You can “choose” to be offended but still be justified in doing so.
Can anybody think of a reason why it’s so important to have Calhoun’s name on this beyond the fuzzy handwaving of “tradition”? Would you have supported mounting a giant confederate flag in the middle of Yale as well? Whom are you trying to honor or promote by listing a long-dead slave owner?
Putting up a new confederate flag is intentionally causing offense. There is no other reason to do so except as part of a historical discussion.
What about the same Jew and a residential college named after Himmler?
Does that meet your threshold of offense choice?
And who are YOU to decide what’s reasonable offense and what isn’t? I’m serious: what kind of a background do YOU have to be telling people to “get over it”? Are you the descendant of slaves? Were your relatives rounded up into ghettos and death camps or Japanese internment camps during WW2?
Just what makes YOU the arbiter of what is, and what isn’t, offensive?
@katliamom Since you appear to be such an expert on the subject, would you please list the races that have the right to be offended and those which do not? That would help clarify things a lot.
@RMIBstudent What if Yale military students were to protest to keep the Calhoun name, since he was a strong contributor to the formation of our current system of national defense? I am guessing that no one wants to offend the black students, but others on campus may be in favor of keeping the traditional Calhoun name? Does anyone know how the majority of Yale students feel? Maybe most don’t care?
"In some cases where the standards include arbitrary components, sure. But slavery is clearly a moral evil if you just look at really fundamental things like not wanting to hurt other people. It shouldn’t have been beyond people of his time to figure that out - and it wasn’t, as abolitionists did exist. "
Not allowing women to vote or own property was a moral evil. Not allowing women to go to these institutes of higher education and relegating them to their own institutions could be considered a moral evil. It shouldn’t have been beyond people of that time to figure it out. Yet you’re ok with buildings named after “regular” dead white males who would have been steadfastly against these things. No one is arguing that slavery is “acceptable” but these things weren’t either.
Himmler is a lot more recent. I think the recency of “offense” is very relevant.
What about their views on gay rights or transgender rights? If we need to measure all historical figures by today’s metric, surely that matters too.
@Pizzagirl If one of the people in question were known to have abused women, then yes, we should remove their names too. Passively not supporting women’s suffrage isn’t analogous to actively facilitating the slave trade.
@MOMANDBOYSTWO That’s an interesting point. We’d have to consider which one we value more. His work with national defense may have (I dunno myself) done more good for the country than his individual dealings with slavery did harm. At the same time though, I think the connection with slavery does more to hurt Yale’s PR and moral standing than not championing national defense (?) given Yale’s background and areas of focus. Were Yale a military academy, it might have been different.
@albert69 – did I NOT make myself clear in that I don’t think anyone in particular (and that includes me!) should be the arbiter of what’s offensive or not?
These are all reasons why it seems better to just look forward, rather than to look backward and get offended. No one can change history, but we can stop reliving the parts that we don’t like.
MOMANDBOYSTWO, but that that won’t assuage some people’s “woe is me” complexes. 
Let’s not forget environmental impact. When Washington was leading his armies, did he endanger any plant or animal species, cause deforestation, or excessive carbon burning?
The problem with “I say move on to the future and stop worrying about the past. In essence, yes, get over it.”
is there are many (now with access to guns) that haven’t gotten over the civil war and refuse to believe in civil rights for all and want the south to “rise again” working every chance they have to enact legislation (recent voting restrictions in NC comes to mind) that undermine full equality- These remaining symbols give them hope and perceived power as the flag did flying over the statehouse… because the flag was a reminder of systemic oppression and racial subjugation—including the imposition of Jim Crow after the Civil War and the resistance to civil rights for all people. It (this battle) is still being played out today.
As the Atlantic writes "The Calhoun name is Yale’s Confederate flag. It’s time the flag came down.
You can look forward, be positive, and still make a point of NOT celebrating ugly facets of your past. And Calhoun’s policies were ugly. He celebrated the ownership of human beings. Thanks to some research by other posters, we now know that naming the college after him WAS CONTROVERSIAL EVEN DURING HIS LIFETIME. Is it any wonder 150 years later people are still asking WTF?
@hebegebe Bad analogy. Washington wouldn’t have access to the climate science we have today, so that could be excused from ignorance (and the necessity of war). In this case, all the moral arguments against slavery are understandable by an intelligent person from Calhoun’s time.
As for gay and transgender rights, I wouldn’t expect someone from his era to actively support them, but if they had a tendency to go around and murder gay people for sport, then yeah that’s a reason to remove their names.
Was Paul Revere’s midnight ride animal abuse to his horse? We shouldn’t honor him if it was.
A pretty lame attempt there, albert69. Neither funny nor enlightening - just shark jumping.
In 1957, Calhoun was called one of the greatest senators of all time, and they certainly knew his history as well. The current push for removal is based upon applying today’s norms to historical figures. Which is why we are attempting to show, through humor, that it makes no sense to do so.
Plenty terrible people were called great by SOMEBODY. I’m sure you can think of a few examples, if not we’ll be happy to offer them. Doesn’t mean that, in fact, they weren’t terrible.
And, again, you keep ignoring the fact that Calhoun was roundly criticized, and considered controversial if not downright hateful, in his own lifetime. This “applying today’s norms” argument doesn’t wash here.
Just because you don’t think it’s funny doesn’t mean it isn’t. Who are you to claim it wasn’t funny? What authority do you have to claim that? ;