Off topic
- Thread starter I-M-UR
- Start date
Leo Terrell in the video makes the valid point that the trustees have skeletons in their closets as well.
Wokeism is a religion. Stringent values to which the "cleansed" must adhere, otherwise they are apostates, sinners, Pharisees. Ironic, for most of the same folks detest the orthodoxy demanded by traditional religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise.
Hypocrisy writ large. They have become what they condemn.
Holding historic figures to today's cultural standards, ("presentism", a concept of which they are either ignorant or fail to understand) which were not the prevailing standards of that day, is repugnant and intellectually shallow.
Good luck to the Williams family. Shameful crapping on the good folks that built and sustained our University by a shortsighted, misguided, sanctimonious, virtue signaling mob.
(Reread this before posting and methinks may be too strongly stated, then considered the Woke folk "enlightened" dialogue and decided, Naw, let it fly.)
Hypocrisy writ large. They have become what they condemn.
Holding historic figures to today's cultural standards, ("presentism", a concept of which they are either ignorant or fail to understand) which were not the prevailing standards of that day, is repugnant and intellectually shallow.
Good luck to the Williams family. Shameful crapping on the good folks that built and sustained our University by a shortsighted, misguided, sanctimonious, virtue signaling mob.
(Reread this before posting and methinks may be too strongly stated, then considered the Woke folk "enlightened" dialogue and decided, Naw, let it fly.)
Last edited:
In 1890 the school accepted the $25,000 creating an endowment for the law school that was instrumental in its success. Now the gratitude for that gift has morphed into amnesia and disdain. "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"
It was a gift, not a purchase of naming rights in perpetuity.
And he apparently doesn't want "just" $3.3 billion. He wants $3.6 billion, and he will allow the $300 million not covered by the endowment funds to be in the form of a note backed by the personal assets of the faculty. He's completely off his rocker.
(I swore I wouldn't be sucked into this, but here I am.)
And he apparently doesn't want "just" $3.3 billion. He wants $3.6 billion, and he will allow the $300 million not covered by the endowment funds to be in the form of a note backed by the personal assets of the faculty. He's completely off his rocker.
(I swore I wouldn't be sucked into this, but here I am.)
Don't know when the concept of "naming rights" came into play? In 1890 gratitude for the gift from the estate of a former trustee would have been the impetus for the naming. Robert C. Smith states that the Williams name has been "discredited" by the school's actions. From a public relations viewpoint the school could not have handled the name change in a worse manner. Making a public show of their own "virtue" and explicity condemning the actions of a man who has been deceased since 1889 and was by any measure dedicated and generous to the school. What became of the prohibition of "speaking ill of the dead" ? In contrast Washington and Lee has been smart enough to keep the "Lee" name in recognition of the positive actions Lee did for the school. Like all of us including the trustees T.C. Williams had his good and bad attributes. This situation does nothing to enhance the school's reputation but instead shows a lack of humility and the inability for forgiveness and gratitude.
Same here. But here we go....
When I read Smith's letter I was reminded of Foghorn Leghorn, the cartoon rooster from Looney Tunes. Reading it in that voice gives the letter and the accompanying demands the gravitas it deserves. Smith should just go pound sand IMO.
Considering they didn't name the school after him until 30 years later, I'm sure there was no quid pro quo there.
The foolish hypocrisy of these policies is absurd. They should just change the name of the University of Richmond. The naming policy as explained:
The school adopted a policy "that prohibits the university from naming any building, program, professorship or entity 'for a person who directly engaged in the trafficking and/or enslavement of others or openly advocated for the enslavement of people.'
Naming the University of Richmond after the city of Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, violates the spirit of this language. Certainly the city, was directly involved in the slave trade, it used slave labor, and it advocated for the enslavement of people.
The school adopted a policy "that prohibits the university from naming any building, program, professorship or entity 'for a person who directly engaged in the trafficking and/or enslavement of others or openly advocated for the enslavement of people.'
Naming the University of Richmond after the city of Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, violates the spirit of this language. Certainly the city, was directly involved in the slave trade, it used slave labor, and it advocated for the enslavement of people.
This school is taking money from the Chinese. How many buildings or professorships are they going to fund? How many policies do they want to control? Quite frankly, the Chinese have a hell of a lot more American blood on their hands, than a gentle man who donated funds to save the law school 130 years ago. Certainly more than a million Americans have died in the last 2 years alone- because of COVID.
You quoted the policy and then completely misapplied it. The City of Richmond is not a person. As to violating the "spirit" of the rule, your argument taken to its logical conclusion would prevent any university in any former slave state from being named by its geographical location. So there would be no UVA, no VT, no University of Alabama etc. But the University of Minnesota would be OK because it was a free state.
And I'd like to see some documentation that UR is taking money - other than tuition/fees - from the Chinese Communist Party unless you're arguing that every single PRC citizen is inherently unworthy of a UR education.
And I'd like to see some documentation that UR is taking money - other than tuition/fees - from the Chinese Communist Party unless you're arguing that every single PRC citizen is inherently unworthy of a UR education.
Last edited:
It is a leap...but if someone made the leap Richmond, as the capital of Confederacy and advocate for slavery, u have to admit would be at the top of any hypothetical list.
And i don't know the exact history of Richmond but doesn't it technically even go back to the Earl of Richmond in England? I suspect they had slaves or involuntary servitude.
Disregard the UR policy because it is not unique. Buildings are not just named after people. Plenty of cities, states and more r too. Why is there not an appetite, to my knowledge, to rename the capital of the USA which is named after a slave owner? That would be dumbest of all imo but u still have ask why. While I don't believe in naming perpetuity and there r egregious ones, on some level this just reeks of going after the little guys. Yale one of the holy grails of the liberal academic elite survives because there are the TC Williams out there. Someone should ask Hallock in 1 of these UR President receptions if he thinks Washington, DC should go.
Graduates of that "liberal academic elite" Yale: Both George Bushes. Samuel Alito. Steve Mnuchin. Wilbur Ross. Clarence Thomas. Gerald Ford. I could go on and on.
Richmond is not a person. So please stop with that nonsense.
The guy owned other human beings, and used them for hard labor. "Socially acceptable" (a dubious claim, because it wasn't in more than half the country and most of the world) or not, slavery was wrong then and slaveowners knew it. UR has no business at all having a building named in his honor.
Richmond is not a person. So please stop with that nonsense.
The guy owned other human beings, and used them for hard labor. "Socially acceptable" (a dubious claim, because it wasn't in more than half the country and most of the world) or not, slavery was wrong then and slaveowners knew it. UR has no business at all having a building named in his honor.
Yes, well known conservatives have absolutely graduated from Yale and others will too. Way more from other side of course. Isn't Yale widely known as a top liberal academic elite school in general. if i mischaracterized lmk but news to me.
A building is not a person either. Point is places are named after people as much as buildings. I admitted I don't know exact derivation of Richmond but it might go back to Earl of Richmond idk.
I have no issue with UR taking down the names, that is within their right and have said previously it was dumb of them to not do so originally and avoid the PR bind they found themselves in as a result.
I do know Yale was a slave trader and the name remains. I know who Washington, DC was named after. I know who the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial honor. They were slaveowners. So Wood r u ok with the Washington Monument and Jeff Memorial being graffitted and tore down? Do u support Yale and Washington, DC being renamed? I assume u must.
There can be nuance that is frequently lost where a person's "overall" legacy is taken into account. Washington was certainly not without sins, but there's obviously no doubt he was an extremely important figure in the founding of our country. So on balance, it can easily argued that he deserves to remain honored in the way that he is while we also recognize his shortcomings.
Williams was merely a locally relevant businessman whose primary lasting legacy was having his name on a school (which even at the time probably should not have been granted in the first place so many years after the gift and his death) thanks to a gift enabled in large part by the work of enslaved persons. Nothing in the larger context of history, civic pride, or anything else is lost by removing his name. A name which hadn't even been publicly used in conjunction with the school in several decades.
Do I think Washington, DC should be renamed? I do not.
Do I think Yale University should be renamed? This is a bit of a tricky one, as evidence appears murky and I haven't fully educated myself about it. But ultimately I don't think I would object if it was found appropriate to remove his name.
Do I think W&L should be renamed? 100% yes, and my alum wife agrees. At a minimum, Lee's name should be removed, as the good he did for the school after the war is easily outweighed by his Civil War legacy. I don't feel Washington's name needs to be removed, but would understand it if the university wanted to go in a different direction as part of removing Lee's name.
UR avoids some of the stickiest issues with this simply by not having any nationally prominent figures involved in our naming. If the university feels a firm rule that having owned slaves is disqualifying for being honored with a building name, then so be it. Little to nothing is lost by no longer giving them the distinction.
Williams was merely a locally relevant businessman whose primary lasting legacy was having his name on a school (which even at the time probably should not have been granted in the first place so many years after the gift and his death) thanks to a gift enabled in large part by the work of enslaved persons. Nothing in the larger context of history, civic pride, or anything else is lost by removing his name. A name which hadn't even been publicly used in conjunction with the school in several decades.
Do I think Washington, DC should be renamed? I do not.
Do I think Yale University should be renamed? This is a bit of a tricky one, as evidence appears murky and I haven't fully educated myself about it. But ultimately I don't think I would object if it was found appropriate to remove his name.
Do I think W&L should be renamed? 100% yes, and my alum wife agrees. At a minimum, Lee's name should be removed, as the good he did for the school after the war is easily outweighed by his Civil War legacy. I don't feel Washington's name needs to be removed, but would understand it if the university wanted to go in a different direction as part of removing Lee's name.
UR avoids some of the stickiest issues with this simply by not having any nationally prominent figures involved in our naming. If the university feels a firm rule that having owned slaves is disqualifying for being honored with a building name, then so be it. Little to nothing is lost by no longer giving them the distinction.
Douglas Southall Freeman was sacked for having the wrong opinions as he lived from 1886 to 1953 and never owned slaves. It is "murky ground', putting it mildly, to distance the school from those with whom you disagree but were loyal benefactors. The reality is that we will all receive the forgiveness that we are willing to show others.
What about Jefferson…didn’t he rape a slave?
Also I’m uneducated on Williams legacy I imagine u r too SF but the 1 fault he seems to have is shared with any other slaveholder. True his legacy is only local but that’s why he has 1 building not hundreds. I’m not defending him but I don’t really see a distinction w him & Yale except Yale is more protected due to notoriety.
& I don’t disagree either that’s there nuance but I just see some hypocrisy at play that’s all. It can become a slippery slope. I grew up on what was then George Washington’s property so I don’t want anyone coming after #1 American. But on some level it’s hard not to view this as as doing the bare minimum & picking on the little guys even tho the faults r equal. Fake progressive. So idk it might be better to leave alone tho there r always some exceptions. For instance personally I find many of the Confederate statues in the South as the original participation trophies. At least in VA they make the most sense as that’s where so many battles were fought.
And I’ll ask this…if our law school was George Washington Law or TJ Law would UR have such a policy? My opinion is they would not.
Thx Wood helpful. Thought the hypothetical or theoretical would be a little more welcomed on an OT board. UR teaches it in classes but I suppose it could be wiped from their academia altogether too. My participation & reading of the OT board is very rare. your response is a pretty good endorsement.
He was also the ONLY University of Richmond graduate to receive a pulitzer prize. I believe that is why he was well respected.
I was at a sporting event on campus, pre-covid, and the University President introduced one of the school's main Chinese benefactors. The president thank him profusely for his " generous" contribution. That was enough evidence for me.
Chris Hamby (RC '08) won a Pulitzer and Dan Petty ('09) shared in the winning of one.
I stand corrected. Douglas Southall Freeman was the only UR alum to have been awarded TWO Pulitizer prizes, one a biography of Lee and the other a biography of George Washington.
Mr. Freeman also wrote Lee's Dispatches, which discussed the plan by Stonewall Jackson to invade the north with 40,000 troops in 1862. I did not realize how heavily they considered the plan.
I don’t know any one in America that is proud of our history with slavery.
If they exist, I don’t know anyone that would support them.
But trying to re-write history shows complete ignorance.
I support Mr. Smith
If they exist, I don’t know anyone that would support them.
But trying to re-write history shows complete ignorance.
I support Mr. Smith
Similar threads
