Alabama State University Board Requires New President To Agree Not To Have Lovers Stay At Presidential Mansion For Extended Period

image.aspxThere is a bizarre contract controversy involving the new president Alabama State University, Gwendolyn Boyd. She is entitled to live in the presidential residence, which is pretty standard. What is not standard is the condition placed in her contract by the board: she cannot have lovers stay overnight for any extended period of time. Boyd, you see, is unmarried.

As an academic for a couple decades, I have never seen the like of this provision” “For so long as Dr. Boyd is president and a single person, she shall not be allowed to cohabitate in the president’s residence with any person with whom she has a romantic relation.”

Boyd is returning to Alabama State (where she graduated) from Johns Hopkins, where she spent the last 33 years as an engineer and executive assistant in the university’s Applied Physics Laboratory.

Boyd agreed to the condition and shrugged off the controversy as not important because she lives alone.

That hardly answers the question. The condition, in my view, is presumptively unlawful and most clearly insulting. What is notable is that Boyd did not even retain an attorney to look over the contract before she signed it. It guarantees her $300,000 a year, a car and the presidential residence so long as she complies with the board’s conditions on her intimate relationships.

The condition raises serious questions over the invasion of privacy of the president as well as discrimination against people who are single. The fact that it was introduced for this candidate also raised questions of discrimination on the basis of gender. It is also incredibly moronic and offensive. No academic, particularly the chief academic officer of a university, should sign such a demeaning contract. It does not bode well for the university that its top officer would shrug off such a violation of personal privacy and basic notions of respect.

Such considerations are irrelevant according to university spokesman, Kenneth Mullinax, who simply noted that “[t]he contract was negotiated between Dr. Gwendolyn Boyd and the Alabama State University Board of Trustees and both parties agreed to it and have no problem with it.” Really? That’s it? What is the parties agreed to a racist or anti-Semitic contract? Would it be hunky dory just because the person wanted the job so much that she was willing to give away part of her dignity. In a distinction worthy of the Saudi Kingdom, the board does let her have family members live with her in the mansion.

Ironically, rather than draw positive attention to the University for its new president and direction, the board made Alabama State University look like some petty, backwater institution. It is the continuation of a board that seem incapable to functioning without controversy or self-inflicted injury to its institution. It has been accused of questionable relationship and contracts with family and friends of its board members.

Her predecessor Joseph Silver resigned after only six months in the job in scandal. He received $685,000 to resign his position after questions were raised about contracts. Notably, the board paid him the money on the condition that neither said make disparaging comments about each other in the future. The audit found efforts to obstruct investigation into possible fraud.

It is not just the judgment of the Board (which has long lost credibility for many) but the judgment of Boyd that is thrown into question by the signing of the agreement. The board has again failed its students and its faculty in leading this institution in my view. The ASU community has a legitimate interest in not just seeing the substitution of this contract but the substitution of this Board as a critical factor in the advancement of its institution.

What do you think?

84 thoughts on “Alabama State University Board Requires New President To Agree Not To Have Lovers Stay At Presidential Mansion For Extended Period

  1. I do not know what the board is like or who sits on it. This school was traditionally all black and opened after the civil war. Alabama has a problem with integrating their previously all white universities and with integrating their previously all black universities or state colleges. So be it. But, hiring an unmarried woman to be President was a step up. They just felt that they had to put some chains on her.

  2. Probably unenforceable, much like a waiver of liability. That clause in the contract is not worth the paper it is written on. Besides, who is going to be the bedroom police? Without reading the original contract, the story above uses the phrase “extended period.” What does that mean? Nooners are OK, or maybe overnights, but can’t give a lover permanent room and board on the taxpayers dime?

    Or do they suspect her of being lesbian and may have a [gasp] female lover over?

  3. Dr. Boyd was so happy to receive the title of university president that she didn’t care about the ‘cohabitation clause.’

    I am wondering about the status of Alabama State University, hiring an individual who has no college presidential experience. This comes after the previous president quit after 6 months, and walking away with more than half a million$$$$??

  4. Otteray Scribe

    Probably unenforceable …
    ====================
    Yep.

    It is unconstitutional. Lawrence v Texas 539 U.S. 558, assuming her bedroom there is like her bedroom “at home.”

  5. Just had a thought. Alabama is one of the states that does not recognize same sex marriage. Because I have no idea about Dr. Boyd’s orientation, or if she is one of those folks who is more or less asexual, lets take a hypothetical President Doe who is gay or lesbian.

    Our hypothetical President Doe gets married in a jurisdiction where same sex marriage is legal, then moves into the University president’s residence with spouse. There is a clause like that in the contract. So how would the contract be read by the board of regents and state attorney general’s office in that case? Lover? Spouse?

  6. Dredd,
    I was thinking in terms of the state supporting a person who technically has no legal/contractual relationship recognized by the state; to wit, a marriage license. And is also not an employee.

    On second reading it appears they are not objecting to sexual activity, but taking up residence in the mansion for an extended period of time. Still questionable, especially with regard to my hypothetical question regarding a same-sex spouse.

  7. Truly this is shocking.

    I mean in this enlightened age ? It is almost impossible to imagine that Alabama State AND the new president might….just might…BOTH have some dignity and higher moral standards?!

    Fortunately it would appear this clause will be unenforceable when the injured party comes forward.

    Wait—who is the injured party again?

  8. Otteray Scribe

    Dredd,
    I was thinking in terms of the state supporting a person who technically has no legal/contractual relationship recognized by the state; to wit, a marriage license. And is also not an employee.

    On second reading it appears they are not objecting to sexual activity, but taking up residence in the mansion for an extended period of time. Still questionable, especially with regard to my hypothetical question regarding a same-sex spouse.
    ===================
    void ab initio is probably accurate.

  9. Interesting contract, but as stated earlier, it may not be enforceable. I think this President should get out of that school as soon as feasible, if the makeup on the board does not change quickly. Also, would she be in violation of this clause if she just had multiple one night stands? I would guess that this board might object to anything that they consider promiscuous.

  10. Very unusual. I read that Alabama’s Landlord Tenant Act under Section 1.202.(5) the act does not apply due to “occupancy by an employee of a landlord whose right to occupancy is conditional upon employment in and about the premises” But yet I wonder if this would be considered a violation of fair labor standards in that a benefit of her employment (the residence) was conditional upon her family status.

  11. I find it absurd that the board is more concerned about her sex life than about corruption in their ranks. While I have no problem with her signing the contract since I think it is a tempest in a tea pot, she obviously felt that it was not important enough to make a fuss about. She obviously has a lot more intellectual firepower than myself and most folks on this site, so I will be happy to defer to her judgment.

  12. I think Ms. Boyd can probably handle herself, she appears to be quite accomplished. What with a BS in Math with a minor in Physics and Music and a Masters in Mechanical Engineering from Yale.

    She also has a Masters in Divinity from Howard Univ. and is working on her Doctorate in Ministry. She probably did not mind the restriction. Are we to meddle and mind for her? I bet this woman is smarter than most of the white men who post here so who are they to tell her she needs to do something different? Boldly paternalistic if you ask me.

    Seems to me Alabama will be in very capable hands.

  13. Can you imagine if we ever elect a single U.S. President. That would be like saying no cohabitating in the White House? I think we should elect some single person next time just to see what happens, if he has a girlfriend or boyfriend and want’s to move them in.

    I would want them to pay rent and at least part of the utilities. lol

  14. There are many states which have a problem which never gets addressed. In Jim Crow years they opened up all black colleges so they could keep their all white colleges all white. Then when integration came along few whites would go to the all black colleges. And, the sororities and fraternities at the formerly all white colleges are still all white. I wont call any of these places universities. That would be beyond the Pale.
    Maybe the last President of that formerly all black college had a live in girl friend. Maybe the board is old fashioned. Maybe the Pres could go to the Holiday Inn on Spring Break. There is a lot going on in places like Mizzoura and Alabama. One cannot change things over night. Perhaps they could start eliminating the all white sororities at the Univ of Ala and Univ of Mizzou. We could call it the Head Start Program for The Dumb We are past the Jim Crow years. I will call these the Huck and Jim years. Everything in moderation. Never the Twain shall meet.

  15. There is supposed to be a period aft the word Dumb. Then a new sentence: We are past the Jim Crow years. In my comment above.

  16. Hasn’t anybody ever heard of deed restrictions? Many deed restrictions specify single family homes. Are you seriously telling me that if some hoes moved into the universities presidential mansion and ran a brothel out of it, nobody could do anything about it? Maybe somebody should call Barney Frank.

  17. Randyjet
    From Wiki: By the time he (Buchanan) left office, popular opinion was against him, and the Democratic Party had split. Buchanan had once aspired to a presidency that would rank in history with that of George Washington.[2] However, his inability to impose peace on sharply divided partisans on the brink of the Civil War has led to his consistent ranking by historians as one of the worst presidents in American history. Historians in both 2006 and 2009 voted his failure to deal with secession the worst presidential mistake ever made.[3]

    Go figure, our historian considered him a bad president because he was apposed to secession, but wasn’t a war hawk nor was able to stop the war.

    Lets blame the secession of the entire group of southern states and civil war on a single man; Buchanan. That’s like blaming Obama for all the social and economic problems facing America. Ludicrous.

    On the contrary, Lincoln, was a obvious war hawk and probably sociopath, is considered one of the greats and cost America 1,000,000+/- dead and/or injured. The Yanks had the south out manned 2 to 1.

    I do not see in the Constitution where States cannot succeed. The voluntarily joined, so the rules of government are like the mafia; once you get in there is only one way out.

  18. Maybe, just maybe, the provision was her idea. Think about it. Ya give a guy a roll in the hay and pretty soon he is thinking about changing the carpets and putting up his own artwork. This way she can pork em if she’s got em but not have to keep em. She just holds up her lease. Sorry, no live-aboards.

  19. hskiprob. I suggest you read the title of the articles of confederation to answer your question as to the so called right to secede. It says PERPETUAL UNION

  20. randyjet, I thought we abrogated the Federation in favor of the Constitution? I am not aware that such provisions within the Constitution are subject to the AOC, but I have not read all of the Articles, so I could be wrong.

    Besides, how can any legitimate contract potential enslave those that are the progeny of the signers for eternity. No one should be allowed to enter into a contract, which takes away a right of dissolving such contract under certain conditions. I think that the certain conditions had been met, and these conditions still remain with us today, creating the many problems are great nation faces.

    You had the agricultural south with a much smaller population being bullied by the industrial north with a much larger population. Democracy is two banking foxes out of NY trying to tax a farmer in the south. Remnants of the mechantilistic policies that King George was trying to force upon the Colonies.

  21. The union of the states at the very beginning was intended and in LAW and agreement was to be permanent. So the idea that a more perfect UNION meant the ability to abrogate union is outlandish. The rest of your arguments are so bad that they are not worthy of comment if you think that King George was the same as the Congress.

  22. She should do what the Mayor of New York did back in late ’90s. Have her spouse move to a separate bedroom so her lover could stay in the master suite. This apparently was OK with party of “family values”

  23. When you have housing on a campus it is like a soap opera. My sister had a house on the Choate campus as part of her compensation. My mom was her nanny and she would hear ALL the gossip, nitpicking, etc. My mom was not a gossiper and would never say anything, just listen and walk away when the opportunity arose. My sister did have to teach mom the faculty and teachers aren’t, “Chinamen” they’re Asian. She loved the graduations, getting to see some great speakers, like Gorbachev. She was thankful she was done being a nanny when Chris Matthews was the speaker!

    This is bad on Alabama State’s case. There is almost always a back story. I am certain there is one here, that may have nothing to do, or little to do w/ race.

  24. ” Are you seriously telling me that if some hoes moved into the universities presidential mansion and ran a brothel out of it, nobody could do anything about it? Maybe somebody should call Barney Frank.”

    As I read the description of the restriction ho’s running a brothel would be fine. Just no boy friends staying all night.

    BTW, for $300k will kick every body out by 10pm…really… I promise.

  25. Ms. Boyd’s story recalls the life and times of Hilda Mae Snoops. Hilda Mae was the longtime girlfriend of William Donald Shaefer, Mayor of Baltimore and two term governor of Maryland. Reference to a politician’s girlfriend conjures up images of a married old fart connecting with a young, nubile babe, but this was not the case. Shaefer was not a philanderer. He did not lust after young women. Hilda Mae was Shaefer’s contemporary. Shaefer just never married the girl. Indeed, he remained single his entire life. I guess Shaefer did not see the necessity of a marriage license. That was his business. Nevertheless, when Shaefer was elected governor, Hilda Mae moved into the governor’s mansion. During her term as “official hostess”, she commissioned a fountain which was constructed in the vicinity of the State House.

    Shaefer was term limited and left office in 1995. However, he soon grew bored and ran successfully for State Comptroller in 1998. This placed him on the three man state Board of Public Works with the incumbent governor, Parris Glendening, and the state treasurer. The Board of Public Works is a uniquely Maryland institution with huge powers over large state contracts.

    The governor and the former governor clashed, unsurprising since the Democrat Shaefer had endorsed Glendening’s Republican opponent to succeed Shaefer. Shortly after Shaefer took up his position on the Board of Public Works, Hilda Mae passed away. Sensing the moment, Glendening ordered Hilda Mae’s fountain to be shut off. Points are deducted here for tackiness and awful timing. Shaefer claimed that this was retribution for Shaefer’s failing to endorse Glendening. Sound familiar. Glendening said the fountain was a waste of water. Shaefer said the water in the fountain was recycled. And so forth. Since Glendening was a Democrat, the national press did not pick up on this act of political bullying and, if you don’t think this was bullying, remember Shaefer was nearing 80 and Hilda Mae was dead.

    When Glendening left office after serving two terms, his successor, Republican Robert Erlich turned Hilda Mae’s fountain back on, a condition which remains today.

    There is some, albeit fuzzy, connection between Ms. Boyd and Hilda Mae Snoops, i.e, when third parties get involved in personal situations, even where there is some distant state interest, we run the risk of having our water turned off and looking like fools. If Ms. Boyd is ok with the conditions of her contract, why should anyone else complain? Give me a $300,000 salary, a mansion to live in, and a vehicle to drive and I’ll be content living by myself too.

  26. I am in agreement with Vince’s last two sentences. This is much ado about nothing. If I used capital letters it would get Shakespearean. But I did not. I wish this new President well. I wont quibble about some housing allowance here. I read her bio and she is well qualified.

  27. bfm Personally I think that the reason for that restriction is that the preachers on the board do NOT want any competition when they come over later at night.

  28. davidm2575 writes:
    [Hasn’t anybody ever heard of deed restrictions? Many deed restrictions specify single family homes. Are you seriously telling me that if some hoes moved into the universities presidential mansion and ran a brothel out of it, nobody could do anything about it? Maybe somebody should call Barney Frank.]

    David: Wow!

    Thanks for sharing your upbringing. You must have talked to GOP Senator Vittier about, as you call them hoes. He is the expert in your party about this.:-)

  29. Does anyone know how this story about her contract was leaked to the public and by whom? By Ms. Boyd herself?

    If the latter is true, then it is a great chess move on her part. A pawn check mate.

  30. Teji,
    David doesn’t understand the difference between an employment contract and a neighborhood covenant contract. Not surprising. His understanding of the law is as wide as the Pacific, but as deep as a raindrop.

  31. davidm2575
    Hasn’t anybody ever heard of deed restrictions? Many deed restrictions specify single family homes. Are you seriously telling me that if some hoes moved into the universities presidential mansion and ran a brothel out of it, nobody could do anything about it?
    ===========================================================

    you mean like some nappy headed hoes there, davy boy.

    kinda odd that you’d use a slang term like “hoes”.

  32. bigfatmike wrote: “As I read the description of the restriction ho’s running a brothel would be fine. Just no boy friends staying all night.”

    She can have a boyfriend or girlfriend spend the night. What she cannot do is have a boyfriend or girlfriend with whom she is romantically involved move in permanently unless she is married to that person.

    I looked up the actual contract and found something even more surprising. When I first read the story, I took it lightly and joked about it because I assumed that if she didn’t like the terms for the free mansion, she could move somewhere else. Not so. Part of the conditions of her employment is that she MUST live in the President’s home on campus. This puts a stricter twist on the whole thing. Employment requires her to live there, and she must not cohabitate with any person with whom she has a romantic relationship. The actual language is as follows:

    “5.4 For as long as Dr. Boyd is President and a single person, she shall not be allowed to cohabitate in the President’s residence with any person with whom she has a romantic relation.”
    http://media.al.com/wire/other/Gwendolyn%20Boyd%20employment%20contract.pdf

    In looking at this, it occurred to me that this is very similar to the traditional way in which most housing departments on campus operate. I am curious to hear the opinion of lawyers about students living on campus who might be held to exactly the same standard. I remember when I worked as a Resident Assistant on campus, we did not even allow overnight guests of the opposite sex, and there were specific hours for visitation. Although rules in this regard are now greatly relaxed, is there a modern legal problem for the university housing department not allowing a single student to have a boyfriend or girlfriend permanently move in with them?

  33. @davidm2575

    Thanks for the clarification. I do believe you have raised some details that bear upon our understanding of the school and the contract.

    You also seem to draw a distinction between spending the night and actually taking up residence. I wonder if those who drew up the contract would agree that spending the night is OK, or at least not prohibited by the contract terms.

    I don’t know the answer to that. But I suspect that they would feel that overnight visits are prohibited by the contract regardless whether for a single night or a more permanent basis.

    I also suspect there are some reading this who are having trouble focusing on the serious issues raised by the actual terms of the contract:

    “5.4 For as long as Dr. Boyd is President and a single person, she shall not be allowed to cohabitate in the President’s residence with any person with whom she has a romantic relation.”.

    An obvious follow up question would seem to be: can she cohabitate with someone with whom she has no romantic relation – which would seem to raise questions related to everything from boarders, to a bed and breakfast on the side, and the previously mentioned brothel?

    I am sorry, but to me it seems the more detail we have about the contract the more ludicrous the contract provision becomes.

    I can imagine the IG’s investigation right now:

    IG: ‘Madame President, did you or did you not cohabitate with this person with whom you have a romantic relation?’

    MP: ‘Ummm…Define romantic relation’.

  34. bigfatmike wrote: “An obvious follow up question would seem to be: can she cohabitate with someone with whom she has no romantic relation…”

    Cohabit is defined as “to live together and have a sexual relationship without being married.”

    The contract specifically says that the provision does not mean that members of her immediate family are prohibited from living there.

    Universities are about fundraising, and one of the primary jobs of a university president is fundraising. There are many donors who will not donate if the president of the university causes sleazy gossip and develops a disreputable reputation in regards to the institution of marriage and sexual morality.

  35. bigfatmike wrote: “An obvious follow up question would seem to be: can she cohabitate with someone with whom she has no romantic relation…”

    Cohabit is defined as “to live together and have a se3ual relationship without being married.”

    The contract specifically says that the provision does not mean that members of her immediate family are prohibited from living there.

    Universities are about fundraising, and one of the primary jobs of a university president is fundraising. There are many donors who will not donate if the president of the university causes sleazy gossip and develops a disreputable reputation in regards to the institution of marriage and se3ual immorality.

  36. @davidm2575 ‘Cohabit is defined as “to live together and have a se3ual relationship without being married.” ‘

    You are cracking me up. The question would seem to be can she “live together and have a sexual relationship without being married” to a person with whom she has no romantic relation.

    The contract seems to be in the curious position of prohibiting cohabitation with one which whom there is a romantic, and presumably loving, relation; and allowing cohabitation so long as there is no romantic interest – and presumably no love.

  37. bfm I love this! So she MAY run a brothel as long as their is no loving relationship! I said jokingly that I thought this was put in there so that the preachers and other male members of the board could have sexual access to her. Now this only confirms it. The requirement also means that she legally MUST keep such affairs quiet. So no blackmail allowed against the board members.

    As for fundraising, I would think that financial impropriety is FAR worse than sexual, and in fact, this board has more than enough reason for fearing that. davidm I don’t know what college you went to, but it must have been pretty tony for each student to have their own room to themselves. Simple common sense and decency would dictate that a student would not be able to have a lover move in and think it would not cause hardship for the roommate. If they are illegals studying there, it is not racism to insist that the only TWO people per room rule is enforced.

  38. IG: madam president did you or did you not cohabitate with someone with whom you have a romantic relation?

    MP: Him??? Romantic Relation? Are you kidding me? Has he ever taken me some place nice for dinner on the anniversary of our first date? No he has not. Does he ever give me something nice for valentines day or my birthday? No he does not. That guy does not have a romantic bone in his body.

    I thought I was getting close to a romantic relation about 25 years ago at the inner harbor in Baltimore when he asked if he could move in. Romance disappeared as fast as a PEZ candy pellet on the tongue of a hungry child as soon as I said yes.

    Since then the closest I get to romance is a Jackie Diamond Hyman novel.

    So for the record let me state clearly I have never cohabitated with a person with whom I have a romantic relation. I hope that clarifies this matter for you.

  39. @Randyjet ” the preachers on the board do NOT want any competition when they come over later at night.”

    You just had to bring it up, didn’t you.

    Now someone has to address the inevitable questions: do the preachers not want any competition when they come over to party or do they not want any competition when they come over to collect their share of the take.

    Don’t take an attitude with me. You’re the one that brought it up.

  40. Women, especially Black women, have to put up with a lot of nonsense that men in comparable positions don’t have to put up with. University president is a challenging and prestigious job. So the bustards put something onerous in her contract. Big deal. I’m sure it’s not the only demeaning bit of crapola she has had to put up with. She’ll deal with it.

  41. randyjet wrote: ” I would think that financial impropriety is FAR worse than sexual, and in fact, this board has more than enough reason for fearing that. ”

    That is addressed in the contract as well. I guess everybody agrees with restricting that kind of impropriety.

    randyjet wrote: “I don’t know what college you went to, but it must have been pretty tony for each student to have their own room to themselves.”

    Yes it is, but they do exist. Many resident assistants and housing managers have private rooms. The point you are skirting is that the issue of hanky panky in residence halls is not new stuff. Why so readily apply one standard for students and another standard for staff, faculty, or even the president of the university? They are all adults.

    Even with two people in a room, what if the situation is two boys who have been having threesomes with a hot girl that wants to move in with them? Is there some kind of constitutional crisis over housing not allowing that?

  42. bettykath wrote: “Women, especially Black women, have to put up with a lot of nonsense that men in comparable positions don’t have to put up with.”

    Really? You don’t think the clause would be in there if it was a white man? I think it would be.

  43. @bettykath

    Of course your are right. I think the board that created the contract has itself to blame for some barbed comments.

    The president herself seems to have a strong record of accomplishment – as one reader has already mentioned.

    As we roast the ones who created that contract we also ought to wish the new president the best in her new position.

    As for the proposition that a man would have been bound by a similar requirement, we can check and see.

    I am pretty sure that the previous president was a man and I am sure any number of the capable readers on this site can find and review that contract for us.

  44. randyjet – my argument that a Constitution (a contract) should be able to be abrogated is outlandish? Really, you do not believe in contract law? Should someone be forced into a contract which enslaves you for eternity? Indentured servants?

    1. When a central government becomes tyrannical and oppressive, the States must remain a part of the union and enforce the tyrannical laws against it’s own citizens?

    That is ridiculous and as fascist a position as I have ever heard but there are always those who believe they know what is the best interest of the majority. You should become a politician or political operative randyjet. You surely know the various tactic of muckraking.

    2. You do not see any similarities in the various laws that King George was trying to institute and what Congress has slowly instituted over the last 150 years?

    Look up the term mercantilism and then look at the various social programs, such as tariffs, the multitude of taxes on every action and product, all the corporate welfare that has cause monopolization of our markets and higher prices. King George send a barrage of bureaucrats over to try to institute his desired policies. Why do you think that was?

    Thank god we fought back because you my friend would not likely be here to be able to even argue these issues unless they had.

    It is sad that you do not appreciate or understand what our forefathers did to try to stop the oppressive nature of government and instead criticize lassie fare economic polices that made our country so great.

    Understanding the true components of lassie fare and mercantilism are essential in understanding both the history of our nation but also in what must be done to cure the many socio-economic problems facing our country and world.

    If you wait for your politicians and bureaucrats to fix our problems, you will be waiting another 100 years and millions of lives will be lost and injured.

    I’m near completion of a very good book published in 2004. “How Capitalism Saved America” by Thomas Dilorenzo, the author of The Real Lincoln and a professor of economics.

    There have been many great books that have given us the virtues of capitalism over the last 300 years and as time goes on and communication technologies improve, each new author is better able to further the arguments on both sides of the isle. It appears however that the evidence is so overwhelming that the statist side or anti-capitalists, have lost so much ground that they are reverting back to arguments that are not grounded in historical truth, continue to practice muckraking and ratfcuking, to try to spoil the truth.

    DiLorenzo’s book is an excellent update with added insight on the scholarly research of 100s of people over centuries, and should be required reading for high schoolers. At 250 pages it can be read and understood by anyone with a 10 grade education of higher.

    For those of you intellectuals that have been misled by the anti-capitalist movement in the United States, please read this book.

    Remember even Keynes, the father of so-called mixed economic policy began considering the benefits of capitalism and fee markets as he aged and acquired more knowledge.

  45. davidm I think that common sense solution is that the adults can do what they please in their place of residence as long as it does not hurt or impinge on the rights of others in the building or residence. For example, if there is a common bathing area for the dorm, having members of the opposite sex there IS an infringement on others rights and comfort. Thus I am all in favor of banning such folks from residing there. I think that common sense and respect for others should be the guiding principle.

  46. David,

    Welcome to the 21st Century….. Women are not chattel…. Unless of course you live in one of those society’s that consider women less than a male…… Even the ancient Jewish treated women with respect and reverence….. Just in case yu didn’t know….

  47. hksi It is absurd to compare private or corporate contract law as being the same as a government or constitution. Using your example, when you ask if a person should be forced into a contract, that is the whole purpose of government. Taking your contract analogy further, then if your guy or party loses the election, then you should not be expected to be forced to follow the laws they enact. That is clearly absurd. Your points are so off and shallow without thinking about the ramifications it is useless to argue.

    I will just refer to your lassie fare guru and Rand fan, Alan Greenspan who exclaimed before Congress that he would NEVER have imagined that the capitalist leaders could have been so stupid and reckless as they were when they caused the latest economic catastrophe. I know that Keynes was a die hard capitalist and simply showed how to get out of the other catastrophe of that time, the Great Depression. FDR and the US actually carried out a great experiment as to the accuracy of his ideas when the US DID resort to deficit financing in 1933 to 1937. The economy started to recover and when they CUT the spending, the economy went back down. The Depression was only ended by the massive deficit financing and spending of WWII. The US debt soared to 120% of GDP by the end of that war, which is FAR higher than what we have today. Your economics ideas are simply not valid and have been proven that by history and facts. It is like your idea that a confederacy is a great idea despite the FACT that we tried that TWICE and it failed. I guess that if it failed twice you think the third time will be the charm.

  48. randyjet wrote: “For example, if there is a common bathing area for the dorm, having members of the opposite sex there IS an infringement on others rights and comfort.”

    That is not what an inalienable right is. Rights pertain to physical harm to person and property or coercion, fraud, etc. We are supposed to be protected from others, including government from harming us or our property.

    Just because you are uncomfortable, does not give one the right to exclude others based on sex or any other uncomfortable reason. You cannot prove that coed bathing is detrimental to society. That is a moral myth.

    If I choose to allow coed bathing at my dormitory, then you can go to a dormitory where you “feel” more comfortable. Does free choice sound good. Stop trying to force you moral and social agenda on others.

    It is amazing just how so many people do not understand what basic unalienable rights are, despite and entire generation debating and including them as our foundation of our rule of law.

  49. randy wrote “hksi It is absurd to compare private or corporate contract law as being the same as a government or constitution. Using your example, when you ask if a person should be forced into a contract, that is the whole purpose of government. Taking your contract analogy further, then if your guy or party loses the election, then you should not be expected to be forced to follow the laws they enact? That is clearly absurd. Your points are so off and shallow without thinking about the ramifications it is useless to argue.”

    That is correct, we should not be at the whim of those in power and why we have a bill of rights. If those rights are abrogated, then we no longer have a lawfully constituted government.

    I think it is absurd, that you think it is absurd, to imply individual rights as not superior to group privileges. There are many prominent men like Lysander Spooner who have argued these same principles. Are we not a group of individuals who attempted to form a more perfect Union, with individual rights being our foundation.

    Government is not supposed to initiate force or coercion, based on who is ruling at the moment and that is exactly what our Constitution was supposed to curtail.

    We have sadly been overthrown by stupidity and arrogance. People who think that can engineer the affairs of an entire society. Well done Comrads!!!!!!!

  50. Alabama State University demeaned itself by inserting the cohabitation clause in the contract. Ms. Boyd demeaned herself by signing it.

  51. Mike Appleton wrote: “Alabama State University demeaned itself by inserting the cohabitation clause in the contract. Ms. Boyd demeaned herself by signing it.”

    It seems to me that this perspective could only come from those who devalue and disrespect the institution of marriage. From the perspective of someone who highly values marriage and sexual fidelity, such actions increase dignity and respect for her and the university. Our culture certainly has changed, but I’m not sure that our culture as a whole would consider this demeaning. There are still some who would find the concept of the president of the university shacking up with someone out of wedlock to be disgraceful. The news media outlets would have a field day with it, and that would truly be demeaning to both Miss Boyd and the university.

    Personally, my respect for Gwendolyn Boyd has gone up by her agreeing to the terms. It demonstrates that she has integrity.

  52. Mike Appleton:

    How did Ms. Boyd demean herself? Maybe she is a republican, after all Marting Luther King, Sr. was for most of his life.

  53. DavidM:

    “There are still some who would find the concept of the president of the university shacking up with someone out of wedlock to be disgraceful.”

    Yes there are. More than some would care to admit.

  54. Bron, I find it funny that folks like Davidm would have NO problem voting for Guilani, Trump, or Gingrich or any of the other GOPers who were running for President. They believe in marriage so much that they cheat on their wives and get married again. The hypocrisy is obnoxious.

  55. randyjet:

    You cant say DavidM would vote for them, you dont know. I am betting he would not vote for them because he is much more conservative than any of the 3. I would not vote for them because I think they are all too pragmatic and have no real consistent philosophy of life. Guiliani might but I dont think Trump and Gingrich do.

    What does that say about the women who cheat with them? Women are not passive participants.

  56. David is a conservative Republican ala Newt Gingrich and Senator Vittier.The former is a serial adulterer and the GOP Senator Vittier a hoe-player.These Gopers try to pretend all puritan over the sheets, not when under them. These are called the conservative values.

  57. Teji Malik:

    How do you know that?

    I didnt vote for Bill Clinton because he was a serial philanderer, look at Elliot Spitzer and Barney Frank [wow a gay whorehouse in his capital hill place] and who can forget Anthony Weiner showin his junk all over the world.

    Maybe you are a liberal ala Anthony Weiner?

  58. Bron: Here you go again barging in. Why don’t you let David talk for himself. Why don’t you consider David an adult enough to respond? You had claimed David had another chart for inflation which was a simple lie on your part.

    Thanks for your pleas though but you will not get my wiener picture to please yourself with.:-)

  59. David: What religion do you belong to? Do not feel embarrassed rather be proud of it by sharing your beliefs with us.

  60. @Mike Appleton “Ms. Boyd demeaned herself by signing it.”

    If anyone thinks I said anything mean in this thread about this situation, you are right I did. But it had nothing to do with President Boyd. I don’t think I can criticize her.

    The US has made a lot of progress in the past say 50 years regarding racism, the position of minorities and the position of women. But there is still much to be done. For an AA woman or any woman to become president of an college or university means a lot. . So long as she has to power and responsibility of the office an is not just a figure head, then I think President Boyd is pushing forward and I say good for her.

    I am betting she carries that particular indignity with grace and carries the responsibilities of office well.

    She certainly deserves the opportunity to perform and I think we should all wish her the best of luck in what I am sure will be a challenging environment.

  61. There was a HUGE step taken in college football w/ Texas hiring it’s first black head coach, Charlie Strong. College football and MLB have horrible records regarding black head coaches, managers, and GM’s. Maybe this hire @ Texas will open things up in college football. However, the problem is not just south of the Mason Dixon line. All regions have a woeful record.

  62. Nick: There was time when the quarterbacks were only white and so were the coaches in the NFL, the basketball players only white and almost in all sports, the whites ruled which fortunately is not the case now. To be honest, I was happily surprised about the hiring of Charlie Strong by Texas I hope the trend continues even at this snail’s pace.

    I hope that Ms. Boyd was selected because of her ability rather than just as a part of the grand scheme to recruit talented black football players where Ms. Boyd acting as a poster black lady. The same partly can be said about the hiring of Charlie Strong

    However, on the other side of the coin, it is sad to notice the white sheet like machismo and sexism of the GOP which is the true side of how half of the America feels and lives. And one can find many belonging to that lot here, dragonlike fire throwing their hateful agenda against, women’s rights. This lot has always considered the the female gender belonging to an inferior class. This is the reason they wasted our hard earned money passing the bills against women’s rights in the congress.The other proof is also in the GOP congress. The number of women and blacks we have in the GOP as compared to the Democratic Party.

  63. Davidm2575 – I must agree, I find it appalling that the university even placed that clause in the contract of the President of he University. That is how much little faith they have in their fellow human beings. I therefore have little faith in the Board of the University. You can send your children there. Shame on them for even placing such low moral parameters on a person of that significance to the institution.

  64. Davidm:

    I will not respond directly to your implied criticism of my views on marriage other than to note its insulting presumptuousness.

    We demonstrate our commitment to a value or a belief through our actions. We demonstrate nothing by inserting this sort of morals clause in a contract with a university president other than our contempt for the concept of privacy and a puerile fixation with the sexual behavior of consenting adults. Would you have been even more impressed had the drafter incorporated clauses prohibiting shoplifting from the college bookstore and using university computers to send private emails?

  65. DavidM is the proverbial puritan teabagger, just like the coke sniffing GOP congressman from his state who got caught red or shall I say white powder handed.

  66. Mike Appleton wrote: “I will not respond directly to your implied criticism of my views on marriage other than to note its insulting presumptuousness.”

    I am very sorry that my post came across insulting. Carefully considering what you wrote, I tried to find another reason for the clause being demeaning to the university and Dr. Boyd, but I could not come up with one. Guess I had a blind spot.

    Mike Appleton wrote: “Would you have been even more impressed had the drafter incorporated clauses prohibiting shoplifting from the college bookstore and using university computers to send private emails?”

    The primary difference between these examples and the clause we are talking about is that there is a huge political and cultural push toward redefining and diminishing the institution of marriage. Young people today often are choosing to shack up and have children out of wedlock, often with different fathers. Such behavior has many societal and economic ramifications. If a university president were to provide this kind of example, it would send a bad message to students on campus and ultimately also bring disrepute upon Dr. Boyd and the university.

    Nevertheless, I understand your point now. Why should it even be necessary to put such a thing in a contract? Yes, it is shameful to society and our culture that such has to be spelled out. Thank you for clarifying your perspective on this.

  67. davidm2575 wrote:
    “I have mentioned many times on this blog that I do not belong to any religion”.

    Then you are in the wrong party because Tea Party nuts hate people who do not belong to the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. They want Jesus to come back (Christians for Jews & for Israel) so that all will be converted to Christianity otherwise they will be thrown in the cauldron of hell. That is their core belief. I thought you knew that.

    Christians hate equality of any kind. Although they claim to have free will but they do not let women’s right to choose. They talk about family values yet, they start adulterous affairs in the pews. The divorce rate among them is the highest.They do not want people to love each other no matter whatever their sexual preference is.

    You hold the same values no matter what you call yourself. Your beliefs are the same and you flaunt them quite gallantly.

    So, it is not important what you call yourself religionwise but your core beliefs define you and they are the same as of your party honchos’..

  68. David: One more thing I forgot to mention that the party you belong to loathes and hates their Muslim cousins. They burn Qurans, the Muslim holy book.They want Muslims to be killed. As a result, many innocent Sikhs who are known to wear turbans and have nothing to do with Islam are taken as Muslims and suffer the wrath from the believers of your party’s values, even death right here in the US.

    They even call President Obama a Kenyan born Muslim because for them the word Muslim is a slur in your party’s dictionary just like the N word.

Comments are closed.