Make no mistake. To name a building after someone is to glorify that person. I don’t think that the argument for keeping the names of Ryland and Freeman Hall in order to preserve the institution’s history holds water. That’s what museums and textbooks are for. I think that the decision to add John Mitchell Jr’s name to the building, without removing Freeman’s name is a massive mistake. The purpose of including Mitchell’s name is to honor his legacy, but by leaving Freeman’s name on the same building, the university is sending the implicit message that the lives and contributions of the two should be praised and valued equally.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say “we condemn the racist ideologies and actions that people like Ryland and Freeman represent” and also say “but their contributions were vital in making the university the wonderful institution that it is today”. The university has to pick a side. Will we revere people whose beliefs and actions are considered horrific today, or not? It’s disturbing to see the university make the same choice repeatedly, no matter how they try to dress it up and pretend that they’re in the right for “preserving history”.
I could not agree more with everything you said. The University is all talk, no real action. They say they want to change the names and move forwards in the fight against social injustices yet they can’t even change the name of a building. Like Dr. Bezio said in class, in order to “remember the history”, they could just have a sign or board inside explaining the history of the building. That is what museums and books are for. We should be honoring Mitchell and his legacy, along with his descendants, and right now they are not doing that. How does it make our black students feel when we are putting money over denouncing someone who didn’t believe that black and white students were equal and deserved the same rights?
I agree wholeheartedly with your argument, the University doesn’t actually have any real weight behind their words or claim. I believe that the UR administration chose the weak option because they believed that it would cause fewer disruptions with the more conservative donors and did not consider the actual impacts of their actions.