@Wulftz (I know his real name) has made a terrific point. Some programs are absolutely terrific and bring in prospective students from all over the nation, and it's not only because of the city and beaches. The School of Business doesn't really care about the election, but how about every other department? How can McConnell expand our graduate programs without extra funding and/or destroy the integrity of our undergraduate ones?
His stance on funding and a potential merger are the most disturbing parts of his candidacy. His interviews so far show that his has no idea how to run a college, but rather knows how to play the GOB (good ol' boy) game. He is the only person in SC (really the world) who could whirl himself into this position despite everyone's efforts to the contrary.
Isn't that frightening to anyone? Are colleges just pawns to train job candidates? McConnell and apparently all the conservatives on this comment thread, are more than willing to offend others on their diversity concerns, but will they be able to answer our concerns on the future brand of the College? (never to be University of South Carolina--Charleston)
@Bragabursiro you are absolutely right. That is what I have been trying to say all along. It is politically expedient for the opposition to focus on McConnell's political backgrounds. Unfortunately, the worse thing McConnell will do is force doctoral degrees on a College not built for them. We will lose the student-centered focus of the College as class size grow larger and we start looking like University of South Carolina-Charleston.
Within the instant McConnell was elected, the Campaign Steering committee lost $10-20 million dollars. Can he get that back with state funding? I'll encourage again all the commenters on this article to open their eyes to MCConnell's true colors. $380,000 sure beats $47,000.
@localhutch there is a reason men like McConnell can gain so much power that people are afraid to defy him. It's people like you, who have their heads stuck up their asses, who give him an uncontested seat. He's consistently used millions in state funding and college funding (not asking for the College of Charleston's help, mind you) to play his games and build monuments to his glory. Yes, the Hunley is a national treasure, but above all, it is a monument to his glory. And he's done it all without a quip from any senator. Now good ol'McConnell has his eyes on the presidency, and what he wants he usually gets. Because no one questions him, not the most powerful man in SC politics.
Why do you think you have the right to control us without our consent? Is CofC's student body and faculty just pawns to get more jobs into Charleston? I, for one, have despised people like McConnell even before I was "institutionalized" by the College of Charleston. And I pity the people who get him elected. They're scattered across history.
Now I do agree with you on the slaveholding percentages. I don't think any would say otherwise. However, the CSA was not started by democratic process but rather by a few landed gentry and businessmen. Especially in South Carolina, the business of human bondage brought prosperity and equity. They were the ones who decided that the US Constitution was violated by the North states (yes, our unamended Constitution absolutely legalizes humans as property). Just read the original seven states' clauses of secession. It's right there. And they weren't wrong either. The Northern states, by not returning slaves after they crossed borderlines, did violate the Constitution. So the first thing the CSA did was codify slavery, forever.
The average Southerner was racist (just like many Northerners and immigrants) and thought the status quo worked best for them. Even the citizens of Kentucky aspired to have slaves (didn't Grant's father own slaves?). Slaves were appreciable assets, like a home.
My main point is that the CSA was found necessary because of the threat to slavery. Slavery wasn't why the war was fought, but the war seemed inevitable after the secession. Refer to Fort Sumter.
This Glenn McConnell debate has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. It's about state control vs. autonomy. Read a little about his legislative history, and you'll know what I mean.
How do you know he can increase business prospects in the state without first destroying College of Charleston's national reputation? He has no academic qualifications besides his political career to make him a good fit at the College. It seems like, to you, that Glenn McConnell's only deficit is his association with the Confederacy. I'm sorry, but this is not a very persuasive argument. His actions prove he's a political leader, not an administrative one.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper