Read The Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society's statement [Word document].
I don’t have millions of dollars lying around for various philanthropic causes, but if I did, a recent opinion column that was erroneously passed off as a legitimate “news article” published in The Daily would make me think twice about the prospect.
A petition is circulating around campus to remove the McClendon name from the Honors College after Aubrey McClendon, co-founder and CEO of Chesapeake Energy, donated $12.5 million to OU with $5.5 million earmarked for the Honors College. The Honors College is named in honor of McClendon’s parents.
The former student leader of Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society, Sean Hughes, claimed the group is merely trying to hold the university accountable by demanding transparency with regards to private donations.
However, the rest of the news article unambiguously exposes the real agenda of the group: to turn away the donations of benefactors with whom the group disagrees.
Reading through the petition, one would think members of OSDS have been severely wronged by the decision of a man to selflessly donate millions of dollars to the university.
They attack his support of politically conservative organizations and decry the fact that there are people in this world that do not share the same social and political views of the group.
McClendon has his own political and social beliefs, supporting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Focus on the Family and Americans United to Preserve Marriage, to name a few organizations.
What sets McClendon apart from most people, however, is the fact that he has the ability to financially support his favorite organizations with large donations. If he wants to donate large sums of money to organizations that support a certain political agenda, that is his own prerogative.
Certainly, people will disagree with some of his private political activity, but condemning a man and rejecting his generous gift to the university is nothing less than short-sided absurdity.
This is just my opinion of course, but I’m pretty damn impressed that McClendon, and all the private donors to the university, actually care enough about students to donate their money to support higher education.
After all, nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to donate $5.5 million to the Honors College and $12.5 million to the university.
It is even more impressive when one considers the massive hit McClendon recently took in the stock market.
The recent article in The Daily also quotes Hughes objecting to McClendon’s desire to attach certain strings to the money being donated. Obviously Hughes is living in a realm totally separate from reality, or at the very least, doesn’t pay much attention to the real world.
Some of the $5.5 million has gone to fund the OU Debate Program and also to establish a new Endowed Chair of Meteorology.
If McClendon has directed the disbursement of these funds, can anyone honestly find fault with this? The man wants to donate money to the university, shouldn’t he also have some say as to where the money is going?
Consider other major projects here on campus: the Devon Energy Corporation committed major funding to help construct a new engineering building.
The Gaylord family donated funds to construct Gaylord Hall, a new building for – you guessed it – Journalism and Mass Communication.
Even more recently, the Zarrow Foundation donated funds for a new building for the School of Social Work.
McClendon wants to endow three additional chairs to establish an institute within the Honors College focused specifically on the American Constitution.
Isn’t it within his right to direct where and how his money will be spent? If McClendon wants to donate money to endow chairs in a particular discipline, I wonder why there is any objection.
I honestly don’t think Devon Energy and the Gaylord family would have made major donations if they could not stipulate where the money would go. Think of it: “Welcome to Devon Energy Hall, home of the history department and with no connection to engineering whatsoever!”
You would think the students who signed the petition – many of whom are students in the Honors College and are going to directly and indirectly reap the benefits of this donation – would be thankful. Sadly that’s not the case here.
“We disagree with McClendon’s politics, and would just as rather he take his money and leave” is a great message for prospective donors. “Unless you think like us, we don’t want your help!”
I think I can speak for the clear majority of students here when I say I’m very grateful to all the benefactors of the university, even those I disagree with politically and socially; from those whose names appear on buildings and endowed chairs to those whose anonymous gifts go unrecognized but certainly not unnoticed.
Feel free to disagree with McClendon for his business practices or his politics. Feel free to not support his company, and feel free to disagree with me. However, if condemning a man for being successful in business and a great patron of OU instead of celebrating him for his generous contribution is the order of the day, I want no part of it.
To be more succinct, and to borrow words from the eloquent Mr. Hughes, you can take your absurd petition, outright bias and self righteous pretension and “shove it.”
-Joe Hunt is a history and economics senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
dio 3 years ago
@dwalker2006,
That is not 1984 and there is no big brother. Muckraker was making a point for the transparency of donations. There is no politics involved in asking to make clear where the funds are coming from and for what they will be used. That is point made by both leftists and rightists.
dio 3 years ago
@dwalker2006,
I am not opposed to funds coming from the right or the left. By "social and environmental criteria", I understood that as a safeguard against some really shady funding. I mean I do not think people would be okay with donations from the kkk, bin laden or some drug lord. There are maybe cases you cannot honestly say you will accept the money. But, in the McClentom case, there is just no problem.
JJanowiak 3 years ago
Hey libertarian, which column do you write? BTW "THINKER" has only posted twice so it's not really fair to call him a regular.
mikedavis 3 years ago
Loud Noises!
dio 3 years ago
@muckraker
That was the kind of explanation I was looking for!
shughes 3 years ago
http://oklahomasds.wordpress.com/
dio 3 years ago
Indeed, nobody is opposed to new buildings, new faculty, new jobs, new programs and scholarships. So who cares about the name of the building? Donations are welcome, and you can lower your taxes with them. McClenton is a very generous person and nobody is blaming him for his financial success.
But, Joe, you could have spared the ad hominen and talked a little bit more about this political institute that the generous patron wants to create at OU. Everyone who read your columns know you would be the first one to sign the petition if all that was for the creation of a democratic think tank at OU...
"Biden is a racist. There, I said it." -- Joe Hunt. "It is shortsighted to declare ANTHROPOMORPHIC global warming as irrefutable" -- Joe Hunt. "To be more succinct (...) shove it." -- Joe Hunt.
alex_c 3 years ago
Yes, Thinker, you're quite right. Are you really so prejudiced that you wouldn't want to attend a class in a hall named after a gay man?
libertarian 3 years ago
You guys ever stop to actually think about the scope of this column? Joe wrote it about Mr. McClendon and his opinion on the whole OSDS debacle. He doesn't write about sodomizers because that is so irrelevant to the argument it doesn't even warrant a mention.
I love how it's the same people day in and day out that comment on columns and don't bother writing one. You guys seemingly have an opinion on everything, why don't you write a column? Let the rest of us make comments that have no real connection to the piece. Let the rest of us comment on your politics, and tell you how wrong we think you are. Let the rest of us call you out on some ridiculous detail that you obviously couldn't cover in a 700-900 word column.
It comes down to a man making a gift to the University, and some student group blows it completely out of proportion. Joe wrote a column about that aspect. If you're going to attack the man, find fault with his argument, and not something totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
JJanowiak 3 years ago
It's kind of sad that the first person to complain about this in the op-ed page has to be someone as far to the right as Joe Hunt when the entire page's staff has reason to be complaining about SDS's stupidity.
THINKER 3 years ago
I know a couple of billionares who are really into sodomy; using Joe' logic if they give enough money they should be able to plaster their name all over campus.
dwalker2006 3 years ago
Muckraker,
You are adding to the absurdity of all this. When you use words like OUR, such as OUR university, you don't mean everyone. You're not talking about conservative students. You only mean the campus Left. You want any donations to only be accepted if the donor meets criteria set by your fellow liberals. This is not inclusive. There is no OUR or WE involved in any of this.
This is all very, very elementary. Aubrey McClendon's family are residents of Oklahoma. They have a right to donate to this university. Their gift will only benefit the students, and the management has every logical reason to accept it. They also have the right to name a building in their honor, out of gratitude for their gift. Politics doesn't come into it. Government institutions cannot discriminate against citizens because they hold a certain point of view. This is exactly what the OSDS is advocating.
What is it with you people? You can't go around forcing your agenda down everyone's throats. You can't single out one guy and discriminate against him just because he is a prominent conservative.
You keep talking about social justice, but there is nothing social or just in what you are advocating. It is just fascism. In every dimension, it is antisocial and unjust.
Are you honestly telling me that your liberal values are consistent with a system that makes sure that Aubrey McClendon cannot exercise his basic freedom of belief as a human being and still have the right to donate to a public university and be recognized for his generosity?
Who are you people? Did I go to sleep and wake-up in Oceania in the year 1984??? What's next, telescreens everywhere on campus?
megan 3 years ago
I think it is awesome to have people who donate money, but I think the students and people that attend the university and especially the students of the Honors College should have the say in where the money goes and what new programs should be started. I do think that a lot of the donors seem to have too much power in what happens with their money, its a donation that should go where needed, where the students feel needed, and we should know where it goes. I also think the club is made up of honors students and students at this university and maybe people should listen to the students' thoughts because we ALSO pay A LOT of money to go here, therefore people who speak out about what students want are doing a good thing and it is rude to attack them for just speaking there opinion. Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional right and attacking them for doing so is rude. It is not like they actually took McClendon's name off the college, this whole situation I feel, is being handled badly. The newspaper should not be able to right opinion columns putting to shame other peoples opinions or ruining the reputations of students here
JJanowiak 3 years ago
Umm... megan? That's a fail. First of all, newspaper columnists have the "right" to "write" about whatever they want within the limits of the first amendment (something you might want to read more about). Second of all, nobody's free speech is being trampled on here, unless you think people shouldn't be allowed to call other people when they think they're wrong. Third, since you say that you "think... donors seem to have too much power" you're clearly indicating that you really have no idea how much power they have. Fourth, people HAVE been listening to this group, and criticizing them based on that. The amount of ignorance on display here is just... staggering.
By the way, megan, do you want the cost of tuition here to go down? Maybe some big endowments might help with that?
JJanowiak 3 years ago
SDS is so politically partisan I doubt they're capable of producing a piece that could clearly explain their case.
libertarian 3 years ago
JJanowiak - As I former student (way back in the 80's), I don't think any of my musings would be appropriate for the student paper. I rather enjoy reading about what OU students have to say, and would really like to read one of your columns.
Megan - Total Fail. Freedom of speech goes both ways. Maybe you should brush up on that sometime.
megan 3 years ago
Well if the columnists have a right to write whatever they want, even if it is attacking someone.. then why can't we write comments attacking the writer? Because it is wrong to personally attack someone when you don't know everything. This paper did not include all the details and for you to be going from what this student paper says and being rude to other people is stupid. SDS' freedom of speech is being trampled by these comments all over this issue referring to them as idiots and making the president resign, when in fact they are all very smart students. Also I'm sure you never actually listened to the group or even talked to them, everyone has just been listening to these columnists and what they are saying... are any of these people part of SDS, NO. His endowments are for the honors college, which doesn't effect students tuition or at least people not involved with the honors college.
dio 3 years ago
@libertarian
I agree, I really do not know what sodomy has to do here. That does not make any sense.
Regarding what you said about writing for the Daily, there is actually no need to do so for two reasons: 1) There are forums on this website. 2) Most people wish to stay anonymous while discussing issues on the Daily. Good luck to Mr. Hunt for deleting what he wrote on the Internet under his real name. His political rants are HUGE liabilities and they are going to haunt him for life.
Anyway, Boren said today there will be no partisan political think tank created. The Daily said there will be one last week because of this donation. It is getting really confusing... so what is going on and who is right? Can we get a clear picture of this mess instead of personal attacks on a guy and trivialities we all agree with?
dwalker2006 3 years ago
Megan,
JJanowiak is being sincere. Writers are frequently, and often unfairly, raked across the coals in these forums. If you are going to write something in The Daily, you should be prepared for prompt verbal crucifixion.
I would suggest that someone in the SDS write a column and publish it in The Daily to explain their position and state their case for the general public. That would clear up any misconceptions. This group can and should use their First Amendment right to make their case.
I highly doubt that this will happen. Personally, this looks like a smear campaign against McClendon that backfired. I don't know, but I would bet that it is a source of embarassment that they will want to pass as quickly as possible without further scrutiny.
JJanowiak 3 years ago
Megan - WE REGULARLY ATTACK WRITERS FROM THIS PAPER. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A COMMENT SECTION. It even exists so that you can ignorantly blather on (ironically!) about how ignorant other people are. If we're strictly going on the extensiveness of people's failures of ignorance, though, completely misunderstanding the first amendment is a little more egregious than a few details about SDS. SDS' freedom of speech is not being trampled. As you might notice, their statement was posted in the paper, if not very accessibly. Also, obviously I was referring to increased university endowments in general, not this specific one. Obviously five million dollars is a drop in the bucket.
Your complete lack of understanding of how the whole public exchange thing works is one mark of incredible ignorance if not stupidity. Has a university education failed you this badly?
dio 3 years ago
@megan
It is not a problem of freedom of speech. It is just that their message appears to be distorted by the Daily (or not? I do not know, this story is really confusing...). What is sure is that their names are being smeared by Mr. Hunt.
dio 3 years ago
@dwalker2006
"If you are going to write something in The Daily, you should be prepared for prompt verbal crucifixion."
True, but (thankfully?) that is no 4chan. I think they should give a better structure to their forum so we can browse between points/counterpoints and reply to specific posts more easily.
Looks like such a campaign. But it is confusing. I thought it was about the creation of a partisan think tank when reading the daily last week. Today it is about building names... it is really confusing.
muckraker 3 years ago
OU SDS questioning the merits of the McClendon donation is representative of a much large issue: Transparency. Students at dozens of Campuses across the country have launched campaigns to get their schools to adopt “socially responsible investment” (SRI) policies that establish social and environmental criteria—in addition to existing financial criteria—to guide investment decisions. These campaigns have advocated primarily for policies that apply social and environmental criteria either to screen out investments in corporations that have some kind of negative impact on the environment or society at large, or to influence the behavior of corporations through shareholder activism.
"Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) empowers shareholders to use their assets for positive change. SRI encourages investors to consider the social and environmental consequences of a given investment, as a factor equally important to, and reflective of, the investment’s financial performance. Universities, as owners of billions of dollars of stock, have incredible potential to use these methods and reform corporations to live up to the social and environmental standards that the schools themselves typically embrace." (Endowmentethics.org)
muckraker 3 years ago
DWalker,
You equated SRI policies with "fascism"-- an argument that doesn't even come close to being valid. SRI policies promote TRANSPARENCY, and idea lacking in all areas of Fascist ideology. It would have been more reasonable for you to equate OU's current financial bureaucracy with a fascist system; as all decisions are made behind closed doors without student or faculty input.
I've been closely following your comments and I've been rather interested in possibly having some sort of intelligent debate with you. Obviously this will not be possible, as you seem to be just as ignorant as you accuse myself and the members of my organization of being.
Also I believe you missed the entire point of 1984....
-Sean Hughes
dwalker2006 3 years ago
I absolutely agree in full discolsure. That is not a problem. However, come on, Dio. Go back and read the post. This is clearly not what muckraker said. In the first sentence of his post, muckraker ties the merits of accepting the McClendon donation to the idea of transparency...which, in this case, is liberal newspeak for political correctness.
Muckraker isn't arguing for full disclosure and transparency. He/she is arguing for a "social and environmental criteria" for accepting or rejecting donations. You may be talking about transparency, but muckraker is talking about establishing criteria. Those are two very different things.
The wording and tone of the article suggests that muckraker is advocating using SRI to make sure that no conservative will ever be publically acknowledged ever again by OU for a donation to the university.
Look, I have no problem with sincere liberals speaking their minds. What I can't stand is when either side - Left or Right - tries to force one side into silence. There is a word for that: FASCISM. It's that simple. Anyone, liberal or conservative, that tries to silence the other side is acting like a fascist.
What muckraker is saying is that if you are a conservative and involved with conservative causes, as McClendon clearly is, you need not bother being involved with the university or trying to be active in your community. Your donation isn't welcome simply because your personal views are not acceptable to the establishment.
This is deplorable. It blatantly flies in the face of everything the United States is supposed to stand for, I mean really basic, fundamental stuff like freedom of thought and speech. It also flies in the face of everything OU claims to stand for, like diversity of thought and opinion and having open, honest discussions on campus.
Join us or be silent, for we will tolerate no dissent or opposing views! Are these liberal values???
dio 3 years ago
Guys, guys, let's calm down. Let's look at the bright side, we all agree about transparency.
ambivalentwaltz 3 years ago
For those of you who clearly did not read the link to the OUSDS statement above (here it is again: http://oklahomasds.wordpress.com/):
...we believe that the donation of $5.5 million, which includes funding for four new endowed chairs, represents a significant remodeling of our Honors College, which currently has only ten full-time faculty members. Given that this donation has the potential to dramatically reshape the Honors College curriculum and mission, we believe that OU faculty, staff, and students should not only have access to information regarding the proposed additions, but a voice in deciding how this money can be most productively put to use. ... Although the SDS greatly appreciates this generous contribution... we firmly believe that it is necessary for the administration of the Honors College and the University to facilitate an open dialogue regarding the use of the donation, taking into careful consideration input from faculty, staff, and students, and guaranteeing the freedom to speak without fear of reprisal for all parties involved in the discussion.
So yes, the issue really is transparency; SDS members' political beliefs are secondary. (And as someone who knows several of them personally, I can tell you that they're smart, reasonable students with liberal political leanings, not the radical leftist revolutionaries some of you seem to be envisioning. I'd encourage you to figure out who you're attacking before you do it, especially since SDS only became an officially recognised campus organisation about a month ago.) SDS began circulating the petition in an attempt to spark debate, or at least curiosity, about how this donation will change and reshape the intellectual life of OUR Honors College in particular (for good or ill). Unfortunately, personal attacks directed at Mr Hughes and shoddy and confusing reporting on the issue seem to have prematurely silenced any possibility of such a constructive conversation.
dwalker2006 3 years ago
Dio,
Ofcourse I don't think that the University should accept a gift from the KKK or a terrorist organization. I think that we can all agree on that. However, I also don't think that there is any possibilitiy of that happening under the current system. Do you know what the news media would do in that situation? Heads would roll.
I have no problem with greater transparency in donations and investment. I am also not accusing you of opposing donations from someone just because they are a conservative.
However, I don't think you are correctly interpreting muckraker's argument. Muckraker relates McClendon's donation to his argument for greater transparency right from the start. I strongly suspect that what he/she is saying is that the university should adopt a criteria that would bar any donors except those that are very liberal.
What about oil companies? Oil companies make very sizeable donations to OU. We all know how liberals feel about "Big Oil". Would muckraker turn away these very large funds because they don't meet "social and environmental criteria"?
I suspect that the SRI would likely become a tool for forcing a liberal agenda on the University's donations and investment policy.