A Law School's 'Denaming' Evokes Donor Family's Ire
The University of Richmond removed a slave-owning benefactor's name from its law school, infuriating his descendants. It's a familiar debacle that illustrates the pervasive effects of culture war politics.
by Liam Knox
When the University of Richmond's Board of Trustees voted last fall to remove the name of alumnus and donor T. C. Williams from its law school, Williams's descendants were irate. The board was following a new set of principles adopted earlier that year to ensure the namesakes of buildings, colleges and professorships lived up to the university's values; the trustees decided that Williams, a wealthy tobacco farmer and slave owner, did not.
Richmond president Kevin Hallock broke the news to Robert Smith, Williams's great-great-grandson and a graduate of the law school, over the phone. Smith responded with a letter denouncing the decision and accusing the university of hypocrisy and ingratitude.
"It is stunning to me that the University's position is that there is just one acceptable monolithic narrative, and all those that don't agree, even people born over 200 years ago, must be cancelled," he wrote. "History and posterity will judge the University and the Board."
Thomas C. Williams enrolled at what was then called Richmond College in 1848. He got rich making tobacco products and later served on Richmond's Board of Trustees from 1881 to 1889. He also donated over $35,000 to the law school—a substantial sum at the time—and gave more to the university throughout his life. His descendants claim that at the time of his death, Williams was the largest donor in the university's history.
He also relied on slave labor, according to public documents the university provided to Inside Higher Ed. Those records say that in 1860 his company "owned or actively managed" 35 enslaved men and children, and tax documents show that he personally owned three enslaved men. In 1864, Williams's company took out a newspaper ad offering a reward for the return of two escaped slaves to a Danville farm and plant that he owned; at the time, its chief function was to manufacture supplies for the Confederate Army.
Cynthia Price, Richmond's associate vice president of media and public relations, said the denaming decision was made in accordance with the university's "unambiguous" new naming policy, which "does not allow for the consideration of other factors." She added that educational efforts to recognize Williams's influence at the institution, as well as his fraught legacy, were underway.
For colleges and universities grappling with the problematic racial legacies of founders and benefactors, renaming campus buildings, endowed professorships and other institutional entities is a common first step. In 2020 Princeton University removed the name of former president Woodrow Wilson, a supporter of segregation, from its public policy school; Yale University removed slavery supporter John C. Calhoun's name from a residential college in 2017.
So Richmond was not breaking new ground when it decided to change the college's name to the University of Richmond School of Law. According to Price, no one had publicly referred to the law school by the Williams name for two decades. Still, the move touched a nerve for his descendants—as well as for critics of what they call higher education's "woke" approach to racist legacies.
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Smith didn't deny that his great-great-grandfather used slave labor, though he suggested he may have leased rather than owned slaves. Smith's main criticism was of the new naming policy and what he considered the unjust public trashing of his family's legacy by an institution that, to hear him tell it, owes its very existence to the Williams clan.
"The honor of my family has been insulted," he said. "These unhinged leftists, as soon as you say the word [slavery], they want to demonize everybody."
After Richmond made clear it would move ahead with the denaming, Smith followed up with a second letter, published on the business news site Real Clear Markets on Feb. 1. In it he called Hallock a "woke ingrate" and "carpet bagging weasel" and argued that the university should return all the money his family has donated over the years.
Accounting for inflation and the "yearly rate of return," Smith estimates that number to be a little over $3.4 billion—more than the current value of Richmond's endowment.
"There should be a price to virtue signaling and ingratitude," Smith said. "If that name is so tainted, shouldn't they give [Williams's] money back? Wouldn't a virtuous person do that?"
Price said there is "no basis" for returning the donations, and that the initial decision to name the law school after Williams was made posthumously in recognition of his gifts, with no written agreement binding them to it. But contract or no contract, Smith said he's going to "fight for my family's name and respect."
Doug White, a philanthropy scholar who specializes in donor relations gone sour, said that even without any written agreement, the university's decision, while admirable, might have gone over better had officials reached out to Williams's descendants beforehand.
"It seems the university really turned a wooden ear to the family and its legacy there, which appears to be quite substantial," said White, the author of Abusing Donor Intent (Paragon House, 2014), about a case of mismanaged donor relations at Princeton University. "The goal of ethical decision-making in a case like this isn't to make sure everyone agrees on the outcome. It's to be transparent and make sure everyone at least feels respected."...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/03/01/law-school-denaming-sparks-donor-debacle
What a precious little snowflake.
He can't be much of a lawyer, either, if that's what he puts into his professional correspondence. So, a consummate failson, then.
I wonder how a big a donation will it take for a new name? Because that's the real windfall for the University here.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 01, 2023, 08:25:24 AM
What a precious little snowflake.
He can't be much of a lawyer, either, if that's what he puts into his professional correspondence. So, a consummate failson, then.
If "carpet bagging weasel" is in someone's list of insults, that's usually not a good sign. Arguments about "demaning" are odd to me. This isn't something that was invented five years ago. Institutions and governments have been denaming and renaming things for a very long time and the reasons are always about ideas of politics and values. Stalingrad has been Volgograd since 1961. Is that because of "wokeness?" Or is it just that once you decide that a former leader of your country was a criminal mass murderer, you probably don't want to keep having a city be named for him? Actually, before it was Stalingrad, the city was Tsaritsyn.
Robert Smith probably imagines a ground-swell of conservative support. And he's clearly swallowed the red pill and doused himself in ugly and cliched arch-conservative groupthink. He doesn't want to deal with the reality of his family's heritage.
As the University of Richmond Caves to the 'Woke' Mob, My Response, by Rob Smith (https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/10/13/as_the_university_of_richmond_caves_to_the_woke_mob_my_response_858745.html)
Quote
The University's decision to untether itself from its Christian founding is at the heart of it now not having the honesty or intellectual fortitude to defend itself from the Neo-Marxist woke mob. The difference between the character of T.C. Williams and that of the "Cancellation Culture Activists" could not be starker. T.C. Williams practiced the tenets of his faith, primarily to love and serve others. The mob that you and the Board are so afraid of worships hatred and ignorance. They feign indignation, but their real objective is destruction. You and the Board have fallen for this subterfuge.
And he may be in a bit of denial:
Quote
T.C. Williams believed that all men were made in the image of God, and his mission was to love and serve others. This was the primary ethos I witnessed in my family and immediate ancestors, a loving, kind, benevolent family, imbued by the Spirit to help others.
While I don't blame him for being greatly annoyed for having an ancestor cancelled in this manner, his intemperate rhetoric makes him look foolish. It's also not a very spiritual, New Testament-informed reaction. He's not making a good representation of what he professes to be. The great pride that he expresses in his ancestors is also not showing much humility.
Vanderbilt University ran into something like this some years back with its Confederate Memorial Hall dorm. Which I used to walk past on the way to work all the time, by the way--it's a lovely building. They eventually bowed to the inevitable pressure and announced that they were renaming the building. The Daughters of the Confederacy, who had contributed to its construction almost a century earlier for the naming rights, brought suit to stop it. Vanderbilt worked out a deal whereby they would refund the organization the inflation-adjusted equivalent of the original donation as compensation. It worked out to several million dollars.
Now when you walk by it the facade simply says "Memorial Dorm." It's apparently now a "memorial" to nothing in particular. Which is probably the safest course of action to take in today's world. Let's face it--to "succeed" in this world in a way that makes you rich enough to get buildings named after you, odds are you've done things and associated with people that won't look great when exposed to scrutiny. Name a building after anybody or anything, and somebody will be able to find a way to object to it. Either we accept that our building fund donors of past and present weren't perfect people, or we stop naming buildings after people, period, and just give them all numbers or something.
The "nice guy" defence makes some sort of sense for people with whom one is personally acquainted. It obviously doesn't balance out serious wrongs they may have committed, but it counts for something.
But when you invoke it to defend someone not only wholly unknown to you, but unknown even to your grandparents... Well, that's about as thin a straw to clutch for as you can get.
Likewise, while it's understandably pleasant to have your surname on a building, and understandably unpleasant to have that surname associated with something bad, it's really precious to get so excited about associations with a surname--positive or negative--so commonplace that nobody has ever associated you with that building without your having first boasted about it to them.
As for accepting imperfection or just numbering buildings: that seems like a false dilemma to me. We're perfectly within our rights to draw the line at certain kinds of wrongdoing, while accepting other, smaller foibles. Likewise, sometimes someone's legacy in some domain may be judged sufficiently important to overcome their wrongdoing in another. But there's really nothing wrong, as far as I can see, with letting people decide, over time, which associations they find acceptable or not. There's no reason why a name should be permanent. It just has to stick around long enough to facilitate reference.
Unless I misunderstand southern culture, the myth of the old south revolved around pseudo-aristocratic families which could claim a noblesse oblige ruined by "carpet bagging" Yankees in the "war of northern aggression." This sounds like that to me.
Quote from: apl68 on March 01, 2023, 10:28:03 AM
...
Vanderbilt University ran into something like this some years back with its Confederate Memorial Hall dorm. Which I used to walk past on the way to work all the time, by the way--it's a lovely building. They eventually bowed to the inevitable pressure and announced that they were renaming the building. The Daughters of the Confederacy, who had contributed to its construction almost a century earlier for the naming rights, brought suit to stop it. Vanderbilt worked out a deal whereby they would refund the organization the inflation-adjusted equivalent of the original donation as compensation. It worked out to several million dollars.
...
This is a good example of how some such things can be handled. It rests on the question, like other threads here, who owns what? A change in mores often implies a change in property rights. The owners must be compensated, or we would have expropriation, de-kulakization, collectivization. If a university wishes to expropriate its past donor families it certainly has the right and the means to do so. The cost it bears is on the incentives of
future donors. That's why Vanderbilt coughed up the cash!
For names of public properties, such as schools and streets, the public is the owner, and democratic decision of the payers is the right authority. Of course, in such elections, small numbers of the most motivated win, but that's a different question. At present, we're probably just getting small numbers of different people. :-)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 01, 2023, 01:13:33 PM
Unless I misunderstand southern culture, the myth of the old south revolved around pseudo-aristocratic families which could claim a noblesse oblige ruined by "carpet bagging" Yankees in the "war of northern aggression." This sounds like that to me.
Yes, it's just a tell about who this guy is and the kind of things he believes.
Quote from: apl68 on March 01, 2023, 10:28:03 AM
While I don't blame him for being greatly annoyed for having an ancestor cancelled in this manner, his intemperate rhetoric makes him look foolish. It's also not a very spiritual, New Testament-informed reaction. He's not making a good representation of what he professes to be. The great pride that he expresses in his ancestors is also not showing much humility.
Vanderbilt University ran into something like this some years back with its Confederate Memorial Hall dorm. Which I used to walk past on the way to work all the time, by the way--it's a lovely building. They eventually bowed to the inevitable pressure and announced that they were renaming the building. The Daughters of the Confederacy, who had contributed to its construction almost a century earlier for the naming rights, brought suit to stop it. Vanderbilt worked out a deal whereby they would refund the organization the inflation-adjusted equivalent of the original donation as compensation. It worked out to several million dollars.
Now when you walk by it the facade simply says "Memorial Dorm." It's apparently now a "memorial" to nothing in particular. Which is probably the safest course of action to take in today's world. Let's face it--to "succeed" in this world in a way that makes you rich enough to get buildings named after you, odds are you've done things and associated with people that won't look great when exposed to scrutiny. Name a building after anybody or anything, and somebody will be able to find a way to object to it. Either we accept that our building fund donors of past and present weren't perfect people, or we stop naming buildings after people, period, and just give them all numbers or something.
Do you think that buildings on college campuses ought to be named in honor of an attempt to form a country based on racial slavery and white supremacy? There are arguments to be made about who buildings should and shouldn't be named for, but I find it perplexing to grumble that we should just throw up our hands because "nobody's perfect." Ok, but some people are worse than others, and some have done things or supported ideas so repugnant that it's reasonable that a school and/or its students/faculty and staff wouldn't want to be associated with them. Again, this really isn't a new fangled idea.
If there had been a Corleone School of Business somewhere (preferably warm) I would have paid for an MBA.
Quote from: Caracal on March 01, 2023, 01:50:12 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 01, 2023, 01:13:33 PM
Unless I misunderstand southern culture, the myth of the old south revolved around pseudo-aristocratic families which could claim a noblesse oblige ruined by "carpet bagging" Yankees in the "war of northern aggression." This sounds like that to me.
Yes, it's just a tell about who this guy is and the kind of things he believes.
He seems to have a pretty bad case of that, all right.
Quote from: Caracal on March 01, 2023, 02:12:32 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 01, 2023, 10:28:03 AM
While I don't blame him for being greatly annoyed for having an ancestor cancelled in this manner, his intemperate rhetoric makes him look foolish. It's also not a very spiritual, New Testament-informed reaction. He's not making a good representation of what he professes to be. The great pride that he expresses in his ancestors is also not showing much humility.
Vanderbilt University ran into something like this some years back with its Confederate Memorial Hall dorm. Which I used to walk past on the way to work all the time, by the way--it's a lovely building. They eventually bowed to the inevitable pressure and announced that they were renaming the building. The Daughters of the Confederacy, who had contributed to its construction almost a century earlier for the naming rights, brought suit to stop it. Vanderbilt worked out a deal whereby they would refund the organization the inflation-adjusted equivalent of the original donation as compensation. It worked out to several million dollars.
Now when you walk by it the facade simply says "Memorial Dorm." It's apparently now a "memorial" to nothing in particular. Which is probably the safest course of action to take in today's world. Let's face it--to "succeed" in this world in a way that makes you rich enough to get buildings named after you, odds are you've done things and associated with people that won't look great when exposed to scrutiny. Name a building after anybody or anything, and somebody will be able to find a way to object to it. Either we accept that our building fund donors of past and present weren't perfect people, or we stop naming buildings after people, period, and just give them all numbers or something.
Do you think that buildings on college campuses ought to be named in honor of an attempt to form a country based on racial slavery and white supremacy? There are arguments to be made about who buildings should and shouldn't be named for, but I find it perplexing to grumble that we should just throw up our hands because "nobody's perfect." Ok, but some people are worse than others, and some have done things or supported ideas so repugnant that it's reasonable that a school and/or its students/faculty and staff wouldn't want to be associated with them. Again, this really isn't a new fangled idea.
Actually I have no objection to the renaming of Confederate Memorial Hall. Nor do I object to removing T.C. Williams' name from that law school. Although, as I said, I don't blame members of his family for being annoyed. It's asking an awful lot to demand of people that they repudiate their own ancestors and everything about them.
I was simply pointing out that if we're going to cancel historical figures, we put ourselves on something of a slippery slope. Where does it stop? And how can we know that any prominent figure we try to honor now by naming something as a memorial to that person won't be cancelled in the future? And maybe not that far into the future either, the way things have been speeding up. Maybe we just don't need to be as keen on naming things and commemorating people as we have been in the first place. Especially not when it's simply of matter of rewarding somebody for having made a pile of money to give, which ability is not highly coordinated with saintly behavior.
Quote from: simpleSimon on March 01, 2023, 05:14:19 AM
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Smith didn't deny that his great-great-grandfather used slave labor, though he suggested he may have leased rather than owned slaves.
Oh okay, that makes it all right then. When I read the headline I was ready to sympathize with the donor family but by the end of the article all my sympathy was gone.
Quote from: apl68 on March 01, 2023, 03:17:21 PM
I was simply pointing out that if we're going to cancel historical figures, we put ourselves on something of a slippery slope. Where does it stop? And how can we know that any prominent figure we try to honor now by naming something as a memorial to that person won't be cancelled in the future? And maybe not that far into the future either, the way things have been speeding up. Maybe we just don't need to be as keen on naming things and commemorating people as we have been in the first place. Especially not when it's simply of matter of rewarding somebody for having made a pile of money to give, which ability is not highly coordinated with saintly behavior.
I don't like the term "cancel" because it implies that someone somehow erase the person's memory or pronounce them evil, when really it's just a question of whether a person is appropriate to have a building or school named after them.
I think there's something to both of your points, though. I'd argue that part of the solution might be to try to name things after less famous figures who have done something more than amass wealth. Staff, faculty, or community members with long records of service would probably be better choices than either rich business people or historical figures, because the things we admire about them are less likely to be eclipsed by revelations of their failures or changing ideas over time. If you name the administration building after the registrar who did their job excellently while being nice to everyone, it's unlikely anyone is going to find that objectionable in 30 years.
Can an heir, one of many, suffer damages? What are the damages to the estate?
Williams probably also feels guilty because his family is likely still rich, or at least well-off, with wealth earned by slave labor. Be interesting to find out what he'd say to the descendants of Massa Williams' slaves, if they requested that he share some of the fruits of their ancestors' labors with them.
Quote from: apl68 on March 01, 2023, 03:17:21 PM
I was simply pointing out that if we're going to cancel historical figures, we put ourselves on something of a slippery slope. Where does it stop? And how can we know that any prominent figure we try to honor now by naming something as a memorial to that person won't be cancelled in the future? And maybe not that far into the future either, the way things have been speeding up. Maybe we just don't need to be as keen on naming things and commemorating people as we have been in the first place. Especially not when it's simply of matter of rewarding somebody for having made a pile of money to give, which ability is not highly coordinated with saintly behavior.
Especially behaviour that will be evaluated
for generations to come as "saintly".
Given that
the institution has benefitted from this "blood money" over the generations, shouldn't they give away all of that endowment as well so that
they're not indirectly profiting from slavery? (They could give the money to charity; they don't have to give it back to the family.)
Quote from: Caracal on March 01, 2023, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: apl68 on March 01, 2023, 03:17:21 PM
I was simply pointing out that if we're going to cancel historical figures, we put ourselves on something of a slippery slope. Where does it stop? And how can we know that any prominent figure we try to honor now by naming something as a memorial to that person won't be cancelled in the future? And maybe not that far into the future either, the way things have been speeding up. Maybe we just don't need to be as keen on naming things and commemorating people as we have been in the first place. Especially not when it's simply of matter of rewarding somebody for having made a pile of money to give, which ability is not highly coordinated with saintly behavior.
I don't like the term "cancel" because it implies that someone somehow erase the person's memory or pronounce them evil, when really it's just a question of whether a person is appropriate to have a building or school named after them.
I think there's something to both of your points, though. I'd argue that part of the solution might be to try to name things after less famous figures who have done something more than amass wealth. Staff, faculty, or community members with long records of service would probably be better choices than either rich business people or historical figures, because the things we admire about them are less likely to be eclipsed by revelations of their failures or changing ideas over time. If you name the administration building after the registrar who did their job excellently while being nice to everyone, it's unlikely anyone is going to find that objectionable in 30 years.
Well, it's obvious just from this thread that a lot of people
have pronounced the complainant's ancestor as evil, since he was a slave owner. And implicitly hold all white antebellum southerners evil, since they were all tainted with slavery. Which is true enough, but if we make that the only thing we remember about them then we've reduced the ancestry of a large section of that region's population to nothing more than historical villains. It's the sense that this is being done to their ancestors that makes this such a sore issue for some.
I'd agree wholeheartedly that we'd be better off naming things after people who did something more than amass and donate wealth. This news story has reminded me of a library system some years back where a longtime library volunteer, a member of under-represented community, had spent many years volunteering for the library and promoting it among members of her community, and seeing to it that they were heard in the library's decision making. There was a move by her admirers to name a new library branch being constructed in the neighborhood after her. She had never had much money to give--but she had poured
herself into the library and the community.
It turned out, though, that the library had long recognized naming rights for new branches as a very valuable, saleable commodity to be reserved for million-dollar donors. People inclined to reduce everything to dollars-and-cents market terms, who "know the price of everything and the value of nothing," would regard this as a perfectly rational and economically efficient outcome. The members of the community felt differently. Why should some millionaire businessman who'd probably seldom even set foot in the neighborhood be recognized, when this lifetime volunteer admired in the community was slighted? The branch was ultimately named after the volunteer. That's a name that's less likely to be protested in the future. Although you can still never tell.
I'm going to go against the grain here - it does reek more than a little of hypocritical virtue-signalling that a slave-trader's money is fine (and sharing profits with the slave trade is fine) but his name is beyond the pale. I'm not saying they should return the money to the descendants - but they could make a donation to organizations helping present-day victims of slavery, such as modern day victims of sex trafficking, or North Korean refugees, or female Afghan refugees, for example. Not even the entire money received, but if they donate nothing, then it is hypocritical.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 01, 2023, 10:33:03 PM
Williams probably also feels guilty because his family is likely still rich, or at least well-off, with wealth earned by slave labor. Be interesting to find out what he'd say to the descendants of Massa Williams' slaves, if they requested that he share some of the fruits of their ancestors' labors with them.
Be interesting to find out what the descendants of the tribal chiefs who sold those slaves, or their ancestors, into slavery would say if the slaves' descendants requested they share some of the profit with them - some of them might even be rich African politicians. Could also have been Arab slave traders involved at some point and they too would've shared in the profits.
Quote from: mythbuster on March 01, 2023, 08:45:43 AM
I wonder how a big a donation will it take for a new name? Because that's the real windfall for the University here.
The forward thinking university does not sell these naming rights in perpetuity. Once the donor has been deceased for a while, the memory of their contribution will remain with somewhat less visibly than that of the new donor.
How about instead of being a big donor you as Governor appoint the BoT, who then appoint you President, and when you retire rename the business school after you?
https://business.purdue.edu/about/home.php
Quote from: apl68 on March 02, 2023, 07:41:40 AM
Well, it's obvious just from this thread that a lot of people have pronounced the complainant's ancestor as evil, since he was a slave owner. And implicitly hold all white antebellum southerners evil, since they were all tainted with slavery. Which is true enough, but if we make that the only thing we remember about them then we've reduced the ancestry of a large section of that region's population to nothing more than historical villains. It's the sense that this is being done to their ancestors that makes this such a sore issue for some.
That isn't a sentiment I'd agree with, actually. Pronouncing large groups of people evil is a form of othering, and it's a very convenient one, because it helps us avoid unpleasant questions about the sort of institutional evils that we all participate in. If you read narratives of ex-slaves, they don't have any problems with the idea that individual slave holders were just people with their own characters and morals. Frederick Douglass talks about this a lot-some of the people who claimed ownership over him he saw as basically decent humans, and others were sadistic monsters. That doesn't change the basic nature of slavery for Douglass, the system denies him basic human rights, and its also a system that gives free reign to the monsters, it has to as Douglass points out, to function.
There's a linked argument that tries to excuse slavery as just "something everyone did." That misses the point, as well. There were, in fact, small numbers of slave holders who renounced the system, and even smaller numbers who actually put that into practice by freeing enslaved people during their own lifetime. Robert Carter III, one of the wealthiest men in America, had a spiritual conversion, eventually decided slavery was evil and indefensible, and basically spent the last 15 years of his life dealing with the incredibly complicated process of freeing all 500 enslaved people he had claimed ownership of. Carter became a social outcast, he ended up fleeing Virginia and he lost most of his immense wealth, but he followed through. The point is, there were choices to be made.
People get in trouble because they want to see their ancestry as this thing that they can possess, own and benefit from. This guy, quite clearly wants to believe that he's part of a long line of virtuous people who have done good things and that these deeds accrue to him and his children. That's why he sees this as an attack. I have ancestors who were slaveowners. I don't have any sense of shame about this-why would I? I'm not responsible for the choices and actions of these people. I'm not trying to claim their accomplishments as my own, so it's pretty easy to see it this way.
Quote from: Caracal on March 03, 2023, 06:05:18 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 02, 2023, 07:41:40 AM
Well, it's obvious just from this thread that a lot of people have pronounced the complainant's ancestor as evil, since he was a slave owner. And implicitly hold all white antebellum southerners evil, since they were all tainted with slavery. Which is true enough, but if we make that the only thing we remember about them then we've reduced the ancestry of a large section of that region's population to nothing more than historical villains. It's the sense that this is being done to their ancestors that makes this such a sore issue for some.
That isn't a sentiment I'd agree with, actually. Pronouncing large groups of people evil is a form of othering, and it's a very convenient one, because it helps us avoid unpleasant questions about the sort of institutional evils that we all participate in.
And the even
bigger issue it avoids us having to face is the things that
seemed like a good idea at the time, and only
in hindsight did it become obvious that they were bad. (See thalidomide.) The fact that even people with
good motives can do things that later turn out to have had really terrible unintended consequences should give pause to everyone wanting to make fast, sweeping changes to anything.