There is a huge upset among students about the refusal of the University to remove the names Ryland and Freeman from campus buildings. The way we see it, these names should have no place on our campus. To us, the choice seems so obvious– rename the buildings named after old and dead racist white men. To a group of old white men, the choice is not so obvious. The decision to keep a building named after slave owner Robert Ryland, was justified due to the fact that he was Richmond’s first president. It was also justified by the ~Board of Trustees~ as well as President Crutcher because they believe that “removing Ryland’s and Freeman’s names would not compel us to do the hard, necessary, and uncomfortable work of grappling with the University’s ties to slavery and segregation, but would instead lead to further cultural and institutional silence and, ultimately, forgetting” (Richmond Times Dispatch https://richmond.com/news/local/education/the-university-of-richmond-confronts-its-racist-legacy/article_2026f8f5-431f-5959-87de-cc33f91987dc.html). 

I find this justification pretty problematic. Yes, I agree that it is important to recognize the shortcomings of our University, both past and present. However, having the buildings of our campus named after these men does not seem productive to me. By keeping these names on our buildings, it seems we are uplifting a legacy of racism instead of denouncing UR’s racist legacy. It’s like the monuments on Monument Avenue. Did Robert E. Lee really have to be on a literal pedestal in the middle of the city’s most famous street in order to remember Richmond’s past, along with many other segregationist political and social leaders of the confederacy? Looking at the vandalism and deconstruction of monuments on that street today, it seems everybody collectively decided the answer to that is no. It was a huge win for activists when these monuments were finally reconsidered. 

Students, and I’m sure staff, are feeling very disconnected from the decisions of the famous ~Board of Trustees~ consisting of the other portion of rich white men of whom the rest of our buildings are named after. I know this is just how University’s operate because of course they have to consider finances, endowment, and pleasing donors. I do find it kind of sad that the money is used to justify the preservation of racist legacies, but is there anything we can do about that? Or is that just how it has to be? I’m afraid it’s the latter, but I still hope for change and will encourage my peers to keep fighting.

I took multiple of these implicit bias tests because I was really interested in seeing the results. While some showed me that I had slight biases for certain religious/age/gender groups, I was not surprised by the results. I am aware of my potential biases and I actively work towards overcoming them. Naturally, biases will always exist within us, but recognizing the biases is important so that we don’t act upon them. 

One test/result that confused me was the presidential one in which the results were that I have a strong immediate preference for Joe Biden over Thomas Jefferson. I was pleased that I prefer our president over an old president who owned hundreds of slaves throughout his life, but I was confused as to the relevance of the results. Was it supposed to be comparing old presidents to new? Democratic to republican? If anyone has any idea, feel free to comment lol.

Nobody wants to be accused of having biases, yet it is impossible to not have biases. Stereotypes are embedded into literally everything in our lives. As a business student with a marketing concentration, I literally learn how marketing relies on stereotypes. Companies group people into segments in order to determine their target audiences and marketing strategies. In America, as Dr. Bezio points out in the podcast, basically all products are marketed to middle class white people. Growing up, implicit biases were placed in our brains by these companies and the media we all consume. The Disney princesses were mostly white, I never saw a black or brown barbie doll until these past few years, and the main characters in my favorite TV shows were always white. It’s really sad looking back as an adult. It is nice to see how media and popular culture have evolved since I was young, but there is still a looooong way to go. 

There is a massive lack of exposure to different cultures, and I agree that exposure is the best, if not only, way to erase implicit biases. I find it problematic that white culture is the default culture. The US loves to call itself a “melting pot,” when in reality, we only ever fully embraced the white European cultures. Historically speaking, non-white cultural voices have been suppressed which is the cause of such strong biases. Nobody talks about white culture because as said in the podcast, white people feel guilty, but we only feel guilty because we know it’s wrong. 

It’s also important to point out how easy it is to find biases and how many different ways stereotyping exists. As a woman I have experienced the consequences of these biases. This is not to say that I have not benefited from white privilege because I certainly have. While it is difficult to admit we have biases, it is an essential step for everyone to take. In order to reverse bias, the first step is awareness, the second step is action (not performative activism!!!).

Ethics is a tricky subject. Nearly everything we do individually and as a society is based on morals, yet nobody can agree on a single moral code. When I was growing up, my ethics were mainly influenced by my family, my religion, and my schooling. As a kid we are taught that everything is normative. Don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t push over your classmates on the playground. You won’t find any classroom in the world that teaches children to lie, steal, and cheat (or at least I really hope not). But growing up, things become less simple. We start asking ourselves, “hmmm well I was taught not to push over my classmates, but what if they push me first?” We question our ethical teachings and learn that, really, there is nothing normative about ethics. 

I have a hard time believing that any ethical ideas can be normative. Ethics are the core of every society and every person. While listening to the podcast, I was very interested by how Professor Bezio explained the differentiation in cultures and religions and how that related to the world’s ethics. Moral codes apply differently across different cultures which is why we are forced to function in the in-between-land of normative and relative ethical frameworks. I don’t think anything is ever completely normative. Because each culture and subculture have different versions of the “truth,” there can never be completely agreed upon moral standards. For instance, every religion preaches that they know the truth or are close to knowing the truth but there are so many religions in the world. That is thousands of versions of the “truth.” This is why I think that there is no truth, or at least no truth that we are going to figure out any time soon. Societies across the globe will never be able to agree on what is universally right or wrong, and I think that’s okay. 

Also, unrelated to my previous points– I have also always wondered why attempted murder was a lighter sentence than a successful murder. I always thought that intention was the only thing that mattered in ethics. If someone tried to poison me, I always thought it would be just as bad whether they were successful or not, because the fact that they were trying to poison me would be bad enough. Understanding how intentions intertwine with actions made me rethink my position on consequences. I’m still thinking about it though.