Talk:Texas A&M University

Recent Administrative Reorganization/History

In 2021, President Banks released the plan for the reorganization The Path Forward. It lists that the new Texas A&M University College of Arts and Sciences would be formed and fully operational by September 1st, 2022 from the previous College of Liberal Arts, College of Geosciences, and the College of Science. I hope this can be listed on the article somewhere. I created a list of the current colleges/schools of the University. It’s adapted from one that was on the page until a little over a year ago.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquabluetesla (talk • contribs) 17:42, June 3, 2023 (UTC)

References

Recent issues

Are the recent issues involving hiring and the president's resignation of long-term notability? If so, then someone please write a short paragraph about all this. 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F43C:597E:C305:125C (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us. This definitely belongs in the article and I've added a few sentences. ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement from the university president about Qatar

Added statement of TAMU's President regarding inaccuracies and misconceptions of university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.186.86.140 (talk • contribs) 06:13, May 27, 2024 (UTC)

No, you began an edit war to readd a vague sentence that said that the president made a statement. Specifically, you readded this sentence:

On 7 January 2024, Mark A. Welsh III, President of TAMU, addressed inaccuracies and misconceptions circulating on various websites and social media platforms regarding the University and its branch campus in Qatar and shared accurate information.

Setting aside the minor issues such as the date format that's inconsistent with the rest of the article and the unnecessary middle initial in the person's name, the larger issues are (a) your edit warring to add this statement, (b) the vagueness of the statement, and (c) the fact that the sentence is just unnecessary. All of those issues need to be addressed, not ignored. ElKevbo (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Reversions by ElKevbo

@ElKevbo:, you asked to discuss the changes here, so here I am. The changes made were to summarize and accurately reflect what the sources say and, by extension, what actually happened.

Point by point:

1. There is too much detail here. Paragraphs above in the history section span decades in just a few sentences. This was a whole paragraph dedicated to a two issues spanning just 2 years.
2. She didn't "suddenly resign", it was abrupt. But if that's the quibble, fine. Keep "suddenly".
3. The resignation of the interim dean of the College of Arts & Sciences is immaterial. No significance is ever specified and is unnecessary/relatively meaningless detail
4. Banks most definitely attempted to hire McElroy via unauthorized means. She made one offer, rescinded it, and then made another offer with significantly changed terms and using a forged signature of a dean who did not authorize it.
5. Banks most definitely attempted to cover it up by deleting text messages (despite Texas public records requirements).
6. Whether she attempted to hire McElroy "to revive the university's journalism program" is a little bit immaterial to the matter or is, at the least, unnecessary detail.
7. "The initial job offer, which included a multiyear offer and tenure...terminated at any time." Again, too much detail.
8. "Her potential hiring was heavily criticized by conservative groups and alumni, as the offer was made to a black woman who had previously worked at The New York Times and studied how to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in newsrooms"

   This is probably my biggest disagreement. Conservatives did not oppose her because she was black. They did not oppose her because she was female. To insinuate that any/all conservative opposition is racist and sexist without any evidence is a violation of WP:BLP...moreover, there is nothing to show that sex was a factor at all. Literally no sources mention it at all, yet it is thrown in. Yes, some people CLAIMED that race was the reason, but it wasn't accompanied by any proof, ergo, it is a baseless accusation that should not be repeated here and certainly not in wikivoice.

   Conservative criticism was geared squarely at what she was doing, not her race or sex:

   "Those perspectives are consistent with Texas conservatives’ recent attempts to counteract what they view as a liberal agenda within Texas’ public universities"

   McElroy has no problem tipping the news in a liberally biased manner; she openly states that she can choose not to report anything she decides is "illegitimate" and that everything need to be told with the understanding that the US was built on and remains systemically racist: "We can’t just give people a set of facts anymore. I think we know that and we have to tell our students that. This is not about getting two sides of a story or three sides of a story, if one side is illegitimate. I think now you cannot cover education, you cannot cover criminal justice, you can’t cover all of these institutions without recognizing how all these institutions were built."

   She didn't just study DEI, she openly advocated it in schools and academia. She is part of the Council for Racial and Ethnic Equity and Diversity (CREED) and organization that advocates for equity-based hiring practices and distributes anti-racism “resources.”

9. Removed "Shortly thereafter, the university paid McElroy $1 million to settle her legal claims." Again, this is too much detail. Moreover, this inaccurately draws a direct line of causality from Banks's actions and the payment to McElroy. Neither side admitted any fault and neither side is talking about it. Accordingly, it's definitely too much detail. I wouldn't be opposed to say that the dispute was settled out of court for $1M, just not the current phrasing if we can better work it into a sentence.

The point of all of this is that this whole section is way too detailed and focuses too much on WP:RECENTISM.

All that said, I'm rereverting the part about conservatives because it misstates their position and is a violation of WP:BLP. We can work on the rest. Buffs (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)