|
Post by aggiebred09 on Nov 7, 2012 8:39:09 GMT -5
History dictates that Chancellor Fort was the visionary behind the plans for campus development and had drawings and models of most of what we see today. Chancellor Renick's tenure began around the time the State Legislature passed the bond referendum. He put the shovels in the ground but Fort had the plans on paper.
Renick was sharp, charismatic and had the interest of the University at heart. He brought dollars to the table helped to increase enrollment and excitement at a time where HBCUs were stuck in 70s. A&T even held admissions sessions in Four Seasons Mall (daring but brilliant). David Hoard helped to bring in a lot of those dollar (also currently at JSU).
|
|
@ProfBellamy
Official BDF member
Aggie Born, Aggie Bred
Posts: 763
|
Post by @ProfBellamy on Nov 7, 2012 11:53:44 GMT -5
History dictates that Chancellor Fort was the visionary behind the plans for campus development and had drawings and models of most of what we see today. Chancellor Renick's tenure began around the time the State Legislature passed the bond referendum. He put the shovels in the ground but Fort had the plans on paper. Renick was sharp, charismatic and had the interest of the University at heart. He brought dollars to the table helped to increase enrollment and excitement at a time where HBCUs were stuck in 70s. A&T even held admissions sessions in Four Seasons Mall (daring but brilliant). David Hoard helped to bring in a lot of those dollar (also currently at JSU). Renick had a vision, but if we look at student numbers we lost over 10,000 students during his tenure as chancellor. Our graduation rates and retention rates plummeted and we're right now clawing to get them back to where they need to be. I respect Chancellor Emeritus Renick for many of the things that he did and he always should be welcomed back. However, for all the steps forward.... there were too many steps backwards.
|
|
|
Post by captaggie on Nov 7, 2012 12:11:25 GMT -5
How much is the Board of Trustees during Renick's administration culpable for the issues identified on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on Nov 7, 2012 12:17:17 GMT -5
...there was also a "witch hunt" that occured as a direct result of people catching feelings because they were left with egg on their face. They "fell" for Renick's charisma and didn't do their own fact-checking, and then got mad at him instead of themselves. Had they just talked to the man and re-steered him on certain issues, it wouldn't have been a problem. They're completely culpable in my book. They could have told him no at any time, and they should have . And as they are the Board he would have had to listen.
|
|
|
Post by captaggie on Nov 7, 2012 14:40:53 GMT -5
Now that the context of this thread has been addressed for the second time (thanks Dooms), lets continue the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Nov 7, 2012 15:05:47 GMT -5
His positive out weighed all his negatives. Plus most of the people voicing their opinion on this topic don't have all the facts or do not know the whole story as it relates to the job he did while at A&T. Can you say speculation!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by aggie2ru on Nov 7, 2012 17:07:35 GMT -5
Not trying to hurt anybody's feelings but Renick had a gab and energy that when he came to A&T his persona was the exact opposite of Fort's. His charisma and PR skills were an added dimension to the state bond money that fell directly in his lap and what Hoard could raise. However, as was stated previously, Fort already had a road map laid out when the funds became available. Renick ran with it from there. He did some very good things outside of Fort's vision but he put us in a DEEP hole in other areas. Re-Todd, lowered admisssion requirements, etc.
I wonder why his name was taken off the new Education Bldg.?
Again, a dayum good charismatic major party animal who did some good things as chancellor but...........................
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on Nov 7, 2012 21:51:18 GMT -5
See my post regarding hurt feelings above for an explanation as to why his name was taken off the new education building. Not to mention, it's hard to have an education building named after a man whose recruitment policies created a state-worst 37% graduation rate. And that ain't speculation.
I remember talking to my old professors when the new buildings went up. Several complained they had nice new buildings with beautiful dry-erase boards, but no markers for the boards. They had to purchase their own. I don't know if that's Renick's fault, but it ain't speculation.
The same professors bemoaned the quality (or lack thereof) of students they were getting since Renick took over. They said they were getting a ton of folks that had no business in college and it took away from their ability to teach the rest. That ain't speculation.
I talked to Renick about that. He explained that we needed the increased student population to substantiate some futures grant or something like that we got that paid for all them pretty buildings full of non-college material students, or else we'd have to give money back. That's from his mouth to my ears.
I told him that the professors I talked to were struggling to teach the students that he recruited via cookouts and imbecilic cartoons in the paper, and I was concerned about what would happen to our already less than stellar grad rate. He reiterated that we needed the population.
I told him the counselors were also stretched to the limit and unable to keep up with the large increase in substandard students. He told me about how the new Scott Hall was going to look.
I understand that his goal was to get the campus up to a modern standard (it wasn't even close before) so that we could attract a higher quality of student, but I did not and do not agree that should have been done on the backs of kids we should never have admitted in the first place. We admitted kids weeks after the school year started. That's a fact. Don't believe me? Call the counseling department and ask. Don't want to believe me, that's on you. But that's why Hackley was meeting with faculty and staff explaining to them what they could and could not do.
In athletics, he went through how many ADs? How many people were still getting paychecks after we fired them? Why did Hayes, Small, and Todd all state the athletics budget didn't increase a dime for six years under him?
I understand he was looking for what he felt were the right people to run things. I understand he didn't want "the tail wagging the dog" when it came to funding athletics. But it didn't work out at all.
It makes about as much sense to demonize the man as it does to put him on some pedestal. The truth of the matter is he was doing what he thought was best and it didn't work out. Doesn't make him a saint or a devil. It makes him human.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Nov 8, 2012 9:18:13 GMT -5
His name being taken off of the building had nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with his job performance. It was a personal venvetta from some on the board of trustees and the board of governors, and other higher ups. Believe it or not, he could care less about his name being on the building. Renick continues to have a great relationship with Fort and Martin. The man loves A&T just as much as we do.
|
|
|
Post by Bornthrilla on Nov 8, 2012 9:30:12 GMT -5
We all know the Wicked Witch of East Market Street was behind the name removal.
She has proven herself to be a vindictive and petty person.
|
|
|
Post by Trueaggie on Nov 8, 2012 9:38:55 GMT -5
I really find it hard to believe one person could have had his name removed with no justification. I don't buy it; I hear every thing said about how personable he was though.
|
|
|
Post by aggiebred09 on Nov 8, 2012 9:50:30 GMT -5
There are very few ways for HBCUs to increase enrollment without having to pay more students to come. I think we did the right thing at the right time. We saw an opportunity to increase our campus footprint in a short span of time and we capitalized, but failed to properly plan for the influx. I think we failed in providing adequate first year programs for first generation college students. That has since been taken care of although im not sure how our first year retention rates are currently.
|
|
|
Post by aggie2ru on Nov 8, 2012 10:32:59 GMT -5
There are very few ways for HBCUs to increase enrollment without having to pay more students to come. I think we did the right thing at the right time. We saw an opportunity to increase our footprint and capitalized, but failed to properly plan. I think where we failed was in first year programs for freshmen students. That has sense been taken care of although im not sure how our first year retention rates are currently. A lot of people don't know this but......Shortly after "Red" pulled up on da yard he made it plain and simple that this was just a "stop" for him.....he was here for 5yrs. In otherwords, he specifically said, "I'm 5 and done". With that in mind, I watched him with a concerned eye (s). I knew this was just another career move for him. Unlike Fort who showed his TRUE LOVE for A&T by staying in a teaching role even after he stepped down. In fact, I understand Fort is still a viable member of the university and community. Renick was able to polish his resume' and it gave him an opportunity to be a chancellor at a HBCU at the same time so he could move on. We all know about him landing in DC next. I was just kidding about his name being put on the Education Bldg. We see what happened with that idea ;D. I'm not denying that "Red" did do some good things but I think a lot of people are blinded by the glitz and glimmer his regime brought to da yard along with the money that automatically became available at his disposable. I think some have said that "Red" admitted to making mistakes during his time at "T". Let me ask, what was he suppose to say? It is the truth. Some of his decisions are still having a negative effect on our progress as an university as a whole. It's nuthin wrong with coming back and shooting the bo bo with folks. It's nuthin wrong with telling folks you are still an Aggie. They don't get down at Central State (his school) like they do at A&T.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Nov 8, 2012 10:33:28 GMT -5
Trueaggie you might not believe it but things happen during that time that probably were hard to believe. Like I said before, Renick does not care about his name being taken off but it did piss him off the way it went down (a lot of under-handed stuff). Aggie2ru, his plan was to stay 10 years, he stayed 7. Like I have said, people don't know what really went down with the whole situation, they can only speculate.
|
|
|
Post by aggiedog on Nov 8, 2012 11:32:14 GMT -5
I have been reading all of the comment about Renick's failures here at A&T and I have to agree that he had alot of bs with his plans for A&T. I don't believe he had total institutional control nor did he have a good agenda to move the school forward. The one area that really concerns me is what happen with the big $100 million capitol campaign that took place during his watch. I don't remember us meeting the goals or having any money for scholarships or the athletics when the campaign ended. David Hoard headed up this campaign and I don't trust him any more than Reinck .
|
|