Editorial: Administration mishandled retraction of BAA proposal

Claire Taylor | Lariat Staff

Such childish antics are not simply reserved for youth, as was exhibited by the university's Oct. 27 letter to Baylor Alumni Association President David Lacy retracting the proposal to merge with the university.

This letter not only brought an end to the stalemate that has ensued since the Sept. 19 announcement of the proposal, but it also served as a testament to the nature of the two parties' dealings with each other during this time.

While The Lariat does not claim to either support or oppose the withdrawn proposal, we believe the way in which the university repealed the proposal along with the tone of the letter itself lacked the grace expected from the administration of this Christian university.

Though BAA members may not have spoken out in a civil manner, the burden of the proposal rested with the administration, and so did the leadership responsibility.

Signed by Interim President David Garland and board of regents Chairman Dary Stone, the letter cited "opinion editorials from your [BAA] president and executive vice president criticizing our proposal, the University and its governing bodies," as one reason for the sudden retraction.

The letter, serving as the hypothetical last word in the public bickering, is a bad example to students of how issues of this magnitude should be handled.

While the university called the proposal "a sincere proposal to establish a new, energized, well funded, and focused alumni relations effort designed to better serve our alumni and the Baylor family," in its Oct. 27 letter, the sudden retraction did not help accomplish this goal.

Sincerity aside, the proposal was lofty. It proposed upheaval of the historically independent alumni association and the dissolution of editorial rights. Despite the possible benefits, as Americans, we do not take lightly the loss of rights, especially First Amendment rights guaranteed to independent entities.

The university should have given the alumni association more time in the consideration of its proposal. The regents did not give the BAA a specific time frame for a decision, which regent Chairman Dary Stone made explicitly clear in an interview with The Lariat on Sept. 28, in another interview on Oct. 3 and as reported by the Baptist Standard Oct. 28.

Furthermore, a main reason the university cited for its repeal was the BAA's mention of a five-year plan at its annual meeting Oct. 23. The plan included the goal to "maintain the role and prominence as the independent voice for alumni." However, the five-year plan was drafted almost a year ago according to Jeff Kilgore, executive vice president for the BAA, and it was merely mentioned as part of the 150-year celebration and annual meeting, he said.

The university also stated in the letter, "... while they [the BAA] were promising a fair hearing, their rhetoric was in opposition of the proposal."

Despite unfavorable statements opposing the proposal, such is part of dialogue involving a controversial issue that affects entities with different concerns.

Equal expression of opinion was necessary for the Baylor community to weigh both sides.

After all, the proposal was created to affect both the university and the BAA, so equal representation in opinion was necessary for the Baylor community to weigh both sides equally.

With many alumni speaking out against the proposal, the association, as a representative of this constituency, was right in supporting the majority member opinion.

Is opposing rhetoric reason enough for the university to remove the proposal from the table, and when does editorial rhetoric hold the same weight as a formal response concerning a formal proposal?

In the letter, the university contends that the BAA's failure to publicly discuss the merits of the proposal was another instance that led it to believe that the BAA had "de facto declined" the proposal.

However, we must ask whether any merit was publicly given to the views of alumni who spoke out, or to the effects the proposed merger would have on the BAA, its history and its members.

One thing is certain: the damage is done on both sides and each party should now look to create a peaceful coexistence. We sincerely hope that the university and the BAA will continue to work on their differences and aim to achieve a level of harmony that will best serve the Baylor family.