President Wagner’s Response
Dear Leslie,
This letter is both firm and gracious. I, too, regret my reference to the three-fifths compromise and am sorry for the injury and insult that has resulted from my use of it. As you and your colleagues have generously allowed, it was not my intent to offend or insult. Doing so was the result of mistaken judgment and of insensitivity. Emory deserves better, and I look forward to growing along with our community as we resume and in some cases redouble our efforts in those programs underway to continue building the safe, respectful, inquiry-driven, ethically engaged, and diverse community toward which we aspire.
I accept your criticisms as being well deserved and with all humility.
Sincerely,
Jim Wagner
President, Emory University
Of course it wasn’t your intention to offend or insult people – no one is saying that’s what the problem is.
The problem is that you wrote a 750 word essay devoted to the Three-Fifth’s compromise – not a “reference” – which appears in a publication that goes to 115,000 alumni subscribers and was broadcast to the world online. In that essay, you uncritically adopted the perspective of the white powerbrokers who struck the Three Fifths Compromise, lauding their decision as “honorable” and their motivations as “noble,” without sparing a moment of critical reflection for the perspective of those human beings over whose bodies the deal was cut. Your “clarification,” in which you asked how WE would have voted on the Compromise, only doubles down on this identification, since so many of us who make up today’s Emory wouldn’t have been the agents of a vote on the Compromise but rather its objects – chattel for those with “noble aspirations” to bargain over with *their* votes.
There are words for this kind of obliviousness, and words, too, for the kind of minimizing and evasive damage control your “response” exemplifies.
This is the same apology we already heard. I’m not buying it one bit. I call it the (non-apology) squared.
He may have been a little screwy with his math but he sure knows how to make a sincere apology. This is so far removed from the spin doctor’s “I regret that some were offended by what was said.”
“…the safe, respectful, inquiry-driven, ethically engaged, and diverse community toward which we aspire…”
Aspirations are commendable; however, the slashing of programs (Economics, Spanish, Journalism, Russian, Visual Arts, Institute of Liberal Arts, etc.) as well as the way faculty members are treated (e.g. Butler in German) suggest these areas for immediate presidential leadership.
Perhaps this more contrite response should also be sent to the “Emory Magazine,” in addition to, or instead of the response that now exists there on line.
Emory loves lofty words like “unity” and “reconciliation.” How about “compassion?” Who among us has not put our foot in our mouths? Who has never said stupid things or written a stupid essay? We ALL have. Let’s have some compassion and forgive Pres. Wagner.
Also, as someone mentioned above, some in the Emory community are upset about the cutting of programs. Naturally, this is very personal to many but it is in poor character to use the upset over the essay as a proxy for revenge against Wagner for the cuts.
I agree that Wagner, like all members of our community, is deserving of basic compassion and respect, and I do believe him when he expresses remorse for his statements. I don’t think he’s a bad person, or a racist, and I don’t think he meant to hurt anyone. Nevertheless, he did cause harm with his statements, and those who are voicing how they were affected by those statements are just as deserving of our compassion and respect. It’s up to each injured party to decide whether or not they forgive him, and as person who has never been a victim of racial discrimination, I don’t feel it’s my place to tell anyone to get over it.
I disagree with your comment that it is in poor character to tie together the sentiments expressed in his essay and the program cuts. It’s very clear that Wagner invoked the importance of compromise as an attempt to mollify those who were hurt when the university cut their programs and departments — to suggest that they should be willing to accept those losses for what he feels to be the greater good of the university, just as one group of privileged white men made concessions to another group of privileged white men for what they felt to be the greater good of the nation in 1787. To me, this reveals something important about how Wagner sets priorities for the university, and it’s worth considering whether these are priorities that are shared by the broader Emory community.
AS A NON-STUDENT, I SUPPORT WAGNER. FROM READING ABOUT THIS “CONTROVERSY” MANUFACTURED BY MARXIST ACADEMICS, ALL I CAN SAY IS I’M GLAD I WENT TO A [REAL] INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING, NOT AN INDOCTRINATION CAMP LIKE EMORY.
FOR A NON-POLITICALLY CORRECT, TANTRUM-FREE PERSPECTIVE, SEE HERE:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/three-fifths-of-a-controversy/
tl;dr Emory is anti-White, and like good revolution(arie)s that devour their own children, its community even threw anti-slavery Framers under the bus in their continued attempt to apologize for existing.