For anyone following the discussions over the past year, the Board released this letter today addressing the vote for a name change and decisions to “expand diversity and inclusion initiatives and make changes to campus buildings, practices, and governance”.
2 Likes
Mistake.
1 Like
It is a tough issue and I can see many points. I think that if the school is going to keep the name, which is symbolic, they need to make some non-symbolic changes, which they are. However I would have gone further and added paying reparations to the descendants of slaves the school once owned.
4 Likes
Speaking of things that need to change. And in the category of too little, too late. I don’t have any affiliation with the school and have long wondered why there has been such strong association with Lee. I don’t know if it’s still the case but their “safe rides” program was called Traveller a few years ago–the name of Robert E. Lee’s horse. The school has been deep in the Lee mythology beyond just the name well into times when they should have moved on in my opinion. I think just a couple of years ago they decided to keep the portraits on the diploma and to offer only one diploma and described the Board’s decision as final. If this decision is truly final, then I suspect the trajectory of the institution will rightfully change.
1 Like
I also see points on both sides of the name discussion and agree the non-symbolic changes are of most importance now. It is a start, but I had hoped for more. For example, meaningfully expand the DIVE program with an endowment to support minority recruitment similar to the Mosaic at Vandy.
From a minority perspective, there is nothing the school can do without changing its name and completely uprooting the adoration of the chief of the pro-slavery rebels. Lee is not a redeemable figure; the notion that he could then go on to redeem himself through leading a white only institution of higher education and be glorified for it is repulsive in this day and age. Anything short of that comes across as half-hearted and insincere. Mistake, terrible mistake. And I also have no relationship with the school and never will until it changes its ways. Short of uprooting Lee, this means everything will really, deep down stay the same.
By the way this was intended as a reply to the topic and not a particular posting. I don’t know how to fix that.
15 Likes
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
1 Like
Just FYI - Lee was added to the school name in 1870 immediately following his death while serving as President of the university/college. His horse, Traveller is buried there.
1 Like
I can agree with this, but I think the school’s racist history goes WAY deeper and is way worse than Robert E. Lee. The school itself owned slaves. There are stories of Ku Klux Klan activities on campus. The students terrorized local blacks before and after the civil war. Sure, being named after Lee isn’t great, but in a way, it is only one of many, many troubling issues from their past.
I have done a lot of research on this as my son is an incoming freshman. I am persuaded the school is making huge efforts to overcome their past. In the past 10 years, they’ve gone from something like 10% URMs to 25%. That’s a pretty good increase in 10 years. Also, I note that one of their orientation trips is a bus tour of civil rights landmarks in the South. They set up a George Floyd fund last year.
I do think that W&L is missing out on many amazing students who won’t consider them due to the name and also the history.
6 Likes
Thanks for this additional information. I was not aware of it.
3 Likes
Washington&Lee has a double problem:
- their name is their brand, W&L, prestigious college… and they cant easily become, say Washington College (already taken btw) or Washington&someone else (who? How? Impact on the “brand”?) If they lose the “Lee”, their brand is diluted and they need to impose a new one. It’s complicated, especially when you’re a small LAC (=not very well known to the public at large and at risk of being even less so) and elite (needing to be recognized as such, needing also to attract high level applicants, funds, etc. So the brand cannot be ditched easily).
- that brand is associated with a man who raped and tortured individuals whom he considered his property, encouraged young men in committing unspeakable acts, a man who is associated with the most ignominious period in American history, and participated in perpetuating what is now considered a crime against humanity.
I followed the debate and I’m not sure I understand the point that remembering Lee doesn’t mean honoring him. Dissociating from the name’s legacy would take much more than what’s being offered, but I can sympathize with the “brand name” dilemma. What name could they adopt that’d still be recognized?
The reality is that many young people will be bothered by a college that bears a name everyone can recognize as a defender of evil and won’t want to be associated with it so I think the college may have missed a historical opportunity to “rebrand”.
I’m just not sure how they can save their name and brand (I’m not in marketing or PR so this is my not knowing. It may or may not be possible, if others with expertise can weigh in… )
I have a potential applicant who’s followed the debate, I’ll see what she thinks now.
2 Likes
They could push the W&L or Dubyehnell vs the whole name and change it over to something like Washington and Lexington. But hopefully nothing with Liberty in it that would associate it with the school an hour away. Then the logo could stay the same. Sort of like how it’s always now called KFC vs Kentucky Fried Chicken.
2 Likes
I wonder how many of the kids that apply really focus on the name of the school. I know quite a number who applied and a couple who are attending and the name wasn’t mentioned as an issue for any of them.
3 Likes
Agree. The brand concern is crap. It’s really the “heritage” issue rearing its head. The faculty voted to change it, right? They care about brand, a lot, for their careers. It was the board of trustees (read alumni) who decided not to support the faculty’s motion. Terrible, terrible mistake to let go such a wonderful opportunity for rebranding and redemption as an institution. Washington College in Virginia (like Washington University in St Louis) would have been perfect. New logos and team uniforms, so be it. How, as a minority, can you feel comfortable that a school that does not have the courage to carry through in ridding itself of this horrible legacy will protect your kid if he is bullied or she is assaulted by a white kid? Or would they just look to prioritize protecting the offenders if related to the heritage that takes priority? There is not enough money you can throw at people to give them this peace of mind. Yet, do they really care? I am not willing to pay for this one.
7 Likes
As an African-American I could type a lot. Instead, I’ll just say that nothing extra needs to be said. Lee was a totally reprehensible evil man. There is no excuse for a school to continue to be named after him in 2021.
21 Likes
College Navigator - Washington and Lee University says:
| Race / ethnicity | Percentage of Undergraduates |
|---|---|
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0% |
| Asian | 4% |
| Black or African American | 3% |
| Hispanic / Latino | 6% |
| Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander | 0% |
| White | 79% |
| Two or more races | 4% |
| Race / ethnicity unknown | 1% |
| Non-resident alien | 4% |
That was possibly a reference to this article which mentions that domestic students of color made up only 11% five years ago and now 23% in the Class of 2025.
1 Like
I know a white family who visited in summer 2015 and were turned off by W&L being 90% white. That student ended up at Wake Forest which is under 70% white. Among people of color, the greatest disparity between Wake and W&L is in Asian students. 12% at Wake and 4% at W&L.
I’d recommend that a POC check out W&L. They are being very aggressive about increasing diversity.
2 Likes
Thanks… I realize that. I guess here’s my point–naming the institution after Lee in 1870 after he was president and saved the institution is one thing, (Not saying I necessarily agree with that but that was 150 years ago.) Naming the Safe Rides program after Traveller–which was basically an implement of war in one sense–and doing that at whatever time they started that is very different. Living with the Lee name and history is one thing–looking for ways to continue and expand it in modern times suggests ongoing lack of awareness and insensitivity. I grant you it is very complicated on many levels. I am a native Southerner I was always taught Lee had many admirable qualities but we have to live in the real world. Which I would say may mean dealing with the W part of the name as well. I have a high schooler that will not consider the school not just because of the Lee piece but the Washington heritage as well. I realize there are limits to how far one might go with all of this but I’d say if you’re going to stick with the name / brand, you need to be going way above and beyond and be doing it better and cleaner than their peers to build trust / belief among those that consider it at all. I don’t think they’re there yet.
2 Likes
It’s clear that only a small minority of the alumni supported a name change. It’s possible this may evolve in the coming decades. They are already changing the procedure for nominating new Trustees, such that social connections to existing Trustees will be less important. They also seem to be proactively seeking out non-whites for future Board seats. There could eventually be a “coalition” of non-whites and progressive whites on the Board, that could decide differently about the name.
As noted by others, the power of the “brand” and the lack of good alternatives was a significant factor. There are already too many “Washington Universities” etc. Far-left activists consider George Washington a problem too, but the vast majority of the general public is not ready to throw G.W. into the dustbin of history.
There have been pretty substantial symbolic changes though. Ten years ago there were Confederate flags hanging in Lee Chapel. After the Dylan Roof killings in 2015, W&L’s PR team gave a flat “No” to reporters asking if they were considering changing the name. A few years ago, it was considered enough of a change to replace the portrait of Lee in uniform with a portrait of him in civilian clothes. And the Board said “no” to taking portraits off the diploma. Now the Chapel is being renamed, all portraits will be gone, the Lee statue area will be walled off, and I’m sure the Civil War (Confederate) student veterans plaque will be removed.
1 Like