Powers rumor

[echeese]

Any argument prefaced on the contention that the interests of UT and of the people of the state of Texas are not intrinsically aligned is so misguided as to be unworthy of discussion. 

Not only is your claim that the two are not nor cannot be mutually exclusive too stupid and illogical to even consider, I love people who start a comment with the "if you don't agree with me. . .you are an idiot" approach.

Irony and hubris at it's finest. . . . . 

 

[echeese]

If anyone wants to claim whether UT and the people of Texas have not materially benefitted from the totality of Bill Powers' contributions to higher education over the past five years, bring it on. I am ready to take the other side of the argument. 

Another illogical and ill thought out (well assuming there was any thought was a stretch) claim. . .. 

The sum of the parts does not forgive illegal or unethical behavior anymore than a Mafia chieftain "buying" forgiveness for his sins by donating to the church.

What is actually mutually exclusive is Powers doing his job vs his actions which appear to be far worse than you tried to spin.

Not sure you could argue your way out of a paper bag even if someone could water it down for you but your 1st two statements were logically fallacies so you start down 2 sets to none. . . . .anyone care to wager that your next offering is another personal insult backed by illogical comment?

Political connections and “alumni/legacy influence†appear to have been factors, despite a state law barring legacy admissions, Kroll said.

Violated state law?    Interesting. . . so breaking the law is "ok" and "business as usual"?????

 

[Growler]

Of course it was quid pro quo. I don't think anybody is arguing it isn't. Like someone earlier said, he'd have been better off saying 'damn right I did it'

If no other students were displaced, and nobody has said any were, I'll save my outrage for something else.

In my opinion, saying no kids were displaced due to this process, is really subjective spin being used to lessen the perception by the folks being called out for the practice. If the University sets a finite amount of enrolled students based upon budget and plan, yet secretly can accept additional students, then those spots should rightfully go to those next in line based upon merit. Just increase the class size is the ethical way to do it. So in actuality, some of our more deserving students in the State were actually displaced by the process and at this point it is just semantics to deflect from the ethical failure.
Randolph, I will refrain from calling your opinion or statements stupid or questioning your education just because we differ in opinion. Educated and smart people often find themselves on the wrong side of ethics due to temporary emotional disconnect from reason, and I assume this to be the case here.

"Nixonian" can definitely be applied here. 1. Use your power or status beyond design to coerce others beneath you in an organization to grant favors or enable those that would help you against a political enemy. 2. Deny or withhold information intentionally trying to cover up the fact that you overreached your scope of authority in trying to quash your political enemy. 3. When the truth comes to light, then claim retroactively that your power and status in and of itself makes the act appropriate and beyond reproach. 4. Cite examples of other authority figures who have equally acted unethically in an attempt to shift the attention and conversation away from the unethical act itself to one of relative wrongdoing.

Each one, Powers and Nixon, in this example, acted almost identically and within their own minds and in the echo chambers of their political allies both apparently felt the acts were justified based upon their immediate desperate circumstances. But to those outside the cocoon of influence it is seen exactly for what it is. Unethical behavior. Period. Regardless of all the good things Nixon or Powers did in other areas, it doesn't excuse the act in question.

Does that help with the analogy?

 

[Randolph Duke]

Not only is your claim that the two are not nor cannot be mutually exclusive too stupid and illogical to even consider, I love people who start a comment with the "if you don't agree with me. . .you are an idiot" approach.

Irony and hubris at it's finest. . . . . 

Possibly a civics lesson is in store to explain a few things. The University of Texas is an arm of the government of the state of Texas. The activities of the government cannot be good for the government and bad for the people. If the activities of the government are bad for the government they are, by definition, bad for the people. Hence, if the actions of Bill Powers were not in the interests of the people of Texas, they cannot be in the interests of the University. One cannot separate the two. If what Bill Powers did wasn't in the interests of the people, it wasn't in the interests of the university, either. 

Admitting the 73 individuals at issue was a policy decision executed under the direction of Bill Powers. The individual who established the original policy was...Bill Powers. He is the sole individual charged with establishing policy for the non-legislatively mandated admissions to UT Austin. Although I am sure your extensive credentials make it close, I dare say Bill Powers has higher qualifications to decide policy matters in the administration of the affairs of UT Austin. When he made his policy decision to admit the students at issue, he was doing so possessing all the relevant facts and information available. With that information in hand, he made the policy decision to admit the students. Evidently, you believe your superior command of all the relevant facts and information makes it obvious his policy decision was in error. (You can bless us at another time with the story of how you came into possession of the same relevant facts and information available to President Powers)

My previous comments are not prefaced on the relative intelligence of the individual making them. I, for one (ahem), prefer not to resort to ad hominem attacks. Possibly you can point to where I, or anyone else in this conversation, started a comment with "if you don't agree with me. . .you are an idiot." I somehow missed those words. I am sure a man of your towering intellect would never "pull words out of his ass." 

I believe the lack of information or a lack of understanding of the totality of a given situation can lead intelligent people to make comments that are predicated on ignorance (defining ignorance as the lack of material information). Again, not everyone was afforded time to review and consider the information available to you and Bill Powers that lead to Bill Powers' policy decision.

At the end of the day, the policy decision regarding the admission of the students was, in my opinion, consistent with the interests of the university and therefore consistent with the interests people of the state of Texas. As you obviously disagree and believe your ability to make policy decisions superior to those of Bill Powers, I say we are all in good luck. As it happens, the university is looking for a new president and since you have qualifications so materially similar to UT's current president AND superior abilities to formulate policy decisions (given the same set of facts and information- wink, wink), I would think no person on the planet would be more qualified than you. PLEASE call Bill McRaven and tell him about yourself. I am sure he will find you a thoroughly fascinating individual. 

The reality is that the presidency of UT Austin is an increasingly political position. The university currently operates on a budget of approximately $2.4 billion. Once the new med school is operational, the UT Austin budget alone will be greater than that of the entire TAMU system. Thanks to Bill Powers' efforts, UT Austin just raised a massive amount to supplement its private endowments. By the time Steve Patterson finishes privately endowing the athletics scholarships, the private endowments of just the UT Austin campus will most probably be greater than the public and private endowments of the entire TAMU system. Last year, new money from university lands added $1.2 billion to the PUF. Had the legislature enacted just a one year hiatus in additional university lands contributions to the PUF and dedicated that money to another state university or university system, that institution would have become among the 20 wealthiest public universities in the nation.

The greatest risk to the financial future of UT Austin is that the divide between the public and private endowments of UT Austin and the public and private endowments of the other state funded universities becomes so great that political forces in the state take legislative action to address the inequities of the public endowments of other state universities. Political forces will increasingly work against the interests of UT Austin unless the president of UT Austin manages the political realities deftly (thankfully, echeese is a political genius, so his elevation to university president may well save the university from any political problems).

The entire reason I rail against waste in Bellmont is the athletic program is a a very public face of the university and if unrestrained waste and excessive overspending are allowed to become emblematic of the operations of Bellmont, it will only bring unwanted political attention to the inequities in resources afforded the various state universities and that political attention in no way serves the interests of UT Austin or, in my opinion, the people of Texas.

 

[HornNdriftwood]

I'm not sure where eveyone is getting their information. I went back and re-read the article from the DMN for the 3rd time thinking I'd missed something. I've read pretty much every article written on this matter the last few years, from the Daily Texan to the Wall Street Journal. I've not finished reading the Kroll report (107 pp.) but I'm working on it.

This was the second investigation of the President's office and the admissions policies. Power's opponents were not happy with the results of the first one and specifically tasked Kroll to investigate Powers to determine if he and his actions were "beyond reproach." Power's life and career have been under a microscope going on several years.

These are the facts, so far:

There's been no evidence of lying or cover-up by Powers or even any substantive allegations of same.

There's been no evidence of unethical behavior by Powers.

There's been no evidence of illegal behavior by Powers.

There's been no evidence of any quid-pro-quo, in fact just the opposite. Both investigations specifically state there's been no quid-pro-quo.

The Kroll report states:

"Kroll found no existing law or statute, Regents Rule or UT- System Policy concerning how much weight to give “external†recommendations (letters, phone calls, inquiries) in the admissions process.For many years, the practice of the Board of Regents, the Chancellor, and UT-System has been to forward letters and inquiries about applicants to the UT-Austin President’s Office.This practice implicitly suggests that the President of UT-Austin oversees the Admissions Office and is the final arbiter in the admissions process. If the President of UT- Austin, as a matter of law or policy, is to play a different role in admissions determinations, it would seem incumbent upon the legislature or the Board of Regents to enact a law or rule that so states. No such rule or law presently exists.

Finally, while much of our investigation and many of our findings cover a period of time during which Bill Powers has been President of UT-Austin, the system presently in place, and the decision-making authority exercised by the President’s Office over Admissions, existed long before President Powers took office."

Rick Perry, that's right - the guy who's about to go on trial for abuse of office, and his cronies have been after Powers for 7 years. Hall and others have turned over every rock and basically found nothing. That's not just my opinion. Based on their actions a majority of the BOR and Chancellor McRaven, a man clearly above reproach, seem to agree with me.

Power's has, under severe duress, performed his job admirably. For really the first time in history, the University is living up to its constitutional mandate and widely recognized as a university of the first class. In the meantime, Powers has raised over $3 billion dollars for the academic mission of the University over the last 7 years. Truly a job well done.

Hook 'em.

 

[texasdobbs]

[tweet'567782436864393217']

 

[echeese]

LOL. . .well I won that bet. . . . 

The University of Texas is an arm of the government of the state of Texas. The activities of the government cannot be good for the government and bad for the people. If the activities of the government are bad for the government they are, by definition, bad for the people.

Open with an insult and followed up with more illogical garbage.  .. . 

Yeah, great point. . .if you were correct, there would never been a need to change a law. . . . 

And most certainly the actions of one organization, even a state run one can be detrimental to the entirety of the state. . . . . so another bet won. . . . .now let me demonstrate exactly how you are wrong. . . .

And we'll stick with the University of TEXAS. . . .

It has peddled it's influence over the years to keep itself as one of only 3 Tier 1 schools in TEXAS. . .it used it's position to change the funding models of UTSA and UTD in 1979 to change them from "new schools" which were funded at projected student population levels to the established school model which bases funding off the prior year's enrollment.

Now I realize who I am speaking with so let me explain slowly. . . .. this means a growing school is constantly under funded. . . . .this HURT the entirety of the state as it worked to limit the excellent schools in state.

I can create 100 examples but your premise is so illogical. . .it is not really worthy of much effort in refuting. . . .. 

Carry on. . .but if you could do it at Shaggy Bevo, you could improve the IQ of 2 sites at once.

driftwood,

When you actually read the Kroll report. . .you will find it states (as I quoted either above or on the other thread about the Kroll report) it found Powers actions in violation of state law. . . . . .

Not sure how that is ethic or legal but the spin is tiresome. . . .

 

[Randolph Duke]

In my opinion, saying no kids were displaced due to this process, is really subjective spin being used to lessen the perception by the folks being called out for the practice. If the University sets a finite amount of enrolled students based upon budget and plan, yet secretly can accept additional students, then those spots should rightfully go to those next in line based upon merit. Just increase the class size is the ethical way to do it. So in actuality, some of our more deserving students in the State were actually displaced by the process and at this point it is just semantics to deflect from the ethical failure.

Randolph, I will refrain from calling your opinion or statements stupid or questioning your education just because we differ in opinion. Educated and smart people often find themselves on the wrong side of ethics due to temporary emotional disconnect from reason, and I assume this to be the case here.

"Nixonian" can definitely be applied here. 1. Use your power or status beyond design to coerce others beneath you in an organization to grant favors or enable those that would help you against a political enemy. 2. Deny or withhold information intentionally trying to cover up the fact that you overreached your scope of authority in trying to quash your political enemy. 3. When the truth comes to light, then claim retroactively that your power and status in and of itself makes the act appropriate and beyond reproach. 4. Cite examples of other authority figures who have equally acted unethically in an attempt to shift the attention and conversation away from the unethical act itself to one of relative wrongdoing.

Each one, Powers and Nixon, in this example, acted almost identically and within their own minds and in the echo chambers of their political allies both apparently felt the acts were justified based upon their immediate desperate circumstances. But to those outside the cocoon of influence it is seen exactly for what it is. Unethical behavior. Period. Regardless of all the good things Nixon or Powers did in other areas, it doesn't excuse the act in question.

Does that help with the analogy?

First of all, no students were secretly accepted. The admission of each student was very much publicly known. They weren't covertly attending classes. 

The sole individual responsible for establishing policies for non-legislatively mandated admissions is the president of the university. He didn't need to coerce of intimidate anyone. he simply needed to state his decision was to admit the student. In the normal course of business, the president of the university defers to the deans of the various colleges for admissions decisions. To claim it was outside the scope of the authority of the president of the university to make final admissions decisions is simply wrong. Not even the board of regents can involve itself in matters such as individuals admissions decisions of a given university campus (remember if you will when Bill Powers objected to the overreach of individual regents in the hiring of the football coach at UT Austin).

To claim the sole individual responsible for making admissions decisions acted unethically in making admissions decisions requires evidence of ill motive. Bill Powers did not personally profit from any of his actions. Any benefits that may have flowed from his admissions decisions accrued to the university (unless you have information to the contrary). He was the sole authority for making such decisions and he usurped the authority of no one.

Nixon was constrained by the Constitution. He was not the sole authority to determine if financing specific legislatively prohibited activities was proper. The break-ins and the acts of obstruction were specifically prohibited by state and federal law. Bill Powers was the sole authority charged with developing policies for non-legislatively mandated university admissions. Not a single person could counteract his instructions. The legislature, through its oversight, could mandate collectively but they hadn't established any limits on overall admissions or mandated any admissions policies. They don't micromanage the universities. Neither do the regents. 

If what Powers did didn't individually enrich him and he was the sole authority to set policy, how were his actions unethical. There are claims he was not forthright in answering questions about his admissions decisions, but unlike echeese I haven't seen the questions or the answers and therefore I can't opine on those activities. I am not sure if his answers were evasive, convoluted, obstructive or simply uncooperative. His policies for admitting the students, however, were not improper. They were unquestionably within the scope of his individual authority. 

 

[HornNdriftwood]

driftwood,

When you actually read the Kroll report. . .you will find it states (as I quoted either above or on the other thread about the Kroll report) it found Powers actions in violation of state law. . . . . .

Not sure how that is ethic or legal but the spin is tiresome. . . .

No spin, just facts.

 

[echeese]

driftwood,

When you actually read the Kroll report. . .you will find it states (as I quoted either above or on the other thread about the Kroll report) it found Powers actions in violation of state law. . . . . .

Not sure how that is ethic or legal but the spin is tiresome. . . .

No spin, just facts.

Powers actions were in violation of state law. . . . .this was the conclusion of the Kroll report . .not something I made up. . . . .

 

[Randolph Duke]

LOL. . .well I won that bet. . . . 

Open with an insult and followed up with more illogical garbage.  .. . 

Yeah, great point. . .if you were correct, there would never been a need to change a law. . . . 

And most certainly the actions of one organization, even a state run one can be detrimental to the entirety of the state. . . . . so another bet won. . . . .now let me demonstrate exactly how you are wrong. . . .

And we'll stick with the University of TEXAS. . . .

It has peddled it's influence over the years to keep itself as one of only 3 Tier 1 schools in TEXAS. . .it used it's position to change the funding models of UTSA and UTD in 1979 to change them from "new schools" which were funded at projected student population levels to the established school model which bases funding off the prior year's enrollment.

Now I realize who I am speaking with so let me explain slowly. . . .. this means a growing school is constantly under funded. . . . .this HURT the entirety of the state as it worked to limit the excellent schools in state.

I can create 100 examples but your premise is so illogical. . .it is not really worthy of much effort in refuting. . . .. 

Carry on. . .but if you could do it at Shaggy Bevo, you could improve the IQ of 2 sites at once.

driftwood,

When you actually read the Kroll report. . .you will find it states (as I quoted either above or on the other thread about the Kroll report) it found Powers actions in violation of state law. . . . . .

Not sure how that is ethic or legal but the spin is tiresome. . . .

Time for another civics lesson (i am surprised a peer of Bill Powers' needs so much remedial civics, but it is what it is).

The president of UT Austin is not responsible for establishing funding levels of other UT System institutions. The Board of Regents and the legislature are responsible for establishing funding for individual UT System institutions. Blaming Bill Powers for the collective failure of the legislature and the UT Regents in the 36 years since your chosen 1979 starting point is a bit of a stretch. 

Attached is a copy of the Kroll Report. Please show us where it states Bill Powers committed any violations of state law. I see where the report points out there is no law, statute, systemwide rule or policy regarding how much weight a university president can or should give to external recommendations and where the Texas Education Code Section 51.805( B) (18) specifically states "academic institutions may consider as a factor of admission any other consideration the institution considers necessary to accomplish the institution's stated mission." I also see (p 12) where the report states the university president is the final arbiter of who does and does not get admitted, that if he were to play any other role in admissions it would be incumbent on the legislature and/or the regents to develop any such law, statute systemwide rule or policy, and that no such law, statute or rule currently exists.

Please, point out exactly where you read the report asserts Bill Powers' actions were violative of state law. Since you quoted the exact passage on the other thread, you can again point it out for dumb little old me. 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1660443-kroll-report.html#document/p31/a202918

 

[Randolph Duke]

Powers actions were in violation of state law. . . . .this was the conclusion of the Kroll report . .not something I made up. . . . .

You absolutely made it up out of thin air. 

 

[HornNdriftwood]

Political connections and “alumni/legacy influence†appear to have been factors, despite a state law barring legacy admissions, Kroll said.

Violated state law?    Interesting. . . so breaking the law is "ok" and "business as usual"?????

In this country you can be arrested and tried for the appearance of breaking the law. But you can't be found guilty for appearances.

Let's try to stick to the facts.

Hook 'em.

 

[echeese]

You absolutely made it up out of thin air. 

Actually I cut and pasted it from the Kroll report.  Though I am not surprised that once again we see you lying about what actually happened. . . .

You are one of the most dishonest people I've had the displeasure of meeting. . . .

 

[Randolph Duke]

Actually I cut and pasted it from the Kroll report.  Though I am not surprised that once again we see you lying about what actually happened. . . .

You are one of the most dishonest people I've had the displeasure of meeting. . . .

Well...you are going to dislike me even more when I give you a hard time for making stuff up out of whole cloth. 

Here is the report. Cut and paste it again (and while you are at it, look at p 12 where it states there isn't even a rule against Bill Powers' involvement in the admissions process, let alone any law or statute). 

Please. Cut and paste it again for dumb little old me. lol. 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1660443-kroll-report.html#document/p31/a202918

 

[echeese]

RD,

I doubt anyone here takes you very seriously but many of these people know me and know I am anything but a liar. . . . .

But since you clearly have not read the document, page 65 outlines the violation of state law. . . . . 

Since you lack the manhood to apologize, run along to shaggy . .. . 

Keep in mind, these the findings of the 73 files audited not the well over 3X the number of "holds" who were otherwise unqualified but admitted. . . 

 

[Randolph Duke]

RD,

I doubt anyone here takes you very seriously but many of these people know me and know I am anything but a liar. . . . .

But since you clearly have not read the document, page 65 outlines the violation of state law. . . . . 

Since you lack the manhood to apologize, run along to shaggy . .. . 

Keep in mind, these the findings of the 73 files audited not the well over 3X the number of "holds" who were otherwise unqualified but admitted. . . 

Remember, I'm not as smart as you. Cut and paste exactly what you are relying on when you claim the documents outlines clear violations of state law. I read both numbered page 65 and page 65 of the document I posted and neither page says a damned things about violations of state law. (the title pages at the beginning of the pdf version and scanned version of the document add three pages to the numbered pages of the document, so the pages numbered on the report differ from the pages numbered on the reproduced versions)

Possibly you took this passage to conclude some applicants were granted some sort of legacy consideration in violation of Texas Education Code:

" Although it is impossible to conclude that these applicants were specifically granted some sort of legacy consideration in violation of Texas Education Code"

Possibly p 12 lead you to believe some law or statute was violated:

"Kroll found no existing law or statute, Regents Rule or UT-System Policy concerning how much weight to give “external†recommendations (letters, phone calls, inquiries) in the admissions process. For many years, the practice of the Board of Regents, the Chancellor, and UT-System has been to forward letters and inquiries about applicants to the UT-Austin President’s Office. This practice implicitly suggests that the President of UT-Austin oversees the Admissions Office and is the final arbiter in the admissions process. If the President of UT-Austin, as a matter of law or policy, is to play a different role in admissions determinations, it would seem incumbent upon the legislature or the Board of Regents to enact a law or rule that so states. No such rule or law presently exists."

Point it out to me, friend, because I have read the document and I know unquestionably you are making shit up when you claim the document asserts any violations of law occurred. You said you cut and pasted it in another thread. Do it again. You can't because you flat made it up, and THAT, my friend, is outright dishonesty (if not libel). That you would knowingly fabricate a claim of illegal activity on the part of Bill Powers is disgusting and reprehensible. 

 

[echeese]

If you can't figure out page 65 Paragraph 2. . .you really aren't very bright.

Clearly you haven't read (or maybe you just don't understand) the document. . . . .but even when you are dead wrong. . .you will never admit it and as you do here, engage in personal attack. . . . 

The law is clearly cited. . . . . . .. . 

 

[Randolph Duke]

If you can't figure out page 65 Paragraph 2. . .you really aren't very bright.

Clearly you haven't read (or maybe you just don't understand) the document. . . . .but even when you are dead wrong. . .you will never admit it and as you do here, engage in personal attack. . . . 

The law is clearly cited. . . . . . .. . 

So your basis for concluding applicants were specifically granted legacy consideration in violation of law is the following statement:

Although it is impossible to conclude that these applicants were specifically granted some sort of legacy consideration in violation of Texas Education Code § 51.803(a-4), it is noteworthy that the letters of recommendation, resumes, and/or personal essays were typically explicit about the alumni connection.  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1660443-kroll-report.html#document/p31/a202918

I repeat, your knowingly fabricating allegations of illegal activity on the part of Bill Powers is both disgusting and reprehensible. Your claims of my dishonesty are simply consistent with your character. 

What is comical is the hypocrisy in your earlier claim:

".but then integrity matters to me."

 

[streettopeschel]

has anybody else completely lost interest in the subject matter and now just watching for the entertainment that is cheese v. duke?