Only a year ago, members of the Rutgers faculty sent an open letter to university president Robert Barchi demanding his “unqualified affirmation” of diversity, which they described as “a core value . . . and one of the pillars that informs the mission of the university.”
So how to explain the vote by the Faculty Senate and calls in the school paper demanding the university rescind its selection of Condoleezza Rice as this year’s commencement speaker?
Their complaint? She lacks “moral authority” and “exemplary citizenship” because of her support for the war in Iraq and endorsement of interrogation techniques like water-boarding. Oh, yes, say the profs: Condi’s just not sufficiently “inspiring.”
Frankly, we’re hard-pressed to think of anyone more inspiring than Condi, who worked her way from Jim Crow-era Alabama to become the first African-American woman to serve as both national security advisor and secretary of state. Rice has also been on the faculty at Stanford since 1981, including a stint as provost — the university’s chief budget and academic officer.
Let’s just say we suspect it would be hard to find anyone among her Rutgers critics who could come close to matching her credentials. But Rice is also a black conservative, and that’s a cardinal sin in hard-left academia. In 2006, students and faculty stood and turned their backs on Rice when she delivered the commencement address at Boston College.
President Barchi says Rutgers is sticking with its selection. Good for him. As for the protesting profs, we advise them to go to the commencement and listen to what Rice has to say. They might learn something.