Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday December 04 2016, @02:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the Watt's-in-a-name? dept.

Should Calhoun College (christened in honor of pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun) be renamed?

Yale adopts a new approach to decide whether university properties need new names. Some favor a rule of no renaming at all, some are worried about the excessive 'PC'.

On Friday, a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming, convened earlier this semester at Yale University, issued its final report. This group was not charged with deciding whether or not to rename Calhoun College, the residential unit christened in 1933 in honor of the influential pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun, which has been a focus of renewed public controversy in the past year. Instead, the committee produced a framework for any and all future renaming decisions. The Yale Corporation has adopted the principles that the committee put forth, and the university's president, Peter Salovey, has appointed a smaller committee to reconsider the Calhoun case in light of this group's recommendations.

Full article

Procedure for Consideration of Renaming Requests


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by SixGunMojo on Sunday December 04 2016, @01:59PM

    by SixGunMojo (509) on Sunday December 04 2016, @01:59PM (#436877)

    What are these snowflakes going to do when they get around to learning that Elihu Yale, the college's namesake, was an active slave trader.
    From his Wikipedia page:

    The records of this period mention a flourishing slave trade in Madras, a trade in which Yale participated. He enforced a law that at least ten slaves should be carried on every ship bound for Europe. In his capacity as judge he also on several occasions sentenced so-called "black criminals" to whipping and enslavement. When the demand began to increase rapidly, the English merchants even began to kidnap young children and deport them to distant parts of the world, very much against their will. At a time when profits from the slavetrade were dwindling and pressure from the Mughal government to stop the enslavement was mounting, the administration of Fort St George eventually stepped in and introduced laws to curb enslavement.

    Note in the last sentance is says, laws to curb enslavemet, not end enslavement. I'm going to assume he was pretty pro-slavery also.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 04 2016, @02:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 04 2016, @02:35PM (#436882)

    Not only that, but it's not as if only whites owned slaves. Blacks owned slaves as well, and in fact the nature of slavery as an institution changed from predominately indentured servitude to the popular portrayal due to this man:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist) [wikipedia.org]