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?
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….
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.
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.
Agreed Bettykath – I worked in an office full of women, but it didn’t seem to matter what color they were. lol
@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.
However, this story got out and on our blog, she is a decent person and needs some respect and space.
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”.
I hope she is gay for the sake of equality for all.
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.
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.
Can she have shower with someone in the mansion?
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.:-)
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.
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.
” 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.
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.
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?
@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’.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
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.
Bron, Great assessment!!
Maybe she’s engaged to be married and she doesn’t give a poop. But it certainly is a regressive policy.
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.
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”
LOVE IT FRANKLY!
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.
Only 30 seconds quickies are fine.
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.