We have previously discussed how students and faculty are stripping away the names and quotations of Founding Fathers and presidents from schools because they were slave owners or due to proven prejudices or biases. I have been critical of the trend at schools like Princeton where the faculty and students have discussed the removal of the name and images of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson from buildings and school programs under a deal signed with protesters who objected to Wilson’s support of segregation, which was legal at the time. The move adjacent Wilson who is credited as one of Princeton’s most important figures and past presidents was shocking to many academics. Now, the University of Virginia is experiencing the same debate with its founder, Thomas Jefferson. University President Teresa Sullivan is under fire for simply quoting Jefferson in an email to students and faculty on the presidential election. Faculty have written her a letter denouncing any use of any quotation by Jefferson due to his ownership of slaves.
In her email, Sullivan encouraged students to come together after the election and added
“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes’ . . . I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”
Some professors in the Psychology Department and other departments were shocked by the quotation of Jefferson, even at the University of Virginia. Asst. Psychology Prof. Noelle Hurd drafted the letter that some 469 students and faculty signed. It stated in part:
“We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it . . . For many of us, the inclusion of Jefferson quotations in these e-mails undermines the message of unity, equality and civility that you are attempting to convey.”
Among the signatories were Politics Prof. Nicholas Winter, Psychology Prof. Chad Dodson, Women, Gender and Sexuality Prof. Corinne Field, College Assistant Dean Shilpa Davé, and Politics Prof. Lynn Sanders.
Politics Professor Lawrie Balfour (right) explained that Jefferson is viewed by many as a consistent detriment to nurturing a supportive environment at Virginia: “I’ve been here 15 years. Again and again, I have found that at moments when the community needs reassurance and Jefferson appears, it undoes I think the really important work that administrators and others are trying to do.”
I respect the motivations of faculty like Professor Balfour but I have to disagree with their conclusions. I do not agree that barring quotations from the drafter of our Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential American thinkers advances an educational purpose. Historical figures are not perfect humans and slavery is rightfully viewed as a disgraceful part of the history of many of our founders. We can learn from those terrible institutions just as we can learn from their other contributions. Understanding history demands such perspective.
Jefferson is a particularly interesting case study on slavery. He was one of the most conflicting founders on the subject. Jefferson spent much of his life trying to rid the country of slavery (an advanced view for his time) but he also kept hundreds of individuals under the bondage of slavery. He inherited dozens of slaves and acquired more through his marriage to Martha Wayles. Yet, he was a critic of Britain for its role in the colonial slave trade and was key in banning the importation of slaves to his native Virginia. He sought to criminalize the slave trade and fought with other Southerners on the wording of the Declaration of Independence over the recognition of slaves as people entitled to equality. His relationship with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, adds to this conflicted history.
From the perspective of his time, Jefferson was viewed as a progressive on the subject, if not a heretic, by his white contemporaries. In the end, however, scrubbing history of quotations and references to people like Jefferson is to ignore both his accomplishments and his failings. Professor Balfour insists that she is not saying that any quotations from Jefferson was inappropriate but that “the move that says, he owned slaves, but he was a great man, is deeply problematic, and I think it will continue to prevent us from being the kind of inclusive, respectful community that President Sullivan and the rest of us envision.” I would submit that he was a great man but a deeply flawed man. Education is recognizing and understanding such contradictions.
What do you think?
Issac, “Again, our liar beat your liar”. Now please get over it.
There’s a start. But no, I’ll get over it when a lesser liar drives this idiot out of the White House. Hey, I have had to read the lies and crud posted about how terrible Obama is, was, for several years now. Approval rating 56% and rising, Bush 26% and still first place as the worst President ever. But now with the greatest con man and liar to set foot in the Capital, I think we have a horserace. Find out in four years.
The Democratic Party is in Tatters. This was achieved from within by incompetence but primarily from without through the unrelenting obstructionist attacks by the Republican Party and more forcefully by Donald Trump. The first step in rebuilding the Democratic Party and preparing the White House for someone sane is to follow in the successful footsteps of the Donald himself. He created a lexicon early on and used it over and over until it became a part of the daily vocabulary of more and more mindless right wing dupes. It is clear that to win one must address the dupes. So, for example, “This morning, after my third cup of coffee, I went to the can and took a Royal Trump.” or, “Last night I had too much to drink and in negotiating for advantages with my wife, I got Royally Trumped.”, which may not be as bad as it sounds but used in the vernacular of business, it hits the nail right on the hair plugged head.
We need to expand our lexicon so your input would be greatly appreciated.
Now, excuse me, I have to take a trump.
Isaac, are you f*cking kidding me? The Demoncrats are their own worst enemy. RIght now in SC we have a guy vying for DNC chair – a black Yalie connected to Podesta, hanging on jumpin and jivin’ Jim Clyburn’s bootstraps. Screw all y;all. We independents are done, done double done with your whole identity politics bs.
From Gab’s home page:
Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others.
Charles Bukowski
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I’m about as far left as a person can get but I know history and understand it. This weird notion that has cropped up recently that if a person of historical significance owned slaves then that person should no longer be respected for any contribution he or she might have made to the world otherwise. That is ignorance run amok. It is particularly inexcusable on college and university campuses where intellectual inquiry, not limitation, is supposed to be the point of both faculty and student presence there. Do we dismiss Martin Luther King, Jr. because he was unfaithful to his wife? Of course not. Do we ignore that less than stellar aspect of his character? No. Likewise, we cannot dismiss towering, influential historical figures in our history who owned slaves and held opinions (on all kinds of topics) that would be considered offensive, crude, and backward today. Neither should we ignore the reality that slavery and the ownership of other human beings was something that existed, that was wrong, and that many otherwise good and decent people engaged in and/or approved of at that time. Additionally, we should be aware that many of those who were slave owners, in many cases believed slavery to be wrong and that it would not last. Hypocrisy? Certainly. But hypocrisy isn’t enough to ban the other contributions of these people.
It is embarrassing to see these sorts of attempts at squelching speech and trying to smear the memory of some the greatest minds in our history due to some sort of weird cultural revolution on our campuses.
Great post Horuss. We need some real lefty viewpoints on here, not co-opted neoliberalism.
Not to extend the argument about slavery and hijack the thread, but at the time, what would those people know to do? “OK, you’re free–see ya….” just wouldn’t have cut it. Maybe they felt it was the best deal–for the moment–for these people until a system would be created that would allow those folks to be integrated into society, without cutting them loose and expecting them to make it on their own. A good test, maybe put yourself in that position, “oh, and yeah… you just became the owner of 20 slaves…” OK–what to do? If it were me… my first priority would be to make sure they had all the necessary items deemed necessary for the time. I would make sure the situation was stable, and proceed from there. But, as we know, anytime you are dealing with people, you never really have a stable situation for any length of time… and time passes quickly. Maybe it was picking the lesser of two evils at the time with hope for the future.
Like you point out, applying today’s ideals to another historical period is the height of ignorance, and demonstrates today’s neoliberal’s conceit. They self-identify themselves as the zenith of darwinism.
John Adams abhorred slavery but pushed through the Alien and Sedition Act. If I recall Jefferson and Adams broke off their friendship for decades over it. What should be done with Adams? Dustbin or no dustbin? They may say no dustbin for him, but not because they have a nuanced view of him and his accomplishments.
Well said: “It is embarrassing to see these sorts of attempts at squelching speech and trying to smear the memory of some the greatest minds in our history due to some sort of weird cultural revolution on our campuses.”
Sooo, what do we really expect from Democrats? Democrats are the silly people in this video, which is hilarious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXpi3F0E5ro
You can’t get blood from a turnip, and you can’t get good sense from, a Democrat.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ummm hilarious? No, dear Squeeky, it’s nauseating and scary IMO
The left are playing right into a Trump reelection w/ the PC insanity.
Bingo. And it’s repulsive.
Well said, Nick.
It worked for the right. Month after month of unrelenting lies and threats got him here. Perhaps just a little venting of the spleen is appropriate. When there is a shame this yuge you have to expect some response in kind.
issac – when you consider that Hillary, her staff, the DNC and the media have all be lying throughout the campaign. Should it be the Trumpsters who are still complaining.
“I would subject that he was a great man but a deeply flawed man.”
******************************
Exactly like all great — or not — individuals.
The craziest thing done at UVA since President Sullivan decided Jackie’s gang-rape story was gospel and rushed home from Belgium to shut down the Greek system so the administrators could sanitize it. Though no wrongdoing was found (except by lying Jackie and her apparatchiks at Rolling Stone) they, of course, sanitized it. Now the beasts are out for Sullivan’s scalp for (gasp!) citing the founder of the University and the Third President of the United States. How Mary Shelley? It would be deliciously ironic for the monsters to turn on her if it weren’t so damn infuriating for a native Virginian like myself.
The left as well as the right commit extreme actions, say extreme stuff, and make fools of themselves. The far left ravings for niche ideals, forgotten victims, minorities and other fringe issues sometimes goes too far. The right is there with their wide brush to paint all liberals and stand up for ideals sh*tcanned by their right side in the past, present, and future to a degree that makes the ‘snowflakes’, or whatever appear safe. The danger of the right is there throughout history: McCarthy, Bush, and now Trump. A bunch of over narrowly educated left winged students and professors write a letter or a manifesto and the right is there with their paint brush. McCarthy ruins countless lives of America’s greatest talents and somehow he is a hero to the Republicans. Clinton as Secretary of State is there when mistakes are made in Libya and she is a traitor but Reagan’s abominable activities that cost the lives of thousands, 250+ US Marines then cut and run, are somehow OK. Bush and his Republican crew slaughter over a million innocent people and somehow it’s all about the mistakes Obama made cleaning it up, only to be followed by the greatest liar and hypocrite to come down the pike in American history, Trump who was always against the war but will show them when he gets a chance. Oh, the hypocrisy, are you ready for the horror?
Darren, thanks again for arguing my point. The photos parallel Trump better than anything. Trump lies so easily about his past and his accomplishments, accuses his adversaries in a manner that could teach an attentive Stalin, and regards his subjects with as much disdain. Welcome King Trump. All hail. Well put Darren.
Let’s say it the way it is. And not another “well just because he did….” No huge Reagan fan here, but when the marines were killed, there was outrage here. We were smart enough then to question our involvement in that part of the world, and didn’t have the now omnipotence of the neoliberal chains we are in the process of shaking off. Clinton has been right there to cheer on possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths, and looking forward to many more. As we have seen now, contrary to what you state, lives have been ruined in the lefty version of McCarthyism–look at the fallout for faculty who have lost their positions for merely hinting of independent thought. We’ve been discussing it everyday. At least during the McCarthy days, there was an existential threat that caused poor response. Not the same now, we are seeing the acts of totalitarianism, with Clinton and co. being the world’s existential threat. We don’t export much anymore, outside of agriculture and raw materials, but we are tops at exporting death. You can cause constant slaughter worldwide for a generation and still claim to own the high road. I’m sorry, but your argument is hollow. Trump may yet live down to Clinton, or possibly farther, but that remains to be seen.
The Marines in Lebanon or the embassy in Tripoli, the same thing. The US was ill prepared in a dangerous place. The system failed. However, Mr. Feelgood with the US against Evil argument got none of the crud thrown at him that Clinton received. Reagan was one of the good ole political type of actors. Trump is more of a Hitlerian type. Reagan double dealed violating the American trust constantly throughout his Presidency. He got away with it because of the same hype Trump is using now, the enemy. For Reagan that enemy was anyone deemed a threat to the American ego. McCarthy’s excesses were also based on the ‘enemy’, the enemy down the street. America is a strong enough country and has been to invite in Communism and other concepts. The greatest threat to America is revving up the bigotry and racism that lies from dormant to festering in enough Americans by creating an enemy that isn’t there. Trump is the latest example of this phenomenon.
The email scandal was, in part, Clinton’s fault. She admitted it and stated she learned from it. She, unfortunately squirmed, lied, and slithered along the way. Her short comings here remain nothing when contrasted against that which is the greatest liar of all, Trump. When Colin Powell came in as Secretary of State he was flabbergasted-to use his own words-by the technological backwardness of his department. He commented that he could not find any desk top computers. He went out and ordered 40,000 computers shortly after experiencing what he saw as a critical condition. Still he could not function within his department when he attempted to email his people. He reverted to the public sector and used the same email as everyone.
Clinton entered a vastly improved condition but sill one with shortcomings. Government routed emails did not perform vis a vis formatting for copying and other needs as well as the public sector systems. Yes, she was arrogant to develop her own server and simply avoid the problems inherent in the system. And yeas privacy was perhaps a driving force. However, as Secretary of State, perhaps she was acting more responsibly.
The point of this rant is that when actions and activities are stripped of their political paint job they tend to be somewhat different than what gets shoved in the ears of waiting dupes, angry at their lot in life. Trump won because he was the better strategist and Clinton lost sight of what she was about and got suckered into the dissing game. The US just bought a car from the bigger con man. We will see what sort of automobile in the next few years. Reagan already sold America a bill of goods that set back the US auto system decades. Let’s see what the next hairdo does.
As for exporting death, it has been the venue of the Republicans lately until they messed themselves so terribly under Bush, a million innocents and counting. There is a surplus of hypocrisy in America. It got used up on November 8. Disgusting is not a strong enough word.
issac – would you like to name 10 great talents that McCarthy ruined?
Paul,
You make one incompetent bushwhacker. Pathetic. Now, I have to take a Trump.
issac – you have painted with a broad brush. I am just calling you on it. Name 10 great talents that McCarthy ruined. They do have to be ‘great’ though. No B-listers.
Paul, have you seen the movie Trumbo? If not I highly recommend it. This is one career that was seriously derailed by McCarthy’s actions. I think Trumbo qualifies as a great talent. But of course great is a term subject to different interpretations. You and I may not have the same standards for what constitutes great. Are there a set of objective criteria for determining what qualifies one as a great talent? By the way, why does issac have to name ten. One great talent ruined was too high a price to pay for McCarthy’s demagoguery.
Dog…etc.
-I think,Dalton Trumbo actually appeared before the House Unamerican Activities Committee.
HUAC was originally set up in the 1930s to monitor the Nazi movement in America
Hollywood had no problem exposing and rooting out Nazi movements.
Nazi atrocities in the 1930s were coming to light, and the entertainment industry approved of HUAC’s activities.
Nazi atrocities prior to WWII were nowhere near on the scale of Stalin’s atrocities, but Communist atrocities were not pursued with the same gusto as Nazi atrocities.
Hollywood could tolerate Soviet atrocities, but felt obligated to condemn Nazi atrocities.
I’m not familiar with the movie you mentioned, but films are often “fact-challenged”.
There are more reliable resources of you’re interested in researching Trumbo’s life and activities.
He condemned Nazi atrocities until his utopia, the USSR, joined Hitler in invading Poland.
Joint USSR/ Nazi cooperation did not seem to bother
Trumbo.
That changed when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Some of the people targetedby HUAC and others were genuinely innocent of any serious wrongdoing.
Some, like Trumbo, was a devout Communist/ Stalinist.
That may have made him popular with many of his collegues, but not with the studio heads.
dogfightwithdogma – Dalton Trumbo, a raving communist, but a fine film writer was blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Joe McCarthy was a Senator. McCarthy was in charge of the Army hearings and hearings about the State Dept.
Don’t waste too much of your time with Paul. He is just like the six year old a parent tries to put to bed only to be met with an unending array of questions. He can come up with a question to the answer to 2+2. He is also an accomplished bushwhacker, someone who lies in wait for any point whatsoever that can be contested and then the questions: well what will happen if I stay up?
issac – still waiting for those 10 great talents ruined by McCarthy. This should be a drop in the bucket for you. Remember they do have to be ‘great’ no B-listers.
Supposedly Owen Lattimore developed a twitch during his grilling by Senate committees which never left him. I think there was a USIA employee who supposedly committed suicide.
Paul Schulte,
Issac has a history of making false claims he can not substantiate.
Asking him to back up those lies is viewed by Isaac as “bushwhacking”.
I worry the practice of damnatio memoriae will become mainstream if this this university’s form of historical fascism becomes predominant. Another area I suspect the SJW Left will target with similar effect is Jacob Riis’ ground breaking work in the photo journal How the Other Half Lives. Many of the comments he made were typical of a nineteenth century man who is in direct opposition with twenty-first century political correctness and as a result the left will toss away as bigoted a very enlightening vision of actual social injustices suffered by the poor.
We should never allow this to happen.
Cant we just ban Leftists instead? I mean they are essentially calling for the banning of non Leftists so all fair in love and war right?
These faculty members and students did not call for the banning of anything. None of us should be advocating for the banning of anyone’s opinion or arguing that anyone should be punished for expressing an opinion. Banning people’s viewpoints is an act of actual fascism, nazism or any other brand of tyranny.
“For many of us, the inclusion of Jefferson quotations in these e-mails undermines the message of unity, equality and civility that you are attempting to convey.”
(…)
“I have found that at moments when the community needs reassurance and Jefferson appears, it undoes I think the really important work that administrators and others are trying to do.”
********************************
Banning, sanitizing, removing, self-censoring, chastising for use, undoing … a tyranny by any other name would stink the same. That damnable Jefferson! All he ever did was found the place, design the place, make sure of funding for the place and cement its position as a world-class institution of higher learning. That he indulged in a then legal albeit an always peculiar institution consigns him to the dustbin of his own school. He has committed the unpardonable sin of offending the very same future he was instrumental in creating. Off with his head! Why should he ever be mentioned again when it might offend over-sensitive students or their fawning instructors?
I am starting to think the most mortal of all sins is ingratitude.
I propose that the Univ of Virginia ban admission and employment to anyone with the last name of Washington, Jefferson or Jackson, as these names are a trigger and cause everyone to have to run to a safe space. These individuals could have changed their last names to Obama or some other progressive name, so if your name is ShaQueena Washington, Debris Jackson or Clitorius Jefferson, you should forget the Ivy League and hope that BYU will take you. Unfortunately, BYU doesn’t have an Equality Studies major. But I’m sure you’ll do fine in their highly ranked Accounting program.
I think we could solve a lot of problems if we fired college and university professors who seem to think they live in a different, better world. The job of higher education is to prepare students for their chosen career in the REAL world. Jefferson played an important part of our country’s foundation. Appreciate how fortunate we were that he was there. Brown thinks it’s above the law, denying police on campus without pre-approval, thus protecting their illegal students (or workers?). I hope our taxes are not given to any higher education facility espousing these ridiculous positions. In fact, I hope any funds (loans, grants, funding research) only be awarded to higher education after a complete review of their policies. Sanctuary schools should receive nothing. No one, or facility, is above our laws. Time to remind them where it hurts, $$$!
“The job of higher education is to prepare students for their chosen career in the REAL world.”
Oh, I dearly hope not. I should think and hope that a college education has a much higher, nobler purpose than this.
Thinking college has a higher, more noble purpose is the problem. I’ve learned a lot more out in the REAL world than I did in college.
(1) While I accept that this is true for you, it is not necessarily true for everyone. Your experience does not necessarily represent the norm or the experience of everyone who has attended college. (2) Having learned more in the so-called “real” world does not diminish the learning that takes place in college. I would not wish to have acquired all my learning in the so-called real world. I have found my college education to have been valuable for all of the years since I graduated from college. (By the way college is part of the real world. This phrase has always struck me as rather silly. Everything you experience, no matter where you experience it, is part of the real world.) (3) We will simply have to disagree about thinking that college has a higher purpose is the problem. It’s never been a problem for me. Acquiring the knowledge and skills for a career was a secondary reason why I attended college. For me learning itself was and always has been the core objective. Lastly, I say again, I am certain Thomas Jefferson would not share your view.
Also, I am certain that Jefferson himself would not agree that this was the purpose of a higher education.
As a UVA alum this just sickens me to see that there are actual faculty disseminating this nonsense. Their abilities should be reviewed.
For the record, I truly hope that these faculty and student snowflake, PC-inane people who get offended at everything are the minority, but are just much more vocal and annoying.
Everyone who signed this letter is an embarrassment to the University.
It is amazing how in just a few comments this situation has been so exaggerated that you are now implying that someone’s rights have been infringed despite the fact that all the faculty members and students did was express their own opinion, nothing more.
Oops. This comment was a reply to Karen S, not Derek
dogfight:
If all they did was complain about it, then I would agree with you. However, lately there has been a dampening of free speech at universities, with speakers shouted down, students barred from walking in certain areas, segregated housing, discrimination against conservative professors, double standards, and myriad other examples.
My comment was really meant as a general statement in the forcible control of speech and opinion across the nation and especially at universities. It is not limited to merely complaint, but in many cases action. In this case, an open letter shared with students chastising the president for racial insensitivity, merely for quoting Jefferson, which can be damaging to her profession. Having an open letter chastising you of racial insensitivity does not look good on the resume of a university career employee. But you are right that this is not the most egregious or forceful example, aside from using pressure and censure.
And once again we see the dictatorial control of opinion and society at the expense of individual liberty.
The leftist brain police won’t stop until they’ve destroyed all thinking brains and effectively replaced them with obedient automatons. Frank Zappa saw this coming:
I can’t believe I’m saying this in all seriousness, but can someone please explain anachronism to the university? Not one person in history or antiquity would survive being judged by today’s standards. So we either throw out the classics entirely and all we’ve learned, or we realize that we must judge people according to their own times, not ours.
I can’t wait for the class of 2292, when all food is synthesized from corn and soy. The pampered indulgent youth of then, may dig us all up for being meat eaters.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Karen,
Exactly. We do not disparage Isaac Newton for failing to anticipate the theory of relativity or modern quantum theory. We admire his contributions to physics and mathematics. Jefferson was born into a world that had accepted slavery for millennia, and his views on slavery were enlightened for his time. We can acknowledge the evil nature of slavery, and still admire Jefferson’s contribution to philosophy, architecture, mechanics, agriculture etc., and of course founding UVA. Furthermore, he authored the Declaration which is still used today by those fighting for freedom. Great men tend to have great flaws. We can still learn from them.
Perfectly stated.
Gee, I wonder what the political party affiliation of these particular nitwitz is??? I am betting DEMOCRATS!
If so, what went wrong with the Democrats? How did they lose their minds? How do reasonable people continue to vote for Democrats at all?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I’m sick of the thought police. Someone show me a human that isn’t flawed. Jefferson’s rhetoric and ideals mayn’t have been replicated in his actions but then neither are Obama’s.
Jefferson’s ideas are the reason we can all argue about our various views of life and government without fear of jail, at least this week. The faculty needs to read a bit of history and get a grip!
I am reading Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Jon Meacham. It explores these conflicts in Jefferson’s views and behaviour regarding slavery, including his relationship with Sally Hemmings and her family, in a fair manner. It is an excellent read.
The inhabitants of the ivory tower, pilloried by Tolkien, strike again.
If these people dislike Jefferson so much, they should find somewhere else to live because the whole country is tainted with his views on liberty.