Members of a student activist group at OU have backed away from a controversial petition as OU officials have disputed the petition’s allegations and the group’s president has resigned.
Last week, members of Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society circulated a petition to remove the McClendon family name from the Joe C. and Carole Kerr McClendon Honors College. The college was renamed in 2008 after Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon donated $5.5 million to Honors College faculty and programs.
The petition stated “the University administration and the Honors College refuse to answer our questions regarding how the $5.5 million for new academic projects will be spent and offer us no assurance that McClendon’s personal beliefs and politics will not influence the creation and direction of these new projects.”
In the days following the petition’s circulation, Honors College Dean RC Davis-Undiano, OU President David Boren and Aubrey McClendon denied that McClendon’s political views would affect the curriculum or faculty of the Honors College.
“The university has donors of differing political perspectives,” Boren wrote in a letter to The Daily. “Donors are never allowed to select faculty or staff members. All are chosen through an independent process through faculty governance based on capability and not on political viewpoints.”
Boren also said the idea of establishing an institute for the study of American political history, which was a point of contention mentioned in the OSDS petition, was his idea, not McClendon’s.
“Mr. McClendon has never tried to use his generosity to tell the university what to do,” Boren said. “If any donor attempted to attach improper strings in conditions for a gift, it would not be accepted.”
McClendon said his political views are less partisan than implied by the petition in an e-mail sent Thursday.
“For the record, I was born a Democrat, became a Republican and am now a registered Independent,” he wrote. “In the last election, I voted for candidates of both parties. I pitch a big political tent and hope that others will as well.”
McClendon said his donation was not an attempt to improperly influence academics at OU.
“My gift to the University of Oklahoma’s Honors College comes with no strings attached,” he said. “I have great respect for President Boren and I agree with his position on the importance of protecting intellectual freedom.”
In a statement released Sunday, OSDS officers said a desire for transparency and dialogue about intellectual issues motivated last week’s petition.
After months of asking Honors College faculty and administrators for information about the McClendon donation, OSDS had yet to hear any definitive answers about how the money would be used.
“After many months of frustration, we decided to launch our petition to remove the McClendon name from the Honors College in order to break the silence surrounding the donation and spur an informed public debate,” they wrote.
They believe more people outside the administration should have an influence on how the money is spent.
“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,” they said.
They said they are no longer pursuing the removal of the McClendon name from the Honors College, but they will continue to push for university accountability in relation to donations.
Related Links:
Original story: Students seek change to Honors College name
Read Aubrey McClendon's statement [Word document].
Read President David Boren's statement [Word document].
Read The Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society's statement [Word document].
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
qwerty 3 years ago
Thank you for a good follow-up about this story!
I find it very interesting that the SDS President resigned..
RogerG 3 years ago
It is absurd to think a donor can influence what can be taught. Boren is right. If Aubrey does try to influence us, we can tell him his money is not needed but for now we are desperate for donors with our State govt screwing us over. But perhaps Chesapeake is better off examining their biased hiring practices and Aubrey McClendon's abuse of money, hedging and other fiscal indiscipline that has left the company with a big loss..Is this a way to project an image of a company which has questionable practices?
JJanowiak 3 years ago
But there's nothing in the story about the resignation of the group's president! Fail.
Glad to see SDS essentially out with a whimper, is anyone surprised that they had absolutely no idea what they were talking about?
For those that are interested in this new manifestation of SDS, check out this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i26/26b01001.htm
megan 3 years ago
I think it is unfair that the University made the president resign just for speaking the groups opinion. Also the statements made in the previous article were taken not from the interview with the president, but from over hearing conversation that was not even intended to be heard for the paper. It makes me angry that students would write a negative article about other students, and put things in the article that started so much unneeded problems.
blether 3 years ago
While the fears of the SDS may be overblown, they are not completely unfounded. Anyone familiar with the history of modern conservatism understands that an “institute focused on the political and social origins of our constitution and form of government” is likely to be biased in favor of conservative legal scholars, constitutional restorationists, or American exceptionalists. This is not to say that ours will be; however, given the source of the donation, it seems to perfectly reasonable to ask for assurances. Kudos to the SDS for pressing for more information. I wish more groups on campus were willing do the same.
In any case, the point is not the particular political coloration of the institute—I would have the same objection to a liberal institute—the point is that it does not fit the mission of the Honors College, the Honors College faculty had no so say in the matter, and they don’t seem to want it. (And my guess is that they are too scared to speak out against it, which probably explains why it's so hard to get any answers.) This plan was foisted upon them from on high. In every other academic department, when a new line of money or a new endowed chair opens up, the faculty get together, and, through a more or less democratic process, decide what kind of specialist to hire based on their curricular needs at the time and the department’s vision.
As for the name, I do think we need to consider how the McClendon name will impact the university’s reputation nationally. Have any of you been following what’s being said about McClendon in the NY Times and Wall Street Journal?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087014502860945.html
According to the WSJ article, shareholders are describing McClendon’s leadership as a “near perfect illustration of the complete collapse of appropriate corporate governance.”
If the mission of the Honors College is to teach leadership and civic responsibility, then renaming the Honors College after McClendon (or letting him name it after his parents--I fail to see how this makes a significant difference) would be like renaming the Price College of Business after Bernie Madoff. I understand that McClendon and his family are well-respected Oklahomans and longtime supporters of OU, but consider for a moment how this will look to a non-Oklahoman--let's say, a talented job candidate that the university is pursuing.
rkbal 3 years ago
The SDS should have focused on intellectual dialogue and transparency, especially as a new organization, rather than on an issue that wasn't thought out before being published, and targeted political viewpoints.
But, this article should have focused on the SDS statement rather than the obvious responses from Boren and Mclendon. I mean, who wouldn't have expected these answers from them? That doesn't tell us anything. It's really sad that this story got screwed up in a way that makes the entire situation seem out of control. Students need to become more involved and have more of a voice, SDS tried. Unfortunately on this campus few seem to care about important issues.
We should be extremely concerned with where our money is going. It would be awesome to see campus groups work together to increase transparency at OU. Every group should have some interest in this whether it is environmental, human rights, finance etc, student gov etc..; all campus groups have connections with money at OU and have a right to know about its use.
dwalker2006 3 years ago
Megan,
It is totally appropriate that the president of this organization resign. They raised concerns about the honesty and character of Mr. McClendon without any evidence to support their claims. There is simply not a shred of evidence to support the assertion that he has tried in any way or at any time to influence the curriculum or staffing decisions at OU. You can't just throw around those kinds of accusations.
Mr. McClendon is a citizen of Oklahoma. He has every right to make a donation to the university. If the university leadership feels that his gift warrants naming the college in his honor, that is there decision.
If you want to protest naming buildings after donors, please be my guest. That is a separate issue. However, don't single out Mr. McClendon just because his political views are different than yours. Also, if you make claims that individuals are secretly biasing the decision-making process, either present some evidence or prepare to reap the whirlwind.
There is a push right now from the Left to bully conservatives away from being involved in any way in their communities or active in public life. It is unethical, and it won't work.
Bubba 3 years ago
Man, some Democrats "flame out" so easily. I thought they had a good point. The highest form of donation money is an anonymous one. All the inevitable "name a building after my money" ones just seem yucky. It's always bizarro when a building is named after any living person. It's like the opposite of humility.
Bubba