Muller on Saunders Hall Renaming

Eric Muller has an op-ed in yesterday's Raleigh News and Observer on the renaming of Saunders Hall.  He focuses particular attention on a plaque that will be added to the building:

The trustees also required the university to adorn the renamed building with a plaque that reads as follows: “We honor and remember all those who have suffered injustices at the hands of those who would deny them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

At first glance, the statement is pleasing in its timeless generality. But therein lies the problem. The society that Saunders lived in, and the society of two generations later that honored him with the naming, did not practice oppression as a generality. Whites oppressed blacks in the service of white supremacy. Why can this not be said? Indeed, why remember generic “injustices” when what we are actually remembering is “racial persecution”?

The statement even lets the oppressors subtly off the hook. It refers to them as people who “would” deny others their rights. The conditional word “would” strips their persecution of its terrible effectiveness. The truth is not that white supremacy merely aimed to deny blacks their rights – and at times their lives. The truth is that white supremacy actually did those things. Why the equivocating use of the conditional verb?

I was opposed to the renaming primarily because the removal of a name facilitates forgetting.  Eric's pointed to another way in which the new history we're telling elides our state's history.  This is further evidence that it's very difficult -- probably impossible -- for a building name (or a plaque on a building) to tell the full story.  I hope to post soon my own thoughts on this.  Right now at UNC I think the conversation is just getting started.

The illustration is from the Board of Trustees meeting last week.

Comments

[anon]

So, does Eric want the building to be dedicated to a forthright and detailed attack on Saunders, simply because it was named for Saunders?

Or, perhaps this detailed indictment on a plaque posted on the formerly named Saunders Hall should be directed at the society of two generations later that so honored Saunders?

Or, perhaps this detailed indictment should be directed at the society of America in general, and in toto, and the posted on a plaque on the formerly named Saunders Hall.

Or, perhaps this detailed indictment should be written by Eric, and used to attack every evil and injustice in human history chosen solely by him, not generally, but specifically.

What comes through in Eric's piece is an angry and vindictive stance. How ashamed would Lincoln be?

[Al Brophy]

Anon, I have a different take on this from you. I don't see the anger in this piece that you do. And I'll let Eric generally speak for himself.

I would like to join the conversation. My preference would be to keep the name on the building and thus invite more discussion of who Saunders was (and I'd hope for a placement inside the building of a plaque detailing who Saunders was, but more importantly, why people in 1920s North Carolina viewed the Klan as positive). However, as is obvious, the people in power didn't listen to me and we've now renamed, so I think Eric's apt point is that we should have an acknowledgment of culpability both of Saunders and of those who made the naming decision in the 1920s. I think the collective judgment is usually the right one and in this case I completely understand that the Trustees didn't want to have a building on this campus named for a leader of the Klan *because* he was a leader of the Klan.

Obviously -- and I've said to anyone who'd listen to me -- a building name can't capture nuance. And I'm glad that our campus is engaged in this discussion and I'm optimistic that the other measures the Board has approved will lead to a lengthy investigation and also efforts at public interpretation.

[anon]

Please google "list of places named after Robert Byrd" and then read his Wiki bio. Note, especially, the leadership in the Klan, the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, etc.

His "apologies" were risible, explaining himself solely in terms of his own self interest.

Should each of the dozens of places named after this man (Robert Byrd wasn't even his real name!) be renamed, or, alternatively, should we demand that posting of an angry, vindictive screed about his past on each of these buildings?

I say angry because Eric's anger is palpable. He is ranting about the use of the word "would" ... Please. One can almost see the red face and spitting, etc.

It is less clear whether buildings should be renamed. The Roman practice was to literally erase names from the columns.

THis strikes me as juvenile, but I can understand that folks don't want to "honor" persons who, in the light of history, seem far less than honorable.

Lincoln was the healer. TOday, folks like that are hard to find. Now, it seems like what we have is haters, and I include in that term the self righteous chest thumpers who need to constantly remind everyone of historic injustices and never let anyone heal and reconcile. Peace seems to be never an option for these folks and outrage seems to be their stock in trade.

Everywhere today we see the efforts to rip off the scabs and reopen old wounds (using, sometimes, current events that weakly resemble the cause of those historic injustices). Will renaming a building do this? No, I think. Would putting up a screed like Eric seems to prefer (completely out of place if the building is renamed) do this? Yes. It could have no other purpose.

Eric seems to want a monument to resentment and grievance about historical wrongs. No thanks. Not just because a building was once named for a racist.