Oxford University learns the hard way that allowing SJWs free rein is an effective and efficient way for an institution to destroy itself:
Oxford University’s statue of Cecil Rhodes is to stay in place after furious donors threatened to withdraw gifts and bequests worth more than £100 million if it was taken down, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The governing body of Oriel College, which owns the statue, has ruled out its removal after being warned that £1.5m worth of donations have already been cancelled, and that it faces dire financial consequences if it bows to the Rhodes Must Fall student campaign.
A leaked copy of a report prepared for the governors and seen by this newspaper discloses that wealthy alumni angered by the “shame and embarrassment” brought on the 690-year-old college by its own actions have now written it out of their wills.
The college now fears a proposed £100m gift – to be left in the will of one donor – is now in jeopardy following the row.
The donors were astonished by a proposal to remove a plaque marking where Rhodes lived, and to launch a six-month consultation over whether the statue of the college’s biggest benefactor should be taken down.
But Oriel College confirmed in a statement to the Telegraph: “Following careful consideration, the College’s governing body has decided that the statue should remain in place.”
At a meeting on Wednesday the governing body was told that because of its ambiguous position on the removal of the statue, “at least one major donation of £500,000” that was expected this year has been cancelled. In addition, a “potential £750,000 donor” has stopped responding to messages from the college, and several alumni have written to Oriel to say “they are disinheriting the college from their wills”.
One of those who has already cancelled their legacy was going to leave a “seven figure sum” and the college is aware that “another major donor is furious with the College… whose legacy could be in excess of £100m”.
The report warns that there will now “almost certainly” be “one or two redundancies” in its Development Office team because of the collapse in donations. And it has cancelled an annual fundraising drive that should have taken place in April. The report also warns that Oriel’s development office could now make an operating loss of around £200,000 this year.
As a general rule, it is a massively stupid idea for an institution to allow it’s decision-making to be influenced, let alone dictated, by the antics of the low-IQ, affirmative-action pseudo-scholars who were foolishly admitted in the name of diversity. It shouldn’t be surprising when the pseudo-scholars engage in all sorts of destructive drama; they’re not capable of succeeding at Oxford and they know it, so they find “more important” activities to serve as a mask for their academic inadequacies.
Social Justice convergence kills.
But the pseudo-scholars are right about one thing. Cecil Rhodes would have been absolutely horrified to see Africans permitted to engage in these antics at Oxford. Everyone knows that Rhodes was a racist and Anglo-Saxon supremacist, but what those who condemn him are failing to consider is this: he was a racist whose opinion of those he called “the most despicable specimens of human beings” was derived from considerably more direct experience of Africans and African culture than those who condemn him today.
Indeed, the destructive and disrespectful behavior of those African students at Oxford is intended to undermine Rhodes’s reputation, but instead it is serving to support his now-controversial opinions.
Unlike most anti-racists, I’ve worked with African students struggling to stay academically eligible at university. And based on my experience, I can say two things: a) they worked harder and put in more time studying than any of the other students on campus, and b) they absolutely should not have been there. Most of them simply weren’t smart enough to grasp the necessary concepts involved. It’s not that they were stupid, but they were at a 2-SD disadvantage to the average student there.
It is more than unfair, it is downright reprehensible to continually push these young men and women into academic situations where they simply cannot succeed. It doesn’t help them, it destroys their confidence and it undermines the success of the few who are actually capable of succeeding.
It’s exactly like giving the nerds from the high school chess club a college football scholarship, then putting them on the field to play Penn State. Sure, they can legitimately call themselves “football players”, but that’s not much consolation when they’re getting crushed by 250-pound linebackers.
