I fully understand that the University of Richmond is a financial institution that is only able to survive because of the donations (both current and historical) from wealthy individuals such as Charles Ryland and Douglas Freeman. I also understand that publically attacking these individuals would lead to many conservative donors pulling their funding from the University, which could lead to its downfall because (statistically speaking) most of the donors are probably conservative. Does that make their non-action morally right or acceptable? No, I don’t think so. But I do think that looking at it as a financial matter, rather than an emotional one, can help someone see why UR acted the way it did. Whoever decided on this course of action most likely plugged all the pros and cons and found that this weak, half-way solution produced limited long-term consequences because the people who would be most upset (students, various professors) don’t actually make that much of a financial impact on the university’s bottom line. Many of us are upset by their decision, but I don’t think that any of us are going to switch schools because of it. Donors don’t have that same obligation to keep giving UR money and their opinion literally decides the future of the university, so the administration will always side with them.
As a student, this is immensely frustrating because (as Dr. Bezio mentioned) UR pretends to only care about students and our well-being, and refuses to acknowledge that their real loyalties lie with the donors. I think that this was a terrible way for the university to handle the situation because it fails to recognize and acknowledge its own shortcomings. I believe that if they had said something along the lines of “We know this isn’t enough, but it is the most we can do at the moment and we’ll do more later,” that would have been much more acceptable to the student body. I guess that could still anger donors who would pull funding, so it’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do you think that there was a way that UR could have mad everyone happy?
I think you have a really great analysis of the situation, especially on the financial stakes of the situation. I agree with your comment about an aknowlegedment that it is not enough and that they have plans to do more would have made it better, but it’s still not enough. People might not transfer because of this act alone, but this act is representative of the university’s values and is just another example of the disregard the the university has for its students, particularly BIPOC students, and like microagressions, these things add up. They also come into play when students choose not to attend or apply to the school because of the reputation it has for not appropriately denouncing white-supremacists/slave-owners. So while I agree that the university is unlikely to make significant material change because of the financial aspects, but it does not absolve them of their obligation to change the names anyway in order to honor their mission and stated commitment to students.