Emory board stands behind James Wagner
The university president sparks outrage with comments about the three-fifths compromise, but has trustee support
Topics: James Wagner, Emory University, Three-fifths compromise, News
The Emory University board of trustees appears to be standing behind its embattled president, James Wagner.
Wagner apologized for his controversial column in an Emory magazine — which used the three-fifths compromise as its only historical example of the virtues of compromise and pragmatism — after it sparked a social media outrage this weekend. That constitutional compromise counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of distributing tax dollars to states and determining representation in Congress.
But trustees who spoke with Salon on Tuesday supported Wagner.
“He has my 100 percent, undivided support,” said Ben F. Johnson III, the chairman of the board of trustees.
“The entire discussion about compromise is difficult subject,” Johnson added. “I read an article in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday on a new bio by a Yale professor named John Burt, and I was struck by the sensitivity of the review and how Lincoln wrestled with compromise. The last sentence of the book review was — or the last three sentences — were as follows, quote: ‘Lincoln reminds us that statecraft requires an attention to both principle and compromise. Principle without compromise is empty. Compromise without principle is blind. This is a valuable lesson for our politicians today.’
“And I think all that President Wagner was trying to do was talk about how difficult compromise sometimes is, and I think that the fact that this provoked a certain amount of serious conversation about compromise is a good thing, and I support that. And I think that’s what a university is all about.”
Wagner apologized Sunday for the “clumsiness” of his remarks. In his original piece, he wrote that:
Some might suggest that the constitutional compromise reached for the lowest common denominator—for the barest minimum value on which both sides could agree. I rather think something different happened. Both sides found a way to temper ideology and continue working toward the highest aspiration they both shared—the aspiration to form a more perfect union. They set their sights higher, not lower, in order to identify their common goal and keep moving toward it.
David Daley is the executive editor of Salon. More David Daley.





Comments
15 Comments