So W&L and Amherst.
What other colleges were founded by or named after bad actors?
What actions should administrators, students, or faculty take, if any?
What can prospective students do?
This chat is for all to express their opinions - honestly, without hostility, and understanding everyone’s perspective, agreeable or not.
Anniston College? Seagal University? Haven’t really heard of too many colleges named after actors, but maybe that’s coming. As long as they don’t indulge in film retrospectives on campus, I think it’s not too much of a problem.
William & Mary, U Maryland, and probably many others are linked to royalty who perhaps are questionable. Many schools have appropriated native names. Hard to know where to stop with this, unless we rename them as University 1, University 2, etc.
Universities with slaveholders or rebels against their governments in their names can simply rebrand to initials, so W&L would simply be W&L, just like other corporations often do.
Hot off the press: the McGill Tribune is becoming simply The Tribune, dropping the name McGill.
I understand and sympathize with the change, but find it jarring to envision the University doing the same. I’m listening to the debate, though, and am glad it’s being brought forth.
https://www.mcgilltribune.com/opinion/were-changing-our-name-mcgill-should-too-04122023/
This is a good intro to the topic, although it mentions no liberal arts schools.
I believe that, officially, Amherst College is named after the town in which it resides.
I have heard people say the same thing about W&L- that it’s named after Light Horse Harry Lee. That was not the original intention in either case (Amherst or W&L), but a modern re-imagining of the name. If that is helpful to some, I think it’s a healthy way of dealing with the names.
Fair but should there be an effort from alumna and faculty for a rename based on the person behind the name, even if not a school founder ??
In Amherst’s case, the distinction is official to the best of my knowledge, and comports with its decision to change its mascot from the Lord Jeffs to the Mammoths. In contrast, I’ve not seen it credibly reported that the Lee in Washington & Lee refers to anyone but Robert E. Lee.
The town of Amherst was named after the problematic Lord Jeff, so it’s a distinction without a difference.
How bout Yale ?
Yale can return to its original name, “the Collegiate School”. Princeton can return to its original name, “the College of New Jersey”. And The College of New Jersey can become TCNJ2.
A committee can be formed to address all of the necessary school name changes, and could easily accomplish the task in twenty years or so.
I believe Amherst College has considered this line of reasoning. At this point in time, the closest analogy may be the University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Unless the town changes its name, it’s simply the name of the place in which both of these schools are located.
So why all the degree of hostility toward Washington and Lee and I understand it but not these others ?
I think Amherst did a lot of heavy-lifting before the issue of a name change began to ripen. It included a massive investment in rebranding the student body first. Within a very short period of time they went from being considered the most preppy college on the East Coast to one of the most diverse. You can’t hold URMs in a kind of patrimony and then assume you’re getting their best thinking when it comes to issues that pertain to them. The URMs at Amherst had power and a sense of agency that I don’t sense at W&L.
Lee’s entire family is interred in the crypt below University Chapel. There is an exhibit there that explains the connection of W&L to the Lee family that is more comprehensive than anything I’ve seen on the internet. It’s worth a visit and very comprehensively done.
Wow. Next time I’m passing Lexington …. I never thought about any of this stuff till the CC
There is no doubt whatsoever that the “Lee” in Washington and Lee is Robert E.; anyone who claims otherwise is engaging in absurd denialism.
I think that any college with ties to slavery, genocide, and exploitation should establish truth and reconciliation committees and attempt to make amends. What makes Washington and Lee’s situation so egregious is not only Lee’s leading an white-supremacy–fueled insurrection against the United States of America, but also his conduct while president of the university itself. Under his watch Washington and Lee students formed a chapter of a domestic terror organization, attempted two lynchings, and routinely beat, harassed, and sexually assaulted Black townspeople: Letting Go of Robert E. Lee at Washington and Lee University
There’s no question that Lee’s name will be removed. I can’t for the life of me come up with an explanation for what good the people who are delaying the inevitable think they are doing for the university.
Most high school students have heard of Robert E. Lee as a Confederate general who surrendered his army at the end of the Civil War. Amherst, Yale, and many others with problematic primary historical legacies (other than colleges named after them) are far less well known. As a result, WLU has a much bigger marketing problem / disadvantage than Amherst or Yale do. That may not be “fair”, but that happens to be the way it is.
Some less well known voluntary Confederates whom colleges are named after:
Note that Washington Duke also ran a company that sold highly addictive substances (tobacco products).
Of course, if you go further back to the Revolutionary War and founding era, you will find a lot of slaveholding among historically prominent people of the time (e.g. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison) whom colleges are named after.
Of course, in the period after the Civil War (so no more slavery to stain historical legacies), there were “robber barons” like Andrew Carnegie, Andrew and Richard Mellon, Leland Stanford, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and James Buchanan Duke.