Graduation Stories

[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.