TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

b322da wrote:A thoughtful approach, or ??

http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/task ... bf574.html

http://www.tamu.edu/statements/campus-carry.html.

Jim

No comments? Is that, I suppose, because usually the only comments on this forum are negative in nature, and perhaps the readers may have concluded that A&M may be approaching this issue in the right way?

Being a College Station resident I am really interested in our readers' views, so far as this has gone. So, as stated above, I will luxuriate in observing that there have been no slings and arrows thrown at A&M because of its approach.

Jim

mojo84 wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

mojo84 wrote:For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

My impression of the Board of Regents is that they more represent the State's interests (and particularly the views of the governor who appointed them). The Board is like the political/business/citizen counterweight to the ivory tower academic bias that exists on campus. Even if that is accurate, I am not at all sure how individual Board members feel about campus carry. I'm sure that it varies.

I have a completely different impression. Check out UT Regent Wallace Hall and how things are going there.

I think your idea is what they should be there for but I don't think that's the case in practicality.

Hall was presumably doing Perry's bidding, right? That was my point. Hall might have been sacrificed, but the Regents ultimately won, didn't they? The UT president ultimately was forced to resign.

No, he was not doing Perry's bidding.

The board of regents is supposed to be the governing body for the system. Just as in the private sector, you can have strong boards or weak/friendly ones. Weak ones usually go along with the president or chancellor on almost everything they want to do.

mojo84 wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

mojo84 wrote:For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

My impression of the Board of Regents is that they more represent the State's interests (and particularly the views of the governor who appointed them). The Board is like the political/business/citizen counterweight to the ivory tower academic bias that exists on campus. Even if that is accurate, I am not at all sure how individual Board members feel about campus carry. I'm sure that it varies.

I have a completely different impression. Check out UT Regent Wallace Hall and how things are going there.

I think your idea is what they should be there for but I don't think that's the case in practicality.

TexasCajun wrote:At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said in other threads regarding this topic. Public universities have had the option to allow in-building campus carry from the start. Not a single one has done so and will not do so until the new law goes into effect. The language of the bill gives the presidents and boards of regents some latitude - which they'll use to create a general carry prohibition with a few exceptions instead of vice versa as the law's author and sponsors intended. Although the bill's legislative supporters are publicly being optimistic, I have a feeling that they're preparing for round 2. This ain't over by a long shot, and I hope our legislature has the resolve to fix these issues once they have the data to back it up.

mojo84 wrote:For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.