General Discussion

"Under" only because he made the brash (what other kind is there for him?) move of removing the board members. Name me another president who has done that.

No president has ever done so.

He dismissed half the trustees and then had the ones who he appointed vote him chair. He named one of his buddies as executive director. After that he proposed $250 million for capital renovations and improvements. I'm sure I don't have to point out to you what he's doing here. The only art here is the art of the "deal."

At some point this arrangement will be investigated and I'm not so sure he'll come out on top. In the meantime, I see no reason to give him credit for his bullying, egregious assumption of power, and nefarious dealings. The term "under" is wholly offensive and should be avoided not only out of sensitivity, but out of respect for the American system of checks and balances which will kick into play when he takes his first kickback.

People wise to his game are waiting and watching. In the meantime, I won't give him any credit he doesn't deserve.