WSU’s speech saga was an avalanche of bad decisions. Firing Golden would be another one
When the Kansas Board of Regents meets today — reportedly to decide the future of Wichita State University President Jay Golden — its members should pause, listen and reflect on the past week.
They should not demur to university donors who want Golden’s head over a decision to downplay Ivanka Trump’s virtual commencement speech.
They should consider the landscape of racial, social and political unrest that surrounds this controversy, which involves much more than an online address to WSU Tech graduates.
They should ponder the potential consequences of their actions. They should think about the message it sends. They shouldn’t panic.
And they should allow Golden to continue at Wichita State.
The events leading up to today’s meeting reveal an avalanche of poor decisions, beginning with the initial invitation to have Trump deliver a prerecorded commencement speech.
The president’s daughter is an incendiary figure at a time of immeasurable turmoil. Having her address graduates amid protests over the death of George Floyd — and after appearing by her father’s side at a Washington, D.C., church where protesters were pushed out with riot control methods — was an insensitive, tone-deaf move.
WSU Tech president Sheree Utash announced the decision in a gleeful statement last Thursday, saying she “couldn’t think of anyone better to address our 2020 graduates.”
After a swift and fierce public outcry, Utash apologized, and a joint statement posted online by Golden and Utash late that night said the commencement ceremony would be “refocused more centrally on students.”
That led to a predictable condemnation of “cancel culture,” led by Trump herself, and cries from various corners that downplaying the speech amounted to a First Amendment violation.
Those are valid accusations. Caving to a chorus of dissenters was another wrong decision — especially in an academic setting, where diversity of thought should be encouraged, not shut down.
It’s important to note, however, that WSU didn’t cancel Trump’s speech altogether. A link to her prerecorded message was moved from the keynote speech to the “messages of congratulations” section of WSU Tech’s virtual commencement and remains online for anyone to watch.
Had the university invited a similarly divisive left-leaning figure, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or former first lady Michelle Obama, to address graduates, they could have and should have expected similar criticism. It’s simply unnecessary and unwise to politicize these celebrations.
But now the debate has morphed into something more sinister — private donors flexing their political muscle in hopes of having the president of a public university removed from his post. Apparently, because they disagree with one decision.
That reflects the long-held and well-documented theory that billionaire investors wield a disturbing level of power over higher education. And that prospect undermines the concept of faculty governance and the integrity of public universities.
If a handful of major donors can threaten to pull funding unless they get their way — after a president’s decision to calm nerves and downplay politics — that’s beyond regrettable.
It’s outrageous and ill-advised. And the Regents shouldn’t let it happen.
This story was originally published June 10, 2020 at 12:28 PM.