Yes, if every high school US history textbook mentioned Jeffrey Amherst trying to spread smallpox to Native Americans during the French and Indian War, Amherst College would have changed its name long ago. But that is not the case, so Amherst flies under the radar as having a “bad actor” name. Similar with Clemson, Tulane, and others*. Unfortunately for WLU, every US history textbook mentions Robert E. Lee as a Confederate general who surrendered at the end of the Civil War, so the marketing effects of the name are not something that it can escape from.
*Some others like John Calhoun seemed to fly under the radar for a while until recently. Calhoun was not as well known as Lee, but less obscure than Amherst, Clemson, or Tulane.
And successful rebranding so rarely is effective for the goals of those who most demand it.
For example, this is a high school, not a college, but a similar issue. There is a high school named Woodrow Wilson High School in DC. It’s one of the better DC public high schools. Commonly, it’s called Wilson High School. Two years ago, the city council introduced a measure to rename the school Jackson-Reed High School and it passed easily. People of all races who live in bound for this school and have children still call it Wilson High School. The new name just hasn’t stuck.
GWU removed their mascot, the Colonials, but has yet to replace it. The names that have been suggested so far are not catching either. Here’s an article with a tone that is impossible to miss that captures the problems with eliminating a name before a proper one is chosen:
Even with the best of intentions, renaming is often ineffective and fraught with conflict. At least one hate incident that I will not give direct recognition to has occurred at the school since the mascot was removed. It’s impossible to satisfy everyone all of the time, and significant brand recognition is very hard to change with established institutions.
Personally, having lived through January 6, 2021 as a DC resident, I cannot imagine who in their right mind suggested Revolutionaries. Someone wasn’t reading the room when they suggested that one.
I’ll refer back to my favorite example: It took Wesleyan about 100 years to formally disassociate itself from the Methodist church. It was, at one point during the the 19th century, the Methodist version of Notre Dame; more than half its entering classes consisted of second and sometimes third generations of prominent Methodist families. It was the Civil War and the schism it created between Southern and Northern Methodists that forced Wesleyan to expand its market. But the name was a constant subject of concern according to research. It overcame it by adopting a modern curriculum that was actually ahead of its time. Judd Hall (1870) was the first American college building designed specifically for and dedicated to the teaching of science. And it was paid for by a wealthy Methodist. Wesleyan’s an example of an institution that developed an identity over the years that, in many ways, was a total contradiction of its name. Wesleyan University, 1831-1910: Collegiate Enterprise in New England by David B. Potts | Goodreads
Wilson’s history at Princeton with respect to Black students was ugly, so perhaps it is not surprising that Princeton does not want reminders of that once it became somewhat well known. As President of the United States, Wilson intensified and institutionalized segregation in the national government (both in the military and in civilian employment). In other words, even by the standards of the time, he was a “bad actor” on the subject of race and racism.
The SF school board thing, on the other hand, was heavy with presentism in many of the cases. Although Francis Scott Key might seem a little less praiseworthy if you read or sing the rarely noticed third verse of the famous lyrics he wrote.
The same can be true of choosing not to rebrand. Some might not find the we-need-to-protect-the-brand argument very convincing, depending on the offensiveness of the brand.
This seems like a solid rule of thumb. When you hear a name, do you think person or do you think college?
Stanford? College. Yale? College. Amherst? College. Lee? person. W&L: College
Sorry - when I hear Washington and Lee - I think - oh George Washington and Robert E Lee? - yep that’s who they’re named for. Full disclosure, I never even knew it was a college until a handful of years ago - it just does not have the name recognition to transcend George Washington and Robert E Lee - I’m sure it does locally - but nationally, it just doesn’t. So the college has decided that honoring George Washington and Robert E Lee - is more important than establishing a non-controversial brand for better or worse.
Colleges named after bad actors–what actions can or should people take?
Well, one obvious possible action that nobody is naming out loud, but which a lot of people take is “boycotting the institution and criticizing those who won’t.” Whether this is what people “should” do is beside the point, it is what an increasing proportion of people will do.
Seems like when it is obvious (like in WLU’s case), the reduced interest by minorities is noticeable to the school, suggesting a negative marketing effect of the name, even though there may not be an organized boycott.
But some of the other “bad actors” seem to be too obscure to high school seniors applying to colleges to cause noticeable negative marketing effects, despite the noxiousness of some of the acts (by the standards of the time). The namesakes of Clemson and Tulane were similar to Lee in voluntarily joining or donating to the Confederate cause, but their relative obscurity means that those schools have not had to deal with as much unwanted negative marketing based on those names the way that WLU has to deal with.
I really do not care one way or the other what W&L decides to do, but no one should expect that a small preppy private LAC in Virginia is going to suddenly attract large numbers of minority applicants regardless of what it is called. Even the giant ( relatively cheap) public flagship can’t, and it doesnt have a problematic name.
Honestly I never knew W&L was an actual nickname for Washington & Lee and I’m in a neighboring state. And I had never heard of Washington & Lee until I got on CC.
The interesting part of this post is that I invariably get criticized for deleting conservative views. So thank you for recognizing that I also delete non-conservative views when the post is in violation.
And yes, I deleted your post.
All users agree to ToS when they register. I provided links to ToS and the Forum Rules on this thread. The links also appear in the bottom of every page, so there should be no surprise when a post is deleted.
Questions about the rules and / or moderator actions can be emailed to the admin.
Interesting article in the Atlantic for those who can access it about “bad actors” who create good things, and our changing views of what constitutes bad actors. The article cites as an example Oscar Wilde, vilified in his own time for his sexuality, then redeemed when greater LGBTQ acceptance became the norm, now once again would be shunned in a time of concern about child sexual predators.
Ads and shows from the 1970s would horrify many today. Even things from 2000-like Legally Blonde-are strikingly antiquated already. Are we ready to commit to a frequent reassessment as norms change?
Woodrow Wilson was a celebrated figure on the Wesleyan campus until about twenty years ago when some of the things scholars already knew about his domestic policies toward African Americans started to become news. The plaque mentioned in this article disappeared without ceremony almost overnight:
Apparently the black voters in Alabama did forgive him; he always won a majority of black votes for reelection. Should the school have considered that in its decision? Maybe the redemption arc was appealing to voters? Maybe they adopted a religious forgiveness idea. In any event, they chose him.