Shock. That was my response when a mid-February email from a former Baylor regent arrived with the news that well-known special prosecutor Kenneth Starr had been tapped as the next president of the university in Waco, Texas.
Reading it a second time, it still appeared to say that this polarizing political figure — the independent counsel who relentlessly dug into President Bill Clinton's relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky — would be leading the world's largest Baptist University in need of reconciliation between various factions.
As the news spread over the next couple of days, several calls and emails came asking what I would be saying about this matter — and when. But there seemed to be plenty of public comments from high praise to strong condemnation — all coming from moderate Baptist leaders who typically share opinions.
On one hand Starr was described as a brilliant and effective leader, currently holding the deanship of Pepperdine University Law School in California. On the other hand, his selection was lambasted as a move that would further divide Baylor or, worse, take the university down the road to far-right conservatism.
There was nothing really for me to add. And, while I have visited Baylor several times and count many friends among the alumni, faculty, staff and supporters, my relationship to the university is not as an insider.
For Texas Baptists, being an insider seems quite important. In that regard, Starr is half-credentialed: a native Texan but not a Baptist. However, he quickly assured all Baylorites that he would have his name on a Baptist church roll by the time he takes the helm on June 1.
So why speak now?
Well, I caught Starr on MSNBC last night speaking out against the efforts by Liz Cheney and others to paint current Department of Justice lawyers as terrorist sympathizers — even dubbing some as the "al-Qaeda 7." The charge is based on the attorneys' earlier representation of terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay.
Starr was animated and passionate in arguing that legal representation for all persons is essential to the American justice system. He pointed to John Adams' unpopular decision to represent British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre — ensuring that the process worked fairly for all.
He condemned the recent depiction of Justice Department lawyers as terrorist sympathizers as "out-of-bounds characterizations."
While host Lawrence O'Donnell commented on the beautiful Malibu backdrop, neither he nor Starr made any reference to the upcoming move to Waco. But I couldn't help but wonder if Starr's appearance was a way of seeking to soften his image before the broad and conflicted Baylor nation.
Was this just a coincidence — or a public effort to show a side other than the one that made him well known?
I don't know. But come June 1, there will be a lot of people waiting and listening to see what kind of president will lead Baylor into the future.
11 comments:
I really cannot understand the move by Baylor. Ken Starr is a name, but a polarizing one. If Baylor wanted a name for their president, could they have not found some one to unify Baylor?
And, what about his qualifications to be a University President. I know that Baylor turned away Tom Corts in the 1990's. (As a Samford University alum, all I have to say is 'thank you'). Corts was a University President before his 23 year tenure at Samford. His ability to raise funds and unify the Samford Campus was extraordinary.
Did they not look to other Baptist university presidents who might be qualified and interested at leading the largest Baptist university in the country.
In Baptist life, Baylor occupies a unique niche, being the only university that offers PhD programs. And, it is the only one that possesses the resources to one day become a Duke or Notre Dame. I understand that to have been the thrust of their 2012 campaign - to move into the ranks of the top private universities in the country.
So why Starr? Why now?
I cannot understand this move at a point when a Baptist university is trying to become a top-tier university. I think that Baylor faculty, alumni and students deserve an answer. Too, I believe that the larger Baptist world, looking to Baylor to move into a top-tier status, is entitled to an explanation as well.
It was shocking to read the press release from Baylor on the very day that Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=123653000&m=123772143) interviewed Ken Gormley about his new book (The Death of American Virtue
Clinton vs. Starr) on Ken Starr's investigation into the Clinton's real estate ventures gone bad. His book details Starr's investigation going way off the real estate dealings into an investigation into Bill Clinton's private sexual exploits. His interview is not kind to Ken Starr nor is his book. I heard this minutes before reading the press release. Unbelievable!
Greg Walton, Cornelia, Georgia
JP:
Of the several things that have been said about Starr and Baylor, Waco Trib editor Sanchez piece on Starr and Ken Gormley, author of the some say definitive work on the Clinton Impeachment ordeal--I think the title is Death of American Virtue; Sanchez piece looks at Starr through Gormley's lens and gives him a pass.
Baylor folks from Aaron Weaver to Barry Hankins and others say they can live with the Presidential Search selectee.
As you know Randall Fields has spoken strongly against Starr; Fields, former Baylor alum prez and son of Baptist Press's Wilmer C. Fields.
And Starr was interviewed by Stephanopolous on ABC the morning of the Baylor announcement, and George congratulated him and wished him well.
Maybe that is all that can be done.
As for Samford, Corts and Baylor and Marsh's thoughts, I agree Corts was a grand fellow; not only a gift to Samford for his time but to the State of Alabama.
Would've been grand if he coulda stayed with us, ran against Richard Shelby and unseated him. Alabama and America would be a better place if the gods had smiled in that fashion.
That said, Timothy George is part of the Corts record at Samford, and I still can't understand it. Samford has found a way to make cake out of that recipe and maybe Baylor can do the same with Starr.
Would be helluva seminar to have Karl Rove on panel with Charles Marsh and Robert Parham next fall as part of the roll out. Maybe Starr has the connections to pull it off.
As long as Baylor continues to have events like the stellar Baptist Contribution last fall, I think they will be okay.
One other thought.
Erksine College, ARP, is going through a crisis now fundamentalists tried to bring to Furman, Mercer and the like in the early 90's.
Would be interesting to hear how Timothy George and Ken Starr were to advise that administration were they asked.
Here's a link that goes into the heart of their ongoing predicament.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/01/erskine
Ironically enough, in a lecture that would fit the Starr for Baylor announcement, yesterday, two days after the Erskine story broke front page headlines across the state of SC, Yale's Jon Butler was on Erskine Campus to address "Surprises in American Religiion."
Count that as my final suggestion for the Baylor Rollout.
Fox,
If Baylor turned away Corts because of Timothy George, then good for Baylor and good for Samford. Beeson Divinity School is the first Divinity School housed on the campus of a historically Baptist University. Under George's leadership Beeson has thrived.
Though I do not embrace Reformation Theology, I feel privileged to have prepared for ministry at Beeson, in an environment where both conservatives and moderates, Calvinists and Arminians, and students of various theological traditions could gather and learn from one another. A few Baptist professors swam in CBF circles and a few in SBC circles. It actually has prepared me for the ministry context in which I currently serve.
Too, Samford received specific instructions as to the vision of Beeson Divinity School from its donor. I could not imagine Beeson having the kind of success under anyone else's leadership, regardless of his theology and his position on the conservative-moderate spectrum.
I am thankful that Corts remained at Samford and I celebrate his decision to bring Timothy George to Beeson. If that kept him from going to Baylor, then good.
You see what it has gotten Baylor.
By the way, another Baylor decision landed Samford its Provost, Brad Creed.
Baylor - the gift that continues to give to Samford.
Of course I should add that we lost Ralph Wood to Baylor...
Tim:
I did not imply best I read what I said, that George was the hangup in Baylor's decision on Corts.
I don't think that and I did not say that. That came from your own imagination reading my comment.
I always heard some female Baylor trustee after Corts was already in Waco, was disgruntled because Corts was not a "Texas" Baptist.
I don't know that to be the case and that was not the substance of my post and I don't care to pursue it other than to say it was a bad day for Baylor.
I agree with you Samford benefitted enormously from Baylor's mistake.
Tony Cartledge has written about Billy Graham "insinuating" himself into Baptist politics at the worst possible moments.
In my opinion George has a similar track record.
How he can be seen to favor the CR and the BFM 2000 and have Anne Graham Lotz Preach on Campus befuddles me; as how he can stay in good graces of the SBC leadership and endorse the BWA.
Quite a wizard, I guess.
Tom Corts was a great man.
Beeson is an interesting Set up.
I wish you well.
Do explore Marilynne Robinson on John Calvin. I don't speak for him but I think Samford's Rod Davis would wish the same for you.
By all means every Beeson grad should be well versed in Pulitzer Robinson's take on Calvin.
Yours for the Journey,
SFox
Fox,
Whether you implied that Baylor did not hire Tom Corts because of Timothy George or not, this was not the first place that I have heard that. Several close sources have made that comment.
I will take you up on reading Robinson, though.
However, to the original point, does this move help Baylor? Too, they seem to have a history of making some curious moves at crucial points in its history. Hiring Ken Starr seems to be one of them. I hope I am proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.
I, too, saw the interview conducted by O’Donnell (a republican hater without peer), who, I suspect, was disappointed at Starr’s answer regarding the responsibilities of lawyers to take the cases and do their best. Starr is probably a good fit for Baylor, like every institute of higher learning replete with egos big enough to sink the polar ice cap and tongues that are often in gear before the clutch is released on the brain, if any.
The matter of faith/doctrine/theology is moot. Pepperdine is strict (if any “religious” school is actually strict, including Baylor) Church of Christ to the extent that musical instruments are not allowed in worship. He’ll have no trouble finding a Baptist church to his liking because he’s most likely among the freest of thinkers. His intellect is unquestioned and the fact that he belabored the Clintons mightily is a point in his favor…just doing what any lawyer should do, in the case of the Clintons exposing them for just what they were.
I don't think O'Donnell was surprised by Starr's perspective one bit since it had already been expressed in print along with other conservatives who are very critical of Liz Cheney's attack.
Yea, it's hard to argue that O'Donnell was "disappointed at Starr's answer" since the letter signed by Starr was the reason he was invited to Countdown...
Tim,
Tim,
I think an easy answer here is that the Regents selected Starr because they believe Starr can do much to help Baylor become that top-tier university. Starr's accomplishments at Pepperdine at least demonstrate his ability to move a school up in the rankings - rankings, after all, are important to attainting that Tier 1 status as a private university.
What Baptist university presidents did you have in mind as possible candidates for the spot here at Baylor? In light of the fact that most Baptist institutions do not have developed graduate programs, many would argue that most Baptist school presidents don't have the experience necessary to oversee a large private research university in the Big 12.
The only Baptist university president rumored to have been seriously considered would have been an absolute disaster and would have sparked even greater outrage from moderate/progressive Baptists.
In just the last few years, two administrators from Baylor (Bill Underwood, Interim President and Dean of Baylor Law School, and Randall O'Brien, Provost under President Lilley) have left to serve as presidents of Mercer and Carson-Newman. Underwood has been quite positive about the selection of Starr. Given the comments by Underwood and the glowing endorsement from Baylor Law prof Mark Osler, it sure seems that those from the law school world know a different Ken Starr than the Ken Starr the average person knows via the media. You know, we would not be discussing Ken Starr and Baylor University had the Regents picked a good freedom-loving Baptist like Bill Underwood instead of a Presbyterian elder last go around. Oh well.
Big Daddy Weave,
Let's hope that Starr's leadership can move Baylor to that status. I am not saying that he cannot. My concern is that he is a polarizing figure. Robert Sloan was a polarizing figure.
If Starr is successful, then great! I have no problem with that. However, it is a curious decision...
Post a Comment