Search the Lounge


« Professor Susan Saab Fortney Named Interim Dean at Texas Tech | Main | Appreciating (and Locating) the Less Prolific Scholars »

June 09, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



Warren Emerson was kind enough to offer me the opportunity to comment on his blog about this issue, but the flood of media has kept me from my Contracts exams and I am down to the wire with those. So, I have not yet taken time to comment on that blog.

Let me say briefly, though, if UT stops honoring Prof. Simkins by taking his name off the dormitory, plenty of opportunities to discuss race, history, and law will remain on UT's campus. For starters, a portrait of Simkins hangs in the law library; I'm fine with that. There is Painter Hall and the Sweatt Campus. There's a statues of Gen. Robert E. Lee and Pres. Jefferson Davis; buildings named after confederate soldiers; the Darrell Royal stadium, and a host of other monuments, none of which I think should be removed or renamed.

On the flip side, there's also no reason to believe that The University of Texas would in fact turn Simkins Hall into the history lesson that it might be. The history of the university's administration suggests the opposite.

Finally, I do not believe that those who are harmed or insulted by Simkins's undeserved honor in having his name on the building should have to continue to experience insult or injury in order to provide a possible history lesson to whomever is subjected to a plaque, lecture, or website post. I'm looking for the right metaphor to describe this--something along the lines of "We won't set your broken arm because it's a good teaching opportunity."

I look forward to continuing our disagreement about this matter. Those who would like to read more about the controversy may wish to consult


Tom Russell
[email protected]

warren Emerson

Hi Tom,

The invitation is open so when ever you would like to, please stop by the Table.

Allow me to offer a brief interjection. First, let me say that your logic is thoughtful and I don’t want to sound like my disagreement is in anyway critical of the importance of the work you are doing in this area. I also agree with you that we have to be very careful not to cause further insult to those populations that are offended (and should be offended) by this vile representation of an awful past.

With that said, however, let me push back on a couple of points. I think it matters greatly to distinguish between opportunities to talk about race and the methods that we use to talk about race. In my mind, this is not just an opportunity to talk about race relations. I agree that there are many opportunities to do so in a variety of contexts. Rather, this is whether we are going to faithfully represent our past as we have those discussions. Let me key in in on two comments.

First, I don't think the metaphor of a setting a broken leg is not quite correct in this case. Legs can be fixed and show virtually no signs that there was ever a problem. I also worry that the analogy suggests that we may try to fix something. If we are trying to fix the past, then I have real reservations for all of the reasons described in the first post. I think the better metaphor is the environment. Like so many of our actions in the environment, we do things that cause harmful effects, that cannot be undone. However, what we can do is begin to live more responsibly with what we have. This can have a powerful effect. In some ways, it can rehabilitate the environment. In the same way, we cannot undo the Simkin’s name on a building. It has been done. But we can begin to live more responsibly with it by having frank discussions about its impact, and adding to its vile nature something that better represents our normative view of the world.

Second, if the University of Texas is not inclined to deal responsibly with its past as suggested, isn’t it just as important to maintain the building's name as a reminder that we have not come as far as we think we have? It seems to me that we often remove uncomfortable things from sight, when they remain just as powerfully present as they did before we covered them up. Changing the landscape rarely changes the actual environment. Perhaps the building’s name serves a purpose of reminding us of how far we still have to go, rather than allowing the name’s removal to fool us in believing that we have actually come pretty far.

I'm looking forward to further discussions and hope this is not too tempting of a distraction from the stacks of papers you have to mark.


The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad