BAA vote

In response to Baylor President Ken Starr’s statements in the Sunday edition of the Tribune-Herald, one must wonder: Why do you want to destroy the Baylor Alumni Association? Is it because it is an outstanding example of a good organization of university alumni? Is it because of the $5 million successfully raised by the alumni? Or is it the need to control?

If a president of a fine Christian college like Baylor University wants to promote a global school of integrity to educate students to be leaders of tomorrow, why would he use strong-arm tactics to dissolve an organization of alumni and set a Mafia-type example?

Sending BAA officers “notice of termination” of all agreements signed in the past by former Baylor presidents, trustees, regents and presidents of the BAA? Where exactly is it written that Baylor has a legal right to do this? If signed legal documents are no longer trustworthy at Baylor, what is? To stop this termination, the BAA would have to sue Baylor. Now, that would sure bring global notice to Baylor University.

Then comes the “or else” Mafialike threat, the “proposal.” This intentionally wordy document spells out the ultimate doom of the long-supportive BAA organization through “hoop-jumping” maneuvers over a 10-year trial period of total submission to BU administrative demands.

Finally comes the public threat to BAA membership: If we vote “no” this Saturday to the transition agreement, termination of the BAA will take place. BANG! Did that come from Al Capone?

Betty Weissinger, Abilene

n n n

While I admittedly do not have a dog in this fight, my daughters having graduated from university out of state, I have been following growing conflict between Baylor University and the Baylor Alumni Association. I found the “vote no” argument set forth by guest columnists Stan Schlueter and Sherry Castello a very compelling one in Sunday’s paper. The refusal by Baylor University to allow the BAA to participate in commencement ceremonies, shutting down communications to their offices and then razing the Hughes-Dillard Alumni Center are all heavy-handed tactics, wholly unsuitable to a center of higher learning.

It does not seem to matter whether a Baylor alumnus votes no or yes on Saturday because Baylor will either amputate the BAA publication by forbidding it to use the name “Baylor” or it will control the publication so heavily it will no longer be able to offer construction criticism and support if the support does not match Ken Starr’s definition of the word. Clearly, Starr is not a big fan of constructive criticism — and how is it that someone who was a former judge and solicitor general of the United States is not familiar with the First Amendment?

Makes me wonder what he has planned for Baylor in the future that so motivates him to silence the voice of the alumni. I sure hope he gets a resounding “NO” in response.

Darla Deen-King, Valley Mills