He should worry about what he says. It matters. You can't just demean people in public based on their race and sexual identity and brush it as no big deal.
Update on Residence Halls renaming & Paul Queally
- Thread starter GKiller
- Start date
So - based on recent articles it looks like we have a lot of buildings that will need new names.
Ryland and Freeman.
Queally will need to be removed because of recent events.
And I am throwing every building with the word ROBINS attached to it based on the pharmaceutical history and fact his Dalcon shield killed women.
Anyone know the history on Robert S Jepson and anything bad he might be associated with? He is from Georgia I see - is he involved with the new voting restrictions down there? Just kidding of course - but you can see how ridiculious this naming thing can get. Its almost like you need to hire a private investigator to fully vent these people with names on buildings.
Ryland and Freeman.
Queally will need to be removed because of recent events.
And I am throwing every building with the word ROBINS attached to it based on the pharmaceutical history and fact his Dalcon shield killed women.
Anyone know the history on Robert S Jepson and anything bad he might be associated with? He is from Georgia I see - is he involved with the new voting restrictions down there? Just kidding of course - but you can see how ridiculious this naming thing can get. Its almost like you need to hire a private investigator to fully vent these people with names on buildings.
The "perpetually offended" will not be mollified until every building is named after them. After that they will turn on each other because you can't "virtue signal" without a cause or an enemy. It must be tough having to be angry about something all the time. A much better way to live is to be thankful for all the blessings you enjoy.
Who said that the majority want the names changed.
Who said that the majority want the names changed? Hundreds of us do not want the names to be changed.
Be careful about kicking Queally around.
This man has supported UR like few others have.
Once the social justice warriors and left wing faculty get rid of Quaelly,
they will miss his generosity The Robins and Ukrop families have
already walked away
What would you suggest be done with Queally? He literally referred to white students as "regular" ones. Can you see how demeaning that is to minority students? Do we just keep taking his money and act like nothing is wrong?
In an ideal world - no, you don't take his money. But we don't live in an ideal world. If he is willing to still give, the University will be willing to still accept it.
I always thought it would be funny if our donors who get upset, as noted - Ukrops, Robins, and now Queally - should all just get together and give their money to a rival school - say a VCU.
It would be a better world if kindness dictated every human interaction but it does not. Obviously not every person has the same value system. Throw out all the "sinners" and there would be no one left. Jesus phrased it best: Let him without sin cast the first stone. Can't imagine the school rejecting donations unless a certain litmus tests of actions and character are met.
One example of the Ukrops giving to VCU is a pharmacy scholarship.
https://scholarships.pharmacy.vcu.edu/scholarships/Ukrops-Scholarship
It is also well known that Bobby Ukrop resigned from the Board of Trustees after the school's decision to drop men's soccer and track and field. If the school alienates people it follows that their support of the school would wane.
https://scholarships.pharmacy.vcu.edu/scholarships/Ukrops-Scholarship
It is also well known that Bobby Ukrop resigned from the Board of Trustees after the school's decision to drop men's soccer and track and field. If the school alienates people it follows that their support of the school would wane.
You’re working here with the slippery slope fallacy:
Slippery slope - Wikipedia
It is completely ignoring the idea of middle ground, and assumes that A (renaming slave owner and racist donor names from buildings) automatically leads to B (renaming any building based on a perceived slight).
Ok, but just because none of us are perfect doesn't mean we can't call out behavior that is really unacceptable, correct? We don't just throw up our hands and allow murder and robbery on the grounds that some people cheat on their wives and others cheat on their taxes. That line between acceptable and unacceptable exists – let's not act like it doesn't. So where are you going to draw it? If a big donor comes out and says "I hate Black people, but I love UR and here's a check for $10 million" are you taking it then? What if a convicted murderer wants to give us $20 million? Are you going to accept it because "everyone is a sinner" and we can't cast stones, blah blah blah?
No, I'm pointing out that throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "Ah, well everyone is a sinner" isn't the way to address bad behavior.
Forgiveness works a lot better than grievance for speech infractions. If you obtain "absolute power" you may try reeducation camps and see how that works. Otherwise your "work" of punishing/silencing those who say things with which you disagree is going to be a full time frustrating never ending undertaking.
Totally agree that forgiveness works best. But forgiveness also only works when those asking to be forgiven are actually contrite and are working to (or already have) change(d).
We've already been down this path with Queally, and he apparently learned nothing last time. I guess we should just keep giving him more chances since he's rich? Do we forgive everyone for every bad thing they've ever said or done? Are there no consequences for any bad behavior?
This also isn't a matter of someone saying or doing something with which "I" disagree – it's a matter of someone expressing racist views. It's not like he stood up at a board meeting and said he likes turkey sandwiches even though he knows everyone else likes ham – he made it clear that he thinks only white students are "regular" students. See the difference?
I know it's a fairly banal argument, but who is the arbiter of which slave owner names are "acceptable" and which ones need to be removed from buildings and places? What makes one acceptable and another unacceptable?You’re working here with the slippery slope fallacy:
Slippery slope - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
It is completely ignoring the idea of middle ground, and assumes that A (renaming slave owner and racist donor names from buildings) automatically leads to B (renaming any building based on a perceived slight).
George Washington. George Mason. James Madison. Thomas Fairfax. Patrick Henry. Thomas Jefferson.
That's a lot of erasing, and I've only scratched the surface.
That’s totally fair and I agree it is a complicated subject. I don’t have all the answers. Also, I am definitely not the arbiter.
However, for U of R, that sort of math isn’t necessary. There is no need to weigh Ryland and Freeman against Washington and Jefferson, because Washington and Jefferson don’t have buildings named after them in campus.
Just like Biden did when he said lower income children are as smart as white children. People misspeak all of the time.
You’re really reaching.
I think the argument would be that it is more of a pattern with Queally, not just an isolated incident.
Also, to your example, Biden in the next breath corrected his misstep/misspoken words. Maybe I’m wrong, but I haven’t read/seen anywhere where Queally did something similar. This, to me is an indication that it was less of him misspeaking and more about what he believes and realizes in hindsight he shouldn’t say it out loud.
Biden doesn't serve on our board of trustees, last I checked.
There are a lot of examples of people misspeaking. How about good old Hilary calling voters deplorables?
Granted, she’s not on our Board of trustees either, My examples of people misspeaking are just that, examples.
Hillary's actual quote:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that."
From what I saw on Jan. 6, she hit the nail right on the head.
When did PQ say he misspoke? I missed that part. From what I've seen, the board hasn't addressed PQ's interaction much at all - outside of digging in to say they disagreed with interpretation of his tone and words whatever that means.
www.thecollegianur.com
UR faculty pass motion of no confidence in Paul Queally, request resignation from Board of Trustees
The motion passed with 306 persons voting “yes,” 32 voting “no,” and 14 abstaining, according to a statement released by the Faculty Senate.
www.thecollegianur.com
But again, misspeaking is different than saying something you mean but realize later you shouldn’t have said. The fact that he has done it multiple times makes me believe it is not misspeaking.
For God’s sakes don’t think I’m not positive Trump said a lot of stupid things.
I was cherry picking some examples from others that should have known better.
Also, I haven’t read where Queally has misspoken “multiple times.”
I’m genuinely interested in which facts they have different views on. The line felt intentionally vague to me.
Might it be possible that the reporting on what was said and how it was said was not exactly accurate?
After going through and carefully reading all these posts more of y’all need to start watching George Carlin.
The problem with the slippery slope is that once you rename one building, you open the door on all other buildings. And then who becomes the judge or the person who draws the line in the sand and says - This slave owner crossed the line, remove their name - and this one did not, so keep the name. Or this person ran a company that did some bad things, but not that bad - so keep it, but this person over here said some things that were bad enough to remove their name.
This is why I say - you either leave them all alone and get off the slope. Or you ride down the entire slope and change every building name. Sure - you could try the middle ground, but you will be right back in this situation in a few years with the remaining buildings. I say rip the band aid off now and make a decision - keep them, or drop them - all names, all buildings.
This is why I say - you either leave them all alone and get off the slope. Or you ride down the entire slope and change every building name. Sure - you could try the middle ground, but you will be right back in this situation in a few years with the remaining buildings. I say rip the band aid off now and make a decision - keep them, or drop them - all names, all buildings.
This movie came out in 1994, but it is ringing very true today with a lot of campuses.
PCU Movie - 1994
PCU Movie - 1994
Centers of indoctrination and intolerance of opposing viewpoints particularly conservative ones.
Can anyone remind me of the impetus for dropping those sports and who was behind that cluster? I’ll hang up and listen.
Who was responsible for the Ukrops walking away? If you change some letters around in this post, you will find the name of the responsible party!
Not for nothing, but not for profits regularly turn down donations from dubious sources of money. It’s a frustrating decision but most NFPs choose their soul over $$$.
I doubt many non-profits turn down money. I mean, if it is from a terrorist organization, sure but just because someone has a different political beliefs, highly doubtful. They are cashing those checks, particularly if they are big.
So yeah, Queally may have said some politically incorrect things, but we are still going to cash his checks. The BOT didn't rally behind him because he is "nice guy" and a "good leader" for the University, they rallied behind him because he writes big checks.
They often do. I mean, really, they do. Money is never free.
You can doubt me on this. But you would be wrong!
