I find it ridiculous that the change made by the university after all of this talk was to just add Mitchell’s name to Freeman’s and then not change Ryland at all. I honestly just don’t see the logic. I feel like at that point, you’re better off doing nothing – this was just done as a way to show the students and the community that they are trying to make a change, but it feels so forced and not genuine at all. As we talked about in class, the problem is partly stemming from the fact that alumni and donors are threatening to withdraw donations to the school if the names of the buildings are changed. It always comes back to money. The school will make decisions based first and foremost on what will bring in the most money, even if that means negatively affecting the students’ and faculty’s wellbeing and sense of belonging at the university. In my opinion, not that I know anything, UR would be much better off losing some donors while making positive change rather than keeping those donors and hurting its community. And to be completely honest, if we’re still talking money, I think a decision to change the names of the buildings and a decision to improve inclusion at UR would bring in more money from alumni in the future because right now, with the decisions being made, I bet a lot of the students who graduate from here will be hesitant to donate back.
Critical Thinking
I was thinking the exact same thing about alumni. Someday, we will be the alumni of the school. And with some of the decisions that UR has been making, I will be very hesitant to participate in any alumni events or give back in any way. This was not a real effort from the University at all, and the fact that Freeman’s name barely change and Ryland won’t be changed at all is ridiculous.
I think your point of the short term vs long term impacts of donations due to UR’s decisions regarding the building names. While the decisions made by UR to not change the name of Ryland and add Mitchell onto Freeman Hall may appease the current donors, the university could be costing themselves a significant amount of money in the future by not showing a commitment to recognizing their past mistakes and making improvements. I think it’s sad how the university is showing how much more they care about their donors and the money they are receiving than actively listening to the voices of their own student body.
I agree with you in the sense that adding Mitchell was an attempt to smooth things over, but they don’t understand how minimal that is. The solution is not to add names but to change them completely. I also thought your point on short vs. long-term impacts on donations was really insightful. We will hopefully be able to give back to Richmond one day but that will only happen if we feel it is a worthy and just institution to give to — and right now, they are definitely falling short.