On the other hand, one has to be careful about being too presentist – i.e. judging historical figures by today’s standards rather than the context of the time.
For example, for much of history, racism and other bigotry (with related actions and views on subjects like slavery) was the political and social norm. In that context, the most egregious ones stand out in a bad way (e.g. John Calhoun), but many others were just ordinary for the time.
In 2020, there was a significant push within the W&L community to make comprehensive changes to how the school presented its history, including both its ties to Washington and Lee, as well as its current initiatives toward increasing campus racial diversity, which has been stagnant at best at it and other selective LACS in the past 10-15 years, probably longer.
As a part of that broader conversation, many people in the community voiced their opinions. It went so far as the faculty voted in favor of including a name change in the myriad other changes that the board was considering. Students spoke on campus and alumni formed committees both for and against. The faculty vote was significant because a faculty vote was what prompted the leaders of W&L to add Lee to the name after Lee’s death. The school has had two other names since its founding.
The board deliberated and passed a comprehensive action that the school has been implementing since. It accelerated changes that were already being considered and more slowly enacted prior to the vote. It’s a long decision, but a big part of it involved how to separate the academic functions of the school from the historical site part. It’s a significant undertaking that requires study and effort, and they are taking it seriously. It’s a nonpartisan endeavor. It did not include changing the name.
Many people have a lot of feelings about the board’s vote, both within and outside of the W&L community, for and against. That’s what you are seeing.
My son, a McGill alum, told me that about 10 or 15 years ago there were protests on campus demanding the university change its name. The reason then was that James McGill’s fortune came from fur trading. I think the protests were supported by the Quebec affiliate of PETA. That movement did not gain much traction. Now most Canadians have been stunned to learn that slavery did exist in both French and English colonial Canada.
Meanwhile, down the street, Concordia University has had protests demanding that the university change the font on its wordmark. Apparently that font was designed by a man convicted of child molestation. He died over a century ago.
Students decry Concordia font designed by child molester Eric Gill | Montreal Gazette
Let’s face it: with minimal effort, anyone can find unsavory origins of most college names, and towns, businesses, and buildings for that matter.
Where do we draw a line between erasing the past, ignoring that it happened, or acknowledging past wrongs and moving forward?
I like what the Brits did with the Colston Statue in Bristol, England. (If you don’t know that story, look it up. I’ll get back to colleges in a minute…) In 2020, protestors tore it down, vandalized it, and threw it in the harbor. The city retrieved it and put it in a museum, on its side, still vandalized, and prominently (albeit temporarily) displayed with placards giving historical and contemporary context, including many of the placards made by protesters. It was no longer on display to honor a slave trader, but instead, a clear attempt to right a wrong and acknowledge WHY it was torn down. Many buildings and streets in Bristol with the name Colston have been renamed.
I also completely recognize that we must consider context and what was “acceptable” at the time. Though it isn’t a college, I actually have much more of a problem with John Wayne Airport. John Wayne was not a hero, IMO. Within most of our lifetimes, and in a time when he absolutely should have “known better”, he made reprehensible comments about African Americans and Native Americans.
There are degrees of “bad actors” and I find some college names more problematic than others. W&L is a good example of a name that is overdue for changing. As the most famous of Confederate generals, he was fighting for a cause which, even during that time, he should have recognized as being wrong. He was (obviously) aware that half he nation felt his cause was unjust. The trustees should have changed the name generations ago.
I don’t know if I feel the same about Thomas Jefferson University. Jefferson lived in a different time and was a founder of the nation. It would be hard to argue that he deserves no credit for that and that his name should be replaced with something else. I know almost nothing about this university, but I hope it at least acknowledges Jefferson’s past wrongs in regards to enslaved people.
In the case of both of these colleges, I can see why the names of these schools could cause negative feelings for prospective students and their parents. If I was going through the college process again, would I consider the name of the college and its possible unpalatable associations? I would consider context, and what the institution is doing to address those concerns.
I mentioned it on the W&L thread, but it may have gotten flagged for being off topic and hidden, but William Peace University in Raleigh, having just changed their name in 2012 from Peace College and gone co-ed and admitted men, removed the statue of founder William Peace in 2021 is considering a name change again due to his enslavement of other human beings. They have a post about it under “history” on their website: https://www.peace.edu/about/history/
(And if I can be a bit pedantic, sometimes I see it written that a person was a “slave owner” or more commonly now “owned enslaved people”. I think the fact of the matter is that they actively enslaved human beings, it’s not like they just happened to own a chair or a horse — they did the enslaving ! )
It was
George Washington was a slave owner. He also led the US to independence from Britain. Should the dozen or so colleges and universities named after him change their names? Not to mention our national capital and that state in the Pacific Northwest.
You mean George Washington enslaved other human beings. It’s not passive.
Exactly. We can acknowledge that it was wrong to enslave humans. We can also acknowledge his achievements. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive, and we don’t have to rename everything. But should some things be renamed? Yes. The thorny question of what should be renamed and why remains.
I was thinking - it really goes further - like for example, how many people here today are descendants of slave owners - but they keep their name, etc. Fortunately at least, and not in all cases, but society in many ways, has worked to right previous wrongs.
And yes a last name can be carried through generations and mean one thing for one generation but another for the next, but when it is tied to one specific person in the family is when it becomes stickier. Woody Harrelson’s dad Charles Harrelson was a convicted murderer/hitman, but Woody is not Charles. And Woody has made the Harrelson name mean something completely different. So I guess you could do something like that with a problematic college name and add to it or drop something so instead of Charles Harrelson University (fictional) it becomes Woody Harrelson University or maybe just Harrelson University, but then which Harrelson are you honoring?
It’s a tricky issue. I think with William Peace University, they could go back to Peace University and drop William’s first name. I have lived in NC all my life and always heard of Peace College, but never knew it was named for William until they changed it. I never even heard of William. So when they changed the name they brought him to more prominence (I assume they added William to let boys know they were welcome now). So remove the statue to him, drop his first name and it could be Peace University. I think with a school like that that William Peace founded you have to acknowledge the good work that he did in founding the school, but also not continue honoring him with a statue and ignoring his actions as an enslaver. The school has a brand also, plus most people when they think of Peace think of “peace and love” and not some old white dude. He had a good name that could mean something else.
With any slippery slope argument there is a tendency to digress toward false equivalences. While I wouldn’t lose any sleep if Amherst (the town and/or the school) changed the name, the situation with Robert E. Lee isn’t really comparable. Likewise with Washington or even with those who might want to reject the names of slavers. Context matters in each situation.
In context at W&L and in America generally, the evil of Robert E. Lee and the entire Lost Cause Mythology is not a historical note from the distance past. It is still present, still active, still extremely relevant. It is the reason the KKK feels emboldened insert itself into the name change issue at the university. It is the reason neo-confederates and other racists and bigots march on Lexington annually. It is the reason that many (including many in the university community) falsely equate this despicable human being with the concept of “Honor,” and draw false comparisons to Washington and even Martin Luther King, Jr.
The following excerpt is from recent URM student, describing her first year experience at W&L, including orientation. The whole thing is worth reading, but IMO this particular paragraph captures the significant role Robert E. Lee still to plays in the continuing Lost Cause Mythology at W&L and elsewhere:
You go to Honor System orientation in the Lee Chapel. You squirm in your seat because it is uncomfortable even being in that building. Then comes the session where they try to convince you that Lee was a good guy. They talk about his presidency at the school, his creation of the Honor System, and why W&L likes him despite his “past.” They try to convince you of things that you will learn soon after are an altered version of history. You are skeptical in the moment, but you are preoccupied as you look around you and realize that your fellow students are being fully convinced that Lee was a good guy. They will no longer feel guilty defending him.
https://www.divergewlu.com/articles/2020/7/6/to-be-a-student-at-washington-amp-lee
The scene described took place in Lee Chapel, with Lee buried underneath, facing a giant marble statue of a recumbent Robert E. Lee, in his Confederate uniform.
The article raised some questions-did the student not realize there was Lee’s chapel on campus before enrollment? Or that family chapels often have a statue of the deceased near his/her crypt? This came as a shock?
Perhaps a set of questions regarding a noxious type of act (e.g. slavery and related acts, such as voluntary joining or funding the Confederate States) by a historical figure can be asked:
| Historical figure | Question 1 | Question 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Robert E. Lee | Executor of slaveholding estate (hundreds), voluntarily joined the Confederate States | Yes (as Confederate general) |
| John Calhoun | Powerful pro-slavery politician | Yes |
| Elihu Yale | Slave trader | Sort of (university name due to a minor donation from wealth partly from slave trading) |
| Thomas Clemson | Slaveholder, voluntarily joined Confederate States | Sort of (university name due to estate donation) |
| George Washington | Major slaveholder (hundreds) | Mostly no (although slavery was always entangled in founding politics) |
| Thomas Jefferson | Major slaveholder (hundreds) | Mostly no (although slavery was always entangled in founding politics) |
| Ulysses Grant | Acquired one slave and freed shortly thereafter | Sort of (fought against Confederate States) |
| Abraham Lincoln | Won presidency with plank of containing expansion of slavery, led United States against Confederate States, made Emancipation Proclamation | Yes |
But now people will argue where the line should be drawn about when a historical figure’s name is too unsavory or unmarketable to name a college (or a building or other entity at a college) after.
Please do not respond to flagged posts that have been hidden. They will be deleted.
They have changed all of this. Lee isn’t in the main chapel anymore, he’s in the basement. They’ve changed the name of the chapel, and the honor system talk doesn’t even take place in the chapel anymore.
Interesting way to consider the issues. But I also suggest adding a #3. Maybe “Are the effects of the actions still felt in a relevant and damaging way in today’s world?”
I think it may be worth examining if other posters’ feelings about W&L vs places like Yale and Amherst have anything to do with their pre-existing feelings towards those schools. Perhaps Yale and Amherst have more of the “correct” political vibe and therefore are excused from name debates in a way that W&L is not.
It would seem to me that either names in a historical context are judged by today’s values or they’re not, or it is left up to the colleges to make that decision. How well known one bad guy is over another shouldn’t particularly come into play, should it?
I guess I’ll add that as a W&L alum I felt they should change the name. The school was originally called Liberty College, and Washington and Liberty University would have kept the W&L and solved the issue. Our side lost that debate though and frankly, I don’t spend a lot energy around it, I’m not super involved with a school I graduated from 25yrs ago. One also wonders if in a few years if Washington would be unacceptable as well.
This is very insightful and is a pertinent consideration. It’s a lot easier to argue why the Lee name should be changed or dropped, but not so clear with other colleges mentioned. Lee, quite literally, fought to uphold slavery.
This conversation needs to encompass more than just slavery and renaming things. Universities and colleges should be transparent about their roles in past injustices.
Have a look at this article:
Are Auburn, the UCs, Cornell, and others acknowledging this? I’m sure Native American communities continue to suffer as a result of these actions.
Perhaps a topic for a whole new thread.
I do not believe either Lee’s actual corpse or the separate marble recumbent have been relocated. I’ve read that the view of the marble recumbent from the nave (seating) has been blocked temporarily, and there are plans to build a more permanent wall, but my understanding is there has quite a bit of pushback on the plan from alums and students, just as there was quite a bit of pushback regarding the name of the chapel.
Regardless, the reason I posted the excerpt in this thread is was to try to answer the OP’s question:
The excerpt emphasizes the recency and depth of Robert E. Lee’s influence over W&L and society, which I think is in large part the reason for what the OP terms the “hostility.” That to me is extremely relevant in a discussion about “what actions can and should people take” when it comes to colleges being named after “bad actors.”
And, In this regard, W&L’s veneration of Robert E. Lee is of a different magnitude than, say, Yale still being called Yale, or Amherst being called Amherst. Lee, the myth of Lee, and the evil he stands for are more current and pervasive. The symbolism attached to his name matters more to both the racists and to those who care about racial equality and justice.
In other words, It is a much bigger ask for W&L to expect current and prospective URM students to set aside their concerns about the schools recent and deep connection to Robert E. Lee than it is for Yale students to set aside the schools distance connection to Yale.