This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Over the past three days, I have worked to update and expand the sections on the Establishment and Growth sections of the page. I fully anticipate this to draw objections from those with a close attachment to Texas A&M University, as much of it is inconsistent with the version of Texas history they have been lead to believe, including that Texas A&M was established prior to the University of Texas. I have no question most of those with emotional attachments to Texas A&M University had no understanding or knowledge the act that established the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas specifically referred to the establishment of the University of Texas some 13 years earlier. The initial objections to the edits I have made have been surrounding the control of the Permanent University Fund. Pursuant to the Constitution of 1876 the PUF was placed under the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents. The Agricultural and Mechanical College was in 1876, and constitutionally remains today, a branch of the university and not a legally separate entity. There was one public university in 1876, therefore the was one university fund. Any edits need to be supported with citations. If anyone believes the PUF is not under still the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents, there needs to be some citation supporting how control was supposedly transferred to the Texas A&M Board of Regents. ~~Randolph Duke~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The agricultural and mechanical college was constituted as a branch of the university in the Constitution of 1876. As shown by the failed attempts to amend the constitution in 1915 and 1919, only a constitutional amendment can amend the constitution. Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution has never been amended. When the legislature created the Texas A&M System in 1948, it did not amend Article 7, Section 13 of the constitution because it was powerless to do so. The assertion that Texas A&M is still a branch of UT is a direct reading of the 1876 Constitution and not "original research." As an aside, I have confirmed with the State legislative Library that Article 7, Section13 of the Constitution of 1876 has never been amended. Stating the agricultural and mechanical college is a still branch of the university is material to this wiki entry as it is a quirk in Texas law that is not widely discussed and its inclusion here adds to the depth of the overall wiki entry. I have revered to the wording prior to your edits.
The PUF is owned by the people of the state of Texas, not by any one subdivision of the state. There was no wording in the prior version that asserted ownership of the PUF by the UT System. The PUF was created under Article 7, Section 11 of the 1876 Constitution and by law is under the direct and exclusive supervision of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System. The 1931 legislative act that granted the agricultural and mechanical college an interest in the UT endowment granted only an interest in the Available University Fund and not the Permanent University Fund. This was supported by the direct citation to the 1931 act in question. Any further discussion of the division of the PUF (such as the 1956 constitutional amendment affirming the legislature's 1931 division of the AUF) would be best included in the PUF wiki page, so I did not include it here. I have restored the wording prior to your edits. Randolph Duke ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I see where you drew your objection to the inference there was an ownership interest in the PUF and I agree that was in error. I corrected the wording to clarify as you suggested. Apologies. Also, to expand on my earlier comments regarding the fact that Article 7, Section 13 of the 1876 Constitution has never been amended, it would be original research on your part to state the 1948 act that established the TAMU System in any way amended the Constitution to alter Article 7, Section 13. I have read the 1948 Act establishing the TAMU system and it doesn't mention anything about altering Article 7, Section 13 because the legislature has no unilateral power to amend the constitution. Article 7, Section 13 has never been amended. It is just one of those historical quirks that resources such as Wikipedia offer opportunities to discuss.
Randolph Duke (
talk)
The comment discussing the 1931 law should remain in the Wikipedia entry discussing the University of Texas at Austin because in 1931 there was no UT system. The actual law being discussed refers the the University of Texas which, in 1931 was the legal name of the entity being discussed here. There was no UT System in 1931 and the legislative act being discussed did not grant anything to the UT System. When the UT System was created by the legislature, specific powers and authorities was granted that entity by the legislature. Prior to the creation of the UT System, The Board of Directors of what is now known as The University of Texas at Austin controlled the university's endowment. Therefore, when discussing the facts extant in 1931, the correct name to use would be legal name of the entity in 1931 which was The University of Texas, just as the proper name to use when referring to the agricultural branch was the Agricultural and Mechanical College, which is what has been used. Using proper names existing at the time being discussed is the correct style.
As for your assertion that Article 7, Section 13 of the 1876 Constitution was amended in 1948, and that Texas A&M was split from the University of Texas System, is simply untrue (for one reason, there was such entity as the "University of Texas System" in 1948. The UT System did not come into existence until 1950). I have a request into the State Archives to get a copy of the 1948 legislative act and will post it as soon as I receive it.
Possibly a quick lesson on government and history is in store. The State Constitution (the 1876 version is the one currently in force) is a document between the people and the government where the people grant specific powers to the government. It is the foundation of our system of government where the power of government comes from the people. The legislature is powerless to unilaterally amend the grant of power from the people. As was noted in 1915 and 1919, to change Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution of 1876 (the specific section that designated the agricultural college as a branch of the university), an amendment had to be proposed by the legislature and put before the people for ratification. Earlier attempts to do this have been unsuccessful. Your claim that the legislature unilaterally amended Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution in 1948 are simply incorrect.
As Wikipedia is a encyclopedia work, it would be absurd to use a legal and historical fiction as the basis for any Wikipedia entry, so your claim that assuming the legislature unilaterally amended the constitution in 1948 is most certainly not covering things properly. The reality is that Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution has never been amended and it should be included in this work, so people such as yourself can benefit. There are currently efforts to again have the 1915 proposed amendment to legally separate the University of Texas from TAMU. Discussions have been ongoing, but it is my understanding they are being met with strong resistance from the TAMU Board or Regents, specifically from Tony Buzbee. You may want to discuss this among TAMU alumni and with your state legislator. I will refrain from undoing your edits until I obtain the 1948 Act that created the TAMU System and show conclusively that no such split did occur. Randolph Duke ( talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Without comment on the substantive issues discussed above, I strongly caution editors against using primary sources to draw conclusions that are then inserted into Wikipedia articles with only the primary source(s) as a reference. That falls afoul of our core policy that forbids us from engaging in
original research. From another point of view, if the information is important enough to include in an encyclopedia then surely you can find it in other
reliable sources without having to interpret primary sources and draw your own conclusions.
ElKevbo (
talk) 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
With respect to the claims (dare I say "original research") claiming the legislature split the agricultural college from the University of Texas, I offer the following response received today from the texas legislative Reference Library. The short version is the texas A&M System was created by the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as part of the measures necessary to deal with a hazing scandal at the college. As the Board of Directors of the college did not have the power or authority to unilaterally amend the state Constitution, we can safely assume the Constitution was not amended as claimed by user Maece. The edits removing the information regarding Texas A&M still legally being a branch of the University of Texas at Austin should be restored as they document facts that were unknown to even highly learned individuals such as user Maece and ore of great value to wiki readers.
I offer the following response from the state researcher: The Texas A & M University System was not created by the Texas Legislature in 1948 since the Legislature was not in session that year. It seems it was created by the Texas A & M Board of Directors in response to recommendations provided by a Joint Senate legislative investigation committee set up to address a hazing controversy at the Texas A & M College in 1947.
Below are materials that discuss the hazing controversy and the establishment of the Texas A & M College System (now the Texas A & M University System).
Special Joint Student Activities at A. and M. College, Investigation Committee suggests the that the Board of Directors create an Office of Chancellor of the College System. See June 6, 1947, p.3339 (pdf page 13); See also Recommendation 1 on pp. 3341-3342, includes copy of SCR21, 50th RS (1947). http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/50/50_TAMU.pdf
Gilchrest Gibb (university president 1944-1953), Texas State Historical Association http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgi14 “The board of directors responded in May 1948 by establishing the Texas A & M College System (now the Texas A & M University System) and naming Gilchrist as its first chancellor, effective on September 1, 1948.” Randolph Duke ( talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
To directly respond to the comments of Maece of 22:15, 4 February 2015, The reason the third comment is necessary is that it delivers the information that the agricultural college has never been legally separated from the University of Texas. If you object to the passage that states the ag college is still a branch of the university, possible we could agree to wording such as "to this day, no action has ever been made to alter the status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the university and that status remains in effect to this day." The fact remains that the Agricultural and Mechanical college was a branch of the University of Texas in 1948 and it was the board of directors of the college who created the AMC System, not the legislature. This is something that clarifies the erroneous assertion made by others that the legislature split off the ag college in 1948. Therefore, the information is of great educational value and should be included. I look forward to your comments and will wait a few hours before restoring the important passage that was deleted. Randolph Duke ( talk) 00:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed the erroneous information claiming the state legislature created a separate Texas A&M System in 1948. The mechanism that created the separate control of the Agricultural and Mechanical College was Article IV, Section 12, Art 2610, R.C.S Texas (1925) (
http://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-codes/1925/1925civ13.pdf ,
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/50/50_TAMU.pdf { page numbered page 3333} ). While control was vested in a separate board of directors, the fact remains Article 7, Sec 13 that constituted the A and M college as a branch of the University of Texas was not then and still today has not be amended.
Additionally, apologies to user Macae for wrongly citing his name in previous edits Randolph Duke ( talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed comments from "Expansion and Growth" section regarding the governance of the Agricultural and Mechanical branch college as inappropriate as they deal more with the development of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college than the governance of the university. Also, the information offered cited the 1925 Restatement of Civil Statutes. The paragraph where the deleted passage was inserted discussed the failed 1915 and 1919 constitutional amendments. There was no discussion how the failed 1919 amendment proposal lead to the changes set forth in the 1925 law in the citation. Any such discussion of those changes between 1919 ans 1925 would have also been inappropriate for this Wikipedia entry as they would exclusively discuss the development of the Agricultural branch college, not the university itself. The only connection that exists is fact the Agricultural branch college (now known as Texas A&M University) is still constitutionally a branch of the University of Texas at Austin (specifically the Austin branch, not the UT System as the Agricultural branch college's status as a branch of the Austin campus and it was never deemed a separate member of the UT System by the UT System Board of Regents). Other than to note the Agricultural branch college was constituted as a branch of the University of Texas (before the name change to University of Texas at Austin) and that the branch college status has never been altered by a constitutional amendment, there is no need to discuss in detail the development of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college in this Wikipedia page. It is more a part of the development of teh Agricultural branch college (now called Texas A&M University after the 1963 name change enacted by the legislature).
Randolph Duke (
talk) 20:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Matters involving the governance of the Agricultural branch college are not germane to the expansion and growth of the University, just as matters involving the governance of the Medical branch college are not. Both the Medical branch college and the Agricultural branch college have their own independent Wikipedia pages for such subjects. The information regarding the 1915 and 1919 proposed constitutional amendments are included only because any attempted restructuring of the university is part of the story of the grown and expansion of the university. That both the Medical branch college and the Agricultural branch college remained branches after attempted restructuring of the university is noteworthy. Discussions pertinent to the growth and development of either branch college are unique to those branch colleges and independent of the growth and expansion of the university and therefore discussion of the growth and development of either the Medical or Agricultural branch colleges are best left to their individual Wikipedia pages. Randolph Duke ( talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
To add to my earlier comment regarding the insistence by user Macae that information regarding the 1881 and 1913 legislative acts be included in the information in Growth section, the 1881 legislative act is directly linked as footnote 35 in the Establishment section of this page and not only does it not reference the governance of the Agricultural branch college, it does not even contain the word "Agricultural" nor does contain the words "branch college." Claiming that act somehow mandated a separate governance structure for the Agricultural college is not only specious, it borders on dishonesty. The passage as written cannot be allowed to be included. As for the 1913 legislative act, it contains no mandate of any governance structure whatsoever. It merely sets the number of individuals on the various boards of the university and the branch colleges. This, when added to the questionable attempts of user Macae to make the reader wrongly believe the legislature separated the Agricultural branch college from the university in 1948 when the Agricultural branch college board created the Agricultural and Mechanical College System (see earlier comments of 4 February) calls into question the quality and objectivity of the suggested edits user Macae has been offering for inclusion in this Wikipedia page. I suggest he offer his suggestions for verification and discussion prior to continuing to insert information that has repeatedly been shown to be of questionable foundation. His latest suggested edit wasn't factual the first time he offered it and it was no more factual the second time he offered it. I dare say his offering it a third time will not change its lack of factual foundation.
2602:306:CD57:5360:221:E9FF:FEE2:C39A (
talk) 19:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have again (for the third time) removed the information user Macae insists on inserting into this section. As previously stated, the information regarding the governance of the Medical and Agricultural branch colleges is inappropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia entry for the university. Both the Medical and Agricultural branches have their own independent Wikipedia pages and information regarding their governance systems should be included in those pages. I understand user Macae's emotional attachment to the Agricultural branch college, but his demand that factually incorrect information regarding the governance of the Agricultural branch and his exclusion of any consideration of the governance of the Medical branch draws his objectivity into balance. Unquestionably, the information he is insisting be included is specious and misleading. He is attempting to claim acts of the legislature in 1881 and in 1913 mandated a specific governance structure for the Agricultural branch college. While he does not care to offer citations for either act, the 1881 act he references is footnote 35 in the Establishment section of this page and it mentions nothing about the Agricultural branch college, so his claim the act mandated any governance structure for the Agricultural college is simply a lie. It cannot be included in this page. Additionally, the 1913 act he also claims mandated a specific governance structure for the agricultural college does no such thing. Macae tried on February 4 to demand false and misleading information regarding the Agricultural branch college be included in this section. At that time, he fabricated a claim that in 1948 the Texas legislature legally separated the Agricultural branch college from the university. This was an entire fabrication because in Texas, the legislature meets on odd years. There was no legislative session in 1948 and therefore it is an absolute impossibility that what he claimed to have happened actually did happen. My comments of February 4 detail this. I understand user Macae has a strong emotional attachment to the Agricultural branch college, but that emotional attachment does not entitle him to fabricate passages and demand their inclusion in the Wikipedia entry for the university. Hos claims and fabrications would be more appropriate for inclusion on the Wikipedia page for the Agricultural branch college.
Randolph Duke (
talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
For benefit of user Macae, I am posting the link to the 1913 act he claims establishes a separate board (SB 203). In fact, it merely sets the number of individuals on the board of the various institutions and fixes the terms of office. The 1913 act in no was mentions a separate board or any structure under which any board reports to any other entity. Finally, user Macae claims the 1881 and 1913 acts I have located asserts "Texas A&M already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas System's Board of Regents." This is a legal impossibility as in 1919, after the proposed amendments, there was no entity known as "Texas A&M" and there was no "University of Texas System's Board of Regents" so the acts could not have possibly mandated the structure he has incorrectly represented (the UT System did not even exist until 1950, "Texas A&M" didn't come into existence until 1963). In fact, Article 2607 of the document he offers as citation 41 (the 1925 Texas Restatement of Civil Statutes) begins its discussion of the Agricultural branch college by stating "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, located in Brazos County, and by the Constitution made and constituted a branch of the University of Texas..." indicating that as of 1925, the legislature realized that while functionally separate from the university, the Agricultural branch college was still legally a branch of the university. The fact remains the governing structure of the Agricultural branch college is a matter for the separate Wikipedia page of the Agricultural branch college. Further, the material and misleading statements of user Macae have no place in this Wikipedia entry and must be excluded. SM 203 (1913) http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/BillSearch/text.cfm?legSession=33-0&billtypeDetail=SB&billNumberDetail=203&billSuffixDetail=&startRow=1&IDlist=&unClicklist=&number=50 1925 RCS http://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-codes/1925/1925civ13.pdf Randolph Duke ( talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As user Macae has now, for the fourth time, tried to insert a particular passage that is not germane to this page and factually inaccurate on multiple points. He has refused to discuss this matter in the talk section (see my earlier comments of 24 February above). His activities at this point can only be considered vandalism and I ask that he be barred from again altering this Wikipedia page. On February 4 he also attempted to insert materially false information on this page. The passages he is continually attempting to insert on this page are not germane, not factual, not helpful and his refusal to discuss the misleading content he keeps trying to add suggests ill motive. It is time he be banned from this page. (edited to include signature)
Randolph Duke (
talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Memo entry to note the fifth time user Macae has vandalized this page by attempting to insert intentionally false and misleading statements and has refused repeated attempts to discuss his suggested changes prior to posting. he is turning this into an edit war and he must refrain from such activities. Randolph Duke ( talk) 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thank you for finally deciding to discuss your suggested edits. Had you doneso earlier, you would have saved me a lot of unnecessary effort. I again reoffermy posting from above "For benefit of user Macae, I am posting the link to the 1913 act he claims establishes a separate board (SB 203). In fact, it merely sets the number of individuals on the board of the various institutions and fixes the terms of office. The 1913 act in no was mentions a separate board or any structure under which any board reports to any other entity. Finally, user Macae claims the 1881 and 1913 acts I have located asserts "Texas A&M already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas System's Board of Regents." This is a legal impossibility as in 1919, after the proposed amendments, there was no entity known as "Texas A&M" and there was no "University of Texas System's Board of Regents" so the acts could not have possibly mandated the structure he has incorrectly represented (the UT System did not even exist until 1950, "Texas A&M" didn't come into existence until 1963)." Aside from those factual problems, the 881 act you claim addressed the Agricultural college did not such thing. Likewise the 1913 legislative act. You are posting factually incorrect information. Finally, information regarding the governance structure, tuition rate, entrance requirements or any other mundane facts about the Business college, College of Law, College of Engineering, Fine Arts, Agriculture or any other college are not germane to any discussion of the university. Why you feel one college should be discussed to the detriment of all the others shows a lack of objectivity. Regardless, the information you are attempting to post if factually inaccurate and not germane to the subject. Your continued attempts to knowingly post false information can. at this point, only be considered vandalism. Randolph Duke ( talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments on Feb 27 edits to "Growth" section and directed to user Macae:
Ok, for what is now something like the tenth time, I am going to try to explain why the passage you insist on including has no place on this Wikipedia page.
1) The time frame being discussed in the passage is the immediate period after the 1919 failed constitutional amendment. You claim the legislature had mandated a separate governance structure for “Texas A&M.” There was no legal entity in 1919 known as “Texas A&M.” Texas A&M University was not a name that existed prior to 1963. If the legislature had mandated a separate governance structure for any entity, it was not “Texas A&M.” Therefore, please refer to the entity by the name the legislature referred to, not any successor-in-interest or successor-in-name. Jumping from historical era to historical era is not appropriate.
2) Neither the 1881 legislative act you refer to nor the 1919 legislative act mandate any governance structure for “Texas A&M” or any predecessor-in-interest or predecessor-in-name. If you believe otherwise, please cut and paste THE EXACT WORDING from the legislative act you believe mandates any particular governance structure for “Texas A&M” any predecessor-in-interest or predecessor-in-name. Citations for both the 1881 and 1913 legislative acts are provided above in sections where a discussion on this was attempted. You have failed to show where the passages you claim to be controlling actually originated. You seem to have just cut and past the legislative references from the 1925 RCS that refers to The University of Texas and, without reading them, have fabricated language in them that does not exist.
3) Please explain why the Agricultural branch college governance structure is a meaningful aspect of the growth of the university when the governance structure of no other college of the university is similarly treated. This mundane material regarding one branch of the college seems to be more appropriate for inclusion in the separate Wikipedia entry for that institution.
4) The governance structure of the Agricultural college is discussed in pgh 4 of the “Establishment” section, along with the history of its development. You claim a separate governance structure of the Agricultural branch was mandated by the legislature, yet you point to no actual legislative act that mandated it. In fact, the separate structure of the Agricultural college was a result of the federal Morrill Act that mandated separate accounting for the monies granted the state to establish the college. You are absolutely wrong stating the legislature mandated the governance of the Agricultural college was to be wholly separate from the university. In fact, the very act that established the Agricultural college specifically mentions the Agricultural college was to be subject to the act that established the university. This directly contradicts your belief that a separate governance structure was created in the act that organized the university (the 1881 act) and the act that set the numbers and terms of services for the various state educational boards (the 1913 act) (Act establishing the Ag college: Footnote 28 of Establishment Section, link provided here: http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth6734/m1/928/ )
I look forward to your responses to these points and will refrain from any further edits for 24 hours in order to give you time to respond and to offer some evidence to support your statements where the citations you have offered have been proven to be without foundation. Randolph Duke ( talk) 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the passage you are offering is that: 1) Information regarding the governance structure of the various colleges of the university is not germane to the University of Texas. The governance structure of the Medical branch, the School of Law, the Business college, the Agricultural college, the College of Engineering or any of the other colleges of the university is not certainly germane to the growth of the university. The information is germane only to the individual colleges and should be included on the separate Wikipedia pages for those colleges, not the university.
2) You insist on using the legislative act of 1881 that organized the university and contains not a word about the Agricultural branch college as a citation showing the Agricultural branch college was governed by a board of directors and that that board of directors was wholly independent of the UT Board of Regents. It is intellectually dishonest to use a citation you know full well does not address the Agricultural college in any way shape or form to assert the citation evidences a change in the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college. Use of the 1881 legislative act that mandates the governance structure of the university only. It does not speak to the Ag college. Wikipedia is only cheapened by false citations and fabrication of facts as you are doing.
3) Your use of the 1913 legislative act that sets the size and terms of the various education boards in the state, and mentions nothing of the reporting structure of the various boards, to assert the various boards are wholly independent of each other is intellectually dishonest. The Medical branch college, as the Agricultural branch college, was governed by a Board of Directors. The creation of a board of directors does not evidence the Board of Directors is independent of the Board of Regents. Only a direct mandate by the legislature that the Board of Directors would be wholly independent would make the Board of Directors wholly independent (I can't believe this your understanding of basic law has not already lead you to this understanding).
4) In the very 1876 act that established the Agricultural branch college, it states unequivocally the college shall be under the control of the university. This was reaffirmed by the 1876 Constitution when the Agricultural college was established as a branch of the university. The Medical branch college and the medical branch college were both given individual boards of governors and both remained branches of the university. Neither the 1881 nor the 1913 acts in any way mandated wholly independent Board of Directors for either the medical branch or the Agricultural branch. You need to show a legitimate legislative act that mandated an independent board for the Ag college. If you want to discuss the mundane governance matters of the Ag college, you have to explain how it came to be that the Ag college was both a branch of the university (as clearly stated in Sec 2607 of the 1925 RCS you used as a citation) and was supposedly also wholly independent. Basic logic seems to question how the same entity could be both at the same time, so the actual wording of the act that established such an arrangement is called for. In point "4" above you claim "The portion of Texas civil statutes code listed in the citation I provided specifically states that governance of the school is vested in an independent board of directors." I assume you mean Sec 2610. Please point to where Sec 2610 (or any other section discussing the Board of the Ag college) contains the word "independent." You have intentionally fabricated the existence of the word in the passage to create meaning the act does not contain. Your creation of words that do not exist in the original in an attempt to change the meaning of the cited legislative act is the nexus of your intellectual (and outright) dishonesty. The federal Morrill Act mandated a separate accounting structure for the Ag college, but you fail in spectacular fashion to show us where the "independent" board governing the ag college was created by the legislature. Outright and intellectually dishonest fabrications aside, you offer no evidence of such a board.
I propose some compromise language such as:
"In the aftermath of the failed attempts to separate the Agricultural college from the university, confusion reigned as to the actual governance structure of the ag college with respect to the university Board of Regents. This confusion continues to this day. In 1925, the legislature reaffirmed the Ag college to be a branch of the university (Sec 2610 RCS 1925) and affirmed the governance of the Ag college was to be handled by its Board of Directors (2610 RCS 1925). This structure was identical to that of the university's medical branch college. Supporters of the Ag college have relied on tradition and legend to assert at some unknown time in the immediate aftermath of the Ag college's creation, the college was separated in all manners from the university and that Art 7, Sec 13 of the Constitution was just a humorous aside without meaning. Ag college tradition also says the repeated incidences of the legislature referring to the Ag college as a branch of the university was just repeated instances of "sips trying to hold the great giant down" and that those references have no meaning. Historians, on the other hand, dismissing the Ag college traditions and legends, rely on the historical record to assert both the Agricultural branch college and medical branch college were established as branches of the university and, while the Ag college and the Medical college were given separate Boards of Directors which established functional independence, both colleges legally remained branches of the university."
Randolph Duke ( talk) 09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
For the benefit of user Macae, and in support of the proposed compromise language above, I offer the following:
You wrongly claim I agree the 1876 act establishing the Ag college constituted it as a branch of the university. The Constitution established the Ag college as a branch of the university. The 1876 act (Sec 5) mandated "control, management and supervision" of the college and "care and preservation of its property" would be under the university. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth6734/m1/928/
I refer to the Biennial Report of the Board of Directors of the A&M College of Texas (1909-1010) [ https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofag1906agri#page/n87/mode/2up ].
This document outlines both the 1913 legislative changes in the board of directors of the ag college (that Macae somehow interprets to have mandated an "independent" board of directors) and the overall relationship between the university and the Ag college. The errors in Macae's understanding are both numerous and substantive. Nowhere in the 1909-1910 report (a document written by the AMC Board, not written by "sips") is there any representation that the Ag college is anything other than a branch of the university. Nowhere in the report is there any representation that the legislative mandate asserting control of the Ag college under the university had been altered. Nowhere in the report does the AMC board assert it is independent of the UT Board of Regents. Rather, the AMC board clearly states its functions were "separate and distinct." (page 5, pgh 1). This is entirely consistent with the explanation offered for the separate reporting structure set forth in the "Establishment" section of this Wiki page. As this clearly sets forth the AMC board was "separate and distinct" the use of the word "independent" must be removed as specious and misleading. As the separate reporting structure of the AMC board was fully discussed in the "Establishment" section, there is no need to repeat it unchanged in any form, in the "Growth" section. Macae's passage should be removed as it is not germane and repetitive. In support of this, I offer user Macae's wording "Such multiple inclusions of a single fact in this article are extremely redundant and not in the least bit necessary."
The report (pages 4-5) also goes into detail describing various financial arrangements in which the university partially funded the operations of the Ag college out of its operating budget and that the ag college received those funds as "Branch of the University" (quotes in the original). This passage negates any claim that the Ag college was always an entirely independent entity from the beginning of its existence. Claiming the Ag college was independent of the university would materially mislead the reader.
The report goes on to request the legislature to adjust the term of the board of directors of the college to eight years (p 5, item 2 under pgh 2). This was effected in the 1913 legislative act user Macae claims established the "independent" board (that the board itself characterized and merely "separate and distinct.)" Accordingly, The use of the 1913 act to support Macae's specious claim that the legislature mandates an "independent" AMC board of directors must not be allowed as it is intellectually dishonest to use a fraudulent citation to support a fabricated set of facts.
User Macae might want to avail himself of the Source Book of The University of Texas (1917) where all legislative acts relevant to the establishment of the university (and its branches) can be found in one volume. (Available free via Google Books https://books.google.com/books?id=G50aAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=source+book+university+of+texas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zYT0VOP-HoaUNsSKgoAJ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=source%20book%20university%20of%20texas&f=false )
Again, the Ag college had a board that was separate and distinct of the university Board of Regents in 1910 (not independent) and the college was unequivocally a branch of the university in 1910. The neither the 1881 nor the 1913 legislative acts mandated an independent Ag college board and the reporting structure of the ag college was thoroughly discussed in the "Establishment" section of this Wiki entry. Can we now dispose of user Macae's specious claims about the control of the Ag college in the same manner we disposed of his specious claims the legislature created a separate AMC System in 1948? Both claims have been thoroughly and extensively discredited as false, disingenuous and misleading. Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Edited to correct typos in earlier comments Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Macae ( talk) 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
An earlier edit of mine is not showing, so I will offer it again. The point of contention here is the fabrication of the word "independent" to describe the relationship of the Ag college Board of Directors. The Board itself in 1910 recognized its relationship to be "separate and distinct" not "independent." The words of the board should be kept in the original unless some legislative act can be produced to better define the relationship.
The missing edit: I have read the act of the legislature dated March 30,1881 and now see where user Macae is referring to the setting of terms of the Ag college Board of Directors. As he failed to offer any citation earlier and simply referred to "1881" it was unclear just which legislative act was being referred to. No reasonable reading of the March 30, 1881 act can lead one to arrive at a conclusion that the intent of the legislature at that time was to alter reporting responsibilities of the board of directors. A reading of the act indicates the legislature mandated the board would consist of five members, that they would be appointed by the governor and then the legislature addressed other miscellaneous matters of business. Keeping in mind in 1910, the Ag college board recognized its activities with respect to the university Board of Regents to be "separate and distinct" and not "independent," please copy and paste where the March 30, 1881 act is believed to modify the board of directors to be "independent." Unless some clear legal construct can be produced that established the Ag college to be anything other than "separate and distinct" (as the Ag board of directors saw itself in 1910), "separate and distinct" are the words that should be used to describe the relationship between the Ag college Board of Directors and the university Board of Regents. Also, to avoid confusion, as there seems to be no identifiable difference in the "separate and distinct" nature of the Ag college Board of Directors and "separate and distinct" nature of the Medical college Board of Directors, I suggest the following compromise language (unless someone wants to include the "independent" description of the board of directors which would necessitate also including the descriptor "according to tradition and legend."):
"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to separate the Agricultural branch college, both the Agricultural college and Medical college remained branch colleges of the university, each with their own separate and distinct boards of directors." Randolph Duke ( talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Macae ( talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Of all the words I have known to be used to describe the leaders of the Agricultural branch college, "overly reserved," "shy" and "understated" are not what come to mind. If the Ag college Board of Directors, all esteemed academics, saw fit to best describe their relationship to the university Board of Regents as "separate and distinct" it is inappropriate of us laymen today to posit a set of facts under which their words need to be modified. "Separate and distinct" were the words the Board of Directors purposely chose to describe their relationship to the university Regents and those words, in their original, are most proper to use today to describe the relationship at that time unless some legislative act that specifically uses the word "independent" to describe the relationship can be produced. Had the Board of Directors wanted to use the word "independent" it would have.
As for specifying the Agricultural college to the exclusion of the medical college, which had the identical governance structure as the Ag college, save an except the need for segregation of funds pursuant to the federal Morrill Act, I still maintain mundane facts such as the governance structure of any individual college of the university is not germane to this section. Nothing about a particular branch college directly related to the growth of the main university, save and except the efforts in 1915 and 1919 to reorganize the university. In recapping the structure of the university in the aftermath of the failed attempts to reorganize the university in 1919, the structure of the Ag college differed in no material way (save and except the Morrill Act provisions) from the governance of the Medical college. To mention one to the exclusion of the other makes no sense. Discussion of one is no more, nor no less, germane than the other. Inclusion of both clarifies the governance of neither differed from the other. Inclusion of one infers that college has some special significance with respect to the other. Again, discussion of the governance structure of the colleges is appropriate for their individual Wikipedia pages, not for inclusion on the Wikipedia page of the university. From the perspective of the university, one was no more nor less significant than the other and therefore either both should be mentioned to recap the overall structure of the university at the time or neither should be mentioned at all. The phrase "each school" you suggest is misleading in that the University of Texas did not have a Board of Directors. Each college (the Ag and the Medical) had a separate and distinct Board of Directors. The university had a Board of Regents. Randolph Duke ( talk) 19:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Any discussion that exclusively discusses the status Agricultural branch college needs to be removed to the separate page concerning that institution. When a given branch college opened, how it was funded or any other details particular to the individual branch college is a matter for the separate Wikipedia page for that institution. After the failed amendments to restructure the university in 1919, what the reader will want to know is the structure of the university at that time, not details concerning the governance structure of one individual branch college with no mention whatsoever of other, similarly suited branch colleges. Either the governance structure of all the branch colleges or none of the branch colleges would be germane to a reader wanting to know more about the university. Selectively choosing one branch college doesn't help the reader understand the overall structure of the university after the failed restructuring. Emphasizing one branch college must be avoided unless the emphasis of the branch college directly affects the Growth of the university (the sub-section of the overall Wikipedia page we are discussing). The governance of one branch college did not directly affect the growth of the university and therefore should be moved from the UT Austin Wiki page to the individual page for the branch college. Again, from the perspective of the university, the separate and distinct nature of the Boards of Directors both branch colleges makes one indistinguishable from the other. At most, the section at issue should discuss the attempt to restructure the university, the structure of the university after the failed restructuring (without selective highlighting of one branch college) and that should be the end of the discussion of the branch colleges. The medical college arguably had greater significance to the university in 1920. To selectively highlight the Ag college to the exclusion of the more significant Medical branch college seems unwarranted. Either both or neither should be discussed. Randolph Duke ( talk) 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional comment to address the statement concerning the university Board of Regents being indistinguishable from the branch college's Board of Directors. The reader should be left to determine for themselves the relevant significance and meaning of the two terms. At no point in the historical record were the two terms used interchangeably. In 1975 the Ag College (then called "Texas A&M University") saw its "Board of Directors" restyled to a "Board of Regents." Obviously, the Board of Directors of Texas A&M disagree with you that there was no differentiation between the two designations as there is no reason to believe the TAMU Board of Directors would have effected a change that had no meaning or justification. As there is a contemporaneous differentiation in the use of the terms at the times being discussed in this page, the specific terms should be uniformly used in this page. To simply claim "each school had a board" is misleading and inaccurate. The university wasn't characterized as a "school." It was characterized as a "university." Likewise, the Ag branch college wasn't referred to as a "school," it was referred to as a "college." At the times being discussed, the state of Texas had a "Permanent University Fund" to fund the university. It also had a "Permanent School Fund" to fund public schools. Unquestionably, "school," "university" and "college" all had recognized separate meanings at the time being discussed and those terms should be used in their original, without conflating the terms. Therefore, the wording of the description of the structure of the university after the failed restructuring attempt should read:
"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, both the Agricultural college and Medical college remained branch colleges of the university, each with their own separate and distinct boards of directors." (edit to add signature) Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The information regarding the establishment of the Agricultural branch college is already included, including a link to the act establishing it, a through explanation of the reason for the separate reporting structure, the fact it had a separate endowment and even the sources of its separate endowment. The Medical school has also been sufficiently discussed, down to the number of votes responsible for its establishment in Galveston. The Agricultural branch college has its own individual Wikipedia page which has been linked to this page. Details you are asking for that are specific to that college should be on the page of that college. Those wanting to know of the governance structure of a either branch college in 1920 are going to go to the Wikipedia page for that institution. Save and except for the information pertaining to the establishment of the university and its subordinate branch colleges, the less said about either branch college on this page, the better. Anything that might need to be said should be said on the individual Wikipedia pages for those institutions.
The justification of the mention of the Ag branch college with respect to the attempted restructuring is because mentioning an attempted restructuring without mentioning the nature of the restructuring would have been incomplete. I understand you feel it important to go into detail concerning the governance structure one only one of the university's branch colleges to prevent "a lack of understanding of the actual relationship between the two." The subject in the paragraph at issue is the attempted restructuring of the university and the structure of the university in its aftermath. I doubt any reader would find the specific relationship between the university and only its Agricultural branch college to be of primary importance on this page. The importance (if any) would be the relationship between the university and its branch colleges in total. The relationship from the perspective of the Ag college is wholly unimportant as this is the page about the university. What would be important would be the relationship between the university and its subordinate branch colleges. As the two colleges had identical governance structures (remotely located with separate and distinct Boards of Directors), discussion of only one of two co-equals arguably risks creating the very "lack of understanding of the actual relationship" you deem so important to avoid (that the significance of one branch college was greater than the significance of the other). Perhaps you would be better served directing your energies to editing the Wikipedia page of Texas A&M University, so those wanting to more fully understand the development governance structure of that institution might more readily find that information where they are most likely to look for it. As I have said, that page is linked to this page and those needing to learn more the the minutiae of that institution would reasonably look to that page.
The relationship between the university and its branch Agricultural and Mechanical department has been fully developed from the 1876 establishment of the Ag college under the "control, management and supervision" of the University of Texas (words in quotes taken from the original), through the federally mandated separated accounting structure to its separate and distinct board of directors. Anything more that might be said would be a stylistic interpretation of the facts already established and such interpretations must be left up to the reader. The words "control, management and supervision," "college," "university" and "separate and distinct" are purposely taken from the original. It is not up to us, as writers, to interpret, embellish, translate, stylize or nuance. The original authors were intelligent enough to understand the plain meaning of the words when they chose them and it is our responsibility to transmit those words, unaltered in any way, shape or fashion, for the reader to interpret as they see appropriate and certainly without modern "more generic" applications of alternate terms. Had the authors believed alternate terms to be more appropriate, they would have used them. It is wholly inappropriate under any circumstances for us to intentionally alter their writings.
The passage under discussion should read :
"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, both the Agricultural college and Medical college remained branch colleges of the university, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." or
"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Randolph Duke ( talk) 19:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The best option is to avoid the mention of either of the branch colleges by name in discussing the structure of the university in the aftermath of the failed restructuring. Specific mention of the branch colleges adds nothing to an understanding of the growth of the main university. This way, no impressions regarding any one of the branch colleges is made. As of 1919, both branch colleges had the same governance structure and moving forward from 1919, neither of the branch colleges had any particular significance to the growth and development of the main university. Therefore, the best option is to state:
"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."
Should any detailed discussion of the governance structure of either branch college be called for, it can be included on the independent Wikipedia page of the institution, along with a detailed section addressing any perceived misperceptions individuals believe exist concerning the importance a particular governance structure had on the growth and/or development of that particular institution. As the separate and distinct governance structure of the branch colleges had no direct impact on the main university after 1919 (or before, to be honest), mentioning either branch college by name (save and except to discuss their eventual separation from the main university) is wholly unwarranted. Although the Medical branch college was separated from the main university by the Board of Regents in the early 1950s as part of the development of the UT System that separation, although highly significant to the Medical branch college, has not been mentioned in on the UT Austin Wikipedia page because its impact is specific only to the medical branch college, and not to the growth of the main university. One should not be surprised if mentions of matters that draw the primary focus on either of the branch colleges is left out of this Wikipedia page for the main university as the overwhelming focus of this page is the main university. The inclusion of the individual Agricultural branch college in the statement you are suggesting places a focus on the Agricultural college, not the main university (just as the information regarding the severance of the Medical college places an unwarranted focus on the Medical college and therefore is more appropriate for inclusion on that institution's page and/or the UT System's page) Any mention of a specific aspect of either branch college that is not germane specifically to the main university should be left off the page for the main university. Hence, the specific mention of the Agricultural college you are asking for is best suited for the Wikipedia page for that institution, not on the Wikipedia page for the main university.
To include a specific mention of the Agricultural branch in 1919 would necessitate further specific clarification of the Agricultural branch's relationship to the main university here, as a matter of continuity, it would necessitate similar mentions of the status in other instances and on other Wikipedia pages such as the TAMU Wikipedia page and TAMU System pages discussing the 1948 creation of the TAMU System, the 1963 name change and the 1975 re-designation of the TAMU Board of Directors to the TAMU Board of Regents. If the specific relationship with the Agricultural branch college after the 1919 attempted restructuring were to be included here, style consistency would require that same relationship would need to be clarified at every other instance where the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college was at issue. The break has to be made somewhere and I dare say neither of us wants to have this exact same discussion when editing the TAMU College Station and TAMU System Wikipedia pages. Let's go with the non-name specific wording offered above and be done with this. If you want to carry this over to the other TAMU specific Wikipedia pages, in the interest of historical clarity and editorial integrity I will reluctantly honor your request. Randolph Duke ( talk) 15:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
User, Macae: Can you condense the guidelines that you are applying for the inclusion of information specific to the ag college that is not the subject of this page, we can bring other editors into this debate, pls. You believe the post-1919 governance structure of the Ag college was of particular importance to the growth of the main university. I can't fathom how that particulars of the structure, as opposed to any alternative structure, has significance to the growth of the main university. Since we are now working to agree on the guidelines for inclusion of information not specific to the topic of the page, we should make sure they are applied to all associated pages, primarily the TAMU College Station page and the TAMU System page. I believe it would be best to begin updating those pages to include the guidelines you are trying to have applied to this page. Possibly we can get some feedback from individuals involved with those pages to get agreement on some general guidelines. Would you like to be the one to begin altering those pages to specifically mention the establishment of TAMU as a branch of The University of Texas, that after the failed restructuring the Ag college remained a branch, that the relationship wasn't altered in 1948, 1963, 1975 or at any time and that both TAMU College Station and the entire TAMU System are still legally branches of UT Austin? If not, I will handle it. Should you wish, I could refer them to you to discuss the proper guidelines for information of the type you feel is so important to establish an understanding of the post-1919 growth of The University of Texas at Austin. If we are going to involve other editors, for the sake of consistency, we should apply the same treatment of such material to all related pages. I feel those involved with editing the TAMU-specific pages will be more closely aligned with my belief that if it is not germane to the subject of the page and only serves to place a focus on an extraneous subject, it should not be included. However, I look forward to your support on those pages that material specific to the University of Texas at Austin be richly included.
As for the time being, I believe it best to rely on the less specific version and wait for others to opine on whether the governance structure of only one branch college adds to an understanding of the growth of the university or simply adds bias to the article by implying the governance structure of one branch college was instrumental in the growth the the university. Moving to a comprehensive and non-biased statement seems best and I will effect the change as follows, awaiting further discussion involving other editors as to proper guidelines before making any additional changes to the passage:
"In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."
Randolph Duke ( talk) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The change was made to the non-specific mention of the branch colleges and clarifying "separate and distinct." The information asserting the legislature mandated the separate reporting structure was removed as it was misleading and incorrect. As mentioned earlier, while the legislature unquestionably set the number of directors for the branch colleges and their terms of office, it was the federal Morrill act that mandated the separate reporting structure for the Ag college board, not the state legislature, therefore asserting the state legislature did so in either 1881, or 1913 was incorrect.
Randolph Duke (
talk) 23:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
User Macae: I believe your bias toward Texas A&M University or your lack of command of the subject matter is interfering with your objectivity in attempting to edit this page. We may all be better served if you would recuse yourself from further edits. If you remember, on Feb 4, you attempted to include erroneous information concerning an entirely fabricated act of the Texas legislature in 1948 you claimed created a separate TAMU system. You followed that up by insisting that the state legislature, in either 1881 or 1913, created an independent Board of Directors for Agricultural college. The words of the Board of Directors dispelled that myth. You have attempted to nuance and outright change the words from their original to seemingly create an impression that, in 1919, the Agricultural college was legally other than still under the "control, management ans supervision" of the Board of Regents of the university. Now, you have embarked on yet another attempt to mislead.
This is again becoming an instance of vandalism on your part for knowingly inserting false and misleading information. For the past weeks, we have been discussing the relationship of the university's Board of Regents to the Agricultural branch college's Board of Directors. I offered the exact words of the Ag college's Board of Directors from 1910 that described the relationship as "separate and distinct." Therefore, you are unquestionably aware the 1881 citation you offer could not have created any relationship other than one that can be describes at "separate and distinct." The fact remains that the 1881 legislative act you cited in no way mandates the Board of Directors of the Agricultural college to be "separate." Please sit somewhere quiet, carefully read the words of the act you have cited and take in their substance. the act merely organized the structure of the Ag college board. It in no way addresses whether the Board reports to the UT Regents, the Legislature, the Governor, the Speaker of the Senate or any individual or entity. If you are to be continued to be allowed to edit this page, you must cease offering false, fraudulent and intentionally misleading information and false, fraudulent and intentionally misleading citation references. The fact is the state legislature has never mandated any reporting structure for the Ag college Board other than that the college (and by extension the college's Board) would be under the "control, management and supervision" of the Board of Regents of the university. As those words are taken from the act that established the Ag college, any discussion of the change of that relationship must clearly assert an alternate legal entity that would assume the under the "control, management ans supervision" of the college. Your assertion that "TAMC already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas's Board of Regents" is fraudulent. You purposely replace the words "separate and distinct" purposely chosen by the Board itself with the fraudulent and misleading "independently." Such continued intentional misrepresentations at this point can only be considered as malicious vandalism.
The 1925 Restatement of Civil Statues did not in any way "consolidate" any previous legislative acts. The restatement simply restated the legislative acts. Again, your intentional misrepresentation of facts at this point can only be considered as malicious vandalism.
So, in 1881, the Texas legislature absolutely did not mandate the Agricultural branch college's board to be separate. You know this, yet you intentionally and maliciously assert otherwise. In 1913, the Texas legislature absolutely did not mandate the Agricultural branch college's board to be separate. in 1913, the legislature merely acted to set the size and terms of office of the members of the Board. No mention whatsoever was made of changing the nature of the Board of Directors from "separate and distinct" to "independent." You know this, yet you intentionally and maliciously assert otherwise. The TAMU Board of Directors (by the Board's own admission in 1910) has never been "independently controlled." Through its entire existence, the Board of Directors was "separate and distinct." The constitutionally mandated branch status of the relationship of the Ag college to the university would preclude a legislative mandate that would make the Ag college "independent." You know this, yet you intentionally and maliciously assert otherwise.
You must cease and desist in maliciously editing this page to include information you know to be untrue and misleading. You have been doing this for well over a month and it is well past time you cease and desist. There are other edits in this page that, with the assistance of university officials, need to be made. Your vandalism is interfering with the work of others. Please cease and desist. Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
User Macae - "Our" continued edit war does not exist. Your intentional vandalism of this site if the problem. This is not the proper venue for your attempted perpetuation of the legends and fairy tales of TAMU "Fish Camp." You need to cease and desist with your intentional and malicious defacing of this page.
You claim "You are claiming that A&M was, in 1919, was legally under the "control, management, and supervision" of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas. Yet the Texas statutes do not state that such is not the case, nor have you provided any citations showing that such is the case." The words "control, management, and supervision" are original from the 1871 statute that established the Ag college. No act of the legislature has ever changed that.
You claim "But what I have provided is a citation from the 1925 statute that encompasses previous acts and clarifies the roles, responsibility and structure of A&M. It specifically includes the statement that government of the College will be done by a board of directors, and goes on to state that the board of directors is selected by and reports to the Governor." You unequivocally are aware nothing in the 1925 Restatement of Civil Statutes, Articles 2607- 2615 states the AMC Board of Director reports to the Governor or anyone else. You have entirely fabricated that in the most dishonest fashion possible.
You claim "You state that the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes did not in any way consolidate any previous acts." The 1925 Restatement of Civil Statues did nothing, save and except to RESTATE CIVIL STATUTES. That is why it is called a RESTATEMENT OF CIVIL STATUTES. Your use of the word "consolidate" is a creation of your own mind.
You claim "First, you are making a huge assumption in claiming to know what I know or do not know. Secondly, I have NEVER claimed that the 1881 act says or does not say anything. Instead, I have cited the 1925 statute as my source which consolidates acts from 1881 and 1913. However it does NOT specify which portion of the 1925 act originated in 1881 and which originated in 1913, and I have never made any claims as to the specific content of either of those acts." By using the 1881 act as a citation to support your claim the legislature mandated an independent Board of Directors for the Ag college, you are directly asserting you know the act does exactly what you represent. I am assuming nothing here. you are making a direct assertion the legislative act supports your statement, which it unquestionably does not. You have fraudulently fabricated the claim the 1881 mandated an "independent" (your choice of words) Board of directors. Neither the 1881 nor the 1913 act even contains the word "independent."
I fully understand your personal need to have the legends and lore of TAMU Fish Camp perpetuated on this page and to represent the AMC Board of Directors to be "independent" of the UT Board of Regents as of 1948, 1919 and, by your version of history, 1881. Possibly the TAMU centric pages would be a more appropriate forum for the perpetuation of such myths. In each and every one of the citations you have offered, the word "independent" is missing. There is no need to interpret words such as "branch college," "independent," "restatement," "separate and distinct" or any other terms used by authors in the original that are being referred to in citations on this page.
To clarify, I have not asserted "that being a branch campus of the University of Texas prevents a legislative mandate that would lead to independent governance of A&M." What I have asserted is the constitutionally mandated status of the ag college as a subordinate branch of the main university precludes a unilateral action on the part of the legislature to alter that subordinate relationship. NOTHING, save an except a constitutional amendment, can alter the subordinate relationship of the ag college to the main university. There is no question the ag college was functionally independent of the main college, as was the medical college. Unequivocally, neither subordinate branch college was constitutionally "independent" of the UT Board of Regents.
Again, I fully understand your emotional attachment to TAMU and your need to see the legends and fairy tales taught to TAMU freshmen at TAMU Fish Camp be perpetuated. This is not the forum for such legends and fairy tales. Please cease and desist in your continued vandalism so that other needed edits can be included and so that intentionally false and misleading information can be permanently removed. Randolph Duke ( talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
User Macae: I am fully aware your objective here is to have a specific reference on the page of the University of Texas as Austin's Wiki page that asserts Texas A&M University (or its predecessor in name) was wholly independent of the UT Board of regents as far back as 1881. I believe it is your obligation to clearly state your conflicts, including a full disclosure of your relationships, past or present, to Texas A&M University.
In referencing the 1925 Texas Restatement of Civil Statutes you AGAIN intentionally fabricate details to create a blatant misrepresentation of the historical record. NOWHERE in the 1881 legislative act you reference are the words "independent," "ex-officio" or "control, management and supervision." Likewise, none of those words were included in the 1913 statute. Therefore, the 1925 RCS could not have restated anything that was not stated in the original. You have entirely fabricated an "ex-officio" status of the governor on the Board of Board of Directors of the Ag college. The legislature granting the governor powers of appointment for positions within the executive branch does not create a separate and distinct "ex-officio president" status for the governor on any aspect of the executive branch. In the 1871 act that established the Ag college, the legislature unequivocally stated "control, management and supervision" of the Ag college was to be subject to the 1858 act that established the university. The wording and intent could not have been more clear. there is no statute that either of us have located that clearly and unequivocally amends the 1871 act in such a way to alter the "control, management and supervision" of the Ag college. To create the mis-perception such an act was passed, you offer a nuanced interpretation of the intent of the legislature by interpreting the 1925 Restatement of Civil Statutes to have meaning that does not appear in the original. You fully understand you are creating an impression that does not appear in the original. In intentionally offering information you know to be false and misleading, you are unquestionably acting in bad faith and the repetitive nature of such bad faith acts constitutes vandalism.
You again are intentionally fabricating facts when you offer your opinion that I am offering an opinion that in a constitutional government, the constitution is amended by a vote of the people and not by unilateral action by the legislature. If correcting your misunderstanding that our federal and state constitutions are legitimately amended by unilateral action of the legislature is necessary to absolve you of your misunderstanding of the status of the branch colleges of the university in1919, maybe we need to write that down for the dispute resolution people to explain to you. I am not seeking to have my interpretations of statutes included in this Wikipedia page. If one were wanting to offer opinion and interpretation to manipulate the the reader's understanding of the material, one would fabricate words such as "independent" when words such as "separate and distinct" were used in the original or create 'ex-officio president" status where no such status was conferred in anywhere the historical record.
You rightfully claim "First, no one is arguing that A&M is not technically a branch college of the University of Texas." All that we are entrusted to do here is offer the technical relationship of the main university and its subordinate branch colleges. It is wholly inappropriate to offer interpretations of what the status meant then or how we interpret the meaning of that status through the lens of history. Interpretations and added meanings must be left for the reader. Hence, my suggestion that the statement read: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." We should include no alterations such as fabricating the existence of "independent" status or your latest fabrication, that the legislature created the status of "ex-officio president" and bestowed the title upon the governor.
The statement: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors" offers factual information, without interpretations of the meaning of any legislative acts and without fabrication or nuance. It is wholly neutral to either of the branch colleges so as to not create a false impression that one branch college had greater significance than the other. Any assumption one college had greater significance over the other would be a fabrication of an opinion that is not supported by any document. What is being discussed is the governance structure of the university, not the governance structure of either of the branch colleges. The governance structure of the Ag college, or the Medical college, is not germane to this page. That information is best left to the separate pages of the respective colleges. You correctly assert "no one is arguing that A&M is not technically a branch college of the University of Texas." The matter should be left there, with recognition that the Ag college's branch status was identical to that of the medical college and that each college had a "separate and distinct" Board of Directors.
We essentially have two issues, the first being "what was the status of the branch colleges after the failed restructuring" and "what is the meaning and significance of that status." You are trying to offer your interpretation and nuance of what the Ag college's branch status meant then or means today. Offering any such interpretation is inappropriate. We need to leave the nuance, interpretations, fabrications, legends and fairy tales out of things. You correctly state "A&M is technically a branch college of the University of Texas." The reader should be left to interpret the meaning of that factual statement. The passage should read "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Any additional information can be included on the separate Wikipedia pages for those individual colleges. Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
User Macae:
To begin with, it is noted you are refusing to disclose any conflicts that may cloud your objectivity. I believe your refusal to do so should disqualify you from any involvement with this page and will have the subject considered by those handling the dispute resolution.
Secondly, you are again trying to interpret and nuance discussions by taking words out of their original. You have fabricated the term "ruled" to replace the word "governed" that was used in the original. Your refusal to use words from the original and your insistence in using your own fabrications, interpretations and modifications is wholly improper. You do this repeatedly and for the improper purpose of imposing your agenda of forcing the historical record to your predetermined conclusion that is consistent with the hidden biases and conflicts that you refuse to disclose.
Thirdly, you have fabricated an interpretation that because the activities of the Boards of Directors of the branch colleges were "separate and distinct" one of the branch colleges would be "ruled" (word not in the original) in a manner in which you interpret.
Your argument concerning whether the governor is the "ex-officio president' of the Ag college's Board of Directors is meaningless. You bring that up because you need to be able to add your interpretation of the rights, duties and powers of such an "ex-officio president." I also point out that the 1874 act that established the governor as "ex-0fficio president" of the Ag college was amended other subsequent legislative acts, including the 1881 act you earlier claimed established an "independent" Board of Directors. In the 1881 act, the composition of the board was clearly set forth, which is why the 1925 restatement of Civil Statutes used the 1881 act as the initial reference for the composition of the Ag college board. After 1881, the governor was no longer the "ex-officio president" and you are fully aware of this. In 1881, the University of Texas was organized and the governance structure of the Ag college would have been required to be amended to recognize the fact that Ag college was then under the "control, management, and supervision"of the university's Board of regents. Regardless of yet another instance where your bias, fabrications, personal interpretations and nuance, any discussion to the composition of the board of the Ag college is meaningless as it would constitute an interpretation of any statute and such interpretations MUST be left to the reader. It is not up to individuals who refuse to disclose conflicts and biases to make interpretations for the reader. It is a great frustration getting you to accept the meaning and significance of any individual fact MUST be left to the reader. Including the passage "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors" offers facts with none of your forced interpretations, nuance or fabrications.
Your suggestion that discussion of the Agricultural branch college's status be confined to the UT System page should be rejected as the UT System never incorporate that Agricultural branch college into the UT system structure. rather, the UT System left the branch college designation unchanged and the Agricultural branch college remains today a branch of the University of Texas at Austin.
You quote my words and offer the following:
What you believe is wholly inappropriate for inclusion. The entire problem here is you are trying to force what you believe upon the reader. That is not our mission here. Your personal beliefs do not matter one bit. Our mission is to set forth basic facts, supported by citations offered in their original, for readers to decide what THEY believe. Statutes and references MUST be allowed to speak for themselves in their original wording. You refuse to disclose your biases, conflicts or your personal agenda and you insist on forcing your beliefs and interpretation onto this page. You insist on changing words of citations to alter the intent of the original authors, all the while seeking to highlight an aspect of an institution that is not even the main subject of this page.
As long as you continue to try to force your unwarranted personal beliefs, your biases, personal interpretations and your hidden agenda on this page, my attempts to prevent you from doing so will continue. I suggest you either recuse yourself from further editing this page or push this matter to dispute resolution so others do not continue from editing the page due to what can only be considered your continued vandalism of this page. Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm here informally in response to the 3O request. Not taking it formally yet as I'm not sure if I will be able to address it adequately. This is obviously an edit war, but I have to say I have never seen an edit war of this size remain so relatively civil and focused on content. So keep that up and avoid getting into blame and dissecting motivations. It would be helpful for the both of you and anyone who does attempt to offer a third opinion on the content issues if you each could describe what you perceive to be the locus of the dispute. Identify what the question is to which you are proposing different answers. Rhoark ( talk) 04:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I'm here to respond to the 3O request formally. As was noted earlier, care must be taken in interpreting primary sources. I have reviewed the issue and I do not believe the terms "University of Texas" or "University of Texas System" in the constitution should be interpreted to refer specifically to UT Austin or the modern UT system. The constitution does indeed define A&M as a "branch" of the "University of Texas", but it is clear that governance of the two systems is separate and distinct in modern practice, and that both draw separate allocations from the PUF, and both have the independent right to issue bonds against the PUF up to the legally defined limits for each system. It doesn't particularly seem to be in dispute whether the systems are really two independent entities today, so the dispute boils down to a fairly trivial historical footnote. It could almost be considered just a typographical/grammatical inaccuracy caused by the somewhat messy history of the two systems in the early days. The issue is probably too irrelevant to even attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to increase the clarity. I'm inclined to concur that it's not even necessary to mention it in this article as such. It is more of an appropriate topic for the "system" articles. Gigs ( talk) 19:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Addendum- It appears that this is relevant. The UT System board in 1996 delegated PUF management to this non-profit, which has a board consisting of members appointed by both UT and A&M. Gigs ( talk) 20:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
I will first address the comments of user Gigs:
If you could disclose any relationship, present or past, with either UT and/or TAMU, that would be helpful. Additionally, it would be helpful if you could disclose how you came to this matter and what research you have done into the history of UT and/or TAMU prior to your involvement in this particular matter. Your understanding of the relationship between UT and TAMU seems to be flawed in a few material aspects and I want to understand the reasons for your perspective.
You are incorrect in asserting both the UT and TAMU systems draw from the PUF. Neither draws from the PUF. The PUF is a constitutionally mandated sovereign wealth fund administered solely by the UT Board of regents for the benefit of the university. The allocation of money for the Agricultural branch was created by dedicating a portion of the AUF to the ag branch, not the PUF. In the mid 1990s, the UT Board of Regents set up a private investment management company to manage the PUF assets (The University of Texas Investment Management Company or "UTIMCO.") There was a agreement to allow members of the TAMU system to have a minority oversight role over UTIMCO, but no control of the PUF was ever given to the TAMU administrators. All directors of UTIMCO serve under the sole direction of the UT Board of Regents.
The question here is whether, as user Macae asserts, that the legislature restricted the ability of the UT Board of Regents to exercise authority over the Agricultural college branch. It is important to remember TAMU did not maintain a separate archive of correspondence until 1950. As a branch of the university, correspondence and historical documents were kept in the university archives. I have talked with the preeminent scholar on the subject of the history of UT and the UT system. he is extremely familiar with the university archives and he assured me that there has been no legislation to restrict the authority of the UT Board of Regents over the Agricultural branch college. User Macae's claims to the contrary require interpretation of various statutes and the replacement of terms in the original with words of his choosing that alter the meanings of the passages.
I have asserted a number of times that the legislature intended for the Ag college to be a subordinate branch college pf the university and not an independent entity. I offer the additional comments from the historian that discussed the status of the Ag college from its establishment: "The writers of the 1876 constitution didn't favor A&M as the official state university for two reasons - 1) It's remote location in what would become College Station (once the railroad and U.S. Post Office had established it as a station for the A&M College), and, more important 2) It was founded with "Yankee money." Per the Morrill Act, public lands from Colorado were secured (Texas didn't have any U.S. public acreage) to use as the endowment for A&M, but this ultimately came from the feds in Washington, i.e. the Union. As Radical Reconstruction had just ended in Texas, and the 1876 constitution was a way to "take Texas back" from the resented unionists, A&M was considered "tainted" with federal funds, and not truly a university of and by Texas. Calling A&M a branch of the future university made the point."
There is little question the Ag college was established as a branch of the University. There is no question the legislature never directly acted to limit the authority of the Regents over either of the university's branch colleges. The minutes of the meetings of the Regents can be found here: http://utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings/meetings-archive. Of interest to this discussion are the minutes of the November 1913 meeting where, on numbered page 338, the resolution of the Regents was for "The repeal of the present constitutional status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the University and its return as an independent college." http://utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/board-minutes/1913minutes.pdf Unquestionably, the Ag college was not considered an independent college by the university Board of Regents in 1913. I continue to assert the best way to describe the relationship between the university and its branch colleges after the failed attempt to restructure the university is as follows: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Should anyone want to learn more detail of the development of either individual branch college, they can go to the independent Wiki page for that institution. To offer a specific mention of only the Ag college's status in the aftermath of the failed restructuring scheme would necessitate further explanation of that status at its inception (emphasizing the status as "tainted with federal funds, and not truly an institution of and by Texas.") I feel we have already delved into enough specifics of the Ag college for this page and it would be best to simply use the generic statement: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." Randolph Duke ( talk) 15:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
With respect to the points raised by user Macae of 20:54, 13 March 2015, I offer the following:
I believe it is important for user Macae to disclose his relationship, past or present, to Texas A&M University, so that any conflicts can be considered. Full disclosure of conflicts upon request is a cornerstone of objectivity.
User Macae seems to have a relationship with Texas A&M that is of sufficient importance to him that he is adamant about how various aspects of the school's history are referred to. I believe this relationship is at the heart of his insisting his personal beliefs be represented, even when the historical record indicates otherwise. Particularly, he seems intent on establishing that Texas A&M University (and its predecessor-in-name, The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas) was, since at least 1881, legislatively mandated as independent from the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents. This belief, while passed down as legend and lore among those with an attachment to Texas A&M University, is simply not supported by the historical record. In my edits, I have attempted to provide citations from the historical record dealing with the establishment of the University of Texas (so far mostly focused on the period between 1836 and 1925), including its two branch colleges. I have asked the edits I have offered to be reviewed for accuracy by a historian who has extensively studied the history of the university. I have tried to maintain objectivity and sought the input from historians familiar with this subject to ensure both accuracy and objectivity. The period of time which the present controversy between myself and user Macae are discussing (circa 1920) was one of significance to the university. During this period, there were political threats to shut down the university, legislative attempts to restructure the university and a legislative attempt to shut down the Agricultural branch (in 1913) and move it to the location of the main university. The precise controversy between myself and user Macae is how to best describe the structure of the university in the aftermath of all this turmoil.
User Macae mentions the possible discussion of the controversy on the separate page for the University of Texas System (his point 2). I am against such a move as the matter being discussed is the structure of the university in 1920. The UT System did not even come into existence until 1950. Furthermore, the Agricultural branch college was never separated from the main university and given an status as part of the UT System. While the status of the Ag branch college may, or may not be be a candidate for inclusion in the UT System Wiki page, what is of interest here is its place in the overall structure of the university circa 1920.
In his point 3), in lieu of having passages written to promote his biased viewpoint that is not supported by the historical record, user Macae wants to rewrite entire passages of the establishment section to simply remove substantive and material discussion of the Agricultural branch college. Seemingly, if he can't have his false beliefs and bias passed on as substantive fact, he won't allow any discussion of the matter whatsoever. Such a suggestion is absurd. The Agricultural branch was (and is) a part of the university. The intent of this page is to offer information regarding the establishment and development of the University of Texas. Ignoring a significant part of the university's history would be counterproductive. Sanitizing the page to purposely ignore an aspect of the history of the university simply because someone with hidden conflicts, motives and biases can't have the passage written in a manner to their liking would only lead to additional discrepancies of how to not mention something that is worthy of mentioning.
Macae's point 4) seeks to "clarify that neither school controls nor reports to the other." Here is the heart of user Macae's problem. Instead of simply providing elements of the historical record in their original and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions as to the significance of any part of the historical record, user Macae wants to "clarify" and he wants to be the one who decides what constitutes "clarification." It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to erroneously "clarify," falsely interpret or in any way purposely lead a reader to one conclusion over another. The historical record, offered in its original, should speak for itself. User Macae has offered what he represented to be clear and unequivocal passages from the historical record that supposedly supported his belief that there was a legislatively mandated independence for the Ag college. Problematically, the citations he offered (an 1881 legislative act and a 1913 legislative act) in no way spoke to what he claimed they did. He entirely fabricated words, content and meaning that were not in the original of the citations he offered. Unquestionably, he has the predetermined conclusion that the Ag branch college was "independent" of the university Board of Regents and he is attempting to bend the historical record to fit his predetermined conclusion. Unfortunately for user Macae, the historical record is not something that can be twisted or manipulated to fit his wishes. Quite simply, my strong opinion is that the historical record should be presented, without restatement, embellishment or modification and the reader should be left to make their own interpretations of the information that is offered.
Macae's point 5) is seemingly a by-product of his inherent bias and lack of objectivity with respect to Texas A&M University. He claims I am attempting to "lump A&M and the University of Texas Medical School together." In reality, both were branch colleges of the main university. As the governance structure of neither played an important role in the growth and development of the main university in the aftermath of the political turmoil of the time period being referenced, there is no reason to focus on the structure of one of the colleges to the exclusion of the other. What is important is to give an overview of the main university in the aftermath of the political turmoil so the reader can have a point of reference to understand the further development of the university. Significantly, in point 5), user Macae wants to "eliminate any confusion that could potentially be created by not specifying the actual nature of that "branch college" relationship." Again, it is not proper as writers of the page to lead the reader to any specific interpretation of the historical record that one writer believes should be promoted, especially when that writer has refused to disclose any conflicts or biases. Macae's inherent bias seeks to ensure the reader draws only the specific conclusion that is acceptable to user Macae. The "actual nature of the branch college relationship" is a matter for the reader to conclude based upon the historical record. I have sought to establish the existence of the branch college relationship. The nature or the significance of that relationship must be left to the reader to interpret. If user Macae has additional elements of the historical record he believes are important in order to allow the reader to form a reasonable basis for an understanding the relationship between the university and its branch colleges, he needs to offer them. To date, all he has offered are references and citations that do not speak to what he claims they represent. I have offered the suggestion that passage read "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors." This uses words from the historical record in their original, is sufficient to allow the reader to understand the structure of the university with respect to its branch colleges, offers no interpretations of elements of the historical record and in no way attempts to influence the reader to draw any one particular conclusion. The passage merely states what is supported by the historical record and therefore is the most appropriate passage for inclusion in this page. Randolph Duke ( talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I take user Macae’s points individually as doing so may allow an independent editor to better drill down to points of contention.
1) M: “RandolphDuke appears to be implying that a person that might have a relationship of any sort with this subject article becomes incapable of objectively editing an article”
“I would suggest that the earlier mention of Texas A&M being a branch of the University of Texas is OK, but does not need to be repeated and that it also is important to make mention of the 1948 split and Constitutional removal of Texas A&M from the University of Texas System. Rather then engage in an edit war, I certainly would welcome input from other wiki editors as to this question...” There can be no mistaking what user Macae feels most important. Unfortunately for him, his belief that there was a split of Texas A&M (then referred to as the Agricultural & Mechanical College) from the university in 1948 was shown to be a total and complete fabrication on his part. Not one to be easily deterred, this entire month-and-a-half long back-and-forth has been his attempt to manipulate the historical record to somehow support his predetermined (and entirely fabricated) conclusion – that the Ag college was legislatively mandated independent of the university.
2) M: RandolphDuke, you again claim that I am trying to establish that A&M has operated independently of the Board of Regents. I have provided the legislative citations confirming that A&M was to be run by a Board of Directors selected by the Governor.
3) M: This article is entitled the University of Texas at AUSTIN and the focus is on the University that is located in Austin. The University of Texas System Page, on the other hand, looks at ALL of the schools in the System. Since A&M is not located in Austin, it seems much more appropriate that it be included in the System page rather than the Austin campus page.
User Macae offers the following in his attempt to prevent the reader from drawing their own conclusions:
a)M: Second, I specifically stated that I did not think that the "branch college" relationship has enough impact or significance to merit inclusion in an already lengthy article.
b)M: "Branch college" suggests a subservient relationship which is not actually the case in this particular situation.
Here, user Macae is requesting something already provided for: I) M: As a result, providing the information that legislative acts provide for a separate and distinct Board of Directors to govern A&M is both valid and relevant to the article.
"The repeal of the present constitutional status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the University and its return as an independent college." http://utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/board-minutes/1913minutes.pdf (numbered page 338, bottom of page) Randolph Duke ( talk) 16:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Macae ( talk) 19:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
M:You claim that I have claimed that A&M was "legislatively mandated independent of the university of Texas." I have agreed from the very start that A&M was established technically as a "branch college" of the university, even if such designation was actually practiced. However, I have pointed out that, as a result of earlier legislative acts compiled in the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes, the legislature mandated a Board of Directors who governed A&M, and continue to do so today.
M: With regards to your 1913 board minutes - It is a somewhat irrelevant link as we have already agreed to utilize the "separate but distinct" language. However it IS interesting to note that the cited minutes mentions a need to obtain approval by A&M's Board of Directors with regards to transfer of some properties to A&M. The fact that the Board of Regents needed such approval is solid evidence that A&M Board of Directors was not reporting to or governed by the University of Texas Board of Regents but was instead operating in an equivalent role to the Board of Regents.
M:With regards to whether there is merit to include a discussion of A&M in the University of Texas at Austin page rather than the University of Texas System page - First, please note that I have already stated my willingness to include it here and was simply asking for a third opinion as to which page was most appropriate. Second, regardless of time period being discussed and the official name of the University at the time, the fact remains that when discussing the University of Texas at Austin, people immediately think of the University located in Austin. And that is what this article should be focused on. Thirdly, RandolphDuke has argued that A&M is not part of the University of Texas System. However, he also has acknowledged that A&M IS still technically a part of the University of Texas at Austin which in turn is a part of the University of Texas System. Therefore it is illogical for him to now argue that A&M is not therefore part of the University of Texas System. But I do understand his reasoning as A&M is the flagship of the Texas A&M University System and not considered part of the University of Texas System. Simply more evidence that the "branch college" status does not exist practically, now or in the past.
User Macae, this conversation is over. For the past month and a half I have played your game of trying to force the legends and fairy tales you were taught at Texas A&M "Fish Camp" onto this page. You have continued to insist you twisted, strained and mangled interpretations all point to your predetermined conclusion, regarding what impression the reader should be manipulated into believing concerning Texas A&M's relationship to the University of Texas.You have failed to narrow down points of contention for third parties to consider. Instead, you simply continue to do everything but offer elements of the historical record for individuals to review to determine if your claims have any validity. I truly believe you are playing a game and that you have are playing obstructionist out of improper motives. I have made what I believe to be the points of contention absolutely clear for third parties to consider. I have also made it clear i am done trying to reason with you. The past month and a half dealing with you has largely been a waste of time because you are intent on playing games instead of trying to resolve the issues. I am done playing games with you. Good bye.
This one section has become the Great Wall of Wikipedia. WP:WALLS It is now 130 pages of text! This is unacceptable and unreadable by other editors. As you continue this discussion (which I do not really suggest) please start new sections. It would be really helpful if one or both of you would break the above section into sub-sections. Perhaps 20 sections of 7 pages, in order to allow other editors to read and understand the discussion. Absent that you have wasted enormous time. Enormous. Capitalismojo ( talk) 23:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned on February 3, "I fully anticipate this to draw objections from those with a close attachment to Texas A&M University, as much of it is inconsistent with the version of Texas history they have been lead to believe." User Macae is an alumnus of Texas A&M who is insisting his alma mater be referred to on this page in a way that resembles the legends and lore of his alma mater. The problem is those legends are inconsistent with the historical record. I believe this page should focus on the historical record and the legends and lore of Texas A&M University be discussed on the Wikipedia page for that institution.
The contentious passage (at the moment) is end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section which currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."
Through a quirk of history, the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (predecessor-in-name to today's Texas A&M University) was constituted as a branch of the University of Texas (predecessor-in-name to The University of Texas at Austin). To this day, the branch college status of the Agricultural college has never been changed and constitutionally, Texas A&M University remains a branch of the University of Texas at Austin. This fact riles the alumni of Texas A&M. Legend and lore fabricated by Texas A&M administrators and alumni to soothe their egos (and passed along through the generations) is that the Ag college was never a branch of the university, that there was a legal separation by the legislature in (fill in the blank with whatever year happens to be convenient) or that the legislature mandated the Ag college to be independent since (fill in the blank with whatever year happens to be convenient). User Macae is insisting the legends and lore of his alma mater be represented on this page. The University of Texas at Austin has long been the greatest rival of Texas A&M and as a Texas A&M alumnus, user Macae is seemingly defending the legends and lore of his beloved alma mater. I am attempting to have the historical record represented and to allow readers to draw whatever conclusions they feel most reasonable.
What seems to be needed is a non-conflicted third party to decide on the best language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section.
User Macae favors: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College." I favor: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."
We each have our reasons for favoring the individual passages. If a third party cared to step in and settle the matter, the disagreement might well end here and now, unless user Macae insists on adding additional examples of his alma mater's legends and lore in between the factual passages of this page. The existing passage needs to be corrected as the citation numbered 41 does not support the claim made in the statement and was offered in error. If user Macae's text is to be used, either it needs to be supported with a valid citation or it needs to be noted as "citation needed." Randolph Duke ( talk) 21:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, my attempt to offer a synopsis of the issue and focus on the exact passage under dispute has not been as successful. Previous attempts by myself to focus discussion on the exact points of contention met with similar futility. I reiterate it is my belief the point of contention is the best language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section that currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College." It should be replaced with: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."
The remainder of the conflict is noise and chatter driven by collegiate jealousy and the insistence by an overzealous and misguided alumni of Texas A&M University that the Wikipedia page of his alma mater's dominant rival contain passages designed to create misimpressions of the history of his alma mater that he personally approves of.
As user Macae has refused to focus on identifying points of contention for third party evaluation, I have ended all discussion of the matter with him and I look forward to third party comments on how we can end one of the most senseless and absurd matters I have been forced to deal with. There are other edits, such as the uploading of a new university wordmark, that have been requested and comments by other historians that need to be included on the page. User Maece's interference is neither helpful, informative nor appreciated. Randolph Duke ( talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I (yet again) assert all attention should be focused exclusively on the best language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section that currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."
My contention continues to be that the individual preferring the language I disagree with has utterly failed to cite the existence of the mysterious "previous legislative acts" that supposedly clearly and unequivocally mandated "each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College." If there is a legislative mandate that contains the words "separate and distinct" it can be produced. If no such mandate containing those specific words exists, it cannot be claimed one does exist. It is that simple. The other individual has entirely fabricated the existence of such legislation that contains the words "separate and distinct" and accordingly, the claim that it exists should not be included. It can be argued the "separate and distinct" relationship existed, but there is no legislative mandate that established it. The "separate and distinct" relationship simply was not legislatively mandated.
The language for the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section should be replaced with: "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."
Attempts to draw the discussion to any other subject have proven meaningless and unproductive. They need to stop and this matter needs to be brought to a conclusion so other necessary edits on the page can be made. Repeated interference based on collegiate jealousy have proven to be neither helpful, informative nor appreciated. Randolph Duke ( talk) 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Texas Constitution refers to Texas Agriculture and Mechanical College as a "branch college" of the University of Texas. Is this wording relevant and significant enough to include in the University of Texas at Austin article? If so, does it merit multiple mentions? And if included, should the article then include mention of the separate governing structure of each University? 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, in 1967, the name of "The University of Texas" was changed to "The University of Texas at Austin" so prior to 1967, "The University of Texas" (for purposes of this article) is one and the same as "The University of Texas at Austin." Each and every mention of "The University of Texas" prior to 1967 is a mention of the history of "The University of Texas at Austin" and any deletion of a passage discussing The University of Texas prior to 1967 is a deletion of a passage discussing the history of The University of Texas at Austin.
Additionally, the term "each university" as used above is misleading. The question should read "Should the article then include special notation of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college?" Prior to 1963, there was but one university, that being The University of Texas. The university had two branch colleges, the Agricultural college and the Medical college. In 1963, the legislature changed the name of the Agricultural branch college to "Texas A&M University." The debate that has run to such an absurd length concerns the governance structure of the university and both its Agricultural branch college and Medical branch college circa 1920 and whether the structure of the two branch colleges can be referred to obliquely or whether the individual governance structure of the Agricultural branch college was so important to the growth and development of the University of Texas that it warrants special and exceptional discussion and recognition. Randolph Duke ( talk) 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The matter has not been settled regarding the highly debated fourth paragraph of the "Expansion and Growth" section where the last line currently reads: "In the aftermath of these failed amendments, TAMC remained a branch college of the University of Texas, but as a result of previous legislative acts, each continued to be governed separately and distinctly by a Board of Regents at the University of Texas and by a Board of Directors at the Agricultural and Mechanical College."
Again, it is an entire fabrication by the other individual that there exists any legislative edict that mandated any governance structure of the Agricultural branch college as represented in the passage as it currently reads. It is my contention the passage should read "In the aftermath of the failed amendments to restructure the university, the relationship of the university's branch colleges remained unchanged. Both branch colleges remained as branch colleges, each with their own separate and distinct board of directors."
In support of my position, I have offered exhaustive citations. I now yet again offer the exact words of the president of the Agricultural branch college - quoted in the original - to support that the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college and the Medical branch college were indistinguishable. In page 9, paragraph 1 of the 1900 Biennial report of the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas it reads:
There are additional citations to support what the leaders of the Agricultural branch college, as well as the rest of the State of Texas recognized at the time being discussed and what most individuals understand today. The other individual in the debate is simply trying to reconstruct history to his own liking and in a manner consistent with the misguided and overzealous collegiate jealousies of a factually confused alumni of Texas A&M University.
I again insist this edit war end and end now, with the other party ceasing all erroneous and unsupported edits to this page. As the wording for the passage has been unquestionably supported by numerous citations, I will change the passage to the factual version I have been long supporting and will remove the inaccurate and unsupported passage. Randolph Duke ( talk) 23:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)