Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Board Implodes Over N-Word

July 16, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Roger Williams University announced last week that its board chair of nearly 40 years, Ralph R. Papitto, a major donor for whom the law school is named, was retiring from the board. The press release praised Papitto's "visionary leadership" and said that he considered the diversification of the board as one of his greatest accomplishments.

What the press release doesn't say is that the board today consists only of white men. Nor does it say that the board's two women and one other man were just ousted -- after the three demanded Papitto's resignation for using the slur "nigger" in a board meeting.

The board turmoil went public this weekend when one of the ousted female trustees told her story to The Providence Journal. In interviews with Inside Higher Ed on Sunday, that trustee, Barbara Roberts, and Papitto presented very different views of what is going on at Roger Williams. Roberts described a board beholden to Papitto and unable to act when he crossed a basic line of decency. Although Papitto has now left the board, she said the university got rid of the trustees who had raised the issue, heaped praise on Papitto, and plans to honor him in perpetuity with its law school name.

"It's disgusting. His name is still on the law school -- a known racist and anti-Semite," she said. (There are other charges about comments Papitto has made about Jews, which he denies.)

Papitto, 80, on Sunday admitted using the slur in the board meeting, but said that he is not a racist or anti-Semite and that he doesn't know why he used the word. He said that Roberts was always "agitating" for more diversity on the board and he questioned the loyalty of trustees for talking about the situation. He compared himself to Don Imus, whose radio career was destroyed after he used slurs to talk about the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

"He had millions of people listening, but this was 10 people behind closed doors," he said. "Trustees are committed to confidentiality, so how would anybody else know about it unless they went out and discussed it?"

The comment took place at a May meeting of the board, which was discussing criticism the university had received from its accreditor over board diversity. Barbara Brittingham, director of the higher education division of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, said that it had sent a "notice of concern" to the university with regard to its board. The notice is a serious step, one the association takes only five or six times a year. Brittingham said that the notice didn't specify that the university needed a certain board membership or structure, but focused on ways that the board was violating its own rules and stated goals about elections, membership and other topics.

Papitto and Roberts agree that he was discussing this notice when he made the slur. Roberts recalled Papitto saying: "They want us to add more poor kids and they want us to add more, well, I can’t call them 'niggers,' I learned that from Imus."

Papitto's memory of the event is only a little different. "We were talking about Latinos, underprivileged, Vietnamese, people who are qualified and not qualified and that kind of thing," he said. One of the topics was trustee selection, and Papitto said he said that "it's easy to put a trustee on, but it's a son of a gun to get one off," and that somewhere in there, he made the slur.

"It just came out. It happens," Papitto said. "They are calling me a racist for one incident."

The article in The Providence Journal, however, suggested that this was not just one incident. The article quoted an e-mail from Roy J. Nirschel, the president of the university, to the trustees who were angered by the slur, in which he said: "None of it came [as a] surprise. He has lambasted blacks, Muslims and Jews before in front of staff."

Papitto said that Nirschel was "a very insecure guy" who was uncomfortable with having Papitto "a hands-on board chair." (Nirschel said he didn't want to respond to Papitto's remarks about him, but said he was proud of the progress the university is making. He also said that slurs about members of any group, by anyone affiliated with the university, are "completely unacceptable.")

As for accusations that he has a pattern of remarks about members of certain groups, Papitto said that "my best friends in my whole professional career are Jewish people," and described his role in creating an Italian country club 40 years ago when the establishment clubs wouldn't admit Italians (among other groups). "Some of our members had this prejudice kind of thing," and wanted to only let Italians in. "But one of the first things I did was to open up this club," he said. Four decades, the several hundred members include 2 black people and 12 Jewish people, he said.

After the meeting where Papitto made the remark, Roberts and the two other trustees who have since been ousted demanded his resignation. An emergency meeting was held the next week at which Papitto apologized. In the weeks that followed, as three board members pushed for Papitto's ouster, the board's executive committee removed them instead. Roberts said that she and others were repeatedly pressured to "be quiet" about the slur and that they were clearly removed as retribution for not doing so.

Papitto, asked why the three trustees were removed, cited several reasons. First, he said that they had missed board meetings. Then he said that Roberts was "always agitating" and that she repeatedly demanded that women get a majority of seats on the board. (Roberts said she repeatedly urged fellow board members to diversify their membership, but that it was "ludicrous" to say that she demanded a female majority for the board.)

An hour after first talking to Inside Higher Ed, Papitto called back to say that there was another reason he wanted Roberts off the board. Papitto said that a few weeks ago, he received an anonymous packet of newspaper clippings about Roberts having "ties to the mob," through her cardiology practice, and that he discussed this with key advisers who agreed that this was a problem. "Is this the kind of person who should be a trustee?"

Roberts is in fact a prominent cardiologist who is director of the Women's Cardiac Center at Miriam Hospital, which is affiliated with Brown University's medical school, where she is a clinical associate professor. Her work on heart disease and women has won her scientific praise and White House invitations. In 1980, the father of one of the lawyers for a reputed organized crime boss was a patient of hers, and through that tie, she ended up treating the alleged boss, Raymond L.S. Patriarca, and testifying that he was too ill for a trial. Roberts noted that judges agreed with her conclusion and that Patriarca died a few years later.

She called the idea that she had mob ties -- and that this issue from 1980 surfaced in an anonymous mailing just as she was putting pressure on Papitto to quit -- "a little funny," adding that "I have thousands of patients. I took the Hippocratic Oath and I take care of anyone who wants me to be their cardiologist." In fact, until recently, Papitto was one of her patients.

So where does this leave Roger Williams, now that both Papitto and his critics are off the board?

Papitto said that the board is about to have a major expansion, by 14 members, and that many of them would not be white males. Brittingham, of the New England accrediting group, said that she has met with Nirschel and that she believes Roger Williams and its board are taking governance issues seriously.

Nirschel said he believed that the board's reforms were significant and would reflect "best practices" on governance. He noted that a majority of those who will soon be joining the board are women and that the group will also include minority and international trustees. "I'm very pleased with the way we are going forward. At the end of the day, the results speak for themselves," he said.

Clifford Monteiro, president of the Providence NAACP, said that his group is beginning an investigation of what happened at Roger Williams. He said the NAACP wants to know more about whether attitudes reflected in the use of language carry over to policies at the university. He said he would also like to know why the three ousted trustees have not been reinstated, and called Roberts "a very courageous woman" for exposing what was said in the board room.

As for Roberts, she said she is not satisfied that nearly enough change is taking place at Roger Williams. Why honor Papitto instead of being honest? she said. And she noted that Papitto has been given the title chairman emeritus. As for the board, many other ties remain to Papitto.

He was succeeded as chairman by Richard Bready, who is chairman and chief executive of Nortek Inc., which Papitto founded. Other trustees, the Providence paper reported, include Papitto's son-in-law and a major stockholder in Nortek. "There are too many conflicts of interest on this board," Roberts said.

Roberts said that she was "appalled and enraged" by the way most trustees seemed uninterested in challenging Papitto and in going along with her ouster. She said that Nirschel was originally supportive of her efforts, but did nothing as she and other trustees objecting to Pepitto were removed from the board. "He hung me out to dry," she said of the president.

She also said that she believed Roger Williams needed to do more about diversity on a range of fronts. She said she was sorry to lose her position to influence such change, but that she felt that she had no moral choice but to speak up when a person with the power of a university board chair used such a slur.

"I sit on four other nonprofit boards. If any chair had used that word in any meeting, the entire board would have demanded his resignation immediately," she said. The ouster from the board and the tense meetings in recent weeks have been unpleasant, Roberts said, "but at the end of the day, what I have to live with is my own conscience."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Board Implodes Over N-Word

  • Hubris alive and well at Roger Williams.
  • Posted by Scott , Ast. Prof. on July 16, 2007 at 7:15am EDT
  • It appears that Papitto is yet another example of all too common species: the wealthy, elderly, white male who feels that he can do or say anything and quash all opposition through his wealth and power. Unfortunately, he appears to be largely correct in his assumption.

  • Can't wait for the day...
  • Posted by Disgusted on July 16, 2007 at 8:40am EDT
  • when all these elderly white men are finally gone. Many have kept up with the times, thankfully, but many do not realize that it is no longer 1955.

    A couple of months ago I was in an elevator with two older faculty members talking about a meeting they just attended. One said that women "don't have the "temperament" to lead in higher education. With me, a woman, in the elevator!

    Bye bye. You'll be gone soon. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

  • The Nuclear Word
  • Posted by Ray on July 16, 2007 at 8:45am EDT
  • I don't know anything about Ralph R. Papitto at all, other than what I have just read in this article. Never heard of him.

    What I do know is that he used what I call the NUCLEAR WORD in a meeting. Had he used (fair warning to all easily-offended readers: stop reading right here) other extremely derogatory words I will now list, such as dago, wop, spic, slant, gook, hymie, wetback, polock, etc., would the article above this discussion even have been printed in the first place? Even if he had obviously used those words with the force of conviction? Maybe.

    The NUCLEAR WORD is in common usage. I assure you I'm not a racist (you'll just have to take my word on that), but I also assure you I know what the word means, and also what all of the other words listed above mean. So do you, probably. It means we heard the words or read the words somewhere, sometime. It means we have quite likely SAID those words somewhere, sometime, even if only to innocently learn their meaning.

    So what gives this one word the potential force I have assigned to it by calling it NUCLEAR? And why is it so variable, depending on the 'delivery system?' Some members of our diverse society can (let's be realistic now) obviously say that word and not have any appreciable negative feedback result from saying it. Other members of our same diverse society can say that word and suffer results that resemble the Salem Witch Hunts.

    Why is this? I suppose you thought I had prepped all this in order to now present a pat answer. But I don't. All I have is the question: Why is this?

  • The Problem with using seemingly "innocent" words
  • Posted by Valerie , Program Coordinator at I.S.U on July 16, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • The reason some of us are "easily offended" by the use of racist, derogatory words/comments/statements that are declared to be "innocent" by the user(s) is because, as my mother used to say to us, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

    When will people learn that it is not about the word used, but the mindset of the individual using it? You could not pay me to believe that this man was not both racist and out of touch with issues of inclusion...it is time to move relics who refuse to embrace true diversity out of the way for change to occur.

  • Bury the N-Word, part deux
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 16, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • Ray, I apologize if I get you wrong, but is your post suggesting that the N-word is in such common usage that we shouldn't be offended by it anymore? Perhaps you missed this news item last week -- link at

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/09/ap/national/main3035694.shtml

    The NAACP might help you understand why it's important to take a public position against even casual use of this awful term -- and not to tolerate its use by any person of any color.
    For my part, I hope Roberts sues Papitto for libel.

  • Ray's nuclear word
  • Posted by Norman on July 16, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • If the n-word is nuclear, Ray, it's because it should be--you yourself don't seem to question this as much as you seem to want to draw some sort of distinction between it and the other offensive words for racial or ethnic minorities that you list. You're right that we've all read or heard these words but most of us probably haven't for a long, long time, except when someone like you holds them up for public display and discussion. It's a good thing that at least most Americans have put ALL of these words behind us. I like to think that we're not even thinking in such terms anymore, but if that's not the case, I'm content that we're no longer saying them and that people are now willing to condemn such language.

    --Norman

  • the "nuclear word"
  • Posted by Richard Pious , Professor at Barnard College on July 16, 2007 at 10:25am EDT
  • The reason why "N" words require zero tolerance
    and other ethnic and religious slurs, while also
    unacceptable in theory, don't always generate the same reaction in practice has to do with the historical context: among all groups in the American mosaic, only African-Americans were brought here in chains in the middle passage, enslaved and brutalized for centuries, and once emancipated, subjected to de jure segregation and legal discrimination, as well as thousands
    of lynchings. The "Nuclear" word and its variants
    accompanied all of these immoral acts.

  • Summer yawns
  • Posted by Chuck on July 16, 2007 at 11:45am EDT
  • Oh dear. My word. What is wrong with those academics and now even Trustees using bad language and slurs?

    Such hyperbolic responses and sniffing pieties of the language cops on display here! Did the stars fall on Alabama? Did the sky fall over America?

    All this simpering sanctimony would be more believable if the same critics and would-be censors issued comparable condemnations whenever rabid feminists issued sexist indictments of men or whenever blacks launched verbal attacks on whites.

    Need some examples? Check out the initial hysteria at the first reports of the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case and then the utter silence of race-baiters and chronic gender malcontents when all charges were dropped.

    This whole story elicits merely a big old yawn on a beautiful summer's morn. Now don't get too carried away in your counter-attacks, lest you re-confirm my observations......

  • Posted by SS , Professor at University of Miami on July 16, 2007 at 11:55am EDT
  • Thank you, Richard.

    To me the scariest thing in this whole thread is that someone who reads IHE could write the comment Ray did, apparently with total seriousness, and then Chuck could follow up as he did.

  • Posted by RJ Lash , No counter-attack here! on July 16, 2007 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Chuck....you hit the ball right out of the park! And it's a beautiful day here too.

  • Board Implodes over N-word
  • Posted by Ben Morris , Teacher on July 16, 2007 at 12:20pm EDT
  • Please understand that I find the term, "nigger" as repellent as any sensible and considerate person would!! ... but I refuse on principle to say that that sanitized PC substitute that pretends it does not exist. My question is, why was no action taken until the board chairman said, "nigger"? Shouldn't he have been canned long before now for using the other epithets (e.g. "hymie", "dago" and all the others) regularly at board meetings???

  • Hypocritical
  • Posted by mike on July 16, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • It's amazing to me that the self-righteous, religious zealots of "tolerance and acceptance" refuse to tolerate or accept those who disagree with them.
    Telling another person that they are not free to use ANY word is censorship. The strategy is simple, "Let's label words we don't like as Hate and then we can censor those who disagree with us."
    There will always be people who are racist, or hateful, or unpleasant. Throwing a fit over a word simply gives them more steam. If you want to destroy someone's ideas - use apathy.

  • Posted by Norman Keul on July 16, 2007 at 1:05pm EDT
  • Mike, you overstate the matter when you write "telling another person that they are not free to use ANY word is censorship." Everyone's free to say what they like. However, they may have to pay a price in the court of public opinion. Don't expect to say derogatory things about racial or ethnic groups without incurring the anger of individuals who find those words offensive, whether they belong to one of these groups or not. That's not censorship. That's realism.

    --Norman

  • Posted by Viejita del oeste on July 16, 2007 at 1:10pm EDT
  • None of the words Ray listed should be used in a board meeting or anywhere else. The fact this is even open to debate is an embarrassment to Roger Williams and to the field of higher education. It isn't about one explosive term but the attitude its use reflects...
    Last time I looked, Don Imus was the spokesman for ignorant uneducated jerks, not university board members.
    Good riddance to them both, and to anyone else who thinks it is okay to denigrate others this way.

  • Priorities
  • Posted by Art Deco , Garden Gnome at Whatsamatta U on July 16, 2007 at 1:15pm EDT
  • The manifestation of authentic virtue is most readily observed in behavior that is difficult, like paying your debts and honoring your marriage vows and keeping your kids under some kind of control. It is difficult to believe that contributors to this board would have regarded Mr. Pappitto as by definition unfit (which they appear to due to his episodic use of vulgar language) had he failed to do one of these.

    I have a suggestion. Eject the entire board, and have the alumni elect an eleven member successor board from among competing petition candidates. The college might then actually be free of government by coarse moneybags and government by aspirant social engineers.

  • disgusted
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on July 16, 2007 at 1:55pm EDT
  • The most amusing aspect of this discussion is, that except for Chuck and a few others, nobody notices the stereotyping all old white men into one, homogenous category.

    "Disgusted" may be surprised when the "new majority" of non-old-white-men have real difficulty agreeing on a political platform.

    As at the 1972 NOW Convention in Houston, TX when half the delegates followed Karen DeCrow out of the convention hall, the NAACP is having difficulty cultivating membership among the young and hip.

    Times change, everyone can be a _________ (fill in your favorite N-word) and most everyone likes socially exploding all over the crowd at times. Any attention is not necessarily good attention.

    Can't we all just stop calling one another names - OR ELSE! (leftist totalitarians are generally just as bad as rightist tot.s)

    Chuck - hope the nice weather is making the grapes grow sweet and juicy.

  • Mob ties -- now that's rich
  • Posted by Elizaabeth on July 16, 2007 at 1:55pm EDT
  • Papitto has a nerve accusing the highly esteemed and principled Dr. Barbara Roberts of being compromised due to alleged “mob ties” (simply because she once evaluated the heart condition of a mob boss). I hope RWU stands up to bad actors on its board and elsewhere. President Nirschel: It’s time to speak out! (NB: I have no affiliation with, or interest in, the university.)

  • Posted by Kay on July 16, 2007 at 3:25pm EDT
  • One word, one time, was not what brought this guy down -- read the story closely. The president of the campus himself said this guy used many such words about many people, many times. It is a pattern of such behavior that brings down people in academe, in media (this was not a first time for Imus), in business, etc.

  • Posted by Perry on July 16, 2007 at 3:30pm EDT
  • It is common for meetings discussing confidential issues to use the cloak of confidentiality to engage in a variety of improper behaviors, often discriminatory. Then when accused, they fall back on the breach of confidentiality as a defense. This kind of thing is no more appropriate at the board level than in tenure and other personnel matters. There is the same sense of entitlement involved -- where some long-time faculty member believes he or she can say and decide anything and no one will ever know what they did, because confidentiality will protect them.

    The confidentiality should exist to shield the personal or private details of the matter or person being deliberated upon, not the wrongdoing or inappropriate process of the people doing the discussing. People would engage in better behavior if there were more visibility for the content of the meetings.

  • Posted by jk on July 16, 2007 at 4:00pm EDT
  • "Everyone’s free to say what they like. However, they may have to pay a price in the court of public opinion." If only the judge(s) were fair and balanced...or at least all carried the same weight, but then that would still be tyranny of the majority.

  • censorship
  • Posted by Christy at U Montana on July 16, 2007 at 4:00pm EDT
  • There is a difference between the general public and a man who is on the board of trustees of a university. A person on the street can't be thrown in jail for saying the "n" word. Yes, we do have freedom of speech in this country, even though the "n" word is in most people's opinions a word of hatred. This man is in charge of a university, a place where students, faculty and employees from all walks of life and all races and countries are supposed to have an equal chance at success, a place where diversity is supposed to be valued. Obviously there is a conflict of interests if a man in charge of an institution of higher education thinks that women, blacks, and "poor kids" don't deserve the same chance as everyone else. The issue is not one of censorship, it is one of carrying out one's job ethically and responsibly.

  • Still too many ties.....
  • Posted by DD Manfredi on July 16, 2007 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Presumedly the man that Mr. Paritto pays the most to do what he wants done is the CEO of his company, the now Chairman of the Board Mr. Bread. Hmm.... Am I possibly the only person who smells a foul odor here? I doubt it. Mr. Bread may be a good man who is not at all influenced by where his paycheck and perks are coming from, such rare men exist, I just have no reason to believe that he is one of them at this point seeing as how the whistle-blowing members have been fired, etc. What a 'convenient' way this would be for the 'University" to keep the wallet of Mr. Papitto open and flowing to them, with him still in charge and thus being able to bypass their own bylaws, present a 'clean face' by putting makeup on over the dirt, etc. Come on people, do they really think we are all that dumb that we cannot add 2+2 and get 4 instead of 25? I would laugh, but this whole thing is way to sickening to even attempt to bring any levity to it. PS: The 'old white men' stereotype that some refer to does not follow in this case, do the math, Mr. Papitto was in his late 30's and early 40's when civil rights were being fought for. Sorry but I doubt many of us consider someone in that age group as having any excuse for being too set in their ways to recognise change. Excuses are just that excuses, not valid reasons.

  • Posted by Anna on July 16, 2007 at 6:10pm EDT
  • Great points, Chuck. It saddens me that there seem to be many people out there (SS from the University of Miami, to name one) who are shocked and scared that you bring them up, but refuse to actually address them.

  • Posted by drkay on July 16, 2007 at 11:15pm EDT
  • maybe everyone should read the article by James Joesph Scheurich "Toward a White Discourse on White Racism"

  • Posted by blklikeme on July 17, 2007 at 5:35am EDT
  • its obvious mr papitto was dismissed for other undisclosed reasons

    if he was a "good egg" a "babbitt good fellow" he'd still be in place and this incident won't see any days' light. the university was successfully growing and that successful growth was in part due to papitto's tenure as board chair

    i suspect he became very bitter and ugly in his behavior; most likely age induced, and he became a liability for that reason only

    the very sad thing about this is making his public ouster due to "racism" will place a cloud over the diversified board members and saddle them with a double indemnity, the job at hand and being handed that job because....

    this would make a fascinating movie. start with papitto's dismissal and go back slowly, dispassionately in a "rashomon style" showing why he became expendable

    it would make a very fascinating and very human film

  • This is outlandish
  • Posted by Brene , Auditor/Adjunct on July 17, 2007 at 9:15am EDT
  • It still amazes me that someone can get away with making such comments. It is one thing to get away with them, but a whole different manner to still be honored after so doing. Then have the audacity to let go of those who tried to fight against it. This is truly a classical case of outright racism and a lack of concern about it. It is not merely about his use of the word, but the text in which it was used and his lack of concern about it's usage. It is also about the fact that an external agency was trying to point out the fact that the schools structure needed to be more diversified and he completely ignored those notions and instead made a mockery out of it. That is what makes the racist precepts all the more obvious and this is why it was that much more wrong.

  • Publish the full list of trustees
  • Posted by Reader at Brown U. on July 20, 2007 at 6:05am EDT
  • Hold them all accountable as they should be! It is unacceptable and is nothing more than a coverup.