This is fraudulence of Cancel-Culture: it's based on the premise that two wrongs make a right. It's neither just nor fair to hold historical figures from 200 years ago up to the standards of today. The world was a MUCH difference place back then and, thank god we've progressed and advanced.
Oh, campuses are rife with these examples, particularly around eugenics. Harvey Jordan at UVa used to be honored with the medical center named after him. He said that Black people were apes. They finally took his name down.
I know, but, at what point do you put such opinions into a historical context? Should Ford cars be renamed because Henry Ford, before the war, openly liked Hitler? At what point does such revision impinge upon freedom of speech and thought? "Goodthink" or you're of no account.
I know Cal does not want to be associated with such things, but the university itself is a creature of history's context. I think there's a cowardice in such revisionism. Academic freedom itself could be at stake if institutions succumb to zeitgeists of popular opinion. I attended Cal '76-'80 and remember hearing the polar extremes of both Communists and Klansmen blather and rant each day as I crossed Sproul Plaza. I hated both, but loved what seemed to a perfect representation of Cal's high and open-minded standard of free speech. I think it short-sighted to close off one opinion out of the whole spectrum.
BTW- fun fact, some of the principal proponents of the modern eugenics movement were Cal professors. This was not at all uncommon and most of the prejudice was not racial, but against the disabled. Does that somehow negate the work of those professors, including Shockley, for which they were recognized? Again, context may not excuse, but may go a long way to explain thoughts that leave modern folks scratching their heads in wonder. But, in the end, people are entitled to their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Or all should all accomplishments be filtered by the personal lives of people.
What if some or all of the people that develop an effective COVID vaccine are anti-LGBT? I guess we don't bother to thank them, when we get vaccinated? Or do we skip the vaccination because of their personal feelings?
a. Historical context: This is the assumption that because a society was overwhelming like white supremacist, misogynist, homophobic, that honored was simply a 'Man of their times' so how could you blame them? Well, easily. As a historian, I've never seen a period where the actions of the great men and women of history weren't also buttressed by opposition who are one the right side of history.
b. Should Ford cars be renamed? Sure. There's nothing that's going to erase Henry Ford from the history books. But to hold him accountable for his rabid anti-semitism, and his collaboration with Nazi Germany, would give a reckoning to those he knew he could slander, all because of power. I drive an F-150. It will not be lessened because it doesn't have Ford on the front. At one time, you could purchase an Edsel. Now you can't. Nor a Mercury. Or a Pontiac. Things come, things go.
c. Impinge upon freedom of speech and thought: Freedom of speech, I must reiterate, is only protection against the government abridging your speech. You walking across Sproul and hearing that speech was an example. When I was at Cal from '84-'89, we had numerous free speech actions, including the South Africa divestiture movement. But we also protested Vincent Sarich, a racist professor in the anthro department, who said that Blacks were genetically inferior. He had a right to speak, no matter how abhorrent. But we're not naming a building after him. We recognize he was abhorrent. That's what those protests did. They shined a light on him. Now that light can't be turned off. Just because that light wasn't shined brightly on the abhorrent of the past doesn't mean we shouldn't turn it on now.
d. Eugenics: Yes, a lot of Cal professors and others were part of that movement. Does that negate their works? You can have two things at the same time, but weigh the more devastation more. For example, Harvey Jordan? His views in Virginia led to mass involuntary sterilization of tens of thousands of Blacks in Virginia during the 1920s. How I determine which side of the weight to go on isn't from a white perspective that gives Jordan the benefit of the doubt for 'greater deeds' but from the perspective of those Jordan harmed. That's the most important side.
e. And if wouldn't be surprising that scientists who were anti-LGBT discovered an anti-Covid virus. You can thank them all day long. Just don't create a monument or name a building after them. Their dehumanization of human beings is not trumped by their scientific ability or achievements.
Yeah, this 'standard of today' argument is fraudulent. There were always people who knew that the evil they did was wrong. And were criticized for it. And there's nothing saying that you can, by the 'standards of today' re-evaluate who you want to honor and who you don't. The bigger question is why you'd be emotionally tied to someone you probably had no clue about, and yet represents odious things like white supremacy and racism? What is your investment besides this notion of history?
I don't think it applies to these buildings, a significant amount of my time in Berkeley was spent in LeConte either for classes or the lab that I worked at, but I don't have an attachment to that name. However, for names of dorm or college/university (like Yale), I can see why people have had formed some long term investments to those names. I'm just saying that I can see why mostly-reasonable people might have doubts about these name changes.
Yeah, but Yale had the Calhoun college FOREVER, and John C. Calhoun was the most virulent racist and defender of slavery in American history. They ain't that invested.
It seems like Ishi had been isolated from his tribe following an invasion from surveyors. He was brought to Berkeley as a "wild man," (he was thought to be one of the few remaining Yahi tribe members), where Kroeber practically made him an artifact in the museum. After Ishi died, medical researchers wanted to do an autopsy and keep his brain for eugenics-related research, much to the dismay of the tribe, who obviously wanted a proper burial. No reparations were made till 1999, when the brain was finally given back.
My choices: Name LeConte Hall: The Dr. Barbara Christian Hall. Name Berkeley Law: Walter A. Gordon Law School. Name Kroeber: Ida L. Jackson Hall.
Walter Gordon? No DAMN way Lawrence. No cops. DEFUND THE POLICE!
Sarcasm and ignorance of what defund the police means, noted.
Not to be too cynical about this, but is there any indication that the new name won't simply be "up for sale" as a fund-raising "opportunities"?
More than likely.
This is fraudulence of Cancel-Culture: it's based on the premise that two wrongs make a right. It's neither just nor fair to hold historical figures from 200 years ago up to the standards of today. The world was a MUCH difference place back then and, thank god we've progressed and advanced.
Well, it is if your plan is to undermine more than mere white privilege.
Oh, BTW, Furd has a more current example:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/william-shockley
Oh, campuses are rife with these examples, particularly around eugenics. Harvey Jordan at UVa used to be honored with the medical center named after him. He said that Black people were apes. They finally took his name down.
I know, but, at what point do you put such opinions into a historical context? Should Ford cars be renamed because Henry Ford, before the war, openly liked Hitler? At what point does such revision impinge upon freedom of speech and thought? "Goodthink" or you're of no account.
I know Cal does not want to be associated with such things, but the university itself is a creature of history's context. I think there's a cowardice in such revisionism. Academic freedom itself could be at stake if institutions succumb to zeitgeists of popular opinion. I attended Cal '76-'80 and remember hearing the polar extremes of both Communists and Klansmen blather and rant each day as I crossed Sproul Plaza. I hated both, but loved what seemed to a perfect representation of Cal's high and open-minded standard of free speech. I think it short-sighted to close off one opinion out of the whole spectrum.
BTW- fun fact, some of the principal proponents of the modern eugenics movement were Cal professors. This was not at all uncommon and most of the prejudice was not racial, but against the disabled. Does that somehow negate the work of those professors, including Shockley, for which they were recognized? Again, context may not excuse, but may go a long way to explain thoughts that leave modern folks scratching their heads in wonder. But, in the end, people are entitled to their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Or all should all accomplishments be filtered by the personal lives of people.
What if some or all of the people that develop an effective COVID vaccine are anti-LGBT? I guess we don't bother to thank them, when we get vaccinated? Or do we skip the vaccination because of their personal feelings?
So let me go through this part by part...
a. Historical context: This is the assumption that because a society was overwhelming like white supremacist, misogynist, homophobic, that honored was simply a 'Man of their times' so how could you blame them? Well, easily. As a historian, I've never seen a period where the actions of the great men and women of history weren't also buttressed by opposition who are one the right side of history.
b. Should Ford cars be renamed? Sure. There's nothing that's going to erase Henry Ford from the history books. But to hold him accountable for his rabid anti-semitism, and his collaboration with Nazi Germany, would give a reckoning to those he knew he could slander, all because of power. I drive an F-150. It will not be lessened because it doesn't have Ford on the front. At one time, you could purchase an Edsel. Now you can't. Nor a Mercury. Or a Pontiac. Things come, things go.
c. Impinge upon freedom of speech and thought: Freedom of speech, I must reiterate, is only protection against the government abridging your speech. You walking across Sproul and hearing that speech was an example. When I was at Cal from '84-'89, we had numerous free speech actions, including the South Africa divestiture movement. But we also protested Vincent Sarich, a racist professor in the anthro department, who said that Blacks were genetically inferior. He had a right to speak, no matter how abhorrent. But we're not naming a building after him. We recognize he was abhorrent. That's what those protests did. They shined a light on him. Now that light can't be turned off. Just because that light wasn't shined brightly on the abhorrent of the past doesn't mean we shouldn't turn it on now.
d. Eugenics: Yes, a lot of Cal professors and others were part of that movement. Does that negate their works? You can have two things at the same time, but weigh the more devastation more. For example, Harvey Jordan? His views in Virginia led to mass involuntary sterilization of tens of thousands of Blacks in Virginia during the 1920s. How I determine which side of the weight to go on isn't from a white perspective that gives Jordan the benefit of the doubt for 'greater deeds' but from the perspective of those Jordan harmed. That's the most important side.
e. And if wouldn't be surprising that scientists who were anti-LGBT discovered an anti-Covid virus. You can thank them all day long. Just don't create a monument or name a building after them. Their dehumanization of human beings is not trumped by their scientific ability or achievements.
* Or should judgements of all accomplishments be filtered by the personal lives of people?
BTW- I don't condone what he did wrong, but Bill Cosby is still one of my favorite comedians- ever.
Bill Cosby is a rapist who told jokes.
Yeah, this 'standard of today' argument is fraudulent. There were always people who knew that the evil they did was wrong. And were criticized for it. And there's nothing saying that you can, by the 'standards of today' re-evaluate who you want to honor and who you don't. The bigger question is why you'd be emotionally tied to someone you probably had no clue about, and yet represents odious things like white supremacy and racism? What is your investment besides this notion of history?
I don't think it applies to these buildings, a significant amount of my time in Berkeley was spent in LeConte either for classes or the lab that I worked at, but I don't have an attachment to that name. However, for names of dorm or college/university (like Yale), I can see why people have had formed some long term investments to those names. I'm just saying that I can see why mostly-reasonable people might have doubts about these name changes.
Yeah, but Yale had the Calhoun college FOREVER, and John C. Calhoun was the most virulent racist and defender of slavery in American history. They ain't that invested.
I don't really buy the 'standards of their time' argument, but even if I did, LeConte was bad even by the standards of the era.
Marshawn Lynch Hall for the win.
The LeConte case seems obvious. However, I may be missing something because I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change the name of Kroeber Hall.
It seems like Ishi had been isolated from his tribe following an invasion from surveyors. He was brought to Berkeley as a "wild man," (he was thought to be one of the few remaining Yahi tribe members), where Kroeber practically made him an artifact in the museum. After Ishi died, medical researchers wanted to do an autopsy and keep his brain for eugenics-related research, much to the dismay of the tribe, who obviously wanted a proper burial. No reparations were made till 1999, when the brain was finally given back.
There's quite a lot more to his career though. Seems like overall he was an extremely progressive figure in his field, for his time.
https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2020/07/01/on-the-renaming-of-anthropologys-kroeber-hall/