This is a very interesting discussion we seem to be having. The reason the discussion does not presume that this man is competent is not that we don't trust the board to have made a good choice. Given the selection of Sean O'Keefe, King Alexander, and that dentist who used to treat Edwin Edwards, such lack of trust would be reasonable. Instead, the discussion seems to be based on the assumption that Bill Tate is incompetent, unqualified, has no standards, will pull the university down - all because he is black. He is a real intellectual - he went back to earn a master's degree in epidemiology after he was a tenured professor - and a seasoned administrator at universities far above LSU in the pecking order. And as for the suspicion about his critical race theory article . . . the article has been cited almost 7,000 times. The reasoning stands up to scrutiny by peers. For those who say that the board was forced into this situation, my answer is a question: Except for the student member, is there anyone on the board who is without the intestinal fortitude to say no when they think it's necessary? I doubt it. Instead of criticizing Bill Tate out of ignorance, maybe we should be congratulating the board for not hiring someone who didn't have enough strength to stand up to 45's attempts to undermine science or someone who lied on his resume and was silly enough to think he wouldn't get caught and later stupid enough to say it doesn't matter.