An important population of students are offended that two UO buildings are named for historical figures who held racist views.
Roughly a year after the Black Student Task Force demanded that UO President Michael Schill rename Deady and Dunn Halls, the community is still debating whether the names should be changed, but Schill has indicated that the decision is coming soon.
I read the university-sanctioned report on the history of Frederick S. Dunn and Matthew P. Deady, and I think the solution here is to change the names.
There are plenty of people who disagree with me, and that’s fine — as long as they did their civic duty to research, debate and weigh the facts. It’s one thing to respond with a personal decision about Dunn and Deady’s morality; I personally felt conflicted about Deady’s racist actions after reading how they tied to his jurisprudential views as a judge upholding the constitution.
But it’s another thing to skirt around the question using arguments that lack legitimacy, relevancy or evidence. These weak arguments are floating around, and it’s time someone pointed them out:
1. It’s just a name. We could be doing more important things.
I agree. We could be taking actions such as establishing scholarship programs, hiring black faculty and increasing black student enrollment (not coincidentally, all changes the BSTF wants). But we have to start somewhere, and this is a quick step — a symbolic gesture — to get us going in the right direction. Besides, we’ve already started; this isn’t a valid reason to be against it now.
2. We’re erasing the past and ignoring our bad beginnings. What gives students the right to overturn history?
Is it really the same thing? The record of Frederick Dunn and Matthew Deady will still be public and unmasked for those who want it. Changing a building’s name won’t alter its historical significance.
In the university setting, to name a building after someone is to honor them. There’s a difference between ignoring history and refusing to venerate it any longer.
We rename buildings frequently, and it’s often for a less noble cause. One example is Anstett Hall in Lillis Business complex, which changed from Gilbert Hall in 2011 because of a donation, according to the UO website.
3. If we give in here, where do we stop? We’ll have to change all public names to boring ones so we don’t offend people.
This is a textbook example of the slippery slope rhetorical fallacy, but I’ll play along anyway.
I’m a fan of bland names. Think about the numerical street system in Eugene; no one complains because it’s great for stress-free navigation. I’d have a much easier time finding ‘The Oldest Building’ than I did finding ‘Deady Hall.’
In seriousness: We’re talking about two buildings here. There’s no evidence to show it’ll influence all public names ever.
4. Deady and Dunn did some good things — why focus on the bad? Who are we to judge them by modern standards?
This argument is perhaps the most valid — in Deady’s case more than Dunn’s. Determining one’s moral worth is a messy, subjective business. It’s worse here as both figures have been dead for decades, and their beliefs were shaped by social norms of their eras.
But a university is the very place to tackle moral questions because we have the proper tools for the job: logic, discussion and open minds. It’s a privilege and it comes with responsibility.
To say we won’t tolerate racist views in any capacity is to encourage the next generation to do the same. It’s a small change in the way we view our past, but it’s a big step toward the equitable future we should be striving for.