Yesterday, the University returned a donation of $25 million from Hugh Culverhouse, Jr. I have never been prouder.
The return was the fallout of a months-long disagreement over the influence he would wield over the operations, personnel decisions, and direction of the Law School. Essentially, Culverhouse said, "I gave you $25 million. I get to call the shots." The University said, "We appreciate your generosity, but we maintain our academic integrity no matter what."
I do not know the specifics (I'm sure Earle does), but can you imagine how bad it must have been for the administration to say, in effect, "Your $25 million is too expensive. Keep it."
I also want to call hogwash on Culverhouse's recently-concocted assertion that it's about Alabama's recent abortion legislation vs. his and his parents' longstanding support of Planned Parenthood. He then doubled down, and is advising parents and prospective students in Florida to cross UA off their list due to that legislation -- as if the University itself passed the law.
First, the University of Alabama is not part of the legislature, and has no vote on any legislation.
Second, we have a hard enough time securing funding from the yahoos in Montgomery, and would in no way take any stand either way on the issue. Similar to not being an institutional supporter of either the Republicans or Democrats, why would they alienate a large portion of the state with a public stance on something as divisive as abortion? For its own self-interest, the University itself is neither Republican, Democrat, pro-choice or pro-life.
Here's my take on Culverhouse's cover story: He way overstepped, and he knows it. He doesn't want details of his actions to become public, and is trying to put out a smokescreen. Again, I don't know the specifics of the dispute, but I'd bet every dime I have that his stance on abortion has nothing to do with it.
For the record: This is not about abortion, pro or con. It's about (1) uncompromising academic integrity in the face of significant monetary incentive to do otherwise, and (2) calling out a patently transparent attempt at CYA. Please limit any responses to these points. If it starts to devolve into a debate on abortion, I will shut the thread down.
The return was the fallout of a months-long disagreement over the influence he would wield over the operations, personnel decisions, and direction of the Law School. Essentially, Culverhouse said, "I gave you $25 million. I get to call the shots." The University said, "We appreciate your generosity, but we maintain our academic integrity no matter what."
I do not know the specifics (I'm sure Earle does), but can you imagine how bad it must have been for the administration to say, in effect, "Your $25 million is too expensive. Keep it."
I also want to call hogwash on Culverhouse's recently-concocted assertion that it's about Alabama's recent abortion legislation vs. his and his parents' longstanding support of Planned Parenthood. He then doubled down, and is advising parents and prospective students in Florida to cross UA off their list due to that legislation -- as if the University itself passed the law.
First, the University of Alabama is not part of the legislature, and has no vote on any legislation.
Second, we have a hard enough time securing funding from the yahoos in Montgomery, and would in no way take any stand either way on the issue. Similar to not being an institutional supporter of either the Republicans or Democrats, why would they alienate a large portion of the state with a public stance on something as divisive as abortion? For its own self-interest, the University itself is neither Republican, Democrat, pro-choice or pro-life.
Here's my take on Culverhouse's cover story: He way overstepped, and he knows it. He doesn't want details of his actions to become public, and is trying to put out a smokescreen. Again, I don't know the specifics of the dispute, but I'd bet every dime I have that his stance on abortion has nothing to do with it.
For the record: This is not about abortion, pro or con. It's about (1) uncompromising academic integrity in the face of significant monetary incentive to do otherwise, and (2) calling out a patently transparent attempt at CYA. Please limit any responses to these points. If it starts to devolve into a debate on abortion, I will shut the thread down.
Last edited: