Yeah, university communities have been notoriously unfriendly to Presidents from “outside the bubble”, even though, at least for a large public university the majority of the President’s job is political and fundraising (thus he doesn’t really need to be a professor as he has no real involvement with the day to day academics of the school), I suspect they disliked what Wolfe represents and that was all it took. He lost the support of the faculty but I think it’s likely he never had the support in the first place.
But at the end of the day, if this is like other State college systems I presume the Board of Trustees (or whatever it is titled) is appointed by the Governor, and they select the President. If the President was selected to slash and burn that reflects the political will of the State, expressed through the Board, and so likely any replacement President will be following the same path. Especially if, like in many States, Missouri is cutting public funding for higher education. I know a lot of state schools have long had only a small portion of their budget tax funded, but when it’s a multibillion dollar budget even a tiny bit can be $100m, so if it goes away cuts are often required.
Cuts for Planned Parenthood related activities of course sound political, but the President isn’t in a position to effectively take stands against his political masters (and the next President won’t be, either–students and faculty typically don’t get a vote in selecting University Presidents.)
As I remarked earlier, you have to remember that this community is very impacted by Ferguson. It is also rural, and racism is very real. To dismiss the anti-racist aspects of this incident as trivial misses the mark badly. Racial tensions are deeply ingrained in the wider community, and won’t disappear with a few training seminars.
Good for the football team, the faculty, and the student body for pulling together to call attention to the issues they are facing. Hopefully the next administration does better.
Ladies and gentlemen, the phrase that immediately identifies someone who sits calmly in the middle of a metaphorical burning building, saying “Fire? What fire?”
All athletics grants-in-aid (technically not “scholarships”) are on a year-by-year basis. In most cases, the players’ 2015-16 academic year is already paid for. AFAIK, the decision to renew or not is completely up to the head coach. Athletic administration would likely have had to fire Pinkel first before they could get at the players, and that’s a headache they didn’t want. Besides, getting a reputation as being unfriendly to African-Americans is not going to help you recruit in either of the two big-ticket sports.
Pinkel grew up in northern Ohio when unions still mattered and his other big head coaching experience was at Toledo (my hometown), where unions still matter even now. Given this I’m not surprised at all that he supported his athletes. Even a cold self-serving calculation that he’d have them back on the practice field sooner if he supported them than if he didn’t would have turned out to be correct.
I can’t say whether or not the football players’ actions were the straw that broke the camel’s back. Faculty were planning a walkout too and that’s no small matter. Everyone seemed to hate Wolfe and that rarely happens for no good reason.
Okaaaaay. But even if I accept all that, how did this coalition convince the football coach to convince his players to blackmail Wolfe? (Stated above that Wolfe ‘works for’ Pinkel, which I’ll also swallow). How will Pinkel assure that the next president re-funds PP, etc.?
Don’t give him that much credit. The Board of Trustees noticed Wolfe had completely lost control of the school and strongly “suggested” it was time for him to go.
Yeah, the OP’s position really isn’t consistent. On the one hand, he’s saying that football is so important that nothing should be allowed to interfere with it. On the other hand, he’s saying that the football team (players and coach) shouldn’t have any say in the doings of the school. But if football is so important, then that means that they should have a say.
That doesn’t exactly make them sound like they’re reasonable partners. Demand 1 for them is for Wolfe to present himself and confess his guilt of being white and male. The other demand quoted, essentially says only black people are qualified to supervise a racial inclusion curriculum. That’s ridiculous and fairly offensive.
This is what I meant with my snippy comment. The range of acceptable views for college faculty is narrowing. If you say something that falls outside of that viewpoint, or in this case don’t declare your support of that loudly enough, you’re a target. With enough publicity you might lose your job (and realistically your career).
That’s only if you believe that’s what “acknowledging privilege” means. I’m sure the protesters would disagree with that POV.
As for the second point, I do not see the word “black” anywhere in your quote, nor do I think it’s completely outrageous that people of a minority community have a say in the way they’re being treated. Or are you one of those people who look at committees on women’s issues being all men and think, “There’s no problem with that”?
Just what do you think “of color” means anyway? It certainly doesn’t mean my pale beige/pink color, and I suspect it doesn’t mean the pale brown of guys named Martinez and Garcia either.
Yes but that is my feeling. By failing to acknowledge and validate my perspective you are making this board not a safe space for me to express my view point. By bringing up white privilege these students make me feel ashamed and guilty to have been born white.
I’m one of those people that think a person shouldn’t be excluded from a job based on their skin color (or gender since you asked).
The quote says the people on the board should be “of color”. I interpreted that to mean black people only but I guess it could mean “no whites allowed”.
You do realize that there’s nothing remotely innovative about this (for lack of a better word) argument, and that it’s been addressed many times over many years, right?
“Not Caucasian”, which would include people of half black/half white ancestry and Hispanics, as far as I know, and as far as I personally am concerned.
Of course, the definition the organization uses might be different, but my point is that it’s not necessarily as narrowly defined universally these days as you seem to think.
ETA: I think I see the problem: I think the term “people of color” has grown out of the purpose it was originally coined for, which WAS (IIRC) to provide an alternate term for dark skinned people in particular. I don’t think it’s limited as such in general usage today; I’ve seen it used to refer to Asians, Hispanics, Native peoples, etc. etc.
I don’t think Pinkel gives a hoot about any of that. There’s no coalition, I’m just explaining that his unpopularity, and the controversy as whole, was about more than just the racial incidents. The players themselves have said this.
The players decided on their own to support the grad student. Pinkel decided to support the players. The end.
Indeed, which is the entire point. I would guess that you think things have gotten better, to the point where the student action is silly at best and rabble rousing at worst. They, I’m sure, would disagree. Which, again, is why they’re doing it to begin with.
Nope, not when the entire point is to address racial issues. Otherwise, you get stuff like the aforementioned women’s issues committee with all dudes on it.
Ooh, excellent point. Now that I’ll heartily condemn.