Freedmen and Ryland were segregationists who actively advocated for slavery and Ryland even owned slaves–why are these names proudly displayed at our university? The University, more specifically the board of trustees, has expressed their desire to keep these names displayed, while making additions to the names. First off, these so called additions to the buildings are, in my opinion, extremely tone deaf to the situation. How is it okay for Freedmen’s name to proudly sit alongside Mitchell. Mitchell was a prominent black journalist in Richmond who actively advocated against white supremacy , while Freedmen was an active advocate of segregation and eugenics–how is it okay to place these names side by side. To me, it is very offensive and unjust to place these two names side-by-side. The case is similar to Ryland, who was also a racist and actually owned enslaved people. The decision was to keep Rylands name on the building while naming a small terrace on the building after one of the people he enslaved. This is a really bad decision, not only is the power dynamic very visible, but Ryland was the enslaver to this person–while he is glorified, and they have a little terrace named after them. It just seems very patronizing and wrong.
Ultimately, I believe these names should be replaced with people who also contributed to the University or the greater Richmond community, instead of visibly glorifying people which held and committed such immoral actions. The argument is similar to the removal of confederate monuments, removing monuments does not erase the history, but rather they should not be glorified as heroes, when they were morally bad human beings. The same argument goes for the buildings renaming, let’s replace the names with individuals who were positive, progressive advocates of the University, instead of continuing the display of the university’s racist past.
I hadn’t known about the board’s decision to name the courtyard within Ryland after one of his slaves. That is disgusting and so wrong. I like how you point out the use of power dynamics–this human’s name cannot be put on the outside of the building, but he or she can be remembered after Ryland. Even in speaking about the courtyard, I can imagine the need to say Ryland before this person’s name in order to explain where you are going.
I completely agree. Especially when you consider how other Universities in Virginia have taken active measures to replace building names of former segregationists, confederate generals, and slave owners; UR’s decisions have been extremely peculiar. Additionally, without a doubt, this is the same argument for taking down confederate statues. No one is advocating to remove these names from the history books, only to ensure that they are not glorified for actions that are immoral.
I agree that the university’s decisions regarding both Ryland and Freeman are quite tone dead and more significant change needs to be made. I think your recognition of the continuing power dynamics, by letting the building still be named Ryland and deciding to only name a terrace after the people he enslaved, was an interesting point. If the university really cared for the wellbeing of its students and faculty they would have found people who deserved to be memorialized to rename the buildings after.