advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
‘Bama don’t need that $26.5M
Posted by: deckeda
Date: June 07, 2019 10:51PM
I applaud a university that turns down (or in this case, awkwardly returns ... ) donations from anyone it disagrees with. They should certainly be able to do that. As for future admissions, well, we’ll see what happens.

So at least we now know where they stand on abortion. Abortion? Yeah.

[www.washingtonpost.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: ‘Bama don’t need that $26.5M
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 07, 2019 11:28PM
Wow!



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: ‘Bama don’t need that $26.5M
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 08, 2019 09:46AM
This story isn't what it appears. That WaPo link is an opinion piece written by Mr. Culverhouse, I'm surprised they published it without the facts behind the story.

As a donor to the U of A law school, Culvershouse had been making waves unrelated to anything about abortion. He was trying to exert administrative control that is not appropriate for a donor and had already demanded the return of $10M.

The Trustees decided he wasn't worth the trouble and rejected his pledge.


Reinhart on Friday also said that “The action taken by the Board today was a direct result of Mr. Culverhouse’s ongoing attempts to interfere in the operations of the Law School. That was the only reason the Board voted to remove his name and return his money. Any attempt by Mr. Culverhouse to tie this action to any other issue is misleading and untrue.”

[www.al.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2019 07:18PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: ‘Bama don’t need that $26.5M
Posted by: deckeda
Date: June 08, 2019 11:04AM
Interesting. Thanks for that update.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: ‘Bama don’t need that $26.5M
Posted by: August West
Date: June 08, 2019 01:39PM
Looking at the links in this thread, I would blame both sides. The donor's non-disclosure doesn't change several points in the op-ed, and the university's actions in returning the money indicate to me that they potentially didn't fully and clearly explain their rules, and, further, did not have them in a well-written, enforceable contract. A big deal for the university finances, but a tempest in a teapot regarding the personalities.



Picasso in his studio after the liberation of Paris, taken by my friend and mentor.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: ‘Bama don’t need that $26.5M
Posted by: bfd
Date: June 08, 2019 03:41PM
That $26m would cover Head Coach Nick Saban's salary for about 3 years. LOL

The football program alone costs them over $56m/year.

Pretty sure the Tide will keep on 'rollin without that $26m…
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: ‘Bama don’t need that $26.5M
Posted by: Janit
Date: June 10, 2019 12:34PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
This story isn't what it appears. That WaPo link is an opinion piece written by Mr. Culverhouse, I'm surprised they published it without the facts behind the story.

As a donor to the U of A law school, Culvershouse had been making waves unrelated to anything about abortion. He was trying to exert administrative control that is not appropriate for a donor and had already demanded the return of $10M.

The Trustees decided he wasn't worth the trouble and rejected his pledge.


Reinhart on Friday also said that “The action taken by the Board today was a direct result of Mr. Culverhouse’s ongoing attempts to interfere in the operations of the Law School. That was the only reason the Board voted to remove his name and return his money. Any attempt by Mr. Culverhouse to tie this action to any other issue is misleading and untrue.”

[www.al.com]

More here: [www.al.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 262
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018