Talk:University of Texas at Austin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article University of Texas at Austin was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 17, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
March 18, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
April 24, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Delisting GA[edit]

There are several problems with this article which don't satisfy good article criteria.

  • First, under "Student organizations" - take out external links.
Yes check.svg Done --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Citations needed in Varsity Sports, Student Media, Campus, History.
  • Prose: With strong academic programs in the sciences, arts, media, business, law, engineering, and public policy, as well as a successful athletics program, The University of Texas has seen many now notable persons pass through its halls. - doesn't make sense
  • Citations: Many of the citations aren't according to CITE. Some are dead.

Please fix these problems, and re-submit for GAR. miranda 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

History[edit]

This is not my page, and I guess I am sort of biased against t.u. being that i am an Aggie. But the sniper incidents seems like a very big deal. Reading though your archives I found this and this.

Maybe y'all did a little too much trimming because I can't find the word sniper in the whole article, and I just added a link to Charles Whitman on the only place where it is mentioned. Shouldn't something like that be mentioned in the history section. To add on that point, shouldn't receiving of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum be mentioned in the history section page also.

Thanks and Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rankings[edit]

The rankings section looks a lot cleaner than it used to, however I've noticed that the chart of graduate school rankings doesn't have a source cited, and should also probably have some kind of caption to help it fit into the section (as it is now the chart seems completely out of place) and also explaining where the numbers come from. The graduate school rankings I found from a different citation on this page don't match up to these at all.

In addition, I think it would be worth making the Department/School the official name at UT (i.e., change Science to Natural Sciences), not the category defined by the individuals who created the rankings.khalfani_khaldun (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm working on the section in one of my sandboxes and will make some significant changes soon. Best --

Yes, the rankings are cleaner, but it has been slightly outdated and inconsistent. For example, between the main ranking page and the UT Austin page, one US News Report ranking uses the 08 version and one uses the 09 version where the ranks are 44 and 47. Another example is that one page uses the 07 and one uses the 08 version where one is around 50 and one is around 70. In other words, I think this could be cleaned up a little. Oh yeah, we should probably delete that 04 THES rank because THES is consistently flawed (even the improved 08 version is flawed)and the older the version, the more flawed it is (in US NR, that might not be the case, but THES is a HUGE work in progress).Whsie (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Name[edit]

There is a major problem with the naming. The official name of UT-Austin is "The University of Texas at Austin", not "University of Texas at Austin". All graduate dissertations and masters degrees are required to use that name and won't be accepted is they use the more colloquial "University of Texas at Austin". This mistake permeates the article. Think of it as having the same status as a "legal name." Correcting it would require both thought and skill to clean up the links, probably requiring "University of Texas at Austin" to automatically link to "The University of Texas at Austin."

Eustress (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine to use "The University of Texas at Austin" within the article. However, the article should remain where it is now. Ohio State University has had a similar discussion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a naming convention about this already? I agree that the article and all links to the article should be The University of Texas at Austin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NThomas76207 (talkcontribs) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your lead question. There was a discussion awhile back about University of Texas redirecting here. However, I don't remember one about the topic at hand. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"University of Texas at Austin" should redirect to "The University of Texas at Austin". Using the example of Ohio State above is a weak argument because another mistake isn't proper justification for making second mistake. They're both wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdlkfadslkdsf (talkcontribs) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of right vs. wrong/mistake. The OSU redirect came as the result of consensus. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, wikipedia is not required to use to the official name of "The University of Texas at Austin". Its mostly whatever the wikipedia community wants. NThomas76207 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, wikipedia is not required to use to the official name" is a lame excuse. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to be as accurate as possible than the title should be changed to “The University of Texas”. Seems to me that this is more of a case of people that did not attend UT acting out. It needs to be changed.Mickey 23:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talkcontribs)

Administration[edit]

Steve Leslie is the provost of UT. This should be added underneath president.

Why? If there is some rationale behind your response, please add it. If there isn't and you think it should be there, go ahead and add it anyway. This encyclopedia is open to anyone. If there is a problem with the information, someone will fix it or change it. Please make sure you add a source for that information. — BQZip01 — talk 23:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just added it. I thought it was relevant since most university pages list the president and the provost. --AndrewSolomon (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits[edit]

I've gone ahead and made several revisions/additions to the article similar to university featured articles.

The history section didn't have anything about the proposed Brackenridge Tract move (which at the time was a very important issue and the information flows into the info about the west Texas oil for UT), Charles Whitman shootings (excluding this would be the same as excluding the shootings at Virgina Tech or Columbine), opening of the LBJ presidential library (1st on a college campus & most visited presidential library) and the recent construction boom (the Blanton is a tourist draw just like Ransom Center or the LBJ library & DKR-TMS's expansion is a new largest just like Jester Center earlier in the Recent history section).

Splitting the Media and Traditions sections had to be done. While there isn't a lot on either one yet, both of these sections have a lot of potential. If no one beats me to it (wouldn't be upset what so ever) when I have an outline for a separate traditions article, a longer summery will defiantly be added.

Any comments/revisions/additions would be appreciated. Thanks NThomas76207 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! --Eustress (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Friar Society[edit]

A page should be created about the Friar Society. It is referenced in the student organization section of this page. It is also recognized in the wikipedia list of Collegiate secret societies in North America. Most all of these societies have their own pages.

I would create it myself, but I am new to editing in Wikipedia, and all of my attempts have been deleted. If someone could help me, I would greatly appreciate it. --AndrewSolomon (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. How can we help? — BQZip01 — talk 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tejas Club Merger[edit]

I don't think that The Tejas Club should be merged with this page. It should have its own page. If you merge it, you open the door to every student organization at UT under consideration for merger rather than having their own distinct page.

The organization is significant enough to warrant its own page. It has been around since 1925, and its members have had a large effect on the UT student life (many student body presidents), the UT administration (see W. Page Keeton), and the world (see Rex Tillerson)-- just to name a few examples. It should have its own page, and it should not be nominated for deletion again. I'm sorry I missed the discussion on this, are there other suggestions?

For the record, I am not a member of the Tejas Club. --AndrewSolomon (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest re-nominating the article and arguing for keep, if that's what you'd like to do. It seems to me that the best argument for merge in the debate was actually a reasonable argument for keeping it. On the other hand, though this may open it up for other orgs to be included, if it got to be excessive (more than two or three prominent ones) I don't see why it couldn't then be split off into a separate List of Student Organizations at the University of Texas at Austin article. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Concur with both above. Please let me know if you decide to list it. — BQZip01 — talk 07:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


The merger looks terrible. If we merge the Tejas Club in than ever group should be added. I see no reason The Tejas Club cannot have its own page.

The merger does look pretty bad...--71.42.216.162 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be done for FA?[edit]

What needs to be done for this page to be a FA? According to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: I can only guess 2.C (consistent citations) is where we would fail.

What can be done besides rewriting the article? NThomas76207 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think writing style and citations are the main issues. But we should probably get the article back up to GA first. --Eustress (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I recommend trying to duplicate the format used on Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University. When we got TTU to FA we used TAMU as the primary template. It would make sense that UTs page would come together in a similar fashion. Also, TTU's page is the most recently 'blessed' university FA and the standards for approval probably get more stringent as time passes. So that might be the best example of the current bar. Once you guys get close I'll try to help where I can.--Elred (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content[edit]

There were no less than three non-free images being used in the infobox in this article - I have pared the usage down to one, in order to bring this article into better compliance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically #3 and #8. The secondary logo has no identifying use which is not served by the primary one, and the Longhorn logo was simply being used as an icon, which is also frowned upon by the Manual of Style. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(There were also no more than three non-free images in the infobox too: a.k.a. "three"). Couldn't disagree more and I have reverted accordingly. The longhorn logo is most associated with the university while the seal is the official seal of the University. Both have their place under fair use. By omitting the longhorn logo, you are removing the single most identifying logo associated with the University. By removing the seal, you are removing the sole official seal of the university. Harvard has the same logo for both, but other schools have more than one. Additionally, it is not an icon, it is a logo. The text image doesn't seem to need to be there, but I also think it doesn't hurt. This logo has been used a LOT recently in an advertising campaign. There are no fair use violations with this image. Minimal use for identification is appropriate and no criterion of WP:NFCC prohibits their use. — BQZip01 — talk 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with BQZip01. I wouldn't trouble yourselves with this one Horns. You've got backing from Aggies and Red Raiders.--Elred (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh oh...Isn't this part of the list? — BQZip01 — talk 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Ooops! Did I just put some sort of doomsday scenario in motion?  ;) --Elred (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that cinches it! This economy is going down the drain and now this...I am SO not paying my bills this month! I'm sure the courts will understand... — BQZip01 — talk 08:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Boosterism[edit]

User:Sampanning recently made some contributions re: honors programs at UTA that read as blatant advertising for the programs. I also caught some other fairly egregious instances of boosterism, weasel-words, and peacockery throughout the article. I remind all editors, even those affiliated with the university, that this is an encyclopedia that covers its topics with a neutral point of view. Remember to assert facts, not opinions and don't tell the reader what to think. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact[edit]

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The University of Texas System clearly states that The University of Texas at Austin is the flagship university for the system just as Texas A&M University is the flagship of the Texas A&M University System. References are in the respective university articles. NThomas (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I cant believe this had to be discussed. It is so obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.191.16 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Universities COTM Nomination[edit]

Hello University of Texas at Austin contributors. I just wanted to let you all know that this university has been nominated for next month's WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month. If you'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, be sure to vote for the university. While you're there, consider helping improve one of our current Collaborations of the Month.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject[edit]

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Land-Grant?[edit]

UT isn't a federal land-grant school, per the common usage referring (and linked to in the article) to the Morrill act. Land-grant should be removed or noted that it is a state, not federal, land-grant. -Kraft (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Architecture[edit]

The "Architecture" section of this article contains no citations and is full of original research. Moreover, it contains strong bias (e.g., "their utilitarian performance was necessary during times when the University experienced unprecedented growth" and "striking aesthetic appeal"). The section has been tagged since September 2009, so it is time to take action on this—either the section needs to be dramatically improved (rewritten) or deleted altogether. --Jr1038 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yale Patt picture[edit]

Would someone at UT mind getting a picture of Yale Patt for me? Raul654 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Prominent Alumni list[edit]

Having been to campus and Royal stadium, I would like to add Joe Jamail to the list. I was surprised to see that his name was not in the alumni section of the UT page on Wikipedia when you can actually find his bio on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Jamail He is the wealthiest lawyer in the country and is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, donor to the school. Is there a reason for this omission? Thanks! HB —Preceding unsigned comment added by HB1968 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cave murder and Tooley suicide references[edit]

I do agree with the edit made by Jk61 regarding this deletion of the Jennifer Cave/Colton Pitonyak murder story, which has no direct connection to UT Austin. Indeed, there have been other incidents involving UT students which have happened off-campus that are perhaps equally notable (e.g., the double murder of John Goosey and Stacy Barnett in 2009). Certainly these are tragic events, but they are not significant in the context of the history of the university itself. Thus, I propose deletion of this paragraph.

By contrast, the Colton Tooley suicide occurred on campus and resulted in a lockdown of the university. Since this incident was directly connected to UT, I suggest it remain briefly referenced in the "Recent History" section.

Jr1038 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to trimming these incidents to one sentence each. In the historical context of this institution these only merit that much mention in this article, if that. ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Longhorns" movie inclusion[edit]

A user is attempting to insert a synopsis of a minor film into the "Media" section. This doesn't really make any sense, since the rest of the section is about media which is produced at the University of Texas. This isn't a "UT in popular culture" section or other assortment of trivia, so I don't think it belongs. Other users have also pointed out that IMDB is not always a reliable reference for material such as this. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And the IMDB reference dose not refer to this university at all despite the editors protestations to the contrary. It just says it is in Texas. Three reverts from the logged in user + two others from an IP at Texas A&M University. IMDB synopsis is just another wiki and cannot be considered reliable. No response to requests to bring it here just insistence they are right. noq (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if the IMDB info is correct it does not establish the notability or importance of this movie. So that argument has to be made, too. ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield[edit]

Can someone add to the article the time she studied at the university, from which year to which year? Aditya(talkcontribs) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing brains?[edit]

There has been a recent news story about the university losing track of 100 brains. It might be appropriate to mention this, either in this article, or a subsidiary article. Here are some links:

This discusses the collection in general: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/a-lost-collection-of-abnormal-brains-finally-gets-a-history This is a link to the building where they were stored: https://www.utexas.edu/maps/main/buildings/arc.html

I'd be grateful for any help drafting a paragraph on this, and/or opinions on where (or if) it should be mentioned. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Official statements from the university:

Additional news stories:

Stranger and stranger. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not even news but ephemeral trivia that has no place in an encyclopedia unless it grows into something more than a bizarre curiosity. That's quite unlikely since the university has already announced that the article was mistaken. ElKevbo (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

January 30 Extensive Edits[edit]

Over the past three days, I have worked to update and expand the sections on the Establishment and Growth sections of the page. I fully anticipate this to draw objections from those with a close attachment to Texas A&M University, as much of it is inconsistent with the version of Texas history they have been lead to believe, including that Texas A&M was established prior to the University of Texas. I have no question most of those with emotional attachments to Texas A&M University had no understanding or knowledge the act that established the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas specifically referred to the establishment of the University of Texas some 13 years earlier. The initial objections to the edits I have made have been surrounding the control of the Permanent University Fund. Pursuant to the Constitution of 1876 the PUF was placed under the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents. The Agricultural and Mechanical College was in 1876, and technically remains today, constitutionally a branch of the university and not a legally separate entity. There was one public university in 1876, therefore the was one university fund. Any edits need to be supported with citations. If anyone believes the PUF is not under still the control of the University of Texas Board of Regents, there needs to be some citation supporting how control was supposedly transferred to the Texas A&M Board of Regents. ~~Randolph Duke~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talkcontribs) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Good edits overall. However some of the information appears to be better included in the wiki entries for the PUF or for the University of Texas System, rather than being included in the entry for the individual university. Some of the comments due not appear to have much significance or relevance to the University of Texas - Austin. Additionally, some additions appear to include original research which is not allowed by Wiki. For example, the claim was made that Texas A&M is still a branch of the University of Texas System is not supported by citation and also appears to be incorrect, based on the Texas Legislatures creation of the Texas A&M University System in 1948. Macae (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
With regards to control of the PUF, ownership is not the same as control, and therefore it would be improper to imply that the University of Texas - Austin OWNS the PUF. Article has been revised to remove this implication. Also, control of the PUF is by the regents of the University of Texas System, rather than by the University of Texas - Austin. Therefore, such mention is better suited for the PUF and UT System entries rather than the entry of a single school in the UT system. Macae (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


The agricultural and mechanical college was constituted as a branch of the university in the Constitution of 1876. As shown by the failed attempts to amend the constitution in 1915 and 1919, only a constitutional amendment can amend the constitution. Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution has never been amended. When the legislature created the Texas A&M System in 1948, it did not amend Article 7, Section 13 of the constitution because it was powerless to do so. The assertion that Texas A&M is still a branch of UT is a direct reading of the 1876 Constitution and not "original research." As an aside, I have confirmed with the State legislative Library that Article 7, Section13 of the Constitution of 1876 has never been amended. Stating the agricultural and mechanical college is a still branch of the university is material to this wiki entry as it is a quirk in Texas law that is not widely discussed and its inclusion here adds to the depth of the overall wiki entry. I have revered to the wording prior to your edits.

The PUF is owned by the people of the state of Texas, not by any one subdivision of the state. There was no wording in the prior version that asserted ownership of the PUF by the UT System. The PUF was created under Article 7, Section 11 of the 1876 Constitution and by law is under the direct and exclusive supervision of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System. The 1931 legislative act that granted the agricultural and mechanical college an interest in the UT endowment granted only an interest in the Available University Fund and not the Permanent University Fund. This was supported by the direct citation to the 1931 act in question. Any further discussion of the division of the PUF (such as the 1956 constitutional amendment affirming the legislature's 1931 division of the AUF) would be best included in the PUF wiki page, so I did not include it here. I have restored the wording prior to your edits. Randolph Duke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


First, it is redundant and unnecessary to mention the original statement regarding Texas A&M as such has already been stated previously in an earlier portion of an already lengthy article. Inclusion here provides little to no benefit. Second, the Constitution of Texas also lists the institutions of the University of Texas System which does NOT include Texas A&M. The Constitution also lists the institutions in the Texas A&M University System which includes Texas A&M. Therefore, the Constitution is conflicting and at odds with itself. I would suggest that the earlier mention of Texas A&M being a branch of the University of Texas is OK, but does not need to be repeated and that it also is important to make mention of the 1948 split and Constitutional removal of Texas A&M from the University of Texas System. Rather then engage in an edit war, I certainly would welcome input from other wiki editors as to this question... Macae (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


I see where you drew your objection to the inference there was an ownership interest in the PUF and I agree that was in error. I corrected the wording to clarify as you suggested. Apologies. Also, to expand on my earlier comments regarding the fact that Article 7, Section 13 of the 1876 Constitution has never been amended, it would be original research on your part to state the 1948 act that established the TAMU System in any way amended the Constitution to alter Article 7, Section 13. I have read the 1948 Act establishing the TAMU system and it doesn't mention anything about altering Article 7, Section 13 because the legislature has no unilateral power to amend the constitution. Article 7, Section 13 has never been amended. It is just one of those historical quirks that resources such as Wikipedia offer opportunities to discuss. Randolph Duke (talk)


Yes, it was the "onwership" term which I thought was problematic and welcome the change. Saying that the PUF is controlled by the University of Texas System regents seems to be a reasonable solution. However I believe that such information is more suitable for either the PUF wiki entry or the University of Texas System entry. The University of Texas - Austin has no more control over the PUF than does Texas A&M. The original research comment is based upon your assertion that A&M is still a branch is based upon your choosing to only mention that portion of the Texas Constitution while not including the other part of the Constitution that indicates that Texas A&M is no longer an institutional member of either the University of Texas or the University of Texas System. Again, it seems to make more sense to keep the previous mention of the original act declaring the branch designation, while also including the 1948 splitMacae (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Currently, the article mentions A&M's being a branch of the University of Texas on two separate occasions. Do you really think that such a trivial issue merits a THIRD mention? Or is that overkill? A single mention is also made of the 1948 split of Texas A&M from the University of Texas System. As a result, it appears that we have covered both events properly and I am fine leaving as it without additional edits on that issue. Does that work for you Randolph? Macae (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


The comment discussing the 1931 law should remain in the Wikipedia entry discussing the University of Texas at Austin because in 1931 there was no UT system. The actual law being discussed refers the the University of Texas which, in 1931 was the legal name of the entity being discussed here. There was no UT System in 1931 and the legislative act being discussed did not grant anything to the UT System. When the UT System was created by the legislature, specific powers and authorities was granted that entity by the legislature. Prior to the creation of the UT System, The Board of Directors of what is now known as The University of Texas at Austin controlled the university's endowment. Therefore, when discussing the facts extant in 1931, the correct name to use would be legal name of the entity in 1931 which was The University of Texas, just as the proper name to use when referring to the agricultural branch was the Agricultural and Mechanical College, which is what has been used. Using proper names existing at the time being discussed is the correct style.

As for your assertion that Article 7, Section 13 of the 1876 Constitution was amended in 1948, and that Texas A&M was split from the University of Texas System, is simply untrue (for one reason, there was such entity as the "University of Texas System" in 1948. The UT System did not come into existence until 1950). I have a request into the State Archives to get a copy of the 1948 legislative act and will post it as soon as I receive it.

Possibly a quick lesson on government and history is in store. The State Constitution (the 1876 version is the one currently in force) is a document between the people and the government where the people grant specific powers to the government. It is the foundation of our system of government where the power of government comes from the people. The legislature is powerless to unilaterally amend the grant of power from the people. As was noted in 1915 and 1919, to change Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution of 1876 (the specific section that designated the agricultural college as a branch of the university), an amendment had to be proposed by the legislature and put before the people for ratification. Earlier attempts to do this have been unsuccessful. Your claim that the legislature unilaterally amended Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution in 1948 are simply incorrect.

As Wikipedia is a encyclopedia work, it would be absurd to use a legal and historical fiction as the basis for any Wikipedia entry, so your claim that assuming the legislature unilaterally amended the constitution in 1948 is most certainly not covering things properly. The reality is that Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution has never been amended and it should be included in this work, so people such as yourself can benefit. There are currently efforts to again have the 1915 proposed amendment to legally separate the University of Texas from TAMU. Discussions have been ongoing, but it is my understanding they are being met with strong resistance from the TAMU Board or Regents, specifically from Tony Buzbee. You may want to discuss this among TAMU alumni and with your state legislator. I will refrain from undoing your edits until I obtain the 1948 Act that created the TAMU System and show conclusively that no such split did occur.Randolph Duke (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


I believe that you have misread my comments. I have not claimed that the 1876 Constitution was amended in 1948, and you are incorrect in claiming that I did so. Rather I have pointed out that the Texas A&M University System, which split Texas A&M from the University of Texas was enacted by the legislature in 1948. Furthermore, I have pointed out that the Texas Constitution conflicts with itself in stating that A&M is a branch of the University of Texas while also stating that it is no longer a member institution of the University of Texas System, and is instead a member of the Texas A&M University System. Again, the statement regarding A&M being a branch of the University of Texas has already been made twice in the article, and a third time is unnecessary and does not provide benefit to the article. Macae (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Without comment on the substantive issues discussed above, I strongly caution editors against using primary sources to draw conclusions that are then inserted into Wikipedia articles with only the primary source(s) as a reference. That falls afoul of our core policy that forbids us from engaging in original research. From another point of view, if the information is important enough to include in an encyclopedia then surely you can find it in other reliable sources without having to interpret primary sources and draw your own conclusions. ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


With respect to the claims (dare I say "original research") claiming the legislature split the agricultural college from the University of Texas, I offer the following response received today from the texas legislative Reference Library. The short version is the texas A&M System was created by the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as part of the measures necessary to deal with a hazing scandal at the college. As the Board of Directors of the college did not have the power or authority to unilaterally amend the state Constitution, we can safely assume the Constitution was not amended as claimed by user Maece. The edits removing the information regarding Texas A&M still legally being a branch of the University of Texas at Austin should be restored as they document facts that were unknown to even highly learned individuals such as user Maece and ore of great value to wiki readers.

I offer the following response from the state researcher: The Texas A & M University System was not created by the Texas Legislature in 1948 since the Legislature was not in session that year. It seems it was created by the Texas A & M Board of Directors in response to recommendations provided by a Joint Senate legislative investigation committee set up to address a hazing controversy at the Texas A & M College in 1947.

Below are materials that discuss the hazing controversy and the establishment of the Texas A & M College System (now the Texas A & M University System).

Special Joint Student Activities at A. and M. College, Investigation Committee suggests the that the Board of Directors create an Office of Chancellor of the College System. See June 6, 1947, p.3339 (pdf page 13); See also Recommendation 1 on pp. 3341-3342, includes copy of SCR21, 50th RS (1947). http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/50/50_TAMU.pdf

Gilchrest Gibb (university president 1944-1953), Texas State Historical Association http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgi14 “The board of directors responded in May 1948 by establishing the Texas A & M College System (now the Texas A & M University System) and naming Gilchrist as its first chancellor, effective on September 1, 1948.” Randolph Duke (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research Randolph. It does indeed appear that the removal of TAMC from the governance of the University of Texas Board of Regents occured prior to 1948 as per the revised Texas Statutes of 1925. I have edited the previous statements to reflect this new information. Macae (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To directly respond to the comments of Maece of 22:15, 4 February 2015, The reason the third comment is necessary is that it delivers the information that the agricultural college has never been legally separated from the University of Texas. If you object to the passage that states the ag college is still a branch of the university, possible we could agree to wording such as "to this day, no action has ever been made to alter the status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College as a branch of the university and that status remains in effect to this day." The fact remains that the Agricultural and Mechanical college was a branch of the University of Texas in 1948 and it was the board of directors of the college who created the AMC System, not the legislature. This is something that clarifies the erroneous assertion made by others that the legislature split off the ag college in 1948. Therefore, the information is of great educational value and should be included. I look forward to your comments and will wait a few hours before restoring the important passage that was deleted. Randolph Duke (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


I removed the erroneous information claiming the state legislature created a separate Texas A&M System in 1948. The mechanism that created the separate control of the Agricultural and Mechanical College was Article IV, Section 12, Art 2610, R.C.S Texas (1925) ( http://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-codes/1925/1925civ13.pdf , http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/50/50_TAMU.pdf { page numbered page 3333} ). While control was vested in a separate board of directors, the fact remains Article 7, Sec 13 that constituted the A and M college as a branch of the University of Texas was not then and still today has not be amended.

Additionally, apologies to user Macae for wrongly citing his name in previous edits Randolph Duke (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


I removed comments from "Expansion and Growth" section regarding the governance of the Agricultural and Mechanical branch college as inappropriate as they deal more with the development of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college than the governance of the university. Also, the information offered cited the 1925 Restatement of Civil Statutes. The paragraph where the deleted passage was inserted discussed the failed 1915 and 1919 constitutional amendments. There was no discussion how the failed 1919 amendment proposal lead to the changes set forth in the 1925 law in the citation. Any such discussion of those changes between 1919 ans 1925 would have also been inappropriate for this Wikipedia entry as they would exclusively discuss the development of the Agricultural branch college, not the university itself. The only connection that exists is fact the Agricultural branch college (now known as Texas A&M University) is still constitutionally a branch of the University of Texas at Austin (specifically the Austin branch, not the UT System as the Agricultural branch college's status as a branch of the Austin campus and it was never deemed a separate member of the UT System by the UT System Board of Regents). Other than to note the Agricultural branch college was constituted as a branch of the University of Texas (before the name change to University of Texas at Austin) and that the branch college status has never been altered by a constitutional amendment, there is no need to discuss in detail the development of the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college in this Wikipedia page. It is more a part of the development of teh Agricultural branch college (now called Texas A&M University after the 1963 name change enacted by the legislature). Randolph Duke (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The comments regarding the governance of the A&M are entirely appropriate for this article since it involves the removal of governance by the subject of this article. Going forward, please do not arbitrarily remove valid information that has been posted without first discussing and obtaining some sort of agreement from other editors. Macae (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Matters involving the governance of the Agricultural branch college are not germane to the expansion and growth of the University, just as matters involving the governance of the Medical branch college are not. Both the Medical branch college and the Agricultural branch college have their own independent Wikipedia pages for such subjects. The information regarding the 1915 and 1919 proposed constitutional amendments are included only because any attempted restructuring of the university is part of the story of the grown and expansion of the university. That both the Medical branch college and the Agricultural branch college remained branches after attempted restructuring of the university is noteworthy. Discussions pertinent to the growth and development of either branch college are unique to those branch colleges and independent of the growth and expansion of the university and therefore discussion of the growth and development of either the Medical or Agricultural branch colleges are best left to their individual Wikipedia pages. Randolph Duke (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The governance of A&M IS relevant when it involves a change in the governance authority of the subject of the article. Again, please do not delete relevant and factual information from this article without first getting some sort of consensus from other editors. This is now the second time in a row that you have done so. Macae (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


To add to my earlier comment regarding the insistence by user Macae that information regarding the 1881 and 1913 legislative acts be included in the information in Growth section, the 1881 legislative act is directly linked as footnote 35 in the Establishment section of this page and not only does it not reference the governance of the Agricultural branch college, it does not even contain the word "Agricultural" nor does contain the words "branch college." Claiming that act somehow mandated a separate governance structure for the Agricultural college is not only specious, it borders on dishonesty. The passage as written cannot be allowed to be included. As for the 1913 legislative act, it contains no mandate of any governance structure whatsoever. It merely sets the number of individuals on the various boards of the university and the branch colleges. This, when added to the questionable attempts of user Macae to make the reader wrongly believe the legislature separated the Agricultural branch college from the university in 1948 when the Agricultural branch college board created the Agricultural and Mechanical College System (see earlier comments of 4 February) calls into question the quality and objectivity of the suggested edits user Macae has been offering for inclusion in this Wikipedia page. I suggest he offer his suggestions for verification and discussion prior to continuing to insert information that has repeatedly been shown to be of questionable foundation. His latest suggested edit wasn't factual the first time he offered it and it was no more factual the second time he offered it. I dare say his offering it a third time will not change its lack of factual foundation. 2602:306:CD57:5360:221:E9FF:FEE2:C39A (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


I have again (for the third time) removed the information user Macae insists on inserting into this section. As previously stated, the information regarding the governance of the Medical and Agricultural branch colleges is inappropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia entry for the university. Both the Medical and Agricultural branches have their own independent Wikipedia pages and information regarding their governance systems should be included in those pages. I understand user Macae's emotional attachment to the Agricultural branch college, but his demand that factually incorrect information regarding the governance of the Agricultural branch and his exclusion of any consideration of the governance of the Medical branch draws his objectivity into balance. Unquestionably, the information he is insisting be included is specious and misleading. He is attempting to claim acts of the legislature in 1881 and in 1913 mandated a specific governance structure for the Agricultural branch college. While he does not care to offer citations for either act, the 1881 act he references is footnote 35 in the Establishment section of this page and it mentions nothing about the Agricultural branch college, so his claim the act mandated any governance structure for the Agricultural college is simply a lie. It cannot be included in this page. Additionally, the 1913 act he also claims mandated a specific governance structure for the agricultural college does no such thing. Macae tried on February 4 to demand false and misleading information regarding the Agricultural branch college be included in this section. At that time, he fabricated a claim that in 1948 the Texas legislature legally separated the Agricultural branch college from the university. This was an entire fabrication because in Texas, the legislature meets on odd years. There was no legislative session in 1948 and therefore it is an absolute impossibility that what he claimed to have happened actually did happen. My comments of February 4 detail this. I understand user Macae has a strong emotional attachment to the Agricultural branch college, but that emotional attachment does not entitle him to fabricate passages and demand their inclusion in the Wikipedia entry for the university. Hos claims and fabrications would be more appropriate for inclusion on the Wikipedia page for the Agricultural branch college. Randolph Duke (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You have indeed deleted my entry three times in a row with zero consensus or even support from another editor of this article. Again, the information that I have posted IS valid, factual, and relevant. In stating that A&M was originally established as a branch of the University of Texas, the impression is made that A&M therefore is controlled by the subject university of this article. Such is not the case as supported by my statement and the citation included with that statement. If you believe that there is a better way to phrase the statement, I have no problem discussing and finding agreement regarding such possible revisions. With regards to your again mentioning the 1948 citation, I agreed with your revision and thanked you for making the correction. It is dishonest for you however to claim that this statement was "fabricated" by myself, as I provided a citation supporting the statement. There is a difference between using a citation that turns out to be incorrect, and "fabricating" a claim, Randolph. Please try and keep your bias in check. Macae (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For benefit of user Macae, I am posting the link to the 1913 act he claims establishes a separate board (SB 203). In fact, it merely sets the number of individuals on the board of the various institutions and fixes the terms of office. The 1913 act in no was mentions a separate board or any structure under which any board reports to any other entity. Finally, user Macae claims the 1881 and 1913 acts I have located asserts "Texas A&M already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas System's Board of Regents." This is a legal impossibility as in 1919, after the proposed amendments, there was no entity known as "Texas A&M" and there was no "University of Texas System's Board of Regents" so the acts could not have possibly mandated the structure he has incorrectly represented (the UT System did not even exist until 1950, "Texas A&M" didn't come into existence until 1963). In fact, Article 2607 of the document he offers as citation 41 (the 1925 Texas Restatement of Civil Statutes) begins its discussion of the Agricultural branch college by stating "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, located in Brazos County, and by the Constitution made and constituted a branch of the University of Texas..." indicating that as of 1925, the legislature realized that while functionally separate from the university, the Agricultural branch college was still legally a branch of the university. The fact remains the governing structure of the Agricultural branch college is a matter for the separate Wikipedia page of the Agricultural branch college. Further, the material and misleading statements of user Macae have no place in this Wikipedia entry and must be excluded. SM 203 (1913) http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/BillSearch/text.cfm?legSession=33-0&billtypeDetail=SB&billNumberDetail=203&billSuffixDetail=&startRow=1&IDlist=&unClicklist=&number=50 1925 RCS http://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-codes/1925/1925civ13.pdf Randolph Duke (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


As user Macae has now, for the fourth time, tried to insert a particular passage that is not germane to this page and factually inaccurate on multiple points. He has refused to discuss this matter in the talk section (see my earlier comments of 24 February above). His activities at this point can only be considered vandalism and I ask that he be barred from again altering this Wikipedia page. On February 4 he also attempted to insert materially false information on this page. The passages he is continually attempting to insert on this page are not germane, not factual, not helpful and his refusal to discuss the misleading content he keeps trying to add suggests ill motive. It is time he be banned from this page. (edited to include signature) Randolph Duke (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And for the fourth time, Randolph Duke has deleted a valid, factual, and relevant statement from this article without any agreement or support from a single other wiki editor. The statement is not factually inaccurate as he claims, and as seen above, I HAVE discussed this following every deletion that he makes of this statement. This isn't vandalism, Randolph, but rather an edit war begun by yourself into which I also admittedly have become a participant. Please cease in deleting this valid statement until we can have a third party evaluate the article and potentially suggest revisions that satisfy all. Macae (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Memo entry to note the fifth time user Macae has vandalized this page by attempting to insert intentionally false and misleading statements and has refused repeated attempts to discuss his suggested changes prior to posting. he is turning this into an edit war and he must refrain from such activities. Randolph Duke (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism, but rather an edit war that you have initiated which has led to these multiple revisions. No one disputes the statement that I have added to the article, and a citation has been added in support of it. Please do not continue to delete until we can get a third party wiki editor to evaluate and suggest revisions that are acceptable to all. At this rate, you and I are both going to get banned as editors, and I can't say that we both might not deserve it. Do you not acknowledge that you have made much more than three reverts to the same portion of the article in the last 24 hours?Macae (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you for finally deciding to discuss your suggested edits. Had you doneso earlier, you would have saved me a lot of unnecessary effort. I again reoffermy posting from above "For benefit of user Macae, I am posting the link to the 1913 act he claims establishes a separate board (SB 203). In fact, it merely sets the number of individuals on the board of the various institutions and fixes the terms of office. The 1913 act in no was mentions a separate board or any structure under which any board reports to any other entity. Finally, user Macae claims the 1881 and 1913 acts I have located asserts "Texas A&M already was being controlled independently of the University of Texas System's Board of Regents." This is a legal impossibility as in 1919, after the proposed amendments, there was no entity known as "Texas A&M" and there was no "University of Texas System's Board of Regents" so the acts could not have possibly mandated the structure he has incorrectly represented (the UT System did not even exist until 1950, "Texas A&M" didn't come into existence until 1963)." Aside from those factual problems, the 881 act you claim addressed the Agricultural college did not such thing. Likewise the 1913 legislative act. You are posting factually incorrect information. Finally, information regarding the governance structure, tuition rate, entrance requirements or any other mundane facts about the Business college, College of Law, College of Engineering, Fine Arts, Agriculture or any other college are not germane to any discussion of the university. Why you feel one college should be discussed to the detriment of all the others shows a lack of objectivity. Regardless, the information you are attempting to post if factually inaccurate and not germane to the subject. Your continued attempts to knowingly post false information can. at this point, only be considered vandalism. Randolph Duke (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Comments on Feb 27 edits to "Growth" section and directed to user Macae: Ok, for what is now something like the tenth time, I am going to try to explain why the passage you insist on including has no place on this Wikipedia page.

1) The time frame being discussed in the passage is the immediate period after the 1919 failed constitutional amendment. You claim the legislature had mandated a separate governance structure for “Texas A&M.” There was no legal entity in 1919 known as “Texas A&M.” Texas A&M University was not a name that existed prior to 1963. If the legislature had mandated a separate governance structure for any entity, it was not “Texas A&M.” Therefore, please refer to the entity by the name the legislature referred to, not any successor-in-interest or successor-in-name. Jumping from historical era to historical era is not appropriate.

2) Neither the 1881 legislative act you refer to nor the 1919 legislative act mandate any governance structure for “Texas A&M” or any predecessor-in-interest or predecessor-in-name. If you believe otherwise, please cut and paste THE EXACT WORDING from the legislative act you believe mandates any particular governance structure for “Texas A&M” any predecessor-in-interest or predecessor-in-name. Citations for both the 1881 and 1913 legislative acts are provided above in sections where a discussion on this was attempted. You have failed to show where the passages you claim to be controlling actually originated. You seem to have just cut and past the legislative references from the 1925 RCS that refers to The University of Texas and, without reading them, have fabricated language in them that does not exist.

3) Please explain why the Agricultural branch college governance structure is a meaningful aspect of the growth of the university when the governance structure of no other college of the university is similarly treated. This mundane material regarding one branch of the college seems to be more appropriate for inclusion in the separate Wikipedia entry for that institution.

4) The governance structure of the Agricultural college is discussed in pgh 4 of the “Establishment” section, along with the history of its development. You claim a separate governance structure of the Agricultural branch was mandated by the legislature, yet you point to no actual legislative act that mandated it. In fact, the separate structure of the Agricultural college was a result of the federal Morrill Act that mandated separate accounting for the monies granted the state to establish the college. You are absolutely wrong stating the legislature mandated the governance of the Agricultural college was to be wholly separate from the university. In fact, the very act that established the Agricultural college specifically mentions the Agricultural college was to be subject to the act that established the university. This directly contradicts your belief that a separate governance structure was created in the act that organized the university (the 1881 act) and the act that set the numbers and terms of services for the various state educational boards (the 1913 act) (Act establishing the Ag college: Footnote 28 of Establishment Section, link provided here: http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth6734/m1/928/ )

I look forward to your responses to these points and will refrain from any further edits for 24 hours in order to give you time to respond and to offer some evidence to support your statements where the citations you have offered have been proven to be without foundation. Randolph Duke (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First, you just incurred a 24 hour block for engaging in an edit war, and as soon as the block is removed, you immediately wish to start the edit war back up again?
Regarding point #1 - As I have already stated, I am fine using the official, but much longer name that was used at the time "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas". However to shorten the statement, I will use the abreviation TAMC that was also being used at the time. If you would prefer to use the longer name however, feel free to edit accordingly, but that does not require a deletion of the information.
Regarding point #2 - The citation I provided specifically states that the governance originates in the Legislative acts of 1881 and 1913.
Regarding point #3 - It is necessary to point out the governance structure of A&M due to the earlier language stating that A&M was a branch of the University of Texas. In making that statement, it provides the impression that A&M was under the governance of the University of Texas which is not the case. The statement is therefore providing clarifying information that is valid and relevant to the article. The governance structure of no other college need be included in this article, since no other college is listed as a branch of the University of Texas in this article.
Regarding point #4 - The portion of Texas civil statutes code listed in the citation I provided specifically states that governance of the school is vested in an independent board of directors.
You continue to delete valid and relevant information from this page, Randolph, without asking for or receiving support or consensus from ANY other wiki editors. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. I will make the change in Point #1 that we agree on and have already removed the "System" phrase from the statement based on previous conversations. With regards to the relevance of the statement, even if you disagree, please follow wiki procedure and leave in place until other editors have had the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the information. Macae (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the passage you are offering is that: 1) Information regarding the governance structure of the various colleges of the university is not germane to the University of Texas. The governance structure of the Medical branch, the School of Law, the Business college, the Agricultural college, the College of Engineering or any of the other colleges of the university is not certainly germane to the growth of the university. The information is germane only to the individual colleges and should be included on the separate Wikipedia pages for those colleges, not the university.

2) You insist on using the legislative act of 1881 that organized the university and contains not a word about the Agricultural branch college as a citation showing the Agricultural branch college was governed by a board of directors and that that board of directors was wholly independent of the UT Board of Regents. It is intellectually dishonest to use a citation you know full well does not address the Agricultural college in any way shape or form to assert the citation evidences a change in the governance structure of the Agricultural branch college. Use of the 1881 legislative act that mandates the governance structure of the university only. It does not speak to the Ag college. Wikipedia is only cheapened by false citations and fabrication of facts as you are doing.

3) Your use of the 1913 legislative act that sets the size and terms of the various education boards in the state, and mentions nothing of the reporting structure of the various boards, to assert the various boards are wholly independent of each other is intellectually dishonest. The Medical branch college, as the Agricultural branch college, was governed by a Board of Directors. The creation of a board of directors does not evidence the Board of Directors is independent of the Board of Regents. Only a direct mandate by the legislature that the Board of Directors would be wholly independent would make the Board of Directors wholly independent (I can't believe this your understanding of basic law has not already lead you to this understanding).

4) In the very 1876 act that established the Agricultural branch college, it states unequivocally the college shall be under the control of the university. This was reaffirmed by the 1876 Constitution when the Agricultural college was established as a branch of the university. The Medical branch college and the medical branch college were both given individual boards of governors and both remained branches of the university. Neither the 1881 nor the 1913 acts in any way mandated wholly independent Board of Directors for either the medical branch or the Agricultural branch. You need to show a legitimate legislative act that mandated an independent board for the Ag college. If you want to discuss the mundane governance matters of the Ag college, you have to explain how it came to be that the Ag college was both a branch of the university (as clearly stated in Sec 2607 of the 1925 RCS you used as a citation) and was supposedly also wholly independent. Basic logic seems to question how the same entity could be both at the same time, so the actual wording of the act that established such an arrangement is called for. In point "4" above you claim "The portion of Texas civil statutes code listed in the citation I provided specifically states that governance of the school is vested in an independent board of directors." I assume you mean Sec 2610. Please point to where Sec 2610 (or any other section discussing the Board of the Ag college) contains the word "independent." You have intentionally fabricated the existence of the word in the passage to create meaning the act does not contain. Your creation of words that do not exist in the original in an attempt to change the meaning of the cited legislative act is the nexus of your intellectual (and outright) dishonesty. The federal Morrill Act mandated a separate accounting structure for the Ag college, but you fail in spectacular fashion to show us where the "independent" board governing the ag college was created by the legislature. Outright and intellectually dishonest fabrications aside, you offer no evidence of such a board.

I propose some compromise language such as:

"In the aftermath of the failed attempts to separate the Agricultural college from the university, confusion reigned as to the actual governance structure of the ag college with respect to the university Board of Regents. This confusion continues to this day. In 1925, the legislature reaffirmed the Ag college to be a branch of the university (Sec 2610 RCS 1925) and affirmed the governance of the Ag college was to be handled by its Board of Directors (2610 RCS 1925). This structure was identical to that of the university's medical branch college. Supporters of the Ag college have relied on tradition and legend to assert at some unknown time in the immediate aftermath of the Ag college's creation, the college was separated in all manners from the university and that Art 7, Sec 13 of the Constitution was just a humorous aside without meaning. Ag college tradition also says the repeated incidences of the legislature referring to the Ag college as a branch of the university was just repeated instances of "sips trying to hold the great giant down" and that those references have no meaning. Historians, on the other hand, dismissing the Ag college traditions and legends, rely on the historical record to assert both the Agricultural branch college and medical branch college were established as branches of the university and, while the Ag college and the Medical college were given separate Boards of Directors which established functional independence, both colleges legally remained branches of the university."

Randolph Duke (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)