The leadership of Ronald Crutcher is poor. It is a mistake to rule a school in the manner that he has. He is wrecking the football program. He has made poor decisions. He must go.
Dr. Ronald Crutcher
- Thread starter Stonewall D
- Start date
Ironically you sound like some of those Facebook people from the Huff post crush being reactive and calling for heads to roll. Crutcher's presidency hasn't begun very swimmingly to say the least but couldn't this post apply to all recent past UR presidents re: football? Ayers, the Lax deal was him that some say is 1 big root of the problems. Egghead Cooper, come on. Patriot League fiasco. And Morrill, who I do hold in high regard, well those were the Jim Marshall days under much of his days, and playing on hard rock turf at city stadium. Didn't get on solid footing until Reid was hired. Just saying his era wasn't the best of football. Morrill btw lives right by campus and is still involved, was at the UD game.
OK, we know that something is going on although most of us are not privy to the specifics. when the dust settles and we see what happens, the end result, then we can throw stones, ask for a head to roll, if needed. to do that now is very premature, at best.
I, too, would like an example or two of his "poor" leadership. I have heard criticism about him based on the fact that he is more of an accomplished musician than an academic and that he was hired merely to bolster our "black friendly" ratings, but I have yet to hear any legitimate criticism of him as a person or as the president of our university. Like Ed Ayers, one of my favorite people of all time, many unrealistically expected him not only to lead us to national prominence and glory in every aspect of our university but to do it overnight. However, the truth is that Dr. Ayers, like those before him, did an excellent job in accomplishing the primary goal for which he was hired, and I am grateful that he continues his relationship with our university as a very involved professor. Dr. Crutcher seems to me to be doing a pretty good job as well, albeit, and most likely intentionally, without fanfare and flair. Let's face it, any change that one might expect of his leadership, or the leadership of any president, needs to be judged over a longer period than one or two years.
As a person who has met Dr. Crutcher and talked with him in a casual setting, I think that he is an exceptional person and I think that anyone with the opportunity to chat with him for even just five minutes in a non-professional setting would come to the same conclusion.
As to the woes which befell our university with respect to the recent sexual assault incidents, the incidents themselves occurred either just before or soon after his arrival. As evidenced in the OT board, these issues are extremely complex and somewhat novel, and they will take time to resolve. With respect to the current issues with Coach Rocco and his concerns about a vision for the football program, you certainly cannot blame Dr. Crutcher. If what we read on this board is even 50% correct, that problem was created by decisions made outside the office of the President.
I know everyone wants Dr. Crutcher to come forth with a pronouncement which will instantly fix the issues with our football coach, as do I, but that is neither realistic nor appropriate. He has properly delegated that responsibility to our AD who I feel certain he remains in contact with daily with respect to this issue. He has proven to be supportive of the success in our sports programs by meeting with recruits. I see no reason to believe he does not place a high priority on sports and wants us to succeed at the highest possible level.
So beyond the unrealistic promise of an instant fix, what is it that you expect Dr. Crutcher to do that he has not done? I'm not being sarcastic, I really just want to know.
From Strategic Plan, on other topics: Faculty and pertinent staff will research and develop a shared understanding of equitable and high-impact practices at the University of Richmond, including definitions of “high impact” and “equity-based teaching,” and methods to measure and assess how they are experienced by our students.
Equity based teaching.....That to me is the dribble you get from Universities now. A Universities job is to prepare their students for the real world. In the real world everybody doesn't get a trophy. Help and direct give them every opportunity to be the best they can be, absolutely. It doesn't mean they will all leave school and achieve the same degree of success. Students come with different skill sets and they will put forth a different amount of effort to achieve what they want and are capable of achieving.
It's like a goal being diversity? That may make the employees of the University maybe feel better but it does nothing to help the students. I don't care what color, religion, gender, etc they are, it doesn't matter. They are individuals who are paying a lot of money and some are putting in a lot of effort to be the best they, the individual, can be and a lot of that is up to the individual. The University's job is to give them the best opportunity to earn it, not the outcome.
Equity based teaching.....That to me is the dribble you get from Universities now. A Universities job is to prepare their students for the real world. In the real world everybody doesn't get a trophy. Help and direct give them every opportunity to be the best they can be, absolutely. It doesn't mean they will all leave school and achieve the same degree of success. Students come with different skill sets and they will put forth a different amount of effort to achieve what they want and are capable of achieving.
It's like a goal being diversity? That may make the employees of the University maybe feel better but it does nothing to help the students. I don't care what color, religion, gender, etc they are, it doesn't matter. They are individuals who are paying a lot of money and some are putting in a lot of effort to be the best they, the individual, can be and a lot of that is up to the individual. The University's job is to give them the best opportunity to earn it, not the outcome.
What woes? If this is really about Broadus, what woes? He either did it or he didn't that is for the judicial system to determine. What I don't like about this is my fear that this is a guilty until proven innocent issue and the school is responding/reacting to their image of political correctness not the law.
The school and athletic department have certain standards and protocol that apply to everyone. Like them or not, that's the reality. Nothing has changed in this case. If people don't like the standards, then petition the school to change them. No one at the school or in the athletic department is out to get individual athletes.
I agree with your points, but I think that it is undeniable that the university has suffered adverse press. That is what I meant when referring to woes.
I could not agree more that it should be handled by law enforcement, as I have stated emphatically several times on the OT board, and I strongly agree with you with respect to the wrongfulness of a "guilty until proven innocent" presumption, totally opposite that is taken for granted in our legal system.
As to the political correctness reaction, who knows? Most everything we base our posts on is based upon speculation as to what happened. While I do believe that if the treatment of the alleged offending student, Broadus by most speculative accounts, is the result of PC, that it is wrong and that such a policy needs to change. I say this guardedly solely because none of us really knows what is going on.
The proposed Strategic Plan was made public so that such comments could be made and considered. I also believe that the proposed plan needs changes and I have expressed my concerns. You can do the same. In fact, the University encourages your input. That is exactly why the plan has been made public and provide easy access for your views.
So how is this a reflection on poor performance by Dr. Crutcher?
How would you have handled it differently?
I-M, your are right on the money but UR got off that train a long way back and joined all the other institutions to look exactly alike and do the exact same things. i just wanted UR to be the best UR they could be not to mirror schools which are not UR. there is a template and if you want to score high and be thought of as elite, must mold your school to fit that model. still support but if i hear of a crying room or safe room on campus, that will about do it for me.
UofR shall now be known as "Bernie Sanders University"
http://news.richmond.edu/features/a...ial-justice-issues-in-the-math-classroom.html
http://news.richmond.edu/features/a...ial-justice-issues-in-the-math-classroom.html
The UR endowment will be feeling the Bern for the next 10 years if Crutcher has his way
I think there's a big reason why some people on this board don't like Dr. Crutcher. I guess nobody likes to talk about the elephant in the room though. I've heard a lot of people reference his race as being the determining factor without considering the fact that he's had a successful career as an administrator. Are you familiar with the other candidates? Did you compare all of their resumes, or are you the one making this racial by simplifying the process into one issue.
Is the guy raising any money or not? That's basically what his success/failure boils down to, right?
I couldn't agree more. Though most are loathe to admit it, it comes through in their sideways comments. Racism is alive and well on this board.
"Racism is alive and well on this board."
Really? Because from what I can see the comments on this board surrounding Dr Crutcher are almost exactly the same that were said about Dr Cooper and Dr Ayers -- raising money, vision for the university, and athletics support.
Hell, Dr Cooper and Dr Ayers were skewered on this board for years..at times relentlessly. Now that the same comments are said about Crutcher, it's nothing more than racism. Give me a break. Don't drag this board into that narrative, and stop painting with a broad brush.
Really? Because from what I can see the comments on this board surrounding Dr Crutcher are almost exactly the same that were said about Dr Cooper and Dr Ayers -- raising money, vision for the university, and athletics support.
Hell, Dr Cooper and Dr Ayers were skewered on this board for years..at times relentlessly. Now that the same comments are said about Crutcher, it's nothing more than racism. Give me a break. Don't drag this board into that narrative, and stop painting with a broad brush.
This elemental stuff must be taught in 101 classes.Understanding finite math or real numbers or double integral calculus or linear algebra will get you a BS in Math,not the elementary stuff about graphing income equality scenarios.Dont sweat the small stuff.This is a lot about nothing.
Last edited:
So GCarter's suggestion, that "we all know why we chose Crutcher" was about raising money, vision, etc. even though when challenged as to what he meant by me and a moderator, he failed to respond? Right. Treated just like Cooper and Ayers.
The elephant is in the room along with the 600-pound gorilla and a naked Emperor. So forget giving anyone a "break" and lift your head up out of the sand and open your eyes. Neither Cooper nor Ayers were ever subjected to such implications and innuendo. To believe otherwise is laughable. That, or you are living on a river that runs through Egypt and the Sudan.
What standard are you talking about? Again my comments are totally based on speculation but what would happen to an average student who is accused of this?
Why are going guys playing the race card? It's like every time someone disagreed with an Obama policy it
was racist. We'll never get anywhere in society if every time a minority is criticized people pull out the race
card, as if a black man can't possibly be a failure.
Wake up liberals and realize with praise goes failure too.
Because it's part of their schtick. Used as another weapon to intimidate and silence others that have differing opinions.
I have accepted that it is impossible on this board to point out what should be obvious with regard to racial bias without an accusatory response indicating an unfair playing of the "race card." There is never a denial, never the statement of any fact which contradicts the statement about racial bias, never any argument advanced suggesting that the incident referred to or the evidence presented might be construed otherwise, never any response whatsoever other than that one is playing the "race card."
However obvious that a basis might exist for statements regarding racial bias, the "race card" defense continues to be universally utilized by those on this board as what they perceive to be an adequate response justifying the lack of validity of any statement advanced suggesting racial bias.
Do you not see how hollow and devoid of substance stating that one is playing the "race card" is? Simply ignoring and failing to address the argument or the evidence presented by saying someone is playing the "race card" is the most superficial and irrelevant argument that can be made. It demonstrates that you have no real argument to suggest that any statement suggesting racial bias is not true. Yet, since you want to believe and you want others to believe that what was suggested as racial bias is not true, and you have no evidence or reasonable argument to rebut what was suggested, you simply continue to resort to the "race card" defense. The "race card" response is an avoidance response, nothing more. As such, when your defense is the "race card," it says more about your racial bias than it does about what might have been suggested in support of any incident of racial bias.
However obvious that a basis might exist for statements regarding racial bias, the "race card" defense continues to be universally utilized by those on this board as what they perceive to be an adequate response justifying the lack of validity of any statement advanced suggesting racial bias.
Do you not see how hollow and devoid of substance stating that one is playing the "race card" is? Simply ignoring and failing to address the argument or the evidence presented by saying someone is playing the "race card" is the most superficial and irrelevant argument that can be made. It demonstrates that you have no real argument to suggest that any statement suggesting racial bias is not true. Yet, since you want to believe and you want others to believe that what was suggested as racial bias is not true, and you have no evidence or reasonable argument to rebut what was suggested, you simply continue to resort to the "race card" defense. The "race card" response is an avoidance response, nothing more. As such, when your defense is the "race card," it says more about your racial bias than it does about what might have been suggested in support of any incident of racial bias.
Are you referring to affirmative action? BLM? Black Student Unions? Race card and yelling racists are devoid of any intellectual or philosophical basis. Both are logical fallacies. It is amazing to me that those that obsess on race really sound like racists. They project their own racism of low expectations on others and choose not to treat people as individuals but rather as a collective. Obviously, there are progressives that frequent our board that will hurl ad hominems towards those that questions the narrative and treat them as a Kulak.
Boy, this is like reading the fine print of of my title insurance documents. iSpider, are you a lawyer?
No offense intended, but I am not at all sure that I understand your post inasmuch as I cannot tie a large part of it as relevant to what I stated in my post. My post had to do with the response by members on this board to any suggestion of an incident of racial bias on campus with the defense of playing the "race card" and how much of a strawman argument (a logical fallacy, if you prefer) and hollow such a defense was. If you read the posts further up this thread you will see that there was a specific statement that I had referred to which was followed by a number of posters suggesting that I was playing the race card rather than addressing my characterization of the statement. I also suggested that such a response was more indicative of their racial bias than it was a legitimate argument in response to the suggested incident of racial bias which I had cited.
Racist always say racist. Can we move on? Crutcher is wonderful. Stupid thread
