There 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?
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.
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.
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
We HAVE elected single Presidents a couple of times, including our worst and probably gay President Buchanan.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
http://wmstdc.org/documents/Gwendolyn_Boyd_Bio.pdf
randyjet:
the heavens must be aligning. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
Proof again, I think, of the time tested tradition of giving big jobs to fuddy-duddys who have no other interests than the task at hand. 😀
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.
This is one heck of a morality clause….. Takes you back a few years…..
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.
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?
“What do you think?” – JT
I propose a new name for the Alabama State University Board of Trustees:
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.
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?
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.”
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$$$$??
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?
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.