Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday February 13 2017, @06:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the excellent-choice dept.

A couple of months ago, SoylentNews covered the debate on whether to rename historical buildings, monuments, and other landmarks, specifically centered on the case of Calhoun College at Yale.

YaleNews now reports that a decision has been made to rename the college after Grace Hopper, a computer scientist who also served as a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy, and who was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom last year.

Yale President Peter Salovey announced today that the university would rename Calhoun College, one of 12 undergraduate residential colleges, to honor one of Yale's most distinguished graduates, Grace Murray Hopper '30 M.A., '34 Ph.D., by renaming the college for her.

Salovey made the decision with the university's board of trustees — the Yale Corporation — at its most recent meeting. "The decision to change a college's name is not one we take lightly, but John C. Calhoun's legacy as a white supremacist and a national leader who passionately promoted slavery as a 'positive good' fundamentally conflicts with Yale's mission and values," Salovey said. [...]

This decision overrides Salovey's announcement in April of last year that the name of Calhoun College would remain. "At that time, as now, I was committed to confronting, not erasing, our history. I was concerned about inviting a series of name changes that would obscure Yale's past," said Salovey. "These concerns remain paramount, but we have since established an enduring set of principles that address them. The principles establish a strong presumption against renaming buildings, ensure respect for our past, and enable thoughtful review of any future requests for change." [...]

In August, Salovey asked John Witt '94 B.A., '99 J.D., '00 Ph.D., the Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law and professor of history, to chair a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming. [...] The Witt committee outlines four principles that should guide any consideration of renaming: (1) whether the namesake's principal legacy fundamentally conflicts with the university's mission; (2) whether that principal legacy was contested during the namesake's lifetime; (3) the reasons the university honored that person; and (4) whether the building so named plays a substantial role in forming community at Yale. In considering these principles, it became clear that Calhoun College presents an exceptionally strong case — perhaps uniquely strong — that allows it to overcome the powerful presumption against renaming articulated in the report, said the president.


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: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:58AM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:58AM (#466854) Journal

    However, where do you draw the line? Both Washington and Jefferson were plantation lords.

    It should be noted that both Washington and Jefferson also came to view slavery as a moral "evil" and hoped that it would end. Even folks like Robert E. Lee called slavery a "moral and political evil."

    Calhoun, on the other hand, led the charge later in his life to promote slavery as a "positive moral good" and to place it on a new philosophical and ethical foundation. He was effectively a major leader in a movement to praise slavery as a positive force for good, a perspective that had been absent in American politics for at least a generation. Even most Southerners at best viewed it as a foundation of their economic system and perhaps something "ordained by God" or whatever -- not necessarily a force for positive moral good. (And Calhoun started arguing for this as other countries in the world in the 1830s and 1840s were abolishing slavery.) In the process, he also promoted sectionalism and fueled debates that cemented the pro-slavery cause and ultimately put the U.S. on the path to Civil War.

    To be sure, Calhoun in his younger days was also an important force in Senate debate, creating a culture of high-minded and intellectual discussion that was important to the foundation of American politics. And he should still be acknowledged for that contribution. (And that's why even a case like Calhoun's is difficult when it comes to renaming.) But in the last years of his life, his views on slavery were profoundly more radical than much of U.S. society and contradicted the general moral trend of the world at large. At least on the issue of slavery, Calhoun was an outlier even by the standards of his own time. So it's a bit strange to equate him with people like Jefferson and Washington who wanted to create a united nation and looked forward to a future where the evils of slavery would end -- whereas Calhoun fought to divide the country and actively promote the "good" of slavery more than just about any other major public figure in the U.S.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:39AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:39AM (#466888) Journal

    So too must it be remembered that Robert E. Lee was an advocate for the South accepting the outcome of the afterward, rather than fomenting a hopeless campaign of terror as others did.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @09:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @09:11AM (#466901)

    It sounds to me like this Calhoun dude took the approach that
    you shouldn't do something unless you thought it was good. The others
    were willing to compromise with evil. I'm not saying slavery is good.
    I'm saying that his philosophy sounds more consistent. What has gotten
    us in more trouble over the course of history? People arguing in favor
    of morally poor positions, or people willing to compromise their principles?

    I think the building should keep its name.

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:15PM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:15PM (#467004) Journal

      It sounds to me like this Calhoun dude took the approach that
      you shouldn't do something unless you thought it was good. The others
      were willing to compromise with evil. I'm not saying slavery is good.
      I'm saying that his philosophy sounds more consistent.

      That may be true. One response to my post could be to note that Jefferson and Washington and others were hypocritical. And I do agree, though there are further complexities to their specific situations too. (Even in the North as states gradually adopted abolition, it was rarely an immediate freeing of all slaves. Instead, a lot of laws gradually freed slaves by freeing only new children born to slaves or forcing former slaves to serve in "apprenticeship" roles for indeterminate amounts of time. It's often forgotten that there were still a handful of slaves in some northern states that weren't actually freed until the Civil War, even though slavery had officially been "abolished" in those states decades earlier.) So, Jefferson and Washington pretty much followed other thinkers in their "gradualism" approach to abolition.

      What has gotten
      us in more trouble over the course of history? People arguing in favor
      of morally poor positions, or people willing to compromise their principles?

      I understand the point you're making, but it's problematic in the specific case of Calhoun. Without the "positive good" theory of slavery, more Southern states might have gradually moved toward abolition in a gradual way like the North, or at least might have been open to alternative ways of dealing with slavery. The world was steadily moving toward abolition in the 1830s and 1840s and 1850s, with a lot of European nations officially adopting it. That's what forced the South to start having to defend its perspective more, rather than giving into the changing world around them. Instead, Calhoun's (and others') shift to pro-slavery rhetoric caused Southerners to "dig in their heels" about the "positive good" of slavery, leading to greater divisions. And ultimately those divisions blew up into the Civil War.