I don’t expect that. But I also don’t believe that people should necessarily ignore or misrepresent the current situation based on the promise of a better future, especially because, given the current conservative backlash against all things supposedly “woke,” that better future is far from a sure thing.
And despite representations to the contrary, the numbers are still pretty horrible, despite the tremendous efforts of some in the W&L community. Also, some in the W&L community are pushing back hard against the current positive changes and the prospect of additional changes.
The Board of Trustees had a tremendous opportunity to send an unequivocal message to those trying to hang on to the horrendous history of the institution, and it was an opportunity missed. The future of the institution is still up in the air, and IMO prospective students/families ought to be aware of that.
Here’s a message from a powerful alumni group decrying the changes at the school, from a few days ago:
Not everyone wants W&L to leave its horrible history behind.
The expectation is not that W&L (or any school) should snap its fingers and instantly correct all its current wrongs, and move away from its historical evils. That is unrealistic and as far as I’ve read, I haven’t seen MTMind say anything of the sort.
I applaud W&L for making the strides you and other defenders of it have mentioned. OTOH, making incremental movements toward improvement is not the same as being improved enough. That is the point I think some are trying to make, but is being ignored in some defenders’ rush to defend.
It’s great that you and a couple of other parents felt the bar had been met for your child to attend. OTOH, it’s also perfectly okay for other parents and students to say the bar they set for themselves is not close to being met yet. And it’s also perfectly okay for some students/parents to say that as long as the name of Robert E Lee is part of the university’s name (and is buried on the campus and honored on the campus), THAT IN AND OF ITSELF is proof their personal bar is not yet met.
I appreciate the information you and others have provided about how W&L is slowly moving away from his racist past. But I don’t think it helps to harangue those who don’t feel W&L is yet the place they wish to attend or send their children to attend.
This isn’t accurate. Until very recently, school has embraced and celebrated its racist/confederate history, celebrating and honoring the traitorous Lee and all he stood for. Within the past decade, W&L was prominently displaying Confederate flags in its most important facilities, pro-confederate groups were welcome on its campus and using those facilities, parades celebrating confederate leaders were marching annually to Lee’s Chapel, the campus was adorned with displays uniformed confederate soldiers, everywhere. The above named chapel remains a powerful homage to the confederacy. The school didn’t even allow black students until the late 1960s, and then just a few. Until a few years ago there were over 150 portraits on display at the campus, and every single one of them was depicting a white person (usually a white male.)
I think where we differ is seeing/knowing the school as it is today, and not from 10 or 20 years ago. Not that it is perfect, or doesn’t still have a way to go.
I think we can stipulate that at least historically the school has been slow to embrace change – it was one of the last all male schools to go co-ed. However the pace of change has definitely accelerated, which is what I am trying to highlight.
And I have no hesitation in saying The Generals Redoubt is a deplorable group. I do believe they reflect certain alums from the past. Maybe a handful from the present. But they most definitely do not represent the majority of students at the school. Both the students and the faculty voted to change the name, as one example of the current thinking.
To add to what cinnamon1212 is saying, W&L is not the only college with an out-of-touch alumni group that offends some. I don’t believe in judging any college by one faction of its alumni only. I am not spending my holiday searching for a website presence of any of these offensive alumni groups from other colleges, nor do I harbor such ill will toward these other colleges that I would name them on this site. I remember meeting reps of them throughout my life and listening to their opinions at events. It’s a personal observation. I form my opinions from personal experience and people I actually know or have spoken with rather than considering internet sources of uncertain authority.
@EconPop I don’t think what I wrote ^^ criticizes anyone because they decide the school’s name alone is enough reason to not consider going to W&L, or wanting to learn more. Similarly I do not believe I’ve said anywhere that the school is done and has no need for further change.
I follow (aka stalk) a conservative group of alums and the conservative student newsletter, which are probably the groups you are referring to. I recently pointed out on the conservative alum social media that W&L had more financial support than ever in spite of them claiming “this woke school is not getting my alum $$”… and after that I was blocked. That group’s comments are not limited to race… they oppose openness to the LGBTQ+ community and the success of the annual Drag Ball is apparently akin to the end times… scholarship and financial aid students are part of the “woke” agenda…
But those views are not reflected on the campus by the students or faculty. I hate that those loud voices are drowning out the reality. And like I commented, those alum contributions are not missed. Go with God, as far as I’m concerned. I’m thrilled with the growth of the parent fund and endowment (in spite of those disgruntled alums) because that supports the goal of need blind admissions and the already extremely generous need aid… and the direction of the current administration.
I won’t deny that it is hard to hear these perceptions when I know my kid’s day to day experience and her friends of color and various identities who are thriving. And she considered the school’s past and talked to current kids and faculty when deciding whether to attend W&L and felt she would be part of the evolution of the school. But while we supported a name change, I acknowledge that as a Caucasian family we cannot fully comprehend the significance of keeping the name in the same way as a POC. So I respect that for some that may not be acceptable to overlook. I just hope for the same respect in return.
Most of us who are highlighting the positive initiatives have been clear that we do not think it is enough yet… just that there are positive steps in the right direction. So when a comment is made without acknowledging those steps by a poster who has no connection with or interest in the school, it seems uninformed at the least and a rush to attack at the worst. I think most posters have also been clear that it is a fit school and not the right fit for everyone, no matter the reason.
Edit: That is the horrible alum group I was referring to… I just saw your post. And thank you as well, @EconPop .
Ok. I guess from the years I’ve been following - since a neighbor won the Johnson abd we started investigating - I hadn’t seen this. If it’s that recent, I’m surprised and no that wouldn’t be good.
But when is one allowed an opportunity to redeem ?
However, every time someone mentions W&L’s shortcomings, someone else immediately “strikes back” with a defense of W&L. That retort can be taken at least two different ways – strictly as a defense of W&L, or also as a criticism that the individual complaining about W&L’s shortcomings hasn’t done enough research to see how great the university is.
I’m glad you and others are excited about what the university is doing to try to move on from its deplorable past. But if you insist on replying to each comment about W&L’s racist history (distant history and almost immediate history,) then you propagate more responses and I fear the result is the opposite of what you intend. Instead of turning off the light on W&L’s current flaws and historical evils, you continue the conversation about W&L’s flaws.
Which, I must admit, I don’t see as a negative. I think the more pressure is put on W&L, the more it may work harder to more quickly fully divest itself of Robert E Lee.
I guess where we differ is that I do not think I am disagreeing with you (or anyone) about W&L’s racist history. It absolutely was! And absolutely was during our lifetimes! (That’s my way of saying recent past :-)).
But most people haven’t done much research and don’t know much about the school as it is today. I write so that someone reading this thread next year gets a full perspective on the school. I hope they will read everyone’s posts and come to their own decision as to whether learning more makes sense for them or not.
PS far from “turning off the light” on historical flaws, I think they should be discussed as much as possible! It’s a fact that the school has one of the worst historys in higher education, and ignoring that history does no one any favors – not the school, not those connected to it, and not those considering it.
You and anyone else can redeem W&L all you want. But let me ask you a question.
Would you send your daughter to W&L if it was named Leopold & Himmler, if Himmler was buried there and if there were honorifics to Himmler in different spots of the campus?
Would you say, “look, sweetie, I know it’s named after a man who hated Jewish people and tried to kill your great grandfather, but it’s a really really really good school. I think you should consider it. We can overlook a name, right?.”
Because, as you say, when should we redeem certain names?
I agree with this and I am writing because I toured the school with my DS recently. I understood that to be the topic of this thread, entitled W&L: Expectations vs Reality. The name of the school itself is not germane to that topic. The name is already known. We chose to visit on the basis of academic reputation, the faculty:student ratio, recent resource allocation (such as faculty and facilities/development), personal reports of how the school handled the last three years including the transition back to in-person education, and so on. I do not research alumni groups when I am determining where my DS should visit and consider.
Like @Econpop, I have no issue with people choosing W&L and while it is certainly not for everyone, I think it commendable that some students want to be “part of the evolution of the school.” But I do take issue when people misrepresent the situation, including the statistics, whether historically or the currently. I think if you go back and look at my posts, you’ll see that they were in response to misinformation about the school.
While I understand why the school and its supporters might, IMO it does a disservice to prospective families to sugarcoat the history and/or to downplay the continuing issues with diversity. That’s why I have posted the current numbers in response to posts that, IMO, don’t accurately represent the current or past situation . It isn’t a slight to you, your daughter, or anyone else at the school. It is factual information about the school, and in my opinion it helps prospective families to present not only the efforts of some of the W&L community, but also the reasons why those efforts are necessary. In short, I don’t think it enough to say “there is still work to be done.”
I think it great that the majority of the faculty and and students want to address the problems, but it shouldn’t go unmentioned or unnoticed that there are powerful groups opposed to positive change, and that at least with regard to the name and other aspects, the institution itself sided with sometimes bigoted supporters who are interested in preserving the worst aspects of the institution. As @EconPop elequently explained, until the school cuts ties with those that venerate the Confederacy, the school will not be a good fit for a significant portion of prospective families.
And that’s fair. And each has the right to make that decision, as does the school.
To answer your question, yes I would have with Lee if she had won the scholarship she interviewed for. I live amongst this nomenclature day to day and I admittedly don’t give it much thought. It’s pervasive where I live.
No I would not have if the name was Himmler - and I see your point.
I did not say redeem names however. I said when is one allowed to be redeemed - meaning the institution.
To be clear, the school does not support or appreciate the association with that group… at all. To the extent that those alums hold their own reunions away from campus and any of the administrative support given to “official” alum activities.
(appreciate the rest of your comments but will read more thoroughly after family time)
TBH, that’s what I was trying to do upstream. Not to be mean or vindictive, but to provide some context. It’s not easy trying to steer a revered institution towards a new direction. And I am old enough to remember when even turning a single sex college co-ed meant severing ties with many loyal alumni.
Just a quick note that as an alum I’d never heard of that group until this thread. I’ve only been contacted by the alumni group lobbying to change the school name.
We live on the west coast and aren’t involved really at all in alumni activities. It seems to my husband (also an alum) and I that the school has changed for the better. We plan on taking our S25 to visit next year.
And I am old enough to remember what it was like to be one of those first co-eds, and I can assure you that the ties were not completely severed, even if you enjoyed the privilege of not noticing them.