SU: Inaction Equals Race Baiting Tolerance

By Thornton Crowe

Over the last week here on Salisbury News, there has been a debate fuming over the black students who drew a race baiting image on a whiteboard in one of Blackwell Library's study rooms. Many comments have conflicted over Salisbury University's mishandling of this criminal incident. (And yes, any time one does something to intentionally incite violence, it is a crime.) Since January, we have seen in the national news, many incidents where black people have purposefully tried to incite racial division and violence; victimizing white people. This has even occurred on college campuses by black students and alumni. The only difference is, those perpetrators face criminal charges while the SU students go unscathed for the time being.

Two examples are: Kayla-Simone McKelvey, a 24 year old alumni and self-proclaimed black activist for Black Lives Matters from Keane University has been charged for sending out death threat tweets to black students, posing as white students. Another at Albany University, where three students face charges for generating Fake Hate after claiming a racial attack on a bus, which drew national attention from people like Hillary Clinton whom rushed to judgment only to find the story was completely false.

In the latter article on the Gateway Pundit, it states the falsely accused:

"...student dropped out, likely because UAlbany isn’t a safe environment while these racist and potentially violent students are allowed to terrorize the campus with the support of their biased university president."

In the racial tension environment we now live in, thanks much to DC politicizing and exploiting some of America's dark history, can we really afford to let black millennials get a way with hate crimes just because they're not white? Does this protect the communities college campuses operate in, if we let people try to incite a dangerous repeat of the Sixties? If you remember 1968, then you have a full understanding of the violence and rioting that comes along with escalated tensions.

By refusing to press charges, SU's president, Dr. Janet Dudley-Eschbach is not only enabling and fostering racial tension and race baiting, she is endangering the entire community. As seen by the two examples above, should charges be filed (which they should by all accounts,) it would not be without precedence as more universities and community leaders are holding black students accountable for this malfeasance every day. Yet, SU and  State Attorney, Matt Maciarello, have both placated and enabled these students to get away with a hate crime simply because they were black.

What could this mean in the bigger picture? 1968 revisited? Many students from SU have stated they were not aware of the situation and even when sent an email after the SbyNews article, much about the incident was omitted; like the race of the perpetrators. Hence, this poses a problem because black students will wrongfully assume white students were responsible. Conversely, the white students who have learned through word of mouth that it was drawn by black students will be equally upset for being 'framed' in a hate crime.  Additionally, the black students involved most likely boasted to their friends, "Look what we got away with and you can do it, too." Therefore, while some commenters on the earlier posts may think it's a small thing - a crude picture on a whiteboard - this can metamorphose into many actions when left unchecked. Retaliation violence historically follows up incidents like this where administrators omit or misinform student bodies and surrounding community.

Many community leaders and prominent business people like the Perdue, Guerrieri and Fulton families, have donated millions to SU so students of all races can gain an education. Many of these donors come from the Radicals' so-called, White Privilege. They, too, should be equally outraged as their names adorn the buildings at a campus known for its race baiting tolerance. Perhaps it is time for them to stand up against SU's policy of propagating hate. Other actions for citizens is to complain to the Board of Regents with the University System of Maryland, an organization whom can hold SU's administration accountable to rectify the situation before it becomes a more major issue for every citizen to endure. 

Unfortunately, SU's attempt at damage control to prevent perspective students, parents and those in the Salisbury community from hearing about this incendiary situation has failed miserably as other news outlets have begun reporting the story. This will no doubt be far more damaging to the school's brand than any prosecutorial action.

Does the Salisbury University Alumni want their alma mater to be blemished by this type of complacency? Why would quality professors want to work in an academic environment that promotes hate through silence? Is this how we want Salisbury to be viewed by the rest of the world? Enablers of racial discrimination and race baiting?

I would hope my fellow citizens would understand the potential danger posed by non-action and find it unacceptable from any entity in our community - especially the university that proclaims diversity.

How say you?