I appreciate your acknowledgment of that. You’ll have to forgive me not seeing your other posts, it’s been a while since I’ve navigated these forums.
1 Like
Beyond the name, there was https://my.wlu.edu/lee-chapel-and-museum/about-the-chapel/history-of-lee-chapel-flags , including the adornment with Confederate flags until recently.
Right and they got rid of those
Lee is a tragic figure. It might be educational to reflect on what that means about life
Judge not least ye be judged is the Biblical quote which Lincoln used in the Second Inaugural. He viewed the North as complicit in slavery but sought charity and reconciliation on both sides. Too bad we seem to be ignoring his call
3 Likes
I would appreciate hearing perspectives on the changes the Board did approve and suggestions of other changes to move toward a more inclusive campus culture (setting the name discussion to the side for the moment).
Racial segregation in fraternities and sororities is common across colleges in the US. Unfortunately, WLU has a situation where most students are in them (77% of men and 71% of women; note that first semester frosh are not eligible to join), so it is not like fraternities and sororities and any racial segregation that is present in them can be easily ignored in the social scene like at some other schools where a far smaller percentage of students join them.
2 Likes
Presumably, the Board knows that WLU’s reputation (including, but not limited to, the name that brings up Confederate associations) is demographically limiting in terms of the pool of students willing to consider attending. The question that they are presumably asking themselves is whether each possible change
- Expands the potential student demographic, allowing it to recruit a larger applicant pool from which a high quality student cohort can be admitted and matriculated (without needing to throw too many full ride scholarships around).
- Avoids alienating current students and donating alumni.
Obviously, the question is, can they do both 1 and 2? Or must they choose between 1 or 2? Of course, they also have to be concerned about the risk that they do something that fails to gain 1 but loses 2.
3 Likes
These links align with something I had typed and discarded earlier as a response in this thread. Lee’s transgressions against African-Americans are enough to make him unsuitable for being the face of W&L. However, his transgressions against the country make him unsuitable for anything other than widespread condemnation by all Americans, regardless of any individual’s opinion on race-related matters. He should never be “honored” by having his name or legacy represent anything meaningful to this country or any of its states.
9 Likes
The generation that fought against Lee saw him differently. I think you should ask why that was so. Jefferson Davis was viewed very differently for example; nothing was named after him. Historical oversimplification is unfortunately on display in this tread.
3 Likes
This is such an interesting thread. Thank you @DramaMama2021 for curating it.
I personally descend from a slaveholding family; it is an uncomfortable and embarassing legacy. I have spent much of my adult life making sure that all the records and correspondence regarding those African-Americans enslaved by my families are available for research and review by their descendants. We humbly attend their family reunions when invited and diligently assist in any research requests. It’s clear from our financial records that the Civil War, at least for our family, was about the economic engine that was slavery.
DS and I spent two days on the W&L campus two years ago after he had narrowed his ED decision to either W&L or Wake Forest. The two schools are similar in many ways, but what was so evident during our stay there was how infused the spirit of Robert E. Lee, the Civil War, and the Confederacy are in the greater community of the school and Lexington. We stayed on campus in a comfortable guest house, and while we were unpacking we heard a cannon fire at VMI, which literally abuts the campus. In addition to the Lee Chapel in front of the Collonade, there is a Robert E. Lee Hotel downtown. The Episcopal church on campus has recently changed its name from Robert E. Lee Memorial Chapel to Grace Chapel, several buildings on campus were in the process of being renamed. We visited Lee Chapel and, while the main chapel had been sanitized of military references, the Lee museum in the basement was a shrine in his honor. DS and I both thought that it could be intimidating for minority students to attend there, as @Student452 has noted. The school is so impressive, and it is obvious that the administration makes minority recruitment a real priority.
While an intellectual case might be made in isolation in favor of retaining the name of the school, the totality of the greater university community’s association with the Confederacy is problematic.
10 Likes
4 Likes
Couldn’t agree more about the surrounding community. I joined all the Lexington Facebook groups I could find, and all of them are strongly against name changes, statue removal etc. On the other hand they don’t seem to like W&L all that much, my impression is because W&L is perceived to be too liberal.
The hotel has changed its name btw.
5 Likes
There’s an excellent, thorough discussion of the reasons for removing or keeping the name of Lee that I’ll try to find; the fact he was a slave owner is not the key point for those advocating for his removal but rather his role as leader of the conferacy, the association his name immediately evokes anyone with a modicum of education (civil war, slavery) basically making him the face of it, the odious actions he personally took, and the fact he either encouraged or turned a blind eye to the young men under his leadership committing acts of terror against former slaves in the community.
The side in favor of keeping his name defended the point that keeping that name, while commemorating it, is not honoring it, and at this point removing “Lee” from the college’s name would be a brand problem.
Neither side advocated that Lee is somehow acceptable.
The final side was to rename the college entirely and there only did the issue of “slaveowning” came as a factor.
The first position was apparently the majority one among students and faculty, the second and the third roughly the same in support.
2 Likes
Respectfully, could we move past comparing Lee to Jefferson Davis and others and bring the discussion back specifically to W&L?
@ucbalumnus I agree with your comments on the balance the Board is weighing with each decision. I believe it is obvious which “won out” with the name change. I hope and expect that to continue to be pushed by students, faculty and, dare I say, younger alumni.
But back to my question, are the other changes viewed as a step forward (in spite of keeping the name)? What else can be done in the short term while the name remains the same?
I am asking these questions sincerely. I took a deep breath before starting this thread but ultimately felt it is important to encourage respectful dialogue about difficult issues. My daughter will be attending so I want the best for her and am hoping that in a few years we will look back and say she was a part of meaningful change.
6 Likes
@DramaMama2021 those are my hopes also for my son, who will be attending. I believe he will be part of moving W&L towards greater inclusivity and diversity.
My concern for W&L is that if it wants to be a national university, it can’t stay in its Southern bubble.
4 Likes
I am a Southerner and agree. Interestingly all the kids my daughter has formed friendships with via the admitted student social media groups seem to be from VA and further north (exceptions for kids she knows from our hometown).So I’d love to see the class broken out by state of residence. She met her roommate that way (from the Northeast and part of multiple minority groups). They have had many discussions about the name and need for other change. It has been invaluable to my daughter to hear her perspective and have those conversations with a contemporary,
3 Likes
If American culture continues to change over time, future generations may consider our present mainstream attitude to be bizarre and incoherent (that is, that honoring slaveowners is OK, but not people who actively defended slavery)-- since slaveowning is inherently evil. Any slaveowner committed “odious acts.” But people today don’t want to give up Washington and Jefferson.
1 Like
Or perhaps they will judge commonplace things from today, like eating meat or driving cars, to be odious as well. Difficult to apply today’s standards to the past or the future.
3 Likes
If your daughter wants to be part of meaningful change my advice to her would be to watch the Board of Trustees elections and protest if they choose non-minority candidates for their open slots. The Board of Trustees has only ever had four black men and no female POC on it. The Board will have to change before the name ever will.
Ultimately, the culture at Washington and Lee has to change. Changing the name has been closed as an option for now. Part of the reason why the debate ended with the result that it did was that one side was organized - the Generals Redoubt - and the other side was fragmented into students, faculty, and alumni who wanted a name change but never truly spoke to or united with each other. Your daughter could be part of changing that if the students engaged the faculty and alumni who are in support of a name change and created one unified front.
Aside from that, W&L transparently believes it can buy diversity in the form of the Johnson Scholarship and other vehicles. It’s notable that it’s outreach focuses specifically on race when W&L also has issues in attracting and keeping other minority groups (LGBTQ, etc.). W&L is virtually alone among its peers in having almost no resources for these groups (it should also be mentioned that the quality of the existing resources is extremely poor and difficult to find). Your daughter could be part of changing that as well.
3 Likes
I sincerely hope future generations have a more nuanced outlook, and that they find it bizarre and incoherent that instead of acknowledging the good and the bad of historical figures (and contemporary persons as well), we establish a bright moral line to condemn and erase. See, for example, Ben Franklin.
As far as the W&L name, I was surprised they kept the name and I do think eventually they will need to change it. For now, the school is able to straddle a line and keep the name while taking actions to diversify, without a significant hit to its prestige. There are still plenty of excellent prospective students who want to attend. There is a place in this country for a school like W&L. All liberal arts schools don’t have to be the same.
While I agree about the need for nuance, Lee’s name should not be retained for numerous reasons.
I’m also not as optimistic about the school’s ability to straddle the line. Washington and Lee was faced with a choice between maintaining alumni donations or addressing its flat admissions pool. Washington and Lee chose the former and it remains to be seen if its admissions pool will begin to contract as it is already at 0% for the past decade. My understanding is that tuition matters more to the university’s finances than donations, so from that perspective the decision not to rebrand was surprising.