I think your D should start an undergraduate organization on campus (or join an existing one) that will continue promoting the removal of the name and other vestiges and circumstances that make WandL inhospitable for minorities.
2 Likes
One thing no one has mentioned is the new academic center focused on Southern race relations, culture and politics. Done well, this could be very influential, to the culture at large, as well as to W&L.
2 Likes
Well, the Charles was lovely this time of year many, many moons ago.
This is similar to the name change debate at Dixie State University in Utah. The main argument there is that the name of the university has had a negative impact on job options for those wishing to leave the area.
There are Confederate flags and “heritage not hate” signs around the town as the counterargument. In UTAH. Not exactly the cradle of the Confederacy. Which, as far as I’m concerned, supports changing the name.
2 Likes
I agree. I hoped someone would bring that up.
I believe that in the near future, we’ll treat people who participated in this particular crime against humanity in the same way people were/are treated who participated in the other crime against humanity (genocide):
a big (though imperfect) distinction is made between people who participated in, perpetuated in their daily life, and benefited from the crime (peasants near Dachau whose farms used Concentration Camp labor, HitlerJünge who harassed Jewish shopkeepers, families who took Jewish houses…);
People who committed direct crimes (chopped a hand, eviscerated, raped, etc.)
People who committed mass numbers of the above
People who instituted, defended (including arms in hand), lead armed groups, built infrastructure and organized the crime (with a special distinction within for people who displayed sadistic behavior)
Note however that Germany offered “restitution payments”, is very thorough in the way it handles what happened from the Weimach Republic till May 1945 and its aftermath, had a “purge” and public trials (very imperfect though they be).
Rwanda on the other hand had the ICTR, which was just as imperfect, with the added burden the Head of State and his militia were given a blank check.
While nazism was inherently evil, the US through the Marshall Plan helped Germans restructure and rebuild (okay, maybe not for pure reasons entirely, but the entire German people were NOT put on trial). Those in the first group went through de-nazification. Those in the second group were judged. Those in the third and fourth group had public trials.
Those in the Werhmacht were not judged the same way as the SS.
Washington, Jefferson, are equivalent to Werhmacht generals except they also were heads of state who were essential to building the US.
They shouldn’t get a pass, they should be recognized for the profund impact they had while we shouldn’t forget what they participated in and perpetuated an evil institution.
However, if you ask an 8th or 11th grader about Washington and Jefferson, what comes to mind isn’t “slavery” and “civil war”.
Their role in US and World History is completely different from Lee’s, who was the leader as well as the figurehead for the confederacy and what it stood for. Most importantly, he became an icon of the Lost Cause and stands for things the college shouldn’t and doesn’t want to be associated with today even if they were proud of him 100 years ago and are grateful for his saving them.
They believe that keeping Lee’s name doesn’t mean they honor Lee anymore.
The Board of Trustees considers that Lee doesn’t define W&L, W&L will define the meaning of “Lee”. It’s a tall order. It’s what they’re attempting with the changes they’ve adopted. We should see within 5 years whether it had an impact or not. To me, it sounds inadequate - a first step, not a solution.
Note that the side that wanted to keep “Lee” in the college’s name is NOT defending Lee, the historical person, or his role as an icon of the Lost Cause.
Wondering what a German university with the name “Charles The Great and Rommel” would have done.
3 Likes
The standard “Founding Fathers = mostly good / Confederates = evil” thinking seems overly simplistic to me. If R.E. Lee had been born eighty years earlier, he likely would have been a successful general of the Revolution and maybe senior official/President. And the Founding Fathers of the 18th Century never had their wealth (based on slavery) and social order threatened like it was in the mid-19th century, so who knows what they would have chosen.
1 Like
Good perspective. Lincoln won with 39% of the vote and stood for a fairly radical policy which most of the country rejected. Secessionists were a minority but the prevailing view of the time was that states had the right to secede however Inadvisable it was to do so. Lee reluctantly went along once Virginia joined the Confederacy after Sumter.
Confederates were not tried for treason and generally were not punished after the war aside from loss of voting rights for a period of time
Morally it is an easy call for us today but it was complex then. Half the country probably was either pro South or neutral Comparison to Nazis is just a way to avoid any attempted understanding of the past.
3 Likes
The 1860 popular and electoral vote was:
| Candidate | % popular vote | Electors | Position on Slavery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln | 39.8% | 180 | Opposed to allowing slavery in territories, but did not seek abolition in states where it already existed |
| Douglas | 29.5% | 12 | Popular sovereignty |
| Breckinridge | 18.1% | 72 | Pro-slavery |
| Bell | 12.6% | 3 | Avoided the issue |
However, the vote totals understate opposition to slavery, since a large population of presumed anti-slavery people was not allowed to vote, despite counting as 3/5 for the purpose of allocating Representatives and Electors to their states.
3 Likes
That name would have been in violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 Likes
Genocide (HaShoah/the “Holocaust” in particular but all genocides, from the Herero/Namas genocide to Holodomor to Rwanda) and slavery (in the past and currently) are currently the two “crimes against humanity” recognized internationally (those encompass a variety of other crimes, such as mass rape as part of a genocide, or sexual slavery/trafficking as part of enslavement/bondage).
Hence, the comparison.
Well yes but what has that got to do with my point that the issue of secession was an open legal and political question in 1861? Secession seems to be how some in this thread are distinguishing Lee from Jefferson and Washington
And on the slavery issue in 1861 no significant group of the white population was in favor of abolition Lincoln explicitly said he was not
Let’s please bring the conversation back to W&L. Perhaps start another thread to continue that conversation. 
1 Like
We are talking about Lee right? And whether he is so reprehensible or out of the norm min view of the issue of slavery or secession that his name must be removed? Is not his historical context relevant?
If not relevant then many pre 1865 names ( Jeffferson, Jackson, Madison and Washington included)can be removed without further analysis
My understanding of the historical record is that Lee swore several oaths during his military career in allegiance to the United States, to defend the Constitution, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States. He broke all of those oaths when he joined the Confederacy.
Also, the argument that Lee’s primary motive in fighting for the Confederacy was in defense of Virginia is suspect. There is a statistic that out of eight Virginia officers with the rank of colonel at the outbreak of the Civil War, Lee was the only one to break his oath. The rest remained faithful to the Union. I think it is fair to say that one’s view on secession and states rights in that era also tracked with their views on slavery. Lee was a slaveholder and therefore predisposed to put his state above his country. Not everyone agreed, there were Virginia unionists and of course, West Virginia broke off during the course of the war.
But since Lee himself didn’t want any memorials to him, why keep the name? It violates Lee’s own wishes.
My take is that this is going to depend greatly upon who they hire. A decent scholar could aid in debunking the myths about Lee that continue to pop up, such as the one about Lee creating the honor code at W&L (he did not). Keep an eye on the scholarship of whoever they hire, it will give you the best sense of how they will treat the position.
1 Like
“The Board of Trustees considers that Lee doesn’t define W&L, W&L will define the meaning of “Lee”. It’s a tall order.”
W&L doesn’t control what Lee’s legacy means to everyone else. The very notion that they are keepers of the flame is an offensive one. It’s not a ‘tall’ order, it is an impossible one. Keeping the name was in direct contradiction with the Trustees’ regret for W&L’s institutional history and their condemnation of racism. What the name means for a lot of minority applicants is that W&L continues to embrace and profit from their racist past.
2 Likes
Speculating about IF Lee had been a general a hundred years earlier, or IF there was a “leftist” revolution in Yucatán, is off topic for this conversation. While I love history and find some of these comments interesting, they are not relevant and are distracting. Some comments are also drifting perilously close to politicizing this thread. Several posts edited or deleted. Please stay on topic.
3 Likes
Very true. The student body being so heavily Greek also impacts minority students’ abilities to foster a more integrated campus. For example, minority students who host multicultural events in an attempt to bring more of their culture to campus often find that their events are only frequented by other unaffiliated, minority students. Greek-affiliated students rarely attend. A commonly cited reason is that students in Greek Life have other commitments to their sorority/fraternity which conflict with the events. Greek-affiliated students don’t attend the events where they could connect with unaffiliated students, remain closed to their own circles in their fraternity/sorority, and before you know it there are two cultures at W&L: the predominant Greek culture that mainly rich, white, straight, and cisgender people participate in; and the culture that exists in the margins that many minorities are in.
The changes that the Board approved are far too minimal. Some activists on campus were even (rightfully) insulted- some law school students had petitioned the Board a few years ago about changing the diplomas. Black law students involved in the petition received death threats for that. The Board announced the diploma change with no acknowledgment of those students. Seemed like the changes were just made as some sort of belated compromise to pretend the Board actually wants progress.
2 Likes