Gwendolyn Boyd was recently appointed the first woman president of Alabama State University in Montgomery. Dr Boyd’s employment contract was recently made available and it includes the usual provisions on compensation, expenses, and duties. But the contract also includes an interesting provision.
The contract states that the president must live in the house provided for her on campus and “for so long as Dr. Boyd is president and a single person, she shall not be allowed to cohabitate in the President’s residence with any person with whom she has a romantic relation.”
In a statement to the Montgomery Advertiser, President Boyd wrote, “I can read, I read my contract thoroughly, I knew what I was signing and have no issue with it at all. The clause in question is not a personal imposition to me in any way.”
ASU is smart. She is the President.She has an image she must uphold to represent the school. It does not look right if romances were allowed to stay with her. Can two students that have romantic relations stay with each other in the dorms? Well then.
Good for you Gwen. They are always trying to find some personal tidbit to write and make stories juicier. When you decide to date do it in public and with the same graceful disposition.
The college’s attitude is antedeluvian. we live in more modern world I hope
Dr. Boyd,
After reading your credentials and viewing your photo, you hardly seem like the kind of woman who would even consider “Cohabitating in Government Housing.”
I join Pedro in saying, “Good for you Gwen.” You’ve raised the morality barometer in Alabama by at least 100 points!
I agree with Alabama State University in placing the clause in her contract. Examples have to be set, it’s unprofessional to live on campus (shacking up) with a man you are not married to. He can visit, stay over nite if he wish, just can’t live there which make so much sense.
Congratulation Dr. Boyd
TeelTheTruth: actually, the contract also stipulates that she can’t have overnight guests, either nor can family members move in with her.
My question remains: was this stipulation placed upon her predecessors and will it stand up in court?
Being the person that many of us know her to be, what if she decides to take a young relative under her wing/mentorship as is common in so many of our families? That relative, contactually, can not live with her.
What if she does have an overnight guest but said guest stays in one of the guest rooms?
Is that an act of moral indisgression and a breech of the contract/ cause it’s would be a breech of the contract.
And, who’s going to be constantly watching to see if she does have overnight guests?
Have folks nothing better to do and “he who is without sin, let him cast the 1st stone!” . . .