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”.

Mitchell-Freedman and Ryland need to be renamed. While it was once fitting to have their names on buildings, that time has LONG passed. Why are we so focused on the legacy of these two terrible people? If these building signs and names are actively hurting students, why do we keep them up? If Richmond was actually focused on being a safe environment for its students and listened to what the students wanted, they would not deny our request. They state, and I quote, “At the University of Richmond, we believe diversity, equity, and inclusion are inextricably linked to educational quality for our students … we are deeply engaged in the work of making excellence inclusive; identifying inequities in the experiences and outcomes of students” on their Inclusive Excellence page. I find it quite interesting that the school cannot seem to find the blatant hypocrisy in this. If they truly cared about students being in a safe, inclusive environment and working to “identify inequalities”, they would not stand for this. Celebrate the fact that they donated (or whatever they did for Richmond) on a plaque in the building explaining how they helped, but how we condemn the hateful institution of slavery and cannot allow that legacy to prosper on campus. That way, we are not forcing people to look at, live in, or take classes in buildings that have been dedicated to Ryland and Freedman. While they might lose donors, that cannot be the sole goal of the institution because, while it is a business, first and foremost it is a school. The board does not live or study here so how are their voices on this the only ones that matter?

Ryland and Freeman were both racist people, who now done money to the University of Richmond. Because of the BLM movement and our society moving towards more inclusivity, these names no longer represent “important” and “influential” people, because they aren’t people that others want to look up to. While I do believe it’s important to be aware of our history so that it isn’t ever repeated, I don’t think this a valid reason to keep these names on our buildings. There are many views that I can see how one would believe that, but not this one. There are so many other ways of remembering history rather than plastering slave owners names on buildings. For me, I’m picturing the trolley image from class and wondering, what are the costs and benefits to keeping and changing the names on buildings? If we keep these names, we are hurting more people than we probably even know, but if we take the names down, the university could potentially lose donors. While I can understand the university doesn’t want this, but do they even care how their student body feels about the matter? And if we take these two options and picture the trolley image, what is the ethically right decision?

In the third podcast, Dr. Bezio discusses assumptions. When she talks about clothing restrictions on women, it made me think of a time in high school when a friend of mine had to have her mom bring her a sweatshirt because her off-the-shoulder top was deemed inappropriate by the librarian. The next day, all of our friends and even people we weren’t that close with all wore off the shoulder tops because we all thought it was ridiculous that she got into trouble in the first place. I remember walking into the library that day and being asked by the librarian “aren’t you cold?” It felt so incredible to look her in the eye and say, “nope”. There was a huge uproar among the student body about the fact that shoulders were deemed distracting. Could our male classmates or teachers not focus because they could see our shoulders? We all thought it was ridiculous the way they were making it our fault that the men in our high school were creepy. Like Dr. Bezio mentions, it has often been put on the shoulders of women to make sure that they do not cause a distraction, as opposed to men learning how to treat women properly. She takes it a step further though and brings up a great point about our society I have not thought of before. That is that this is kind of behavior is what feeds into victim-blaming.

I thought the discussion of drug use and drug users in Dr. Bezio’s podcast was really interesting and an important lens to apply to the discussion of “making assumptions.” In a lot of ways, assumptions are a very uncontrollable habit that humans have abided by for survival. Judging something to be unsafe or dangerous keeps us alive. It’s instinctual, but the perpetuation of incorrect assumptions is really dangerous. For example, the historical assumption of people of color being more likely to be drug users and sellers has created not only massive disparities in our justice system but has also deeply racialized other institutions, especially those concerning mental and physical health. Further, the repeated stereotypes throughout history make them seem correct because “that’s just the way things are.” This mentality is deeply damaging as it restricts us from being critical of not only our history but also our present-day reality. Questioning the structures which surround us, notably the justice system and its deeply rooted history in racist practices, is vital to the wellbeing of our nation. I would argue the only safe assumption to make is that nothing is as it seems. Assuming one thing of someone may not only limit their abilities but also limits our expectations and beliefs in them. This is true for the conversation about drug usage especially as it relates to homeless populations in the US. Perhaps if we as individuals and society did not assume that homeless people are homeless because of their work ethic and drug usage, we would be able to uplift these communities and support them in finding jobs, healthcare, homes, and stability. Assumptions inhibit us from seeing the best in others and in ourselves.

The key takeaway I got after listening to Dr. Bezio’s “making assumptions” podcast was that we actively need to separate what we know from what we assume. More or less, when need to think before we speak: is what I’m about to claim a factual statement or just something I’ve been raised to believe?

When I was in elementary school, my parents and teachers taught me that drugs were for criminals. So throughout my younger years, I went on to preach that if you did drugs, you were a “thug” a “delinquent” and a “criminal.” I didn’t take into consideration other viewpoints because coming from a position of authority, there were no other viewpoints. I was only being told the same perspective. It wasn’t until middle school after I left my elementary school that I became surrounded by peers and teachers who held different perspectives about drugs and explained how taking drugs did not automatically equal being a criminal. It made a lot more sense and prompted me to actually look into the facts about drug use and incarceration. I went from a staunch anti-drugs always nine-year-old to a heavy supporter of the legalization of marijuana and the freeing of those incarcerated under marijuana charges.

A lot of assumptions, particularly like the ones I held, have to do with education and being exposed to different perspectives until you can choose your own based on what you believe, not what others believe. This also means giving a fair opportunity to develop your own beliefs and not be forced into them; I often think of the Westboro Baptist Church when it comes to being able to develop your own beliefs, and I think of the member who finally broke free from the cult-like church and realized how different the world was from how she was taught it was. It was only because she was exposed via the internet to different ideas that she ended up leaving the church, but the majority of the people in the Westboro Baptist Church continue to stay because they never had that exposure.

My semester-long research project is actually on the removal of confederate monuments in the United States, with Richmond and New Orleans serving as focal points. Going to a college located within a city with such a complicated history makes my research even more meaningful, as we continue to grapple with UR’s connection to slavery and the confederacy. I remember coming to campus last fall as a freshman and hearing rumors about an uncovered burial ground on our campus for slaves. It was not until January that President Crutcher released a statement declaring that there was enough evidence to assume that not only is UR built on a slave graveyard, but also a former plantation. Like with much of the history of people of color throughout the United States, these former slaves’ names and lives have been forgotten. Our conversations and push to rename Ryland and Freemen are important–I think the University made a huge mistake in not entirely giving these buildings a new name to represent other important figures in Richmond’s history. Freemen and Ryland are branded with a refusal to acknowledge our history. However, there are much larger consequences of not acknowledging the University’s contribution to racism and oppression–the names of the slaves buried beneath our feet and those who worked on our land will continue to be forgotten.

Prior to this semester I was unaware of who exactly the Freedman and Ryland buildings were named after. I assumed like any building on campus they were just random donors or notable people in the history of UR. Unfortunately our school is choosing to honor a person who championed white supremacy, segregation and Black voter suppression, Douglas Southall Freeman, and a slave owning confederate supporter, Robert Ryland. While there is something to be said about not forgetting the past, there needs to be a better way that does not memorialize these people with very racist pasts. For example, as mentioned in class, there could be a plaque in the building that describes the history without making students in our commodity feel uncomfortable every time they walk by or have to go into the buildings. Additionally, the decisions that UR has made in relation to this issue of the building names is disappointing. To think that attaching John Mitchell Jr., a Black newspaper editor, would solve the issue and satisfy those who are reasonably upset is short sighted. Especially when it is difficult to imagine everyone changing how they refer to the building overnight just because the university updated the sign; unfortunately many will probably still refer to the building as Freeman Hall for at least the near future. In the case of Ryland Hall, even less if being done. To simply name a terrace after one or more of the individuals that Robert Ryland enslaved, seems like an insignificant solution. Especially considering that the building is currently undergoing massive construction, it would seem like it is the perfect time to change the name and start the building off on a positive note. 

Overall, I am disappointed by UR’s response concerning this issue. Unsurprisingly they are trying to please their donors and assure them that their names will not simply be taken off of buildings. However, to prioritize the donors of the university is to ignore the student body who is upset and wants a more significant change to occur. To remember history so we learn from our past mistakes and to memorialize those who have clearly done wrong and negatively impacted the lives of others are two very separate ideas that UR needs to recognize.

I found the Flanigan reading to be the most fascinating. Specifically in reference to the section regarding normative autonomy and medical prescriptions. I had never considered the moral questionability of forcing a patient to take a certain kind of medication. I think that my own personal normalization to authority makes me more likely to just trust what the doctor says and take what they give me. I tend to fall under the thought process of, well they’re the expert so I’ll just do what they tell me to. Realistically, however, not having the option to take perception medication or not is probably one of the more coercive parts of the medical world. The same kind of argument can be said about abortions, and how banning them can force women to carry out a pregnancy they didn’t want.

I think the counter argument to Flanigan was also equally as interesting, as doctors argue that someone doesn’t have the right to impose upon themselves a substance that inhibits their ability to act freely. I had never thought about drugs in that sense, but believe that similarly to the example of Marijuana mentioned by Dr. Bezio in her podcast, drugs themselves can have societal biases against them that can distort someone’s ability to make a fair judgement on a drug. Continuing on Dr. Bezio’s example, weed was societally seen as a street drug that could possibly act as a gateway to a life of addiction and overall degradation. However now, science is able to prove the plethora of medical benefits to Marijuana, and it’s clear now most (if not all) of the negativity we associate with weed has extremely racist ties to it.

There is a lot going on at U of R recently, and the renaming of buildings seems to be the most recent in the schools attempt to “reconcile with the past.” I’ve got lots of opinions on the matter, mainly because I have already seen and felt some of the painful reactions of the Richmond POC community, and wanted to understand why the University was acting so foolish around the subject. I think the renaming of Mitchell-Freeman hall is the most genuine reflection of campus life that we have seen thus far.

Prior to the pandemic, students organized and united over racial injustice on our campus. President Crutcher held an open discussion form, tons of clubs were founded to further address racial biases, and many faculty and staff signed petitions in support of the movement. As beautiful of a display as all of these forms of protest are, they embodied an ideology of equality that I believe is just not present at U of R. We are not a progressive school, and in fact some of the most racist interactions that I have witnessed have taken place on this campus. We are also not all a bunch of white supremacists, don’t get me wrong, but if you start to look at the students who lead POC protests, you may start to notice the same few continuously pushing for equality. This, although seemingly harmless, is extremely problematic for both POC and non-POC community members. Not only does this lack of intersecting participation exhausting and harmful for the powerful POC people who have taken it on, it also gives other students a feeling of exemption from racial conversation. Similar to the free-rider theory, allowing students to think that our campus is inclusive or diverse is not realistic. The tone-deaf nature of Mitchell-Freeman, however, is.