ABC 7 Amarillo NEWS:
Days before the start of the legislative session, Texas A&M University administrators were already bracing for a hit to their budget.
"The rumor is the [lieutenant] governor will cut everyone's institutional enhancement money to try to get higher ed's attention," Julie Kopycinski, a top
government relations staffer, wrote to her boss Texas A&M President Mark Welsh.
"What part of our 'attention' is he trying to get,"
Welsh responded, according to an email exchange obtained in an open records request.
"That we have collectively lost our core mission and are still too [DEI] and leftist focused," Kopycinski responded.
Nine days later, Kopycinski's warning proved true.
The House and the Senate unveiled their state budget proposals, with both versions eliminating the institutional enhancement fund, a line item dedicated to higher education that provided $423 million to Texas universities in the last budget
cycle.
If passed, Texas A&M University would be shorted $52 million for the next two-year budget period….the article continues.

In only 20 years, how has the nation's most conservative large university, become the most DEI and Leftist university in Texas? Who is driving this change?

Heads should roll over this.

If this has to do with being left or right, the sips should be getting $0.

Yes, Dan Patrick needs the guillotine

Aggieland12thMan said:

---

ABC 7 Amarillo NEWS:
Days before the start of the legislative session, Texas A&M University administrators were already bracing for a hit to their budget.
"The rumor is the [lieutenant] governor will cut everyone's institutional enhancement money to try to get higher ed's attention," Julie Kopycinski, a top
government relations staffer, wrote to her boss Texas A&M President Mark Welsh.
"What part of our 'attention' is he trying to get,"
Welsh responded, according to an email exchange obtained in an open records request.
"That we have collectively lost our core mission and are still too [DEI] and leftist focused," Kopycinski responded.
Nine days later, Kopycinski's warning proved true.
The House and the Senate unveiled their state budget proposals, with both versions eliminating the institutional enhancement fund, a line item dedicated to higher education that provided $423 million to Texas universities in the last budget
cycle.
If passed, Texas A&M University would be shorted $52 million for the next two-year budget period….the article continues.

In only 20 years, how has the nation's most conservative large university, become the most DEI and Leftist university in Texas? Who is driving this change?

---

A&M is not "leftist". A&M was the public university that needed the most work to have its student body more closely match the state it serves. And that's been a fantastic thing for A&M and the state.

In no world is A&M the most leftist school in Texas

AggieFrog said:

---

Aggieland12thMan said:

---

ABC 7 Amarillo NEWS:
Days before the start of the legislative session, Texas A&M University administrators were already bracing for a hit to their budget.
"The rumor is the [lieutenant] governor will cut everyone's institutional enhancement money to try to get higher ed's attention," Julie Kopycinski, a top
government relations staffer, wrote to her boss Texas A&M President Mark Welsh.
"What part of our 'attention' is he trying to get,"
Welsh responded, according to an email exchange obtained in an open records request.
"That we have collectively lost our core mission and are still too [DEI] and leftist focused," Kopycinski responded.
Nine days later, Kopycinski's warning proved true.
The House and the Senate unveiled their state budget proposals, with both versions eliminating the institutional enhancement fund, a line item dedicated to higher education that provided $423 million to Texas universities in the last budget
cycle.
If passed, Texas A&M University would be shorted $52 million for the next two-year budget period….the article continues.

In only 20 years, how has the nation's most conservative large university, become the most DEI and Leftist university in Texas? Who is driving this change?

---

A&M is not "leftist". A&M was the public university that needed the most work to have its student body more closely match the state it serves. And that's been a fantastic thing for A&M and the state.

---

Does that mean that Prairieview A&M and other HBU's need to do more work to make their student body look more representative of the state? Universities need to be meritocracies, not DEI hotbeds. Don't discriminate for any any color or class of people outside of maybe giving Texas residents priority over out of state/out of country applicants.

Yall keep voting for these idiots. Welcome to FAFO. I'm curious how much research money A&M has lost due to Elon/Doge and their cuts to NIH, USAID, NSF.

ol'Porkbelly said:

---

Yall keep voting for these idiots. Welcome to FAFO. I'm curious how much research money A&M has lost due to Elon/Doge and their cuts to NIH, USAID, NSF.

---

I voted for this. I'm fine with the cuts. They need to look at professional schools next. Stop the DEI admissions.

The academic side is trying to become as sorry as the athletic side. Welsh is a joke. He should start a DEI campaign by resigning. Old, fat, white, liberals like him do not mean their position should change, just yours.

GOOD. If accurate then deserved.

AggieFrog said:

---

Aggieland12thMan said:

---

ABC 7 Amarillo NEWS:
Days before the start of the legislative session, Texas A&M University administrators were already bracing for a hit to their budget.
"The rumor is the [lieutenant] governor will cut everyone's institutional enhancement money to try to get higher ed's attention," Julie Kopycinski, a top
government relations staffer, wrote to her boss Texas A&M President Mark Welsh.
"What part of our 'attention' is he trying to get,"
Welsh responded, according to an email exchange obtained in an open records request.
"That we have collectively lost our core mission and are still too [DEI] and leftist focused," Kopycinski responded.
Nine days later, Kopycinski's warning proved true.
The House and the Senate unveiled their state budget proposals, with both versions eliminating the institutional enhancement fund, a line item dedicated to higher education that provided $423 million to Texas universities in the last budget
cycle.
If passed, Texas A&M University would be shorted $52 million for the next two-year budget period….the article continues.

In only 20 years, how has the nation's most conservative large university, become the most DEI and Leftist university in Texas? Who is driving this change?

---

A&M is not "leftist". A&M was the public university that needed the most work to have its student body more closely match the state it serves. And that's been a fantastic thing for A&M and the state.

---

Based on what? And if the state has some legitimate reason to put its thumb on the scale for higher education, why should it be the same at every institution? How is the state benefited by having better qualified applicants getting less favorable treatment, and thus have to go to lesser institutions or even out of state?

We don't want our best talent to have the best education and stay in state? That's not what would benefit the state the most?

And, as far as the "inclusion" aspect of DEI, A&M's own studies have shown than racial minorities feel less a part of A&M since these initiatives have become prevalent. It's having the exact opposite effect its proponents claim to desire.

AggieFrog said:

---

Quote:

---

Agree completely. But also don't only market to just the rich, suburban high schools (that are already well aware of A&M) and target high-quality applicants in areas that historically never considered A&M. Give us the most qualified candidates. That's what we did and it's harder to get into A&M now than it ever has been (have twin sons that just went through that process this year).

---

---

A&M doesn't market to anyone. My oldest is a highschool senior this year and the attitude we've gotten from A&M is "we have 80,000 applicants and only take 9,000 freshmen, so take a number and we'll help if we can". In any of the interactions we've had with A&M, they act like they don't care if a student comes or not because there are 10 more ready to take their place if they go elsewhere.

The other schools we've toured and spoken with put waaaaay more effort into marketing/recruiting. Letters, emails, calls etc.

Getting back to the subject at hand, if kids in more poor, urban districts want to attend A&M they can apply and go through an equal process like everyone else. As long as they aren't discriminated against they shouldn't have any better odds of getting in than my average, middle class, white son who went through public education here in Texas along with all the other kids of all races and creeds. The effort or lack thereof put in by these kids while in their high school years should be judged without a race, economic or gender lens being applied. Discrimination is discrimination. I was raised not to discriminate and I've raised my children the same. If we want society to treat everyone equally we can't punish current and future innocent people to make up for the past that haven't had any part of past wrongdoings.

ol'Porkbelly said:

---

Yall keep voting for these idiots. Welcome to FAFO. I'm curious how much research money A&M has lost due to Elon/Doge and their cuts to NIH, USAID, NSF.

---

If you don't think academia is rife with waste and inefficiency, I don't know what to tell you and I'm not sure what era you could have possibly gone to school where you would think that. Certainly must have been a long, long time ago.

Having DEI is dumb.

Having to need something like DEI is worse.

AggieFrog said:

---

Quote:

---

We don't want our best talent to have the best education and stay in state? That's not what would benefit the state the most?

---

We do, absolutely. And we have, which is why A&M is substantially harder to get into today than it was 30 years ago when I applied. It's also substantially more diverse than it was 30 years ago. Both are very good things for A&M and the state.

---

You didn't answer the question, and you know that being harder to get into (if you're not top 10%, that is) has nothing to do with DEI. It's actually the opposite, which I'm sure you also know.

Welsh has to go. He was a marginal candidate from day one, and now the leftist ******* is costing the school millions. He's like our own version of Tampon Tim.

ol'Porkbelly said:

---

Welsh isn't the problem. It's the politicians meddling where they shouldn't.

---

I'm pretty good with politicians telling universities to not be racist and end DEI. Politicians are supposed to be stewards of our money and universities can take the rules with the money like the rest of us.

ol'Porkbelly said:

---

Welsh isn't the problem. It's the politicians meddling where they shouldn't.

---

I agree with the politician. Reduce our school to ashes if there's a hint of DEI or leftist indoctrination.

Should go for every public university.

AggieFrog said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

Quote:

---

We don't want our best talent to have the best education and stay in state? That's not what would benefit the state the most?

---

We do, absolutely. And we have, which is why A&M is substantially harder to get into today than it was 30 years ago when I applied. It's also substantially more diverse than it was 30 years ago. Both are very good things for A&M and the state.

---

You didn't answer the question, and you know that being harder to get into (if you're not top 10%, that is) has nothing to do with DEI.

---

But it does. We increased our outreach to areas previously underrepresented. We didn't change admission requirements but we absolutely increased the population receptive to applying to A&M. And top 10% does not do much to help get into Engineering (no guaranteed admissions there).

---

The population of TX increased dramatically without a corresponding increase in the quality of education, or perception thereof, for the non-flagship institutions, which is what has made admission to A&M harder, along with other non-DEI factors.

And you still didn't answer the question. At this point I'll assume there won't be one other than your own begging the question: it's good, and something the state should do, because it's good and something the state should do.

$18.13 billion (FY2023)

A&M could lose 50 million in funding. OMG!!!! Is A&M to liberal

F16 never disappoints

ol'Porkbelly said:

---

Yall keep voting for these idiots. Welcome to FAFO. I'm curious how much research money A&M has lost due to Elon/Doge and their cuts to NIH, USAID, NSF.

---

This is where you put on your US citizen hat and give that a higher weighting than your selfish wants and desires for A&M. If A&M is getting funding indirectly from my pocket that is being wasted on stupid ****, then it needs to stop.

Protecting fiefdoms inside the larger US kingdom to the detriment of everyone else is why we are $36T in debt.

FlyRod said:

---

What specifically is the DEI in question here? The last legislative session banned it. I saw nothing specific in the OP, so what is the issue? Did some student complain about having a female prof? Did an Old Ag visit campus and glimpse someone who wasn't white?

---

So you think females are underrepresented in higher ed? It's actually the exact opposite by the statistics.

I once had a very liberal Hispanic history professor tell me that in his time at A&M, mid to late 60s, it was the only true meritocracy he'd experienced in his life. The old Ags know more about meritocracy than the current generation does.

And, man, the irony of the stereotyping in your post is pretty thick, right?

FlyRod said:

---

What specifically is the DEI in question here? The last legislative session banned it. I saw nothing specific in the OP, so what is the issue? Did some student complain about having a female prof? Did an Old Ag visit campus and glimpse someone who wasn't white?

---

From previous information shared on here, it seems to be well known that A&M simply obfuscated DEI practices with new names and simply moving people around. Corporate America is doing the same in many cases so it shouldn't be a surprise that an academic institution which will have a much larger percentage of left wingers compared to overall society would do the same.