Amy, you might remember me from earlier in your academic career, at another university. I hope I have enough cred with you that you’ll give due consideration to a point about the third graf in your letter.

You make two arguments in that graf. The first looks something like this:

There’s a racist climate at UK. Quenette says she hasn’t seen evidence. Therefore Quenette is guilty of racism.

And the second looks something like this:

Black students drop out because of a threat of violence (metaphorical, not physical). Quenette offers an alternative explanation for the drop out rate. Therefore Quenette is guilty of perpetrating violence.

Note that both these arguments are circular (petitio principii). Essentially you’re taking the position that anyone questioning your proposition is morally defective.

That looks less like logical argument, and more like intimidation, to me.