Clemson University’s seven “life” trustees – all of whom are serving in violation of the S.C. Constitution’s prohibition on lifetime political appointments – have reportedly taken steps to legitimize their standing.
According to Kevin Kiley, a reporter for Inside Higher Ed, these seven “life” trustees – who hold a majority of seats on Clemson’s 13-member board – have reached an informal gentleman’s agreement to step down when they reach the age of seventy-five.
A spokesman for Clemson could not immediately confirm the existence of such a “gentleman’s agreement,” but that’s the excuse the school is giving to a trade publication.
“The university obviously denies that the board is in violation of the constitution and instead argues that the self-perpetuating component of the board sets and defines the terms for its members,” Kiley wrote in an email to a Clemson University watchdog. “Since the board members have an agreement to step down when they reach 75 years old – even though it is not an explicit written policy or a component of the constitution – they are therefore not holding lifetime positions.”
Kiley is reportedly wrapping up a story on Clemson’s board that will be published within the next few weeks.
For those of you keeping score at home, here are the seven “life” trustees as Clemson (and the dates on which they were appointed) …
Thomas B. McTeer, Jr. – June 9, 1976 (36 years)
Bill L. Amick – February 1983 (29 years)
Leon J. Hendrix – December 1995 (17 years)
William C. Smith – July 1996 (16 years)
E. Smyth McKissick, III – May 1998 (14 years)
David H. Wilkins – April 2007 (5 years)
Kim Wilkerson – July 2011 (1 year)
Smith and Wilkerson were named “life” trustees last summer by the board. Prior to his selection as a “life” trustee, Smith had served 16 years on the board as one of six legislatively-elected members.
Of course the official press release announcing the selection of these new “life” members made no mention of any new University policy limiting their terms of service. In fact, the release reiterated the flagrantly unconstitutional nature of Clemson’s governing body.
“Clemson is governed by a 13-member board, including six trustees elected by the state legislature and seven life members, as provided by the will of Thomas G. Clemson, whose bequest to the state led to the institution’s founding,” the release notes.
That’s all well and good, but the S.C. State Constitution expressly forbids the appointment for life of “officers of the state.”
John C. Bednar, a Clemson watchdog, has repeatedly challenged this arrangement.
“If seven of the members of Clemson’s Board of Trustees are in violation of the constitution they are sworn to protect, they are communicating to students, teachers, staff, and the public at large that such a violation is acceptable,” Bednar wrote in a recent letter to the editor. “I do not think that lesson is appropriate. Secondly, as I attempted to point out last year, this state of affairs makes Clemson University vulnerable to a multitude of legal challenges to the authority and decisions of its Board of Trustees, legal challenges that could have far-reaching and costly consequences.”
More practically, Clemson’s self-perpetuating board is facing a reversal of fortunes related to to the University’s costly obsession with national prominence.
Two years after Clemson University’s shameless efforts to artificially inflate its academic rankings were first exposed, the school has seen its standing among the nation’s elite colleges and universities begin to decline. Clemson is now ranked No. 25 among America’s public colleges and universities according to the latest U.S. News and World Report rankings – down from No. 22 the previous year.
Clemson’s fixation on the U.S. News criteria – reported first on FITS – quickly morphed into outright duplicity and embarrassing childishness on the part of its president, James Barker, who sought to boost his school’s status by ranking it ahead of Harvard, Stanford and other top-tier institutions of higher learning.
Once this obsession was exposed, Clemson’s rise in the rankings came to an abrupt halt.
Tuition at Clemson tripled over the previous decade, rising from less than $4,000 to nearly$12,000 today. Another tuition hike is expected in 2012.
The school raised tuition again last year by 3.8 percent – just months after the school doled out $1.5 million in faculty and administrative raises and launched a new “Canadian Center” in honor of its board of trustees chairman, David Wilkins.
***
By CNSYD February 14, 2012 at 11:49 am
Sic Willie and truth are such strangers. This “gentleman’s” agreement has been observed for decades. Of course it is not written down. It is a gentleman’s agreement, duh!
Clemson, as has been pointed out to Sic Willie ad nauseum, is not in violation of the SC Constitution as the makeup of the BOT was approved by the legislature via the Act of Acceptance more than a century ago. If Sic Willie wants to allege that the legislature violated the Constitution, have at it. Sic Willie can tackle that issue after he reveals the person who took the SAT for Scott Wingo, produces proof of his alleged affair with the present Governor, etc. Based on that we should never hear from him on this topic again.
By semi February 14, 2012 at 12:15 pm
“The family of a Clemson University football “superstar” allegedly received improper benefits from a Florida hotel executive with close ties to former Tigers’ assistant coach Brad Scott, multiple sources tell FITS.”
I’m still waiting for this one and need to know who will be selling Wils book, maybe Amazon. They are selling the Govs, kinda’ strange in that relationship-she didn’t want them in the state, now they are selling her book.
By G.L. February 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Was the Act of Acceptance approved by 2/3 of both the House and Senate and then approved by a majority of voters in a referendum? If not them how could the General Assembly waive a constitutional requirement?
By GoTigers712 February 14, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Brad Scott also had ties to USC, maybe when he was offered these improper proper benefits he thought it was the MO of USC and decided to go to clemson instead.
By utah February 14, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Another question: how does this lifetime provision apparantly included within thomas clemson’s will not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities?
By no-dog-in-this-fight February 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Could you enlighten us on this rule? It sounds interesting.
By CL February 14, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Never heard anyone call the RAP interesting. It says that no bequest can extend beyond a life in being plus 21 years. I have not read the will, but I would assume the gift reverts to the estate if they violate a condition. A reverter would not be subject to the RAP. But I doubt a court would have too much heartburn just ruling the trustees must be elected in conformity with the Constitution (like the courts did with segregation era bequests that became embarrassing after the civil rights movement).
By A face in the crowd February 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm
The Clemson trustees and administration attempted to squelch discovery in the Troutman case by spending upward of $1 million on attorneys who made the case that Clemson is an arm of the state and therefore can not be sued. In technical terms, this should have nullified whatever historical agreement had been reached regarding lifetime trustees. Everyone knows that Clemson has attempted to have its cake and eat it too, so to speak, and the Board of Trustees would not be acting if they did not fear some sort of problem down the road. The Board of Trustees serves as the final arbiter of grievances, and the word on campus is that if someone takes a grievance all the way to the board, and the board is illegitimate / illegal, then the board would have no authority to render a decision.
By G.L. February 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Also, Pitchfork Ben Tillman said this board was made up in this manner to ensure that if the General Assembly were ever again taken over by blacks and Republicans (who most Southern whites hated in the 1890s), it would not be able to elect a majority of black trustees to the board or force the admission of black students.
By CNSYD February 14, 2012 at 3:47 pm
G.L., please cite your reference to the alleged Tillman statement. Tillman’s greatest concern was the “effete dandies” (code words for homosexuals)at the South Carolina College attempting to interfere in the operation of Clemson College.
By CL February 14, 2012 at 4:56 pm
You seem oddly well acquainted with Tillman’s views on homosexuality. Do they teach that at Clemson? Is there a Barlett’s of Tillman quotes to help you craft insults? I bet the racial slur chapter is a doozy.
I am shocked that you are defending Tillman here. The man is one of the most repulsive figures the South has ever produced. Setting aside the evil he committed (e.g. the Hamburg Massacre), he set our state back by a century with his attacks on industry and on institutions of higher learning (not just USC, but The Citadel as well). Also, that is some odd revisionism where you have USC interfering with Clemson, when it was Tillman that did everything he could to damage USC (and The Citadel), including defunding it and stripping it of its university status.
By G.L. February 14, 2012 at 5:59 pm
“Tillman and six other men were to be named life trustees of [Clemson] college; these men would make up more than half the college’s board and would have the power to name their successors. Tillman later stated that this provision was intended to keep any future ‘radical’ government from admitting black students.”
Stephen Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (UNC Press, 2000) pg. 128.
Kantrowitz is referencing the Benjamin Ryan Tillman papers at the Clemson University Library.
By CNSYD February 14, 2012 at 10:16 pm
G.L., Thanks for the reference. I will look it up.
CL, you seem oddly affected by a homosexual reference. Too close to home?
Tillman’s problem with South Carolina College and The Citadel was that they tried to block the establishment of Clemson College. Why did they do that? Because they knew that per the Morrill Land Grant Act the Federal Government would be providing monies to those colleges and they wanted the designation so they could get the money. Tillman knew that Clemson’s will was intended to establish a college for the sons of the common man of SC.
Tillman was also instrumental in the establishment of Winthrop. Therefore I assume that stones you cast at Clemson in regard to race apply to Winthrop as well.
While you are at it, go ahead and vilify all the slave holders among the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and show me where both these documents were written with the original intent to provide rights to ALL the men and women of the original 13 colonies.
By CL February 15, 2012 at 8:49 am
That is really the best you have – “Oh yeah, well you’re gay.” Why am I not surprised that a Clemson grad would consider that an insult.
What a tired retread of every lame defense I have ever heard from Clemson fans. I did not attack Tillman for owning slaves, I attacked him for being an evil, bigoted murderer. Wade Hampton was a slave owner before the war, but he did not brag about lynching black people or leading a massacre of black Federal soldiers after the war ended.
It is hilarious that you try to portray Tillman as a victim of aggression from the universities. Only the legislature could block the founding of Clemson. And it was wise for the leaders of USC and The Citadel to be wary of Tillman succeeding in founding Clemson, given his inflammatory rhetoric against them. Events proved them right, given the punitive measures he implemented after Clemson was founded.
Tillman thought agriculture was the future, and he wanted an Ag school to change the direction of higher education in this state. He railed against northern industries and manufacturers wanting to set up shop in this state and created a hostile climate that set us back generations in industrializing and catching up to the North. So he not only was a horrible human being, he followed ignorant and short sighted policies that hurt the state. I strongly believe no institution should glorify this blight on our history, including Winthrop.
By CNSYD February 15, 2012 at 3:10 pm
CL,
Obviously you have never read Clemson’s will. If you had you would have realized that agriculture and mechanical arts were what he wanted taught. Most humans are strange. They like to have food to eat and water to drink over liberal arts when forced to choose between them.
It is obvious you are not a native of this state or either you are descended from carpetbaggers. The repressions in commerce forced on the South by the North during “Reconstruction” that lingered way into the 20th century were the cause of the economic problems in the South not agriculture or Tillman or Clemson.
By CL February 15, 2012 at 3:50 pm
So I am not only gay, I am a Yankee, too? That is a bridge too far! I hate to burst your bubble, but I can trace my family in this state back over 300 years.
You are clueless if you do not understand that Tillman was hostile to industry. The only people he disliked more than black people were the “damned factory class” (his term) and Northern industrialists.
The war and Reconstruction were hard on the South. The policies of men like Tillman made recovery harder than it had to be and set us well behind our neighbors. Instead of forming an Ag school, he should have followed the example of democrats in Georgia who saw the future. He should have copied the Georgia Tech blueprint. Its founders were visionaries who saw that the future was in technology and industry, not agriculture. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you are arguing that this was even close to Tillman’s vision for Clemson.
By CNSYD February 15, 2012 at 6:55 pm
CL, Lets see, SC should follow the actions of the GA. Is this the same GA who had two “Governors” at one time? The same GA that had checks that couldn’t be cashed because there was confusion over who was the real Governor? Did Lester Maddox become Governor based on his views on race? Did that occur many years after Tillman? Sounds like GA is very progressive. Sort of like the county unit system.
You refuse to recognize that T.G. Clemson’s will, in regard to Clemson’s reason for existence, was based upon his desire to see the “agricultural and mechanical arts” taught and not upon the wishes or “vision” of Tillman.
By CL February 16, 2012 at 8:53 am
After Reconstruction, reformers in most Southern states wanted to attract industry to the South to spur recovery. Tillman did the opposite, locking us into an agrarian model. The results speak for themselves. How about the Georgia that has Atlanta and is home to 14 Fortune 500 companies? We are credited with 3, one of which is a utility and another (Bowater) is not even headquartered here anymore.
Farming technology is a mechanical art. They weren’t talkign about engineers. Even if Thomas Clemson did intend that, he was dead. Tillman and the other trustees decided what Clemson was going to be. Tillman was very clear he wanted to make better farmers, not industrialists and engineers. And he succeeded, to the detriment of generations of South Carolinians.
By CNSYD February 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
CL,
Atlanta’s growth was the result of two events. Its burning and the railroads.
The “home” of a Fortune 500 companies may be nice for the brag sheet but what does it do for the working man? Boeing’s “home” is in Chicago. How does the numbers (and payroll) of Boeing employees in Chicago compare to the numbers in the state of Washington? I guess you discount international companies who have their North America headquarters right here in poor little backward SC.
By CL February 16, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“Atlanta’s growth was the result of two events. Its burning and the railroads.”
Two points on the idea that burning Atlanta was a catalyst to its growth. First, burning a city does not create economic development. That is the broken windows fallacy. Every penny spent rebuilding the city is capital that could have been invested in wealth creation. Second, I know you are not a big fan of Columbia, but maybe someone has mentioned to you that it was burned by Sherman.
So this leaves only the railroads as a distinguishing factor as to why GA has a metropolis like Atlanta and we do not. I agree 100% that railroads were crucial to letting GA pull ahead of SC. Unfortunately for your argument, Tillman is directly to blame for the limited expansion of railroads in SC in the Reconstruction Period. As I have pointed out over and over, Tillman hated what he viewed as Northern industries trying to invade SC. The railroads were just another carpetbagging industry for him to go after.
Tillman is almost always credited with taking the lead in “regulating” the railroads when he was governor. One of his “regulations” was to appoint a commission to set the maximum rates. It should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the effects of price controls that the rail system in SC stagnated.
By CL February 16, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Georgia is a state with home grown Fortune 500 businesses. SC is not. That obviously has provided a huge benefit to Georgia’s economy. And Georgia Tech is a huge driver of business development in Georgia. Clemson know that, and that is why it is trying to do the same with ICAR. It is unfortunate that they are only about 100 years late to the party, but better late than never.
Perhaps you are not aware, but Boeing was founded in Washington and just moved its headquarters to Chicago in the past 10 years or so.
As to foreign corporations with US operations in a state, they do not have much bearing on the relative success of SC and Georgia in developing native industry following Reconstruction. But I would happily consider them,* as long as you prepare a similar list for Georgia so we can compare apples to oranges.
* Of course, this gets somewhat complicated in application. For instance, if you had BMW in mind, I would have to point out that its US HQ is in New Jersey, not SC. Sort of like how Kia has its US plant in Georgia but has its HQ in L.A.
By CL February 16, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Apples to apples. Must have the Orange Bowl on my brain from the other CU post.
By CNSYD February 17, 2012 at 1:02 pm
CL,
Several points.
The burning of ATL meant that “patch up” would not work, therefore you end up with a “newer” city. Charleston was not burned and did limited patch work. Thus the origin of “too poor to paint and too proud to whitewash”. Columbia was (and still is?) a one industry town….government. Thus Columbia was largely dependent on the taxpayers not industry for rebuilding.
Freight rates are/were controlled by the ICC. Even into the 20th century, the ICC set rates that favored the North to the detriment of the South.
My point on Boeing is that it matters not where the “corporate” office is located or whether they or “Fortune 500″. What matters is where the workers are located.
I was not referring to BMW. The NORTH AMERICAN headquarters of Michelin are in Greenville, SC.
I do not have a list for GA as they are of no interest to me.
By CL February 17, 2012 at 1:49 pm
You claimed Atlanta’s enormous growth was caused by 2 factors, one of which was it being burned by Sherman. This is nonsense, and there is nothing in your post to the contrary. Both Atlanta and Columbia had populations under 10,000. Charleston was over 4x larger than Atlanta and escaped significant damage. Yet Atlanta emerged as the metropolis based upon a rising tide of native industry. SC stagnated under agrarian policies championed by Tillman.
As to the other factor, railroads, you are simply wrong that Tillman could not affect rates. This is from a generally favorable thesis found on Clemson’s website about Tillman as a reformer:
“While Tillman held the Governor’s office he did enact tangible measures to ameliorate the white farmers’ condition. Included in his list of achievements were . . . the establishment of a railroad commission capable of fixing rates”.
For Boeing, the workers reside where the business was founded. We do not have any significant native industry. And as I noted, Michelin’s presence has nothing to do with SC’s failure to develop industry in the post-Reconstruction era. Georgia Tech helped Georgia do it and Clemson could have helped SC do it, but Tillman’s narrow minded worldview prevented him from seeing what was needed.
By CNSYD February 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm
CL,
Perhaps I was not clear enough for you. One of my points on rebuilding Columbia was that its “industry” was government and its finances were the taxpayer. Not so with ATL which had the intersection of railroads. Charleston had population and a port but not the capital to rebuild. So Charleston patched while ATL and Columbia couldn’t because of the lack of things to patch.
To my knowledge, Tillman was not alive in the mid 20th century nor did he have anything to do with the ICC setting rates.
You miss my point, again, in regard to Boeing. If its corporate headquarters were on Mars that matters not. It is where the workers reside regardless of whether or not the industry “started” there. Thus a long list of “headquarters” in a city or state is not really that important.
We had significant native industry until it was given to the low wage (less than poverty) workers in other countries. Perhaps you have heard of textiles.
So allow me to understand the dots you attempt to connect. post-Reconstruction era failure and Michelin. I guess it had to do with all those 1865 automobiles needing tires.
I have learned that you equate Tillman and Sic Willie. Sic Willie is appalled that Clemson (or USC for that matter) would attempt to “pick winners and losers in the marketplace” as you extoll GT for doing.
By CL February 17, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Your posts get more incoherent as they go, but what the heck, its Friday.
Atlanta was a tiny, unremarkable town before and immediately after the war. After Reconstruction, leaders in Georgia realized that the state needed to develop industry to thrive. As part of that effort, they founded and funded a public engineering school. This was unprecedented. Most of these schools (MIT, Cal Tech) are private. Georgia Tech became a top notch producer of talent and partnered with industry to conduct research.
It should be self-evident that private companies funding government employees to conduct research using free labor (i.e. grad students) is actually the exact opposite of government picking winners and losers.
This patching nonsense still relies on the flawed broken windows fallacy. Charleston was in far better position than Atlanta to thrive after the war in all but one respect, the policies to attract and nurture native industries that Georgia had and we did not. To the contrary, our brilliant leaders were attacking industry and fetishizing an outmoded agrarian lifestyle.
I think it is you that is missing the point. Boeing’s workers are disproportionately in Washington because that it is were it was founded. Its main benefit, then is to Washington, much like how the domestic industries fostered in Georgia after Reconstruction benefited its economy in a way that SC never got to experience.
I’ll just assume you were drunk when you typed the paragraph on Michelin, as it makes no sense whatsoever. You introduced Michelin, not me. It is irrelevant to any point I raised. Any dots to be connected need to be drawn by you. But you have shown a frustrating ability to stay within the lines so far.
By CNSYD February 17, 2012 at 8:39 pm
CL,
You sir started the hero worship of GA and the insect institute. You stated how wonderful life in GA is due to GT. You stated that GA has “Fortune 500″ headquaters on every block. My point, that you seem to intentionally miss, is that what is important is where the workers are. That is why I used Boeing. I am well aware where Boeing began. We are talking 2012 here.
I am sure that you could not understand my mention of Michelin as it disproves your theme that little old backward SC, because of Tillman, has NO big time headquarters in this state. Maybe you prefer the Nike model. Headquarters in the US and workers in foreign sweatshops.
Having spent many years recruiting engineers from GT, USCe, NCSU, and Clemson, I can tell you that in a manufacturing/production/construction setting most GT engineering grads are at a distinct disadvantage. You see, in those settings engineers need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. A skill lost on many GT engineers. I don’t know if your GT love affair means you make regular trips to GT or not. My recruiting trips found a large number of engineering students for whom English was not their first language. Also of those a large number would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get a security clearance.
By CL February 17, 2012 at 9:17 pm
You clearly have trouble focusing. The topic was whether Tillman’s policies were bad for SC. I have cited ample evidence that they were, and you keep changing the subject (Boeing, Michelin, etc.) Boeing actually proves my point, since their impact, as you admit, is in its native state. Georgia has signficant native industry, SC does not. This explains a lot about the relative economic situations of the two states after Reconstruction. You have not rebutted or even contradicted with this in any way. Instead, you want to talk about a company that did not start its operations in SC until 1975.
So we have come full circle with the racial jokes about foreign GT students. Tillman would be proud. Of course, your lame jokes about foreign students at GT in 2012 once again has little relevance to its role in facilitating technical innovation in the post Reconstruction period.
By CNSYD February 18, 2012 at 9:27 am
Exactly what are the “technological innovations” fostered by GT in post Reconstruction GA? Please provide a list. Even though they were available adjacent to GT’s campus, I doubt if Pickwick drumsticks qualify.
By CL February 18, 2012 at 4:17 pm
How about you provide a list of Tillman’s contributions to developing industry and the Black community? I think I would find my assignment easier than you would find yours. While Clemson’s first students were working on the experimental farm, Tech’s students were working in the industrial shop that included a foundry, a forge, and a machine shop. Did Clemson ever produce anything comparable to Scientific Atlanta?
By hhuuhh?? February 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but based on what I have seen, a halfway decent lawyer could have busted this will years ago…if anyone really wanted to.
By Sarah February 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Sic’s take: “Clemson is ranked 25 now, down from 22″.
My take: That is hardly clear. Would you make the same conclusion in week-to-week AP football polls?
Statistically, this is hardly evidence that Clemson is falling. Perhaps it implies its not gaining, but that isn’t clear either when year-to-year variabilty is taken into account. Its embarrassing and irresponsible when journalists distort reality. Sic, u need to learn about random errors and polling. Also, the raises given last year (except the offensive coordinator) were largely due to contractual raises for tenure and full professor promotions. I cringe when I read shit like this. This website already has enough credibility to make up after the Wingo saga.
And CNSYD: Please STFU regarding Clemson. Anytime something negative is written about Clemson, you howl without exception. Homer!
By CNSYD February 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Sarah,
Mistake number one on your part is your assumption that Sic Willie is a “journalist”.
IRT comments I may or may not make regarding Clemson, it would not be necessary except that Sic Willie repeats the same inaccurate, incorrect, etc statements over and over in the hopes that people will begin to believe him. If playing along with his “game” is being a “homer” then I will plead guilty.
By Pitchfork February 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
GOTIGERS, I think you just accused Brad Scott of offering improper benefits and Sammy Watkins of being stupid.
By Paul February 14, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Good article thanks for following these kinds of things. The life time member ship and “top 20″ madness is very worrying as a Clemson Graduate.
By CNSYD February 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Paul,
What I understand you to say is that as a Clemson graduate you were clueless about Clemson’s will and the Act of Acceptance. Secondly, attempts by Clemson to be ranked in the top 20 academically is “madness” and Clemson should strive to be lower not higher. Does that sum it up?
By Jeffy01 February 14, 2012 at 4:21 pm
They will have to be there for a lifetime to recover from the athletic embarrassments of late.
By STFU February 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Hey
WVU just scored again.
By upstate February 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm
So let me get this straight…… FITS spends a lot of time being critical of how pathetic our state legislature and how wasteful they can be with tax payer dollars.
So along comes Thomas Green Clemson and in the last decade of his life (Circa 1880) he decides that the legislature is pathetic and wasteful so he makes one of the largest individual (an voluntary) tax contributions to the State of South Carolina, but he’s clever enough to do it in a way that the the pathetic/wasteful legislature does not have total control over his gift…. and FITS want’s to crack on a guy for outsmarting the system?
Seriously FITS???? You can hate on Clemson University all you want if that makes you happy, but don’t hate on the man for outsmarting the legislature. Hate on the constitution if you like, but don’t hate on TGCs will.
By G.L. February 14, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Even putting the constitutional issue aside (although no one has been able to say how the lifetime appointments are constitutional), there’s also a fairness issue. Why should all other public colleges be subjected to legislative control except Clemson? Also, there’s a taxation without representation issue. Our tax money goes to Clemson, but it is effectively controlled by a group of private individuals.
By fitsnews February 15, 2012 at 8:02 am
Upstate-
As we have said on many previous occasions Clemson needs to be cut loose to pursue its destiny as a private college.
-FITS
By CNSYD February 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
G.L.,
6 of the 13 trustees are elected by the GA. Yes, the 7 life trustees could out vote them on an issue, but when has that EVER happened?
By Upstate February 16, 2012 at 4:59 pm
FITS…. if Clemson became private, it would likely downsize the size of the studnet body and the degrees offerred which would make it harder for Clemson to fulfill the true intent and purpose of Thomas Green Clemson’s Will…. which is….. to pick up the slack in the areas that the University of South Carolina fails to fulfill the needs of the State of South Carolina.
For the record…. I think Clemson SHOULD just offer degrees that they are willing to commit to excellence. Clemson’s nursing program is very tough to get into, but the graduates don’t score on the nursing test thingy as well as the folks from Greenville Tech…. Either be excellent in it or get rid of it and let Greenville Tech grow their program to take care of it.
ok…ok… I’m rambling. I know.