A Law School’s ‘Denaming’ Evokes Donor Family’s Ire

[Caracal]

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.

[Mobius]

Can an heir, one of many, suffer damages? What are the damages to the estate?

[kaysixteen]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[apl68]

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.

[Stockmann]

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.

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.

[Hibush]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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

[Caracal]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.