself then I will just keep repeating myself.



Maybe you need to brush up on American history before you accuse everyone who ever protests of not being an "adult".  In fact it is often the WEAK who are afraid to take a stand.

Blind obedience to authority can be a problem.

How did I know, you were going to call those that stayed there out of respect to their students; regardless of their personal feelings WEAK.

The "authority" will handle the business side of the matter (hopefully). But there is no other reason those faculty members walked out except to make their feeling known. 

[Dill]

(05-24-2019, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So if these "non-employees" had a voice in what the OWNER does, and the majority voted he not speak, why did he speak? 

But I will say kudos to the vast majority of faculty who didn't walk out given the majority vote. But of course they chose not to make the event about themselves.

EDIT: MY POINT IS THE PUBLIC-FACING EVENT AT WHICH IT HAPPEN.......whew dodged a bullet.

Who is the OWNER of Taylor University?  

When the Boston tea partiers threw British tea in the Boston harbor, were they making that event about themselves? Were the civil rights protesters in Alabama, led by King in 1963, making that event about themselves? I wonder if you can name a political protest in which protestors did not "make it about themselves," and how you can tell.  Can you name a political protest in which protestors were NOT accused of selfish motives? Kudos to the vast majority of African-Americans who chose not to participate in 1963? Yours is indeed a conservative view of protest. Impossible that the administration could be "making it about themselves" by going against faculty and students?

Why do you think "PUBLIC-FACiNG" suddenly makes the administration employers and the faculty employees? 

More explanation of how shared governance works.  Neither the faculty nor the Board are tasked directly wiith inviting speakers, but they are supposed to "consult" with the other members of the governance troika. In this case they took the risk of dismissing faculty views. They may be ok if the board backs them and enough faculty; but they will not be ok if that is not the case. They can be "fired" by their "employees," though not before the speaker speaks.  One way of making sure the balance of power gets re-aligned is to protest--most especially at a "public-facing event," which lets the world know the choice does not represent the whole university. That other universities, like Notre Dame, have done this sends another signal about this particular speaker. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 10:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Who is the OWNER of Taylor University?  

When the Boston tea partiers threw British tea in the Boston harbor, were they making that event about themselves? Were the civil rights protesters in Alabama, led by King in 1963, making that event about themselves? I wonder if you can name a political protest in which protestors did not "make it about themselves," and how you can tell.  Can you name a political protest in which protestors were NOT accused of selfish motives? Kudos to the vast majority of African-Americans who chose not to participate in 1963? Yours is indeed a conservative view of protest.  Impossible that the administration could be "making it about themselves" by going against faculty and students?

Why do you think "PUBLIC-FACiNG" suddenly makes the administration employers and the faculty employees? 

More explanation of how shared governance works.  Neither the faculty nor the Board are tasked directly wiith inviting speakers, but they are supposed to "consult" with the other members of the governance troika. In this case they took the risk of dismissing faculty views. They may be ok if the board backs them and enough faculty; but they will not be ok if that is not the case. They can be "fired" by their "employees," though not before the speaker speaks.  One way of making sure the balance of power gets re-aligned is to protest--most especially at a "public-facing event," which lets the world know the choice does not represent the whole university. That other universities, like Notre Dame, have done this sends another signal about this particular speaker. 

You didn't answer the direct question posed you merely started asking other questions and talking about the Boston Tea Party and Civil Rights.

So let's try it again using your terms: If the majority of the  of this shared governance voted against Pence speaking why was he invited to speak?

Please don't tell me about the War of 1812, just answer the simple question posed. I know the simple answer. 

[Dill]

(05-24-2019, 10:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't answer the direct question posed you merely started asking other questions and talking about the Boston Tea Party and Civil Rights.

So let's try it again using your terms: If the majority of the  of this shared governance voted against Pence speaking why was he invited to speak?

Please don't tell me about the War of 1812, just answer the simple question posed. I know the simple answer. 

No one can answer your question, because there is no "owner" of Taylor University.  It is a non-profit corporation operating as a trust.

I merely started talking about other protests because you claimed that, somehow, the protestors in this case "made it about themselves." That assumption speaks to your framing of faculty actions as prima facie illegitimate. What the "owners" want settles it for you.

Taylor is struggling with a civil rights issue right now, centering on a conflict between its Christian mission statement and its commitment to equality and diversity (and adherence to federal regulations regarding this).  The protest is part of this struggle, and like virtually all civil rights protests in US history, this one has its detractors, those who place order and decorum above all else. That is what the protestors "made it about."

More and more explanation of shared governance.  This has three parts--faculty, board, administration--coordinated in a system of checks and balances. It does not mean they all vote as a group on every decision taken by the administration. That would be inefficient. Administration, like faculty in education matters, has a certain autonomy in administrative matters. The faculty vote was to show the administration that there was a problem with the Pence choice. The administration chose to ignore this.  As I said above, the administration may get away with this, or some heads may roll.  Think of this as like a Congressional resolution censuring the US president.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2019, 12:06 AM)Dill Wrote: No one can answer your question, because there is no "owner" of Taylor University.  It is a non-profit corporation operating as a trust.

I merely started talking about other protests because you claimed that, somehow, the protestors in this case "made it about themselves." That assumption speaks to your framing of faculty actions as prima facie illegitimate. What the "owners" want settles it for you.

Taylor is struggling with a civil rights issue right now, centering on a conflict between its Christian mission statement and its commitment to equality and diversity (and adherence to federal regulations regarding this).  The protest is part of this struggle, and like virtually all civil rights protests in US history, this one has its detractors, those who place order and decorum above all else. That is what the protestors "made it about."

More and more explanation of shared governance.  This has three parts--faculty, board, administration--coordinated in a system of checks and balances. It does not mean they all vote as a group on every decision taken by the administration. That would be inefficient. Administration, like faculty in education matters, has a certain autonomy in administrative matters. The faculty vote was to show the administration that there was a problem with the Pence choice. The administration chose to ignore this.  As I said above, the administration may get away with this, or some heads may roll.  Think of this as like a Congressional resolution censuring the US president.

I didn't use the term owner; I used your terms and still you went on about nothing that was asked. 

I'm going to ask the question one final time: IF THE MAJORITY IN THIS SHARED GOVERNANCE VOTED AGAINST PENCE SPEAKING, THEN WHY DID HE SPEAK?

You now have 3 options:

Directly answer the question posed 

Don't answer the question posed

Type a lot about something else

Let's see how it goes Cotton.

[Dill]

(05-25-2019, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't use the term owner; I used your terms and still you went on about nothing that was asked. 

I'm going to ask the question one final time: IF THE MAJORITY IN THIS SHARED GOVERNANCE VOTED AGAINST PENCE SPEAKING, THEN WHY DID HE SPEAK?
You now have 3 options:
Directly answer the question posed
Don't answer the question posed
Type a lot about something else
Let's see how it goes Cotton.

I just gave you a direct answer.

The administration decided to invite Pence regardless of the faculty vote. It can do that under shared governance, though those responsible may pay a penalty.  


In "typing a lot about something else" I have explained to you how shared governance works, why this is not a case of "employees" disobeying their "employers." And why the faculty vote does not necessarily control what the administration's decision.

If this does not answer your question, you need to explain why, or at least take another look at the "something else" I typed.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2019, 07:18 PM)Dill Wrote: I just gave you a direct answer.

The administration decided to invite Pence regardless of the faculty vote. It can do that under shared governance, though those responsible may pay a penalty.  


In "typing a lot about something else" I have explained to you how shared governance works, why this is not a case of "employees" disobeying their "employers." And why the faculty vote does not necessarily control what the administration's decision.

If this does not answer your question, you need to explain why, or at least take another look at the "something else" I typed.  

Nah, that's good. Your bloviating about shared governance, all your expertise on the dynamic, and how it's "different" than a regular business practice seems to come to not. The bosses get what the bosses want in business. Be it your example of shared governance of traditional business practices. At the end of the day: there's no difference.  

But keep that head in the clouds about all that ideological stuff. 

[Dill]

(05-27-2019, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, that's good. Your bloviating about shared governance, all your expertise on the dynamic,  and how it's "different" than a regular business practice seems to come to not. The bosses get what the bosses want in business. Be it your example of shared governance of traditional business practices. At the end of the day: there's no difference.  

But keep that head in the clouds about all that ideological stuff. 

How does it come to naught? 

The "bosses" didn't want a public protest. If faculty and students walk out with impunity, how is that "bosses getting what the bosses want"?

Your complaint was that "employees" were out of line while "on the clock." And you thought Taylor's status as "private" must have made the bosses even more secure. The employees showed "bias" (a common business term?) while you assumed the "bosses" didn't.

They defied their "employers" and should be "disciplined" you said.   ("I can't force my employees to do as I instruct for a job related duty?")
So if the university is no difference from a business, then who disciplines them?  Who "forces" them to do as the bosses "instruct"?

But they are not going to be disciplined. No more than Congress is disciplined when it censures the president with joint resolution.
Congress + Executive = traditional Business "at the end of the day"? 

To make your university=traditional business equivalence, you need and example of a business in which 1) the employees decide who gets hired and define what constitutes "job-related duty," 2) the "boss" cannot fire those special employees anytime he wants to, but 3) the employees can force the boss to resign if they so decide.

"head in the clouds"=understanding the how organizational logic and power sharing works in different institutions.  It means what options for protest/discipline may or may not be available in a specific kind of institution. 

That's why people who don't understand what options are or are not available in a university--even a private one--natter on about bosses disciplining employees who are on the clock.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-24-2019, 06:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you are just going to keep repeating yourself then I will just keep repeating myself.



Maybe you need to brush up on American history before you accuse everyone who ever protests of not being an "adult".  In fact it is often the WEAK who are afraid to take a stand.

Blind obedience to authority can be a problem.

"Blind Obedience" in this situation causes no harm to anyone.

Tell me who's hurt by sitting and listening? NO one was forced to participate in some dastardly deed that goes against their principles.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2019, 11:12 PM)Dill Wrote: How does it come to naught? 

The "bosses" didn't want a public protest. If faculty and students walk out with impunity, how is that "bosses getting what the bosses want"?

Your complaint was that "employees" were out of line while "on the clock." And you thought Taylor's status as "private" must have made the bosses even more secure. The employees showed "bias" (a common business term?) while you assumed the "bosses" didn't.

They defied their "employers" and should be "disciplined" you said.   ("I can't force my employees to do as I instruct for a job related duty?")
So if the university is no difference from a business, then who disciplines them?  Who "forces" them to do as the bosses "instruct"?

But they are not going to be disciplined. No more than Congress is disciplined when it censures the president with joint resolution.
Congress + Executive = traditional Business "at the end of the day"? 

To make your university=traditional business equivalence, you need and example of a business in which 1) the employees decide who gets hired and define what constitutes "job-related duty," 2) the "boss" cannot fire those special employees anytime he wants to, but 3) the employees can force the boss to resign if they so decide.

"head in the clouds"=understanding the how organizational logic and power sharing works in different institutions.  It means what options for protest/discipline may or may not be available in a specific kind of institution. 

That's why people who don't understand what options are or are not available in a university--even a private one--natter on about bosses disciplining employees who are on the clock.

Just so we are clear:

Is it your assertion that the University could not discipline these employees if they chose to do so? Or are you just talking in circles? 

[Dill]

(05-28-2019, 02:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: "Blind Obedience" in this situation causes no harm to anyone.

Tell me who's hurt by sitting and listening? NO one was forced to participate in some dastardly deed that goes against their principles.

Sounds like you'd be ok with making Pence an emblem of your university's mission. No harm in listening to your guy. Wouldn't go against YOUR principles.

But many Taylor students and faculty disagree with you.

And if no one is hurt by swallowing a Pence speech in silence, then who is hurt by walking out on him? As you say--no one forced to participate, so they walked out.

The Taylor administration knew the risk they were taking by inviting Pence. Students and faculty made their displeasure known ahead of time. The administration even had a say in how the demonstration they knew was coming would go forward.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-27-2019, 11:12 PM)Dill Wrote: To make your university=traditional business equivalence, you need and example of a business in which 1) the employees decide who gets hired and define what constitutes "job-related duty," 2) the "boss" cannot fire those special employees anytime he wants to, but 3) the employees can force the boss to resign if they so decide.

"head in the clouds"=understanding the how organizational logic and power sharing works in different institutions.  It means what options for protest/discipline may or may not be available in a specific kind of institution. 

That's why people who don't understand what options are or are not available in a university--even a private one--natter on about bosses disciplining employees who are on the clock.

Didn't the School try to get a petition passed to block Pence from speaking?
Then on the flip side, it was countered with those that wanted Pence to speak, and that was the vast majority.

For those that felt “unsafe at their own graduation," Pretty sure there was no records of anyone being harmed by Pence during the ceremony?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2019, 02:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you'd be ok with making Pence an emblem of your university's mission. No harm in listening to your guy. Wouldn't go against YOUR principles.

But many Taylor students and faculty disagree with you.

And if no one is hurt by swallowing a Pence speech in silence, then who is hurt by walking out on him? As you say--no one forced to participate, so they walked out.

The Taylor administration knew the risk they were taking by inviting Pence. Students and faculty made their displeasure known ahead of time. The administration even had a say in how the demonstration they knew was coming would go forward.  

Many = about 40 walked out, out of 494 graduating students.  In what world is that a majority?

[Dill]

(05-28-2019, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just so we are clear:

Is it your assertion that the University could not discipline these employees if they chose to do so? Or are you just talking in circles? 

As I said above--these "employees" ARE the university. The administration is just "other employees." 

Unless faculty are actually breaking some law, neither they nor the students can be disciplined for anything.

After all, a university is NOT A BUSINESS.  In a liberal arts university incorporated as a private non-profit, the administration are NOT BOSSES.That YOU don't get this doesn't mean I am talking in circles.  You ignored the links I posted of university "bosses" forced out by faculty?

Apparently this walkout was COORDINATED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, even to the point of providing police protection.  Those who walked out during the speech, then returned to walk in line and receive their diplomas. 

https://www.theechonews.com/article/2019/05/preparing-for-pence

On Tuesday night, an informational meeting was called for those who wish to display their dissent at commencement. A group of students have been meeting with administration to assemble a plan for those who do not wish to stay for Pence's address.

In the meeting, a panel of seven seniors explained why they are choosing to stay or walk out of commencement. This was in a hope to present more than two polarized viewpoints on the commencement controversy.

According to senior Johannah Lindsay, those who choose not to hear Pence's commencement speech are free to stand up and walk out of the gym. They will have a police escort to and from the KSAC into a predetermined location in the building, in order to protect those choosing to exit. There will be a hymn before and after the speech that will indicate when to leave and when to return.

Senior Sarah Manko, president of Inter-Class Council, led the meeting and urged those who choose to walk out to remember where they sit to get back in line for proper graduation order. Manko also requested that those who choose to remain seated during the speech act respectfully toward those exiting and not trip, shout or hassle those choosing to leave.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 02:40 PM)Dill Wrote: As I said above--these "employees" ARE the university. The administration is just "other employees." 

Unless faculty are actually breaking some law, neither they nor the students can be disciplined for anything.

After all, a university is NOT A BUSINESS.  In a liberal arts university incorporated as a private non-profit, the administration are NOT BOSSES.That YOU don't get this doesn't mean I am talking in circles.  You ignored the links I posted of university "bosses" forced out by faculty?

Apparently this walkout was COORDINATED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, even to the point of providing police protection.  Those who walked out during the speech, then returned to walk in line and receive their diplomas. 

https://www.theechonews.com/article/2019/05/preparing-for-pence

On Tuesday night, an informational meeting was called for those who wish to display their dissent at commencement. A group of students have been meeting with administration to assemble a plan for those who do not wish to stay for Pence's address.

In the meeting, a panel of seven seniors explained why they are choosing to stay or walk out of commencement. This was in a hope to present more than two polarized viewpoints on the commencement controversy.

According to senior Johannah Lindsay, those who choose not to hear Pence's commencement speech are free to stand up and walk out of the gym. They will have a police escort to and from the KSAC into a predetermined location in the building, in order to protect those choosing to exit. There will be a hymn before and after the speech that will indicate when to leave and when to return.

Senior Sarah Manko, president of Inter-Class Council, led the meeting and urged those who choose to walk out to remember where they sit to get back in line for proper graduation order. Manko also requested that those who choose to remain seated during the speech act respectfully toward those exiting and not trip, shout or hassle those choosing to leave.

Is your article talking about the faculty or the students? Because if it's the students I have said all along I have no issue with it. My issue lies solely with faculty. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 02:40 PM)Dill Wrote: As I said above--these "employees" ARE the university. The administration is just "other employees." 

Unless faculty are actually breaking some law, neither they nor the students can be disciplined for anything.

After all, a university is NOT A BUSINESS.  In a liberal arts university incorporated as a private non-profit, the administration are NOT BOSSES.That YOU don't get this doesn't mean I am talking in circles.  You ignored the links I posted of university "bosses" forced out by faculty?

Apparently this walkout was COORDINATED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, even to the point of providing police protection.  Those who walked out during the speech, then returned to walk in line and receive their diplomas. 

https://www.theechonews.com/article/2019/05/preparing-for-pence

On Tuesday night, an informational meeting was called for those who wish to display their dissent at commencement. A group of students have been meeting with administration to assemble a plan for those who do not wish to stay for Pence's address.

In the meeting, a panel of seven seniors explained why they are choosing to stay or walk out of commencement. This was in a hope to present more than two polarized viewpoints on the commencement controversy.

According to senior Johannah Lindsay, those who choose not to hear Pence's commencement speech are free to stand up and walk out of the gym. They will have a police escort to and from the KSAC into a predetermined location in the building, in order to protect those choosing to exit. There will be a hymn before and after the speech that will indicate when to leave and when to return.

Senior Sarah Manko, president of Inter-Class Council, led the meeting and urged those who choose to walk out to remember where they sit to get back in line for proper graduation order. Manko also requested that those who choose to remain seated during the speech act respectfully toward those exiting and not trip, shout or hassle those choosing to leave.

Is your article talking about the faculty or the students? Because if it's the students I have said all along I have no issue with it. My issue lies solely with faculty. 

[Dill]

(05-28-2019, 02:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Didn't the School try to get a petition passed to block Pence from speaking?
Then on the flip side, it was countered with those that wanted Pence to speak, and that was the vast majority.

For those that felt “unsafe at their own graduation," Pretty sure there was no records of anyone being harmed by Pence during the ceremony?

Yes, a petition with thousands of signatures. I am not aware of any counter petition.
It is not clear at all that a "majority" wanted Pence.  Certainly the majority of the faculty did not.

Who would feel "unsafe"? The whole walk out was coordinated with the administration. There was a pre-arranged signal for the walk out, walkers to be accompanied by police, and a signal for the walk outs return so they could receive their diploma.

On the positive side, this protest has been great publicity for Taylor.  Now it's clear why this school is one of the best in the region, and a head and shoulders above other evangelical based universities.

[Dill]

(05-28-2019, 02:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is your article talking about the faculty or the students? Because if it's the students I have said all along I have no issue with it. My issue lies solely with faculty. 

It speaks of administration coordinating with students.  Meaning protest is part of the culture of any real university--including faculty protest.

Still have difficulty with these "biased" employees who do=idn't do as their bosses "instructed" while on the the clock?

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 02:48 PM)Dill Wrote: It speaks of administration coordinating with students.  Meaning protest is part of the culture of any real university--including faculty protest.

Still have difficulty with these "biased" employees who do=idn't do as their bosses "instructed" while on the the clock?

You can skirt it as much as you want but I'll answer it for you. The story was about the Student's planned walkout and that there would be no repercussions taken against the students. I stance I support 100%.  

[*bfine32*]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence-west-point-graduation-vice-president-says-they-should-expect-to-see-combat-today-2019-05-25/

Quote:Vice President Mike Pence told the most diverse graduating class in the history of the U.S. Military Academy on Saturday that the world is "a dangerous place" and they should expect to see combat. "Some of you will join the fight against radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

Pence congratulated the West Point graduates on behalf of President Trump, and told them, "As you accept the mantle of leadership I promise you, your commander in chief will always have your back. Mr. Trump is the best friend the men and women of our armed forces will ever have."
More than 980 cadets became U.S. Army second lieutenants in the ceremony at West Point's football stadium.

Surprisingly no story of walkouts by the students or faculty.