By Will Tanner '21,

On Thursday, July 2nd, W&L students received an email from our Executive Committee (EC) stating that the EC had met with the Board of Trustees and brought these following opinions of theirs to the Board’s attention: 

• The Executive Committee officially supports changing the name of Washington and Lee University.

• The Executive Committee would like to reiterate its unanimous support for the petition titled, “Petition to Allow Washington & Lee Students to Opt-Out of Namesakes' Portraits on Diplomas,” which supports giving students the option to remove the portraits of George Washington and Robert E. Lee from diplomas upon graduation.

•  The Executive Committee provided an overview of the current discourse among members of the Student Body and on social media and spoke about issues regarding racial inequality on our campus. These sentiments included discussions about increased diversity training for all members of our W&L community, positive reform of the Greek system, addressing instances of day-to-day racism on our campus, increased communication between the Student Body and the Board of Trustees, and increased diversity among and inclusion of all members of the Student Body, faculty, and staff. 

A statement to the same effect was crafted by the EC and included in said email. We choose to include a screenshot below:

Those statements were issued without the prior knowledge or consent of the student body. Additionally, they were made, as you can see from the text of the email, to appear as unanimous. 

How could such a radical set of statements be made without serious deliberation, much less without transparency or student input? Well, a few days before the aforementioned board meeting, another EC email was sent out stating that the EC would be meeting with the Board to discuss “recent developments across the country on the issue of race, including the focus on Confederate monuments and symbols, and the impact these events are having on Washington and Lee University.” A form was also included so that students could comment on those aforementioned issues. Does that email make it sound like a few short days later the EC would be issuing a statement stating that it unambiguously and unanimously supports changing the name? No, because the name change issue wasn’t mentioned a single time in this first EC email nor were students informed that the EC was considering crafting such a statement.

Perhaps the form for comments on “recent developments” counts as their outreach about changing the very fabric of our university. At best, that’s underhanded and misleading. At worst, it’s dishonorable. As the EC's primary function is to maintain the honor of the student body, these actions raise serious questions regarding their ability to remain honorable as they arguably breached the community's trust.

That secrecy and inability of students to properly comment on the name change issue was possible only because the EC did not follow its normal procedures. It had a closed meeting about a topic that students weren’t properly informed of nor were we given proper guidance on what topic our comments should pertain to. “Developments across the country on the issue of race” and “Confederate monuments and symbols” are far different topics than changing the name of our institution, stripping portraits off diplomas, and an assault on Greek Life.

But my opinion on what proper procedures isn’t what matters. Instead, what matters is what the student body constitution says. Our student body constitution states that for an EC business meeting to be closed, which this one was, it should have started as an open business meeting that was open to and announced to students, and can then become closed with a 2/3 vote of the EC. Doing so creates some level of transparency and allows students to comment on relevant issues. We were not granted that opportunity, and, as far as I can tell, there never was an open EC business meeting that took place before the closed one. So, if the business meeting was closed, but students were not allowed to weigh in, how were the EC’s procedures constitutional? Note: The SBC can be viewed here: https://my.wlu.edu/executive-committee/student-government/student-body-constitution

An overly charitable and conciliatory view of events would let the EC skate by on account of creating that form for comments and saying that was the “open” portion of the meeting. But, because we weren’t aware of what was actually being discussed, I don’t think that creating one comment form about an ambiguous subject fulfilled their responsibility to let us comment on the issue at hand or know that an EC meeting on the issue of radically altering W&L was taking place. In any case, the deceitful nature of this EC decision has significantly weakened its claim that it represents the student body; it now appears as if the EC is instead acting to fulfill the wishes of a few campus radicals. Also, the fact that the EC’s vote and meeting on its decision to support changing the name was closed means that minutes will not be released. As a result, we who were not allowed to comment ahead of time can’t even learn what our representatives actually thought about the issue. 

Furthermore, if the EC’s decision to state its wholehearted support for changing the name and nature of our university is such an honorable, reasonable decision, then why did it need to be cloaked in secrecy? If it’s such a universally agreed upon subject, then why were students not given the opportunity to comment or even know that a meeting on the subject of hiding our history was taking place? This entire operation was, in my opinion, suspicious and dishonorable. I feel that my trust in the EC to do its due diligence and respect and represent the views of all students was betrayed.

This EC decision to unambiguously support changing the name and attacking W&L’s culture in other ways was a dangerous grasp of power. No EC members ran on a platform of purging our university’s namesakes. The EC had not brought this issue up beforehand. We weren’t even granted the privilege of receiving the relevant EC minutes on the subject so we might understand how they reached and justified such a radical decision. Moreover, in the subsequent town hall to discuss changing the name, the EC refused to state which members voted for the statement and which voted against it. Such important and radical measures should not be cloaked in secrecy. This issue is one that calls for transparency and open conversations, not surprise announcements and top secret meetings.

As if its reactionary decision to change the name wasn’t bad enough, the EC is not listening to or treating all students equally. Throughout this process, our EC members have only listened to and represented one side of the debate; that would be, of course, the side that wants to change the name. In doing so, they claim to be representing the perspective of minority students. That’s well and good, but it’s a problem for a student government that is supposed to represent all students, not just those who have had their feelings hurt by the name of the university they chose to attend. 

For one, assuming all minority students feel the same way and are “hurt” by going to a college named after certain historical figures is in itself racist. People of all backgrounds think of issues in different ways, it’s offensive to segregate them into block views of an issue. Also, because there are minority students that don’t want to change the name, it shows the EC isn’t even listening to those it claims to be listening to! Or, perhaps it's just being dishonest about who it is listening to. Far from listening to even all minorities, it is only listening to those who feel “oppressed” or “victimized” by the name of a school they volunteered to attend. After reaching out to an EC rep, who told me the EC was mainly listening to people who felt “hurt” by the name, that’s the impression I got of who the EC is listening to. The fact that such a small, unelected, radical, out of touch faction is able to set policy for our Executive Committee is absurd and disappointing. All students should be heard, not just those who claim to have the greatest grievances. The other issue is that the EC’s refusal to listen to the opinions of those who favor the status quo means that the majority of students aren’t being listened to and aren’t having their voices represented. The members of the EC are supposed to represent the student body, not go off chasing a radical agenda and pretending that everyone agrees with them or that those that don’t agree aren’t worth listening to.

To me, the EC’s dismissal of an entire swathe of students feels like a betrayal of the community’s trust. They should be listening to everyone in this debate, especially given its profound significance to our community. Instead, many of our EC representatives have shown an utter lack of respect for many students and are behaving in a dishonorable fashion. 

That’s not an attack on all of the EC members personally, but rather its actions as an organization. I know for a fact that many of them are good people and care about the school. But, right now, they’re not acting with restraint, in the best interest of the school, or even with respect towards its student body. One EC rep, for example, stated that the only reason he chose W&L was because he “already had JMU season tickets and [W&L Law] was the closest law school to Bridgeforth Stadium.” Is that really the type of person who we want representing the student body’s opinion to the Board? Most people would be incredibly grateful for the chance to go to Washington & Lee because they love its campus culture, rigorous academics, and many other positive attributes. That EC rep, however, just cares about proximity to a different school’s sporting events. We deserve better. W&L deserves better. The EC needs to do better. 

To those EC reps that read this, if you disagreed with the statement put forth by your organization, I challenge you to speak out and make your voice heard. Right now, it appears as if all of you have ignored the majority of the student body and have not only not represented us, but also actively avoided seeking input on this matter. If you want to be remembered well, speak up now.

In contrast to the horrific handling of this matter by the EC, I think the Board handled it quite well. In fact, the Board’s statement that not only has a committee been created to look into the matter of changing the name, but also that 

“There will be opportunities for the community to express their opinions to the Board, including focus groups with students, faculty and staff and outreach to alumni. More information on these opportunities will be forthcoming soon. We have not established a timeline for completion of this process but know that it will be a primary focus of the Board in the coming months alongside our focus on the health and safety of our community in light of COVID-19.”

I found that statement to be reassuring. It shows that unlike our own student representatives, Washington & Lee’s Board of Trustees actually cares about what the community thinks, is committed to making a well thought out decision, and is in no rush to betray our namesakes. Perhaps our student representatives could learn a thing or two from that.

The Executive Committee is supposed to uphold the honor system and oversee student self-governance. Those are its areas of responsibility, not deciding on changing the name of the school or erasing institutional history. In the future, it should stick to its proper purview and avoid placing itself in situations where its open disdain for a large fraction of the student body is manifested. Furthermore, in future decisions related to campus issues, it should embody the honor system it claims to uphold and refrain from using underhanded means and twisting its own procedures to allow it to misrepresent the views of the student body.

For those of you that are students and were as upset by the EC’s recent decision as I was, here is the link to their contact information so that you can comment on this process (Note: I would like to ask only students, if they so desire, to use this contact information):  https://my.wlu.edu/executive-committee/2020-2021-executive-committee

On a more positive note, if you would like to email the Board of Trustees to express your admiration for their measured and thoughtful response, here is the email address to use: boardoftrustees@wlu.edu