By Dennis Hull ’22,

On July 7, the Board of Trustees released their plan to address the growing controversy over Washington and Lee University’s namesakes. The Board noted that they have received many communications from students, faculty, and alumni on both sides of issue and that a special Board committee, which will include President Dudley, will review “the dissonance between our namesakes’ connections to slavery and their significant contributions to the university.” The Board committed to undergoing a “thoughtful and deliberative process” and pledged to solicit the thoughts of all W&L constituencies, as well as to consult history experts as needed.

The W&L community’s response? Widespread criticism and mockery, particularly on social media. The reason? A committee would simply never choose to remove Lee from the name. Without immediate change, I am told, those in favor of a name change would be repressed and silenced.

It is inexplicable to me that the Board has faced such fire for their thoughtful, deliberate actions and promises. Just a few months ago, the Board rejected a petition to provide even the option to remove portraits of Washington and Lee from the W&L diploma. Forming a committee and promising to fully address the growing debate around our institution’s name is no small step and their actions indicate that they are approaching this discussion with a much-needed sense of caution and respect. Moreover, they’ve made it clear that they are open to change, even if it means replacing one or both of our namesakes. The Board acted thoughtfully and fairly on a controversial proposal that involves hundreds of years of institutional history – one that could have far-reaching implications for our institution’s future. No better action could have been taken.

Critics of the Board’s response have argued that the debate over our namesakes does not begin in 2020; rather, it stretches back years, has always had widespread support, and should be immediately addressed without waiting months for the findings of a committee. Yes, the debate certainly existed – our institutional history has always been controversial -– but until now, proposals to change our name never gained major traction or significance within the W&L community. From my personal observations and conversations that I’ve had, a sizable portion of the student body, many of whom currently advocate against one or both of our namesakes, only began to consider such proposals last month as support for a name change picked up steam. To argue that the majority of the student body has always supported a name change (or even that a majority currently supports a name change, for that matter) is simply untrue, as is the notion that the debate has been significant enough in the past to warrant Board consideration before now.

Such misrepresentations of student sentiment are designed to put pressure on the Board to enact significant change now rather than engaging in conversation and listening to student, alumni, and expert opinions. The latter is good for our community and inspires thoughtful, scholarly discussion on an issue of clear importance. The former pushes overly hasty, radical change in an attempt to shut down one side before its defenders can adequately make their voice heard.

To put it simply, the Board’s committee is the proper and ethical solution to the debate surrounding our namesakes. The committee has noble goals and promises to take all opinions into consideration. The Board has proven that they will take this responsibility seriously, particularly by including President Dudley in the committee. And each and every W&L student, alum, and faculty member can (and should) make their voice heard for the committee and the community as a whole, whether through letters, emails, statements, town halls, EC meetings, or publications like this one.

For many, Robert E. Lee may be a distasteful reminder of the Confederacy and the vile institution that it stood for. Their concerns are valid and should be fully addressed by the Board. Many others, on the other hand, recognize that Lee made enormous contributions to our school and view him primarily as a benefactor to the University rather than as a symbol of slavery. Their perspective, too, is important and should be taken into account by the committee. Giving up procedure in favor of rapid change, especially on an issue as controversial as this, would represent a stark departure from our liberal values of mutual respect and deliberation.

Contrary to popular belief, the formation of a committee does not automatically mean the end of the namesake debate. On the contrary – it is a proper response to a growing movement to change the name and represents newfound respect for that movement within the administration. The Board may have rejected petitions or reforms in the past after forming a committee, but that is no excuse to shirk from procedure and expect hasty change today, particularly when a sizable portion of the W&L community opposes such measures. The issue of our institution’s name is too consequential to act spuriously upon without further discussion, reflection, research, and debate.