richmond_goarmy_728x90

Alumnus wants Paul Queally to apologize for his remarks

Published: February 20, 2014, 2:12 am ET
Richmond College '08

If you are a current University of Richmond student, a member of its campus community or merely an interested alum, it is highly likely that you are familiar with the name Paul Queally.

On a campus where the right name can carry a lot of weight, Mr. Queally’s has made as great of a recent impression as any. Students now study in the business school’s Queally Hall and compete for precious spots in its Queally-sponsored (and modestly-named) Q-Camp. The university recently announced its plans for a Queally Center for Admissions and Career Services, and when the school controversially cut the men’s track and soccer teams in favor of a men’s lacrosse program, Mr. Queally’s name was frequently featured in the fallout.

It is an understatement to say that Mr. Queally has been extremely generous to the university, and similarly simple to state that the school has eagerly accepted his consistent charity. With nearly 20 million donated dollars in the past decade, the Queally name has approached an echelon reserved for the likes of Weinstein, Jepson and Robins, as revered and respected as any other within the Richmond bubble.

But this week Mr. Queally’s name became well-known outside of that bubble, and in a far less favorable light. When New York Magazine featured an excerpt from author Kevin Roose’s new book “Young Money,” many media outlets expressed outrage at its contents, particularly at the details it contained of a January 2012 meeting of the secret Wall Street fraternity, Kappa Beta Pi.

Among the piece’s most inflammatory — and thus most-publicized — anecdotes was a pair of jokes told at the event by one of its members, a certain private equity executive who just so happens to also be Richmond’s most visible donor.

“What’s the biggest difference between Hillary Clinton and a catfish?” Mr. Queally reportedly asked a fraternity inductee before an audience of the nation’s most notable financial titans. “One has whiskers and stinks, and the other is a fish.”

“What’s the biggest difference between Barney Frank and a Fenway Frank?” Mr. Queally continued. “Barney Frank comes in different size buns.”

I lack both the moral high ground as well as the perfect personal history to critique Mr. Queally’s crude jokes, but one need not bear an immaculate track record to point out the irony of this incident, as well as the mixed message the school will send if it elects to act as if this did not happen.

In recent years, the university sanctioned a student and placed a fraternity on social probation for circulating emails deemed to be sexually explicit. Westhampton College unilaterally decided to scrap escorts and mandate black dresses at Ring Dance, reversing long-standing tradition in order to create what it determined to be a more inclusive atmosphere. The Office of Common Ground has instituted Safe Zone luncheons, celebrated Lavender Graduations and ushered in a number of other initiatives to make the campus more welcoming of its LGBT community. Through these and other actions, the university has consistently made clear that discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation or some similar characteristic will not be tolerated.

I was not fortunate enough to have participated in Q-Camp during my undergraduate years, but I have still managed to learn a few lessons about how the business world tends to work. One of those lessons is that money talks, and through his generously donated millions of dollars, Mr. Queally has become one of the university’s loudest speakers in recent years. But with every building that bears his surname, every program that bears his initial and every athletic team that is perceived to be a product of his profit and persistence, his voice and the voice of the university become increasingly difficult to separate. Though his comments were delivered in an environment separate and apart from his role as a university trustee and donor, they inarguably diminish the school’s credibility in the public eye and its apparent commitment to initiatives it has otherwise held out to be priorities.

When I interviewed President Ayers on the eve of his inauguration nearly six years ago, we discussed the concept of the university seeing itself. As I think of such a scenario now, I’m not quite sure how much the school would like what it is about to see. There is now a certain hypocrisy inherent in future students submitting their liberal arts applications to a Queally Center for Admissions, of studying the Dodd-Frank Act in Queally Hall or of competing for the privilege of hearing Mr. Queally speak at a Q-Camp about what it means to be a professional.

At the time this piece was submitted Wednesday evening, the university had remained silent and Mr. Queally had just released a statement that did not include an apology. That is unfortunate. This campus has proven to be one that forgives foolishness, but each party’s behavior to date suggests they’d rather the rest of Richmond play the role of fools rather than forgivers.

I certainly hope someone chooses to address some of the issues this scenario has raised. Can a donor who has given so many dollars provide just one apology to his alma mater? Can a school that has accepted so many donations take just one stance against the behavior of its biggest benefactor? Or, does the ability to cut the right amount of checks endow one with immunity from accountability, with the ability to publicly perpetuate the same prejudicial perspectives that the school has otherwise (rightfully) chosen to punish?

These decisions are there to be made by Mr. Queally and for the university that increasingly chooses to bear his name. Until then, the jokes will continue to be on the rest of us.

Related Article Topics

,
Comments »
To post a comment, leave your first and last name and a valid e-mail address. Comments may not appear immediately because they must be approved by a moderator before posting. No registration is required, but you may sign in with DISQUS, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, or OpenID.
  • CCS

    Mr. Queally overlooked two fundamental rules. Never say behind another’s back what you wouldn’t say to his face, and remember that what can be known will be known so always act as if everyone’s watching.

  • Norman Lake

    If this was a public event, Mr. Queally made regrettable comments and needs to apologize. If the event was private with an uninvited guest or intruder who reported these comments, the criticism should fall on the reporter. No one can be held accountable to the public for comments made in private, whom among us should be the first to cast stones?

  • JKLN

    But I do wonder… Suppose Mr. Queally had told the same catfish joke about someone of the opposite political persuasion whether we’d be in such an uproar. Suppose for example it was Sarah Palin. Then it would just be a matter of him not liking Sarah Palin. That she is stupid. That she supports a “regressive” social agenda. It’s fair game. Certainly you could respond with “Yes, but…” and “The difference is….” and “What you’re missing is…” and “All of that aside…”, but as soon as you do that, you’ve already compromised your principals. You can hate on me. You can guess at my persuasion. But that doesn’t alter your own inconsistency.

  • UR Fan

    Norman… Do agree with Mr. Queallys comments? What is the threshold at which it is ok overlook ignorance and intolerance?

    • Norman Lake

      MH……Call it grace or forgiveness. If he does it again, I am on your side.

    • Norman Lake

      UR Fan …….I do not agree with Mr Q’s comments. He issued an apology. Critics of his remarks have suggested taking his name off of buildings, giving his money back, removal from the BOD. These are all extreme rebukes. If he does it again, then the U of R will be justified to take some form of punitive action regarding Mr Queally.

  • JD

    Mr. Queally became “well-known outside of the bubble” when he achieved the success he enjoys today, not when he made a few off-color comments. If you are truly an advocate for fairness/equality then you should provide a fair assessment of both the positive and negative things Mr. Queally has done for the University. I think you will find that a few insensitive, politically charged comments will be vastly overshadowed by his positive contributions.

  • Minnie

    amazing that this hasn’t been mentioned, to date. An irresponsible collegiate prank or just the way things go when there is money to bail you out.