Fulton and Mitchell both head political action committees that are aligned with individual campuses – special interest groups whose very existence works against the interests of North Carolina’s system of higher education.
Look no further for the harm such PACs do – and for evidence that those appointed to serve the university system should not be members of them – than the outrageous tuition break lawmakers slipped in four years ago for out-of-state athletes and students on full scholarships. That measure costs taxpayers $10.5 million and mostly benefits larger campuses, especially Chapel Hill. The Board of Governors did not want it. Citizens for Higher Education did, and it succeeded. Fulton was a part of that effort.
Nonsense. Are you suggesting the many campuses of UNC cannot have their own advocates, even on the Board of Governors? Get a clue (and maybe you will now that Mary Schulken has vanished.) I applaud Citizens for Higher Education since they are advocates for my alma mater. UNCC should have advocates, too. I encourage UNCC to do just that.
Your view of things would reduce Carolina and NC State to also-rans in our nation’s regrettable but real academic arms race. Stop trying to make Carolina the equivalent of CPCC.
I am very happy to see this and the Newsome article both from the Observer. I made a comment on this one, regarding the fiduciary duty of the Directors (technically they should legally step down, someone should file suit on behalf of UNC Charlotte) but it hasn’t been posted yet. Restricted commenting I guess?
It’s incredible how much unfairness is allowed to go on in both state and federal governments. This business of special interest groups giving money to politicians has got to stop. How can that be argued as good? Can anyone defend it?
Does it really matter that these 2 (3) people all step down from their respective PACs? We all already know they are ridiculously biased toward one school. Just because they step down doesn’t mean they can’t still attend their PAC’s meetings, work with them, and help pass stuff in favor of their chosen school. At least if they are still a member, how unfair and biased, and how much they are in this for one school and not the entire system will be out in the open.
Seriously Dave T sounds like he sips chardonnay by the fireplace while being agast to learn there are universities in north carolina outside of the triangle, douchebag. I understand keeping our universities competative, but by universities I mean more than two. They mentioned wealthy donors to NC State and UNC-CH, FUND IT YOUR DAMN SELVES! I don’t see Duke and WF spouting off (of course they have much smaller student bodies). Didn’t UNC-CH just come off some billion dollar fund raising campaign?!? Just go private already and admit you secretly want to be Duke! Geez does every student need a ram tattoed on their a** and a baby blue VW?
This good 'ol boy thing is a bit ridiculous. Why do we have so many wealthy old farts in this state with names like bruton and burley, etc. Thats what you name a bulldog. How bout governor Bluto? We can have a fat bearded blowhard whos always trying to take spinach from hard working universities!
I’m with you there but I just want us to be able to admit when we’re wrong about something. Like say, if we made an example of the Richmond Spiders and their coverage and it turned out to be the exact opposite. :shades:
I'm with you there but I just want us to be able to admit when we're wrong about something. Like say, if we made an example of the Richmond Spiders and their coverage and it turned out to be the exact opposite. :shades:
But I don’t think we’re wrong about Schulken. She may have written a article about these PACs in the past. Doesn’t change a thing about the fact she also wrote probably 6 nonfactual articles about our football efforts.
I’m guessing the ECU PAC is far less powerful than the UNC and NCSU versions so she is kinda in the same boat with us and that’s why she wrote that article.
But I don't think we're wrong about Schulken. She may have written a article about these PACs in the past. Doesn't change a thing about the fact she also wrote probably 6 nonfactual articles about our football efforts.
Not at all the point I'm making. Wrong once = wrong once, not wrong always. Right once = right once, not right always.
Mary Schulken took the PAC to task in print and should get credit for it, even if it’s the only time. metro took Mike P to task using the Richmond example. Mike P hasn’t climbed down from his Ivory Tower yet to acknowledge that.
Not at all the point I'm making. Wrong once = wrong once, not wrong always. Right once = right once, not right always.
Mary Schulken took the PAC to task in print and should get credit for it, even if it’s the only time. metro took Mike P to task using the Richmond example. Mike P hasn’t climbed down from his Ivory Tower yet to acknowledge that.
I get what you’re saying. If you’re saying we should acknowledge her for at least attacking it one time, I agree, she should get credit for that. But like I mentioned, she wrote around 6 inaccurate pieces about our football efforts. 6>1, therefore I don’t think we were wrong about her.
Also, as 49or bust mentioned, it appears she attacked the system when it might affect ECU. But she never backed us in terms of the discrepancy in funding from the system. In a sense, she was doing exactly what she said was wrong to do.
[QUOTE=Normmm;401612]I get what you’re saying. If you’re saying we should acknowledge her for at least attacking it one time, I agree, she should get credit for that. But like I mentioned, she wrote around 6 inaccurate pieces about our football efforts. 6>1, therefore I don’t think we were wrong about her.
Also, as 49or bust mentioned, it appears she attacked the system when it might affect ECU. But she never backed us in terms of the discrepancy in funding from the system. In a sense, she was doing exactly what she said was wrong to do.[/QUOTE]
He’s not saying we were wrong about her in the grand scheme, just that we painted too broad a brushstroke.