Talk:University of St. Thomas (Texas)

name

Is this named after (1) St. Thomas the Apostle, or (2) St. Thomas Aquinas, or (3) St. Thomas Becket, or (4) St. Thomas More, or (5) other? I'm guessing (2). But the article should give the answer! Michael Hardy 02:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This Is Named After St. Tomas of Aquino, Or St. Thomas Aquinas Danactro 08:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as i student of UST i must say that the tuition cost is misrepresented on this page. 565 for 30 hours for a normal year comes to $17,000 not $16,000 add the nearly 10 thousand for room and board plus parking fees and other fees, paying to print (10 cents per page), and really just paying for everything execpt your blue books leaves a student looking at about $30,000 a year to attend. from jan to dec 2005 i spend nearly 27,000 in tuition alone. As a transfer i will only take 66 hours at ust but my cost will be well over 45 thousand dollars.

I updated the numbers to reflect this year... its currently $590/hour and $17,700 for 30 hours... Someone had already updated the room/board costs with a round number ($7000), which I updated to the exact $6800. Printing expenses and the like are optional, so they can't be included... 209.184.165.20 17:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I removed the "controversy" section due to it being inaccurate and sourceless. As a student at the University I am aware of the existence of such group, but the organization has never even approached the university for official recognition, much less been rejected. There is no controversy except what a couple of students would like to blow out of proportion. Clint 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

and where are your sources about approaching the university for recognition? this page isnt an advertisment or some sort of spam for UST. if an article has controversy it has controversy, there is nothing one can do about it. next time before just deleting it, add a POV section or speedy deletion section and then discuss to see if others agree. now, i cleaned it up a bit so it doesn't sound propoganda like, which i agree it had a little of. remember, removing a POV section or a speedy deletion section BEFORE consent (5 days) is reached is a violation, so i wouldn't attempt it. i learned that lesson myself once, and is outlined in the WP:POV and Wikipedia:Speedy deletions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_deletion) Urban909

There aren't any sources for Symposium approaching the university for recognition. I am a member of several SOC organizations, but I'm not going to use my own involvement for a source. As per University procedure for recognizing a new club/organization, they would have to apply for admission into SOC or an Administrative Department. As per COC's Constitution (available on the UST Website), its only eligible for COC. That said, if it applied for COC eligibility, it would be somewhere in the meeting agendas. I have gone through such agendas and minutes and have found NOTHING, therefore I must now turn around and put the burden of proof on you. The campus is near a large center of gay residence, that's a fact, but I would consider the "significant" comment as POV, especially as grounds for eligibility into COC. There's larger groups of people who have no such representation. I see this portion of the article as lacking sources, violating neutral POV, and essentially nothing more than rumors... Clint 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1."I have gone through such agendas and minutes and have found NOTHING" (you were able to go through that on your own that quickly? then why don't you want you use yourself or those documents as a source?)

2. "therefore I must now turn around and put the burden of proof on you" (when did i say i was personally going to do so, i said it should be up for discussion before deletion)

3. "There's larger groups of people who have no such representation" (such as? have you considered that they might not want/be willing to organize?)

4. "The campus is near a large center of gay residence, that's a fact" and "essentially nothing more than rumors" (your argument seems to be mixing up several different points to try and make whatever you are trying to say sequential, because its still muddy. MY POINT was that if this group AND OTHER GROUPS AS WELL have claimed to apply and haven't yet been approved then it should be there. the SOC can be shaddy, as is the SAB and so forth. (i.e. open meetings per constitutional right that have had people banned. etc.)As a side example, look (if you even noticed) how long it took for the womens studies program to get approved. they (being those in the theo/phil. departments, etc) felt it was an open doorway to lesbianism, abortion and other anti-Church behavior.0 Urban909

I didn't go through all of the agendas and minutes myself, I had help, and it took time. I'm ok with discussion, but I still maintain that there are no sources for this so-called controversy, nor anything worth making it eligible for inclusion on this page. There are many groups that have applied and been denied for many reasons, but there's never been any controversy about it. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you have no source for your statements on women's studies program either. Its always a long and difficult process to add ANY new program to a university, especially a small college where there would have to be demonstrated interest on the part of the faculty and students before it got approved. To someone who understands that, you come off as someone who tries to create controversy out of nothing, especially with your comments about SOC and SAB being shady. Clint 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Clint is right. Claims like those made in the controversy section need to be sourced. Do you have a published source we can review that says this happened, or even that someone claimed this happened? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

clint is right? i wanted the sources that have been published and so forth. that list is part of my rebuttal. im not saying i just want rambling about some group. Urban909

Yes. Clint said above that he removed the entire section because it's not sourced. In order to expand on the issue, there must first be proven that there's an issue at all. Is there any source at all for this group even having a problem with the student council or whatever this group is? If we can't even prove that someone even claims there's a dispute (beginnign with "Supposedly..." doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies on verifiability), then this entire section has to go. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no source for anything like this. Even if it was rejected from COC (which there is no record of that I can find), it still wouldn't be worth including. For example, the Knights of Columbus applied for COC, got accepted, and then were removed when it was determined that they would not be an acceptable club since they were only open to practical Catholic adult males. There is documentation for such occurence in the COC minutes/agendas, but there is no controversy because all that happened was that the Knights held a meeting with COC and Student Affairs and an understanding was reached (the organization was transferred to Campus Ministry). Clint 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are a couple of sources, down below. I was able to get them to load okay, so it's probably a glitch in the site. There's obviously been some controversy and campus soul-searching over this issue, so I do think it's appropriate to include in some fashion. Doesn't have to be exhaustive detail, but something. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through Google a little and can't find anything. Does the university have a student newspaper that might have covered this? IOr maybe, say, the Houston Press? Or does the group have a website where it might have discussed these claims? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out www.ustcauldron.org. I couldn't get the search engine to work, but maybe its just down right now... Clint 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

oh. i get what you are saying Katefan0^(scribble)/poll, and i think we are saying/wanting the same thing. my apologies. sometimes miscommunication happens through typing. and i removed supposedly, i was working on term papers at the time, was burned out and used the wrong choice of a word. cheers Urban909

in response to Katefan0^(scribble)/poll comment "Does the university have a student newspaper that might have covered this?" i contacted my friend who is the editor of the Cauldron (school newspaper) to see if he has knowledge about this. like i said, one way or another i don't care if it is deleted or not. my issue was deletion without discussion. Urban909

Sure thing, no worries! Let us know what he turns up. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Urban909 asked me to find what the Cauldron has covered in terms of the Symposium and the gay community at UST. Please refer to Gay students form club, seek recognition printed in the Cauldron in December 2005. Former SGA President Emiliano Herrera also talked on the subject in Q&A with SGA President Emiliano Herrera III. --Newrocys 19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

According to JustDropped.com, the Symposium website has been defunct for over 3 months now... Clint 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this is exactly what was needed. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first link says they're planning on petitioning for recognition, but doesn't actually say they did or what the result was. However, the SG president seems to acknowledge that it happened and that the group was rebuffed when he says: There's a reason that the University president denied this club. There's a way to include this information, but it has to be couched properly I think, using these two sources. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

excellent. well, i guess i/we can work on it when i have some free time tomorrow. thanks for your help Katefan0^(scribble)/poll and Newrocys. i hope your happy Clint. its great when there is TRUE facts to back it up instead of so called rumors ;)

Ok, now lets look at the inconsistancies between the article and your post...

• Your segment states that one of the reasons that the club seeks recognition is because of being in the middle of a large homosexual neighborhood... according to Kee in the article, that has nothing to do with it.
• Your segment states that there is a substantial homosexual population on campus. I'm going to stick to my statement that the term "significant" is subjective and violates nPOV. According to the article, the club has only 10 members. Not only is that a minute fraction of the 4875 registered UST students, that's also barely enough for club eligibility, and COC has repeatedly been rejecting clubs for not showing potential to thrive due to over a dozen clubs going defunct this past year.
• Your segment is entitled "controversy". I see no controversy present. I see an organization diplomatically trying to get recognized despite being against constitutional policies of current establishments. Its perfectly parallel with what I said above with regards to the Knights of Columbus. In fact, the parallels would be even more accurate if they took the route of trying to establish the "Courage" program, which would definitely either be approved under COC or Campus Ministry as a backup option.
• I still see no available proof of the existence of "controversy". Phillip Johnson (someone with ideals contrary to those of the Catholic Church) designing the Academic Mall and the reactions to such constitute controversy. An organization that is blatantly ineligible for university recognition (as per the identity of the university itself) not getting recognized is just the institution being consistent. Clint 23:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You use an example regarding the Knights of Columbus. The difference is that when your Knights of Columbus chapter got removed, the campus paper didn't write about it and the SG president didn't speak to it in an interview. (Or, I don't know, maybe they did and he did. In which case that could be mentioned too.) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to offer that the club itself is not controversial, but the fact that homosexuality on campus has become an issue is in itself controversial.

• I would like to direct our attention to the Urban Institute which states that Montrose is tenth in the top ten neighborhoods for the gay and lesbian population.
• While I cannot speak to numbers of gay and lesbian students on campus, it should be noted that the University does not collect information of the sort. However, the University has not addressed the fact that its Student Handbook does not include sexual orientation in its nondiscrimination policy. ("The University of St. Thomas is committed to providing equal educational opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or veteran status.") The article was printed a year ago. The current status of the Symposium is unknown. However, there is a Facebook.com group titled "Gay/Straight Alliance" that has had a decent amount of momentum.
• On the subject of Knights of Columbus, the Cauldron reported in UST welcomes Knights of Columbus chapter that the Knights were not allowed into the Council of Clubs because of its restrictive membership. The Symposium was under speculation by the administration and student leadership because of its very mission. Again, the legitimacy of the Symposium at UST was in question, not its longevity.
• Philip Johnson's contributions to the development of the University are not controverisal because he was employed by the University for a specific reason. The status of homesexual students at UST is an issue because they seem to be denied a right to congregate as a formal student club the way Hispanics, Muslims, Asians and other groups on campus are allowed to.--Newrocys 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I appear to quibble, but whether Philip Johnson's contributions were sanctioned by the University is irrelevant to whether or not they are controversial. The fact is that many traditional Roman Catholics (of which the University certainly has as many as homosexuals, no?), correct or not, feel the architect's associations and more infamous proclivities are relevant to the selection of his design for various University structures (especially the Chapel). This is seen as an example of the University acting in bad taste, given its Catholic nature. (And of course seeing the design in person, I defy anyone to argue convincingly otherwise.)

I fail to see how Johnson's designs show how the University acted in bad taste, much less what it has to do with Johnson's sexual orientation.--Newrocys 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I take issue with your statement that "homosexuals are denied the right to congregate as a formal student club the way" others are. It is disingenuous to say they are not allowed to congregate. Rather, they are not allowed to congregate with the purpose of embracing the identity of a lifestyle that the institution deems contrary and morally inconsistent with its character as a Catholic institution. This is why this University (and many Catholic universities, see ND for example) has not ammended the statement of nondiscrimination -- simply, for orthodox Catholics, the question is settled. Is it out of line to suggest that perhaps your notion of controversy is not with the University but with the Church? -- JCarter09 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Newrocys's statements: I never denied that Montrose is one of the largest gay populated neighborhoods in the US. In fact, I'm surprised its not higher on the list. Regardless, as per the article, its not one of the reasons behind the organization seeking recognition. The University doesn't include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy because it is a Catholic Institution and not a public one. Just like JCarter09 said, for orthodox Catholics, the answer is already understood. Regardless, the University doesn't discriminate in terms of providing educational opportunities to any student PROVIDED those opportunities and programs are in line with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. I've searched for what happened to the Symposium and cannot find anything... some people can't even confirm that it still exists. As far as the Knights of Columbus goes, the parallel I'm trying to draw is that both groups were trying to get established within the COC despite being against the COC's constitution. Trying to do something like that does NOT create a controversy because of the basis on which the prior organization is established. Regardless, its probably a bad example since no one else is seeing the parallel. Clint 23:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

JCarter09 & Clint: Please refer me to the University's declaration of orthodoxy. Other Catholic universities have allowed for GLBT clubs on campus, such as St. Edwards, or allowed for some degree of recognition, as done by Notre Dame. Although an old article, this may provide further context as far as homosexuality as approached by some universities (I understand the bias in it, but please just consider the facts). Clint: You will not find any more information on the Symposium other than that which the Cauldron has covered. All the meetings between Symposium leaders and the administration were private. You will never find the Symposium on Council of Club agendas because then-CoC Chair Francesca Alquiros didn't approve them to be on the agenda. Furthermore, the parallel to the Knights is at best ineffective because both clubs faced distinct circumstances. Again, KOC limited membership to male Catholics. The Symposium had no membership prerequisites. JCarter09: While the notion of controversey is certainly with the Church, it most certainly also lies with the University. All members of the CoC operate from funds from the Student Activity Fee fund. This fund is paid for by all enrolled students, heterosexual or homosexual. However, they are not allowed to formally organize the same way any other group can choose to. That being said, I think that the state of affairs for homosexual students at UST is controverisal. There should be less concentration on The Symposium and more of a general approach to the issue. --Newrocys 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from the University Mission Statement: "As a Catholic University born from the heart of the Church, the University is dedicated to the religious, moral, and intellectual formation of the whole person." (Undergraduate Handbook, p.5) Also, from the section marked "Basilian Tradition" that focuses on the distinctive characteristics of Basilian establishments of higher learning: "fidelity to the authoritative teaching of the church" (Undergraduate Handbook, p.7).

Are the other Catholic universities who accept that there is a gay population at their school less Catholic? I give you the fact that the University follows the Basilian tradition. However, the point remains that this school prides itself on its liberal arts-based education. This is not a school purely for theology or Catholicism, and as such certainly not all students should be force-fed dogma. The simple fact is that the student activities fee is controlled by students for student use.--Newrocys 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the other statements you made about having no documentation, it just furthers my point that this can't be proven. I do not know Francesca Alquiros, but as per the comments made in the Cauldron, the university has shown that they are open to a program such as COURAGE (which has been approved by the church) to be present on campus, but not a program such as the Symposium. I'm just going to withdraw the KOC comparison simply because people seem to be insistant on delving too deep into the details and are therefore missing the point I'm trying to convey, which was theoretical in basis anyway.

The Symposium was a proposed club. Courage is a diocese program. Courage particpants and essentially any information relating to it are private and confidential. It is not a student-run club. There is a signifcant difference.--Newrocys 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I still maintain that my original point has not been successfully countered: There is still no evidence of existing controversy. Also, as per the COC Constitution (available off the UST website), the mission of the school and the Basilians (available in the Undergraduate Handbook), the fact that the university is private, the fact that the Catholic church considers homosexuality an issue of morality, and the very essence of the club, this was a "no chance in hell" idea before it even started. If anything, the "controversy" is with homosexuality in general and the Catholic church in general. Clint 05:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact: the Symposium attempted to be a club on campus. Fact: CoC never allowed it to be on the agenda for CoC approval. Fact: The former SGA president said on the record that the University president declined the club. Because of the nature of the club, because of the secrecy and because students who pay the student activity fee are being denied the same priviledge given to other demographics because of their sexual orientation, THIS IS CONTROVERSIAL. The contention is not that gay students are marginalized on campus; the controversey is that they are not afforded the same rights other students are.--Newrocys 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, it seems like there should be some references to Newrocys points. a small controversy section under Student Organisations. nothing to outrageous, etc, but valid points nonetheless Urban909

We need third party intervention. We're getting nowhere without some sort of outsider looking in to objectively look at the status of the controversey.--Newrocys 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw this page and someone said something about Kendrict not being at UST or something. He's at study abroad in Spain.

He is at study abroad in Spain, but that does not mean he isn't a UST student. In fact, if it is study abroad, it implies that he is still a student. Anyhow, I think this debate has gotten to a point (and if it hasn't, it should be) where it isn't about Kedrict and the Symposium, but about the University's approach to homosexuality on campus. Clint thinks otherwise. Third party intervention is still necessary. --Newrocys 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, on that same note, I spoke to a freshman who told me the same thing about Kendrict. The freshman said he was trying to push for the "recreation" of the Symposium for when Kendrict comes back in the fall, but hasn't been able to get enough support or something. On a more important note in light of the expanded level of the debate, there's something else brewing. Apparently a poem in Laurels was rejected by their faculty director (no clue who such director is) on some grounds (I've heard disputed claims... some say parts were plagiarized, others say it was because it was homoerotic), but somehow still made it into the most recent issue of Laurels. As such, the page was ripped from every copy before distribution. The guy who wrote the poem (Jonathan Rea) and a couple of friends are trying to make this a big "Freedom of Speech" thing... they've supposedly gotten some article in the Houston Chronicle about it, and the UST Cauldron is looking into how to appropriately address the issue in their next issue. The general consensus of what I've heard is that people are talking about it, but it won't become a full fledged controversy because the University has precedence in their reservations about the work (in their statements about being in line with the Catholic faith), and that such first amendment rights aren't applicable considering a student waives them by choosing to attend a private university as opposed to a public one. I still maintain that this "controversy" is more Homosexuality/Catholicism than Homosexuality/UST, but I figure this might be something worth waiting out the results of before any determination is made. Clint 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not begin to assume what Kedrict (no "n") has or will be doing. It's not pertinent. It's gossip. Honestly, I don't know what kind of standards there are about what to talk about in a "talk" section, but if it's to demean other students (as in your assuming other students and their actions, particualry Rea and Kedrict), I think it's inapprorpiate. As far as the Laurels issue is concerned, it's much, much, much more complex than you credit it. Not only did people talk about, but it garnered column space in the Houston Chronicle and it was picked up by UPI and therefore a number of blogs. IT IS A CONTROVERSY. The University doesn't need to think it a controversy in order for it to be one. You keep saying the controversy is with the Church and not the school; prove it. I've shown that plenty of CATHOLIC schools recognize the GLBT communities at their schools. If your argument is still harping on the fact that the University is a Basilian school, then you're admitting that it is a problem based in the University, since other orders seem to have no problem with gays on their campuses. Allow there to be a controversey section. Obviously, it's controversial. Get over trying to paint some idealist portrait of UST. There are good things and there are bad things, both of which are subjective. You're being awfully paternalistc as to what information people can access. --Newrocys 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming, I'm telling you what people who have been in touch with him have told me. Whether their word is reliable or not is a different matter. How on earth can you say I assumed anything about Rea? All I said was that he wrote the poem and that his friends are going on a freedom of speech deal with the poem. If you have trouble accepting facts, please go find a copy of the poems they're distributing and read their claims of University homophobia and restriction of the first amendment (handwritten alongside the poem)... I've read the Chronicle article I still don't see any controversy present... I glanced over a copy of the poem (my now-former roommate was one of the distributors) and I didn't see anything explicit in terms of homosexuality (much less any semblance of poetic talent, but that's merely my opinion), but I did notice the references of beastiality and fornication that the Chronicle article references. From what I see, the university was justified in censoring what it determined to be "sexually explicit", and this is only a dispute from a handful of student against the university's authority. If people complaining about an institution being consistent with itself constitutes controversy, then yeah, I guess you're right. Clint 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you hear from Jonathan? No. You said from "people who have been in touch with him." You ASSUME thats what he's saying. Not only have I seen the flier, but I have two copies of them. They are unsigned, and unless you know for a fact that Jonathan is responsbile for the acts of other students, then you are ASSUMING he was involved. The argument of free speech has not been brought up by Jonathan, at least not on any published record. I am not arguing against or for the printing of the poem. I am merely stating that it is controversial. Again, you have a very paternalistic standard of what the public has a right to know if you think something is only controversial if the University is consistent or not. A university can be consistently wrong, and it doesn't take away from its controversy. In which case, I guess I am right.--Newrocys 05:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

yes there was controversy. andrew tablono (sp) WAS the editor of the entire laurels project. because Dr. Lowery (who has obsolute veto power and DID say NOT to put it in, but it was put in by Jonathan Rea)was distracted by personal issues and Andrew was left in charge. because he is incompetent enough to not to follow out her orders just furthers his, well, incompentency. anyways, rea's poem, to put it lightly, would be crushed at UH, NYU or other prominent creative writting schools. (venting) anyways, he added in words at the reading in the library last week that was NOT supposed to be read. because this is a catholic school, unfortunetly but respectively, the laurels magazine must be careful of content. the magazine was horrible this year anyways (venting again), and now some writer has been glorified with his disatorous poem. blah blah blah. thankfully i have less then a semester to go then its NYC (last venting i promise) Urban909

Urban909: You know that you and I get along way, way more often than not, but I don't think that Andrew, as Laurels editor, should be attacked here. The Cauldron will put up its recent issue online, if you haven't picked up an issue already, and it settles a lot. I have to come to his defense on a personal level because I do not believe he was responsible for any misgivings about the last Laurels, and in fact is the only one who is taking responsibility for his actions, or inactions, as they may be. That was me venting. --Newrocys 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

that did come out a little harsh on him i was not meaning to direct the problem at him ONLY. in fact i mostly agree with you on this. as a personal thing, i don't think andrew is the solely responsible for this, but an editor does hold some responsibility which i now know he is taking all of the responsibility. what i have heard from reliable sources (can't name do to privacy reasons) that he might be punished which is unfair. i think, seeing this semester was different due to dr. lowery not being able to oversee it as much as she has done in the past, that it was a problem for not only for andrew, jonathan (who should be the one blamed seeing that he put or rather snuck it in the magazine in the first place and thankfully got a failing grade) but unfortunately her as well. she is taking a LOT of heat, and there is talk of suspending the magazine funding and it all together. it even made it to the houston chronicle. my main focus of my venting was towards johnathan, who should have taken his "pride" away and stepped up to the desicion that most of the class AND dr. lowery said that his poem should NOT be put in. it was voted 3-2 to put it in, but do to the sensitivity of the subject of his poem, she used her ultimate veto power and overided the decision. i fully agree with that desicion. this whole freedom of speech thing is nonsequential, seeing that 1. its a private school and 2. a CATHOLIC private school, even as an atheist, i agree certain material should not be allowed to be published at this school *EDIT* but that does not excuse the administration and other figures for pushing out and placing/setting up doctrine. now if it was at UH and it somehow did get published that would be a different story. finally, i have picked up the latest cauldron, but i guess i didn't see the article. so, if this sounds different from what you reported, i apoligize . remember, you are one of the only students i truly respect up at UST and trust your judgement more than most. Urban909

You know that I respect you and your judgment too. And you and I both have experience with the Laurels adviser (disgruntled corner and what not). The story sets it clear that the poem was not snuck in, but rather that miscommunication between the adviser and the class led to it being included. That may be up to debate, but the facts that the Cauldron was able to obtain clearly show that the adviser never made a point of her veto to the Laurels staff. I do have to disagree with the point about this being a Catholic school. Censors at the University too often use that excuse. I'm not saying that you're a censor at all, but the simple fact is that this is school is both Catholic AND a university. We're here to experience not only Catholicism, but also a diverse and challenging education to prepare us for the real world. Free speech exists in the real world. To limit speech because it is contrary to the benefactors of the University stalls some (and eventually all) forms of academic freedom that we have to face whenever we leave the school. It starts with a poem because it's contrary to Catholic ideals, then it goes to the entire Laurels publication because they print controversial works, then to the Cauldron because it prints articles and opinions that show either the University or the Church in a negative light. What next? The curriculum? Any class that deals with Catholic values has to be approved by the Theology department? Non-Catholic teachers are required to take classes in Catholicism? We're getting there, and the closer we get there, the less useful we are as individuals. We aren't learning; we're indoctrinated. We don't challenge; we accept. Free speech may legally end when we walk on to campus, but hell if the University isn't ethically bound to offer us some sort of freedom to express ourselves.--Newrocys 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

yes i do agree with you on those points. (look at my edit in the previous statement, i reread and explained further). and thankfully someone linked me to the story. i was just repeating the stupid retoric that goes around. seriously, and this does not include you, but most and i am not saying all, UST is just a fluff for kids that does not prepare them for the real world because of some of the bounds of religion the school has set up and many many other things. i honestly can say that i have learned NOTHING at this school other than the frustration with the new administration and so forth. and i have many proffesors that agree with me. i am not sourcing those because of the sensitivity with the issue. i did not have a problem with the poem content other than it was not a good poem to begin with. but thats not the issue. these issues that you and i bring up are VERY important. i mean, where are the kids/young adults like us that feel the same way? i feel like i am being squeezed and pushed out, and have gotten in trouble myself for "freedom of expression". the only reason i have not transfered is because i am too close to graduation and other personal matters and plan on leaving this school as soon as possible. NYC! good to see you keep up the good fight. if UST is to flourish and prepare, more kids like you and me are desperately needed.Urban909

The Cauldron article won't be up for a couple of days more. Last Wednesday there were people trying to get student opinions on the poem (my lunch group opted not to comment, but I did refer them to my roommate, one of the "freedom of speech" fighters). I don't know how fast they get it up, but if they were still collecting information less than a week ago, I doubt the issue will be out so soon... Clint 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the outgoing editor for the Cauldron. The issue is out. It will be uploaded within the next day for your reading pleasure. Please don't assume when the Cauldron will be up.--Newrocys 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to abandon y'all. I'll try to get to this this afternoon with some language I think is appropriate. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

All of this talk is stupid. Do you people even know Rea? He would never sneak anything in like that. Also, he tried to drop the whole issue but by then others had picked it up and ran with it. He did nothing but submit a (bad) poem that got put in by accident. Their way of dealing with it was most absurd though.

I don't really know the point of your comment. I don't really know Rea personally, and I'm not going to make allegations either way. I also think that you're misinterpreting the issue. It's not about Rea sneaking it in or not, or about the quality of the poem, or anything about Rea minus the fact that he wrote a poem that got into the magazine which was then manually ripped out of every copy because the adviser and a handful of students disapproved of it based on concerns with the poem's homosexual tones.--Newrocys 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For the complete story on the Laurels controversy, read the Cauldron's story.

Neewollah

"It is one of the largest parties of its kind in Houston, rivalled only by some of the celebrations held at Rice University."

Surely this is not a serious claim if it contends that this party is so immense and storied that it dwarfs those at other local universities, aside from "some of the celebrations" at Rice. This is, aside from being prima facie counterintuitive, an ambiguous statement ("of its kind" -- and what kind is that?) and ought to be removed. I would propose eliminating the Neewollah heading altogether and creating a "Social Life" heading under which one might reference the party if one were still so disposed. It does no one any good to pretend that UST's social life is something other than what it is. -- JCarter09 04:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote is actually directly from the Admissions Office of the University and is verified by the Student Activities Board and Student Affairs Office. Clint 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from University advertising, then. In which case, is it factual? I think most would say it's one of the best-attended parties at UST, which probably averages at around 200 to 250 people, if that. It certainly doesn't hold up against Rice's NOD. The statement is too vague and is based on an assumption without proper attribution.--Newrocys 05:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the university would be in trouble if they advertised false facts. While the quote itself is subjective in nature, it does come directly from the aforementioned departments... I'm not familiar with Rice's Night of Decadence, but I do know that Neewollah ticket sales are reported to be in the 500-600 range... Clint 04:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between advertisement and fact, regardless of the source. If you are comparing UST to Rice or offering numbers, please subsantiate these claims.

"reported to be in the 500-600 range". do you have proof? Urban9097 May 2006

I talk to the people who sell the tickets... they sold over 500 in 2003 and [2004]], and "almost broke 600" in 2005. They don't exactly post ticket sale numbers for this kind of thing online... I love how people are harping on such petty things when much more positive contributions can be made to this site... Clint 03:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Well, the university would be in trouble if they advertised false facts" thats your own qoute. for accuracy sake, yes it should be a proven number so this PAGE isnt full of false facts. and it seems you "talk" to a lot of these people, but your claims keep getting shot down. so in retrospect, "they", whoever they may be, should know. honestly, i would like to know how you have these "connections". it would prolly help the rest of us understand where you are coming from. and making sure the site is not fluffed with false info is a positive contribution. right?Urban909

Unfortunately, everyone doesn't post every single fact on the Internet, so its kind of hard to provide internet-verifiable evidence. That number comes from Admissions. If you want to know how I have these "connections", I'm a member of SAB, COC, etc. (membership is open to anyone), so all I have to do is ask any chair position to look something up for me. I'm also a Presidential Ambassador, I'm certified to give tours, etc., and am in regular contact with the Admissions office because of it. The President of the University, VP of Student Affairs, Campus Life Director, Director of Auxiliary Operations, and Dining Services director all know me, have had prolonged conversations with me and would be able to identify me. Its not that hard to find stuff out if you actually make an effort to go speak to someone. Trust me, I don't want lies to be up on this page, as it would reflect badly both on the university and on Wikipedia as a whole. Now its your turn... who are you and how do you have any kind of idea that the "disputed" facts I present are not true? Clint 07:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to source admissions, just say "according to the University's admissions office." Pretty simple, no? You credentials, as impressive as they may be, are really irrelevant. It may not be hard to find information on campus through University administration members, but that is also irrelevant. The only thing relevant, in my opinion, is that you can source, quote or cite the information that can be sourced, quoted or cited. In the case of numbers, that's increasingly important. By the way, the last time I checked, it isn't the job of anyone except the public affairs office to release information that reflects well on the University. If people who look on this page want to hear about what successes the University has accomplished or how great the cafeteria is, they can go to the UST Web site. I thought this was just a source of fair and easily accessible information without bias. But hell. I could be wrong. --Newrocys 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Amusing... one of you asks for the credentials, the other declares them irrelevant... there's no way to win here, is there? SPIRE and Public Affairs do take care of "making the university look good". If you go back and check the history, the page was created with about two paragraphs (one of which focused on Marshall Applewhite) until I went ahead and expanded it. I modeled it after the Rice University page and collected all verifiable information from the UST website. Being it that all of the information (such as the stuff about the Academic Mall) wasn't available at the time (its now available on the virtual tour), I filled it in via the information given to me in tour training. I have a red book somewhere (distributed by the Admissions Office to tourguide trainees), but unfortunately its not online, so it apparently doesn't count as credible on a site that's supposedly concerned with facts. Furthermore, I see no references to such "successes" or cafeteria critiques you mention, and I don't see anyone putting up an nPOV violation tag... Clint 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Get it straight. Urban909 asked for your connections. Not me. I'm Newrocys. It's not about winning unless that's what you're making it out to be. I don't care WHERE you get your information; you can get it from the President's personal trash can if you want. HOW you get the inforamtion is what's important. If you're going to state things as fact, at least provide a way that others can find it too. Want to say it's from an Admissions handbook, say in the text, "According to University admissions publications...." I'm not going to respond to that last sentence any other way than saying that it was [SARCASM].--Newrocys 05:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that you are two different people... read my previous statement again. If you prefer such verbiage about the handbook, then fine, take it as that. I'm stating where I got it from (tour training), which comes from the handbook, but I have not read through the entire handbook myself (it has dozens of pages of information that would lead to a several hour long tour, and we're always given a much shorter time frame for the tour) and don't have one handy. I could go into concepts such as tonal inflection and sarcasm easily being lost with regards to text, but I'd rather leave that be... Clint 07:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not enough for me to take it as that. Part of my responsibilities at UST was to make sure everyone knew what was important, and to attribute information to the source. Is the information in question universally known? No. It's not. Tell the people that read this page where you got your information. If it's only in print, then write, "According to the University handbook..." Simple. Really, really simple. I'm surprised that no professor has taught you the importance of citation. Not everyone who reads this page knows that you give tours, nor do they care. They only care about the facts and the veracity of the facts. You have the burden of proof, and first-hand accounts are not enough. And yes, leave the sarcasm be. Obviously it's lost on some.--Newrocys 02:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I was at neewallah last year and the SAB people at the gate said they sold 500 tickets pre-sale. I've never heard 600 before.

Students and alumni

About Marshall Applewhite; was he a student? I have it understood he was a music teacher.

Valid point, that was incorrectly labeled. new section added Urban909

When was Mark Calaway a student at UST? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.204.73 (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark William Calaway ("The Undertaker") is listed as an alumni. His wikipedia page's Early Life section does not support this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Undertaker#Early_life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AAF5:F400:5B81:A75F:5DB9:1021 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Archdiocesan Status

I removed the note in the main section that UST is not a part of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, as it is nothing but lies. UST is listed under the schools section of the Archdiocesan website just like every other Catholic institution in the Archdiocese. This has also been confirmed by Dr. Bill Cork, the Archdiocesan Director of Young Adult and Campus Ministry, under whose jurisdiction UST Campus Ministry answers to. UST does maintain a board of directors (like every other university), but the board is not an independent establishment. Clint 03:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Diocese of Galveston-Houston has within its boundaries 52 elementary schools and 9 high schools, and total enrollment is nearly 18,000 students". I see nothing about college schools. yes, the site lists UST, but only as a catholic inst. can you give us this confirmation with dr. bill cork? the it can be stated that it DOES fall under its jurisdiction to edit that paragraph that was removed. Urban909

Actually, the Archdiocese Web site lists links to schools under its locater. UST is listed under "Universities." --Newrocys 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

yes i know it lists it, but that general statement has me confused about UST and what jurisdiction it falls under. that why i posted that qoute. Urban909

The jurisdiction does fall under the Archdiocese. The University maintains a board of directors that oversees matters, but Archbishop Fiorenza was (and to my knowledge, still is) on that board. I would assume that Archbishop DiNardo is too, as he has been sporting the UST star pin on his jacket recently (he was at my parish for the Confirmation mass a couple of weeks ago). Clint 07:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

UST and one other university are both in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston. UST doesn't have a board indepenent of the Diocese, because Bishops Fuerenza and Dinardo are on the board.

Just because there are Archbishops on the Board of Directors does not mean that they possess the ability to make unilateral decisions as they may have with the Archdiocese. Rather, the Board of Directors at UST act as a body under certain rules in which a majority or supermajority is required to make decisions, depending on the action being considered. Therefore, while UST is within the geographical bounds of the Archdiocese, and the Archbishops sit on the Board by virtue of this position, do not confuse this with the concept that UST is under control of the Archdiocese. Blwarren713 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Poem Controversy

wow, just read the "sympathetic lover" and it damn well looks like he ripped a lot of it from it for his poem. LAME! Urban909

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the deletion of the Poem Controversy. I changed it from Current Events to Poem Controversey since it isn't so current. But damned if local coverage of an on-campus story isn't relevant to readers. --Newrocys 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

History

Is Hackett field really history? I'm planning to move it down to "Campus" unless anyone objects...--Newrocys 22:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the history section because I figure the topic in general is going to expand over the next couple of months when the University officially enters the NAIA, which would be a historical note... Clint 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But history implies not recently. Historical as it could eventually be, it hasn't even happened yet. History would be how the first bid for intercollegiate sports ended in the severe cuts of the art and music department and the eradication of the nursing program. If the subject at hand expands, then it can get its own section. Still, it's not history.--Newrocys 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Special programs

This section is filled with unsubstantiated claims, or at the very least biased language. Acceptance rates need to be substantiated. "Well respected" music program? "Top art" musueum? ACCORDING TO WHO? I don't mean to say they are untrue, but they need to be backed up? Am I alone here?--Newrocys 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

nope i agree. i have been putting in several "citation needed" but some have been erased. most have been backed up after i put that in. but, on this specific topic most definetaly! Urban909

Student organizations

I had to update and change a lot of it. It was FILLED with false information and it lacked important information too.--Newrocys 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, do we really need a lot of the information present on that page? I mean, we definitely don't need the listing of clubs (especially considering how frequently the official list changes), and I'm starting to think that the whole SOC section doesn't have much encyclopedic value. I mean, a student looking to potentially join the university would care, but someone researching the university could probably care less about its inclusion... Clint 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

nope, it should stay. it gives valid information about school activities and gives the article a nice touch of specifics. i dont believe that someone looking at the site would get up and bothered by a list of different clubs. if i needed info and wasn't going to school, using this article gives one the info they need for whatever research they need, looking it too, what have you.Urban909

What are we deeming encyclopedic value to be? I think that ideally, this page will always have more information than you would expect. You could argue that the club list is too sporadic, in which case, I would agree and urge people to update it. In looking at other universities for how they deal with homosexuality on campus, I tried to find lists of clubs or committees that relate. Not even the school Web site has that information readily available unless you're willing to decipher the alphabet soup of clubs and organizations.--Newrocys 22:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Athletics

Is UST actually a memmber of the NAIA? They are not listed on the Web site, and I keep hearing rumors that they are still not full-fleged members of the group. Maybe its a probationary member or something of the like, but I can't find confirmation that NAIA approved UST's application. This says that NAIA would release its decision in September. So can anyone verify it?

The university was notified this fall by the NAIA that it was accepted to full membership, according to the October 2, 2006 issue of Star View, a publication put out by the university's Office of Public Affairs.[1] Blwarren713 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Academic Mall

Please merge any relevant content from Academic Mall per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Mall. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:27Z

School Colors

There appears to be some conflict over whether UST's official school colors are red and gold, or if they are red and white. According to the 2006-2007 UST SPIRE Factbook and a recent issue of Star View, the official school colors are, in fact, red and gold. Blwarren713 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UST1.jpg

Image:UST1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Faculty

I would like to have a discussion about "notability" justification for removal of Nicole Casarez from the list of UST faculty. Casarez's work has been recognized on a local and national level. Her body of work was recently recognized by the American Law Institute.

Citations related to Casarez's work on the Graves case: http://app1.kuhf.org/houston_public_radio-news-display.php?articles_id=1288652030

http://www.khou.com/news/-Man-freed-from-death-row-thanks-former-students-106157068.html

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-10-01/feature2.php

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7267798.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130895436

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/101028-students-helped-free-death-row-inmate

Citations related to her scholarly work:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Nicole+B.+Casarez%22&hl=en&prmd=ivo&wrapid=tlif12892300789231&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

http://www.law.uh.edu/ihelg/monograph/00-12.pdf

Announcement election to American Law Institute: http://www.stthom.edu/Public/Index.asp?0=0&page_id=3618Source_URL=%2FHome.aqf&Content_ID=10384

On the Board of IPOT: http://www.ipoftexas.org/index.php?action=board-of-directors —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerenceTMC (talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. Start an article on her with this material. After it looks like the article will survive scrutiny by other editors, re-insert her here. We don't determine notability here except that they must have an article first. No article, not notable, no mention. Student7 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:University of St. Thomas (Texas)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

potential GA Postoak 05:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocks the university is on

It was built on Link's original Montrose development. It occupies blocks 37-41 and 54-63 (54-58 going south, then 59-63 going north). Areas west of Graustark are outside of the original Montrose. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)