Thank you for both thoughtful replies. I’m at work so will respond more later. In short, I agree with much of what you said and have had similar conversations with my D. If anything, I’m concerned she may be too outspoken about her convictions. She is pretty equally involved in initiatives supporting POC, LGBTQ, healthcare access (a passion).
I did want to add that the applications this year were up 32% from class of 2024. I’m certainly not arguing your other points.
COVID alone would explain that. All admissions took a major hit in 2020. I have to note that Washington and Lee has a habit of using percentages when the actual increase in raw numbers is less than impressive. I’ve often seen the increase in minority enrollment expressed this way, 200% looks impressive on paper, but when it’s only 2 to 6 students it tells a very different story.
Fair point. I’ll have to look back further to see if what I viewed as a positive was more of an anomaly. In raw numbers 2024 had 4997 applications and 2025 had 6621 apps.
Thank you for this discussion. My first impression of WLU was a finishing school for wealthy Southern gentlemen and ladies who is desperately trying to change the image without alienating the current and former students and alumni. Lexington is a timeless, lost in the fog shrine for Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Dixie. Not a judgement for or against, but current environment my non-white child will be facing. The hammering of VMI as being a racist and sexist institution does not help the atmosphere in the area.
So why would I subject my child to this? I won’t and I can’t. Even if with the Johnson Scholarship, it is a very hard sell for me. My child has the grades, test scores, and is a recruitable D1 level athlete who wants to attend a D3 LAC. Probably a great addition to WLU but I have the wisdom of 50 years living in the USA to know better to guide my child.
Word game: Pomona, Williams, Swarthmore, Vassar, Amherst, MIT and Washington and Lee. Which one does not belong?
I’ll bite - MIT ? Only tech heavy school on your list
I don’t think organized “activism” on either side made much difference in the Board’s decision. Any university Board is well aware that the faculty is on average pretty far to the left of the alumni and even current students. And they don’t care all that much what current students think, since they are considered too young, too short-sighted, and too caught up in the moment. They were also well aware that plenty of right-wing blowhards wanted no change whatsoever.
They did pretty extensive surveys and likely found that alumni (donor) support for a name change was quite low, and determined that keeping the name would not harm admissions too much. I’m sure the individual Board members also felt loyalty to the name, so it was not just an objective “bottom line” analysis.
It is more meaningful to consider historical figures in the context of their time and place, since almost any historical figure from more than a few decades ago has some views and acts that would be considered unsavory or odious today, but within the norm for their time and place (also, the degree of unsavoriness or odiousness can vary, even when looked at by today’s standards). With respect to a given historical figure’s relationship to slavery:
From WLU Common Data sets:
| Applications to start fall of this year* | Number of applicants |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 3,649 |
| 2005 | 3,950 |
| 2006 | 4,217 |
| 2007 | 3,719 |
| 2008 | 6,386 |
| 2009 | 6,222 |
| 2010 | 6,627 |
| 2011 | 6,487 |
| 2012 | 5,972 |
| 2013 | 6,222 |
| 2014 | 5,797 |
| 2015 | 5,377 |
| 2016 | 5,101 |
| 2017 | 5,455 |
| 2018 | 5,855 |
| 2019 | 6,178 |
*Meaning that the applicants started applying in fall of the previous year.
Note the jump from 2007 to 2008 (application years 2006 to 2007). Did WLU start accepting a shared application like The Common Application then?
The Generals Redoubt were mostly a group of old, white, alumni and they made clear to the Trustees that they would not donate to the school if the name changed. So, in that sense organized activism did make a difference. Since time is not in that group’s favor a younger group could conceivable change the tide. Again, I would focus on the Trustees lack of diversity and make that the center issue. When the Trustees are diverse, come back for the name.
As a Lexington resident, it is actually fair to say that the fog is breaking. Lexington is considerably more liberal than the surrounding county. The Robert E. Lee Hotel is now The Gin, Stonewall Jackson Cemetery is now Oak Grove Cemetery, Stonewall Jackson Memorial Hospital is now Rockbridge General Community Hospital. The Confederate flags and statues are coming down and even the street names may soon be changed. WLU is actually out of step with the town at the moment.
Diverse or not, the Trustees still have to face a problem that many businesses (not just colleges) face: should the business continue to cater to current customers and stakeholders (however defined) when doing so limits its ability to increase its potential customer base beyond what it has now? Especially if it feels that its current customer base is stagnant or shrinking.
Obviously, such a business wants to be able to keep its current customers and stakeholders while attracting new ones. But it may not be easy to do in WLU’s case.
As I noted previously, I wonder if any Latin American alumni added to the Board will be assumed to be POC. But many upper class Latin Americans (like the kind that tend to come to W&L) are 100% or close to it European ancestry. Maybe if the person doesn’t personally identify as POC, they will be quietly told that it makes the Board and the college look better if they just go with it.
Anyway, I’ve noticed over the last year in general that “POC” and “diversity” are overused when the subject at hand is really anti-Black racism. Because anti-Black racism certainly exists in Asia, Latin America, and other POC regions.
WLU is deficient in pretty much every area relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion. It’s lack of LGBTQ representation and resources is also stark. I’m actually not sure if the Board of Trustees even has an openly LGBTQ member. And your point about POC and diversity being overused when the subject is anti-Black racism is well taken.
This is an important point. I’m glad it was brought up. When we visited campus my D sought out the Inclusion & Engagement Center, LGBTQ Resource Center and Hillel. It is disappointing to read some comments in this thread that these resources are not as engaged or accessible as we’d believed.
But in particular at W&L, the AA community needs to feel supported (not to take away from any other POC or discriminated group). So thank you for mentioning that so it can be addressed specifically in this thread. Apologies to any in the AA community who felt the conversation was watered down by my use of the more generic “POC”,
Thank you for sharing your experience and point of view.
I see another poster followed up that some of the places you mentioned have been renamed. I am happy to read that as I was concerned that I had not noticed those type references to that extent (though certainly some) when we visited this spring. Hopefully we will see more changes along those lines at both W&L and the surrounding area so that families like yours will be comfortable and in fact want to be there with or without a scholarship.
I confess I need to look into the atmosphere at VMI more after reading your comment since the two campuses and community are so intertwined.
Also I have to admit that I found downtown Lexington charming and the surroundings of the Shenandoah Valley beautiful. I grew up in a small town in a rural area but have lived in a major city for the past 30 years. So my viewpoint was absolutely influenced by a sense of nostalgia for small town America.
On a less serious note, my D insisted on a photo outside The Red Hen. 
This list from ucbalumnus actually proves my point. Nothing was named after Jefferson Davis until after the start of the Jim Crow era in the 1880s. The college was named after Lee’s death in 1870. Lee actually visited with Grant in the White House in 1869. To his former opponents he was not in the same category. It was well known that he opposed secession. He was ambivalent about slavery according to his correspondence but ultimately chose to stay with Virginia when it seceded
At the college he stood for reconciliation and obedience to the authorities and reportedly expelled white students who violently attacked blacks.
His reputation was appropriated by the later Lost Cause.
Was he a proponent of racial equality? Absolutely not. Very few were in that time outside the Radical Republicans whose Reconstruction failure is now viewed as a lost opportunity
The college seems to be doing what it can under the present circumstances when historical ignorance abets virtue signaling
As for students being alienated by the purported values of Lee—frankly if some of the students of today could meet Messrs. Harvard and Yale they would start burning portraits and tearing down statues Nobody meets our “elevated” standards today
No mention of that is found at African Americans at Washington and Lee : Washington and Lee University . Indeed, there were no African American matriculated students at WLU and its predecessors between 1799 and 1966.
I understand you are concentrating on historical information and comparisons to other universities. But as a white/non-POC, which I am and assume you are, do you really believe those explanations, no matter how historically accurate they may or may not be, change the experience of an AA/POC when confronted with REL and related references?
Let’s say that REL did not support monuments. Let’s say that he did not actively support slavery. I do understand there is documentation along those lines, though I am over-simplifying here. Knowing that, do you think he would support how his image has been used/misused/hijacked by deplorable organizations and movements over the years?
I am born and raised in the South. I am proud of that. But I am not proud of any part of my heritage that causes “negative feelings” (very sanitized verbiage) to anyone. There was a time I had no idea of the hate associated with the Confederate flag. I simply thought it was a symbol of the South, but I learned from others. I’m sure we can find ways to accurately share the history (positive and negative) without ostracizing a significant portion of the population. And I am still learning as my lens is obviously tinted by my past experience and upbringing. So I may not always succeed in initially seeing another point of view but I can listen and learn.
ETA: Along the lines of positive history at W&L, lookup John Chavis a Revolutionary soldier and the first AA to receive a college diploma in the US (starting at Princeton and graduating at Washington Academy now W&L). He is now honored at W&L by Chavis Hall and a monument. Unfortunately the actions that followed (at W&L and most everywhere else) did not continue what should have been a monumental moment in our country’s history.
Of course there were no black students at W&L ( or other Southern schools like UVA) until the 1960s. That is hardly an historical insight
Your linked article actually says nothing about Lee so not sure what the point is