By Dolph C. Simons Jr.

Years from now, maybe sooner, the current environment on American university campuses may be identified or referred to as the “period of demands” or “the ugly years.”

On campus after campus, charges of racism, demands for “inclusion and belonging” training, demands for individuals to resign immediately or face impeachment, charges of discrimination and unfair treatment, votes of “no-confidence” in university administrators and elected student leaders, threats by university athletes to refuse to participate in team activities, sit-ins and takeovers of chancellor’s offices and other tactics are being used to try to bring about major changes in traditional values and policies at U.S. universities.

In most instances, those making the demands are members of racial minority groups on the campuses, and most complaints, charges and demands focus on the belief that those minority groups are not receiving the same attention, consideration or privileges as those in the university’s white community

That’s understandable — and likely accurate in many cases — but it’s also probably true that, in some cases, exaggerated and unsubstantiated charges are made. Nevertheless, wrongs or slights need to be corrected.

This is where the question of who calls the shots enters the picture. What is the role of university chancellors and presidents? What about the regents or curators, and do state legislators and taxpayers play a role?

Traditionally, chancellors and presidents have the responsibility of running the academic institution, hiring faculty, running the multitude of academic programs, encouraging student enrollment and doing what is necessary to provide a stimulating academic experience for students.

Regents have the responsibility of overseeing universities but try to leave the inside operation pretty much to the chancellors or presidents. Regents appoint the top administrators, and they hold those leaders responsible for a smooth, effective program. They have the power to remove a chancellor or president if, in their opinion, that person is not in control of the school.

State legislators, along with the governor, approve state tax support for the schools. And taxpayers and private philanthropists provide the funding.

When “demands” are being made, when do regents enter the picture? When do state legislators play a role? Shouldn’t regents play a major role?

It seems such times call for reasonable discussion and cooperation among all parties. Demands can be made but seldom should chancellors, regents or state legislators accede to demands or threats.

If there are charges of wrongdoing or unfairness, these should be thoroughly investigated and confirmed or dismissed. At times, actual wrongs have occurred, but at other times, the wrongs are perceived rather than actual.

It’s a tough line with much at stake. Wrongs must be corrected, but in a respectful, cooperative manner. It shouldn’t be looked upon as a winner-loser decision but one in which all parties probably are going to have to make changes or improvements in their actions.

The situation at Kansas University could be handled in a manner that reflects credit and reasonable action by all parties, or it could blow up into an ugly, long-lasting and damaging affair.

All but two involved entities are on the campus: students, administrators, deans, the KU Endowment Association (representing private fiscal support) and the KU Alumni Association (representing about 40,000 paid members and thousands of other alumni). The other two entities involved in the extended university family are the Kansas Board of Regents and state legislators. Taxpayers, parents of current students and parents of potential students also have a major interest in the issues.

The current situation offers an opportunity for all those genuinely interested and concerned about KU to work together to create an environment that serves as a model for other universities to follow. Why not have KU looked to as a leader, THE leader, in race relations?