Short Take: The Next President (of URI)

To non-lawyers, the threat of suing carries some inexplicable weight. Do this or we’ll sue, they exclaim. Lawyers shrug. Sue away, we think, because so what? Will that be the reaction of whoever is making decisions at the University of Rhode Island to the cries of their activist students?

“Some Black, White and Latino students shall join in another class action lawsuit if the next URI President is not an African-American with an ancestry to slavery,” read the list of demands put out by the Diversity Think Tank at the University of Rhode Island.

The complete list of demands spans 46 different points of contention over nearly 15,000 words.

“And, if anyone reading this asks why the next president of URI must be an African-American but has never questioned why URI has had 128-years of white presidents then you must be a racist,” it states.

The list is referred to as the group’s “Declaration of Diversity.”

To have complaints about the management of a university is hardly new. To make demands isn’t novel either, although these demands are rather extreme.

Aside from firing all the white people in management positions, what is the goal? They demand the URI hire a president with the following qualifications: “African-American with an ancestry to slavery.”

That URI has had white presidents throughout its 128 year history is unsurprising, and may well reflect a legacy of racism, whether in society or in the university itself. Heck, it’s Rhode Island, which has long been pretty white.

Even if the students are insufferably long-winded in their writing, and could use a damn fine scolding by E.B. White to edit out the pseudo-flowery gibberish from their leaden word salad, they need not be silent. They can complain to their hearts’ content, even if it would be far more effective if they could express their concern in a modestly intelligent and coherent way. But they can, and should, speak out.

But demanding not merely a black president, but one with an ancestry of slavery, seems a bit limiting. Maybe there are brilliant, competent, wonderful individuals to run this university who would meet some of their criteria but not all. Would they be better off if they were excluded on the basis of race without the correct ancestry?

Then again, if URI does not do as they demand, they are going to sue. There are few ways to come off as more of a joke than that. Sue all you want. We’ll make more. If you want to persuade, then you’re going to have to do a whole lot better and think a whole lot harder. Or the current stewards of URI might just collapse in fear of bad press on twitter and let you have your way.

17 thoughts on “Short Take: The Next President (of URI)

  1. Denverite

    I suggest a spelling lesson as well as the E.B. White (oh oh! talk about implicit bias) scolding. First assignment — Spell Title VII.

    1. SHG Post author

      I avoid criticizing typos to avoid hypocrisy, even if one might expect a thorough review for such banal errors before sending out such forceful public demands.

  2. rjh

    I think the explanation for slavery ancestry is their reaction to the criticism of simple race-based criteria. They are likely becoming embarrassed by the comparisons with recent immigrants from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, and elsewhere. The lack of a relationship between race and the harms from slavery has become an issue, especially when it comes to reparations and other compensation for slavery.

    Perhaps we can anticipate a return to those very careful legal definitions of racial mixtures (octaroon, etc.).

    1. Skink

      I read this comment many times over the hours since it was posted. Some of those times, I used a magnifier and several Internet decoders. I even consulted magicians and a swami. The result of those efforts is intellectual starvation.

      But it’s possible I’m truly obtuse.

  3. phv3773

    Rhode Island became wealthy on the slave trade in olden days, ship owners in the triangle trade. RI can’t plead the “hey, it wasn’t us” defense, though the current dominant political class is descended from Italian immigrants post civil war and it wasn’t them.

    As for qualified candidates with the right racial credentials, Brown had the remarkable Ruth Simmons as president for a few years. There are good people out there.

    1. SHG Post author

      In your fertile imagination, do either of your points constitute a rational argument? Does your desire to believe overcome all reason?

    2. Ron

      1. What the fuck does that have to do with anything today? You can find fault, real or imagined, with every state, nation, people and universe, if you want to hard enough, none of which bears any inherent connection to the situation now. I realize this means nothing to you lunatics, but it does matter to those of us who aren’t useful idiots.
      2. Ruth Simmons was great. That’s why Brown, an Ivy, got her. URI isn’t Brown.

      This isn’t hard if you pull your deluded head out of your ass.

      1. SHG Post author

        This is a perpetual problem, that such arguments are made without the slightest recognition that they’re not merely unpersuasive, but completely lacking in any rational connection. We can’t have that unpleasant conversation when the woke spew nonsense like this and think they’ve made a point because in their paradigm, logical connections don’t exist.

  4. KP

    “..what is the goal?”
    Well, racism wrecks our souls so we want to replace your racism of having white people with our racism of having black people. Like South Africa, the only thing that changed was the colour of the people holding the whips..

  5. Dan J

    I feel much sympathy for anyone who actually had to read all 15000 words of this.

    My eyes keep glazing over when i try to read the section you have here as a screenshot, but do the “protesters” shit all over the people of color that URI actually has hired? I am not sure how that helps their cause.

  6. artichoke

    Maybe it’s because I’m not a lawyer and can’t adopt the idea that everyone’s vulnerable to lawsuit no matter what i.e. if I were a lawyer I’d be a lousy rainmaker.

    But when they said “we’ll sue” I still can’t imagine “for what?” Their bloviation is therefore comical and I thank them for the entertainment. Granted, I’m not the intended target of their sue-ing, but still I hope URI can take this with equal light-heartedness. And admit some better critical thinkers in the future.

Comments are closed.