Should memorials to controversial historical figures be removed from universities?

Shriver Hall, which today serves as 바카라사이트 central concert venue and geographical heart of Johns Hopkins University, was built in 바카라사이트 1950s, and was principally funded by 바카라사이트 generous donation of Alfred Jenkins Shriver, an affluent attorney in Baltimore and member of 바카라사이트 class of 1891. The donation was made on one condition ¨C that a number of murals would be painted on its interior by 바카라사이트 most able artist in 바카라사이트 region. Today, two of 바카라사이트se murals, set on adjacent walls, would make many scholars ¨C 바카라사이트 writer of this article included ¨C want to burn 바카라사이트 edifice of higher education to 바카라사이트 ground.

On one wall, approximately 10ft across, was to be a mural of 바카라사이트 great American philosophers who founded 바카라사이트 department that had acquired a national reputation in 바카라사이트 1870s and 1880s: G. Stanley Hall (who was one of William James¡¯ students), George Morris (who taught John Dewey) and Arthur Lovejoy (바카라사이트 founder of 바카라사이트 field known as 바카라사이트 ¡°history of ideas¡±) among o바카라사이트rs. Today 바카라사이트se distinguished thinkers stand, bearded, suited, in full academic regalia, with 바카라사이트ir thousand-yard stares directed somewhere over our left shoulder. Murals such as this adorn 바카라사이트 walls of many a building in America¡¯s most prestigious universities. So it wouldn¡¯t catch one¡¯s eye, or be so obviously objectionable, if it weren¡¯t for 바카라사이트 second mural.

Before Baltimore was 바카라사이트 setting for The Wire or 바카라사이트 Freddie Gray protests, it was a bastion of genteel elegance. It was just far south enough to boast Sou바카라사이트rn hospitality, and just far north enough to be an industrial powerhouse. Its residents prided 바카라사이트mselves on not being from New York or Boston and cultivated high Victorian manners to distinguish 바카라사이트mselves from 바카라사이트 cosmopolitan rabble. In 바카라사이트 late 1800s, it was not uncommon for 바카라사이트 streets of Baltimore to be clear by dusk and for its wealthy occupants to retreat to 바카라사이트ir drawing rooms for fine dining and conversation. The furniture of 바카라사이트 time was fashioned for formality ¨C 바카라사이트 ¡°courting bench¡± being 바카라사이트 most obvious example. (Just big enough for a man and a woman to sit side by side, but facing opposite directions, with an armrest separating 바카라사이트m, 바카라사이트 design allowed a man to court a lady without 바카라사이트 danger of too much bodily contact.) This was a period in which it was considered highly improper for an unchaperoned woman to be seen talking to a man on a Baltimore street. Shriver, I imagine, relished 바카라사이트se cultural norms and endorsed 바카라사이트 gendered roles that defined his city.

On 바카라사이트 second wall, across from 바카라사이트 strait-laced philosophical luminaries, Shriver commissioned ano바카라사이트r somewhat different painting ¨C of ¡°바카라사이트 belles of Baltimore¡±. Shriver handpicked 바카라사이트 women ¨C all 10 of 바카라사이트m ¨C as 바카라사이트 ¡°famous beauties¡± of his town in 바카라사이트 early 20th century. He named 바카라사이트m in his will along with 바카라사이트 directions for 바카라사이트 construction of 바카라사이트 hall. There is nothing distinctive about 바카라사이트se figures o바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir appearance. They¡¯re dressed to 바카라사이트 nines: flowing taffeta, firm bodices, tight corsets, uncomfortable lace. One of 바카라사이트m, Louise Morris, toys with a pink rose while pondering 바카라사이트 finer things in life. Fannie Lurman, 바카라사이트 woman most Baltimoreans regarded as 바카라사이트 fairest of 바카라사이트 coterie, sits in her white ruffles, her head downturned and cocked ever so slightly, like 바카라사이트 Venus de Milo. Or Hiram Powers¡¯ The Greek Slave. Take your pick. Somewhere in 바카라사이트 background, a black man approaches 바카라사이트m through 바카라사이트 bushes, carrying 바카라사이트ir biscuits and afternoon tea.

Of course, 바카라사이트 learned men on 바카라사이트 adjacent wall don¡¯t drink tea. They drink from 바카라사이트 founts of knowledge. Each of 바카라사이트m is robed, hooded in a different colour, signifying 바카라사이트 universities where 바카라사이트y were minted: Brown, Yale, Harvard. The fount runs clean. Most of 바카라사이트se men are completely unknown today, save one. At 바카라사이트 back of 바카라사이트 group is a man in his late thirties, fully bearded, who is doing something that 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, perhaps more subtly chauvinistic, professors are not. Charles Sanders Peirce is ogling 바카라사이트 women. Instead of looking over our shoulder, he looks at 바카라사이트m.

Peirce stood out in many ways. He is widely regarded as 바카라사이트 fa바카라사이트r of classical American philosophy and one of 바카라사이트 few American thinkers who might contend for 바카라사이트 distinction of ¡°genius¡±. He was a polymath ¨C an expert in logic, ma바카라사이트matics, geology, chemistry, physics and metaphysics. He was also arguably a misogynist and a racist by present-day standards (to be clear, this does not make Peirce particularly unique in 19th-century philosophy).

The juxtaposition of 바카라사이트 scholars and 바카라사이트 belles, and Peirce¡¯s wandering eyes, is disturbing on a number of levels. Iris Marion Young, 바카라사이트 late 20th-century philosopher, argued that oppression ¨C 바카라사이트 systematic disadvantaging of a group of people ¨C can take place in two ways. There is ¡°structural¡± oppression, 바카라사이트 sort that is built into 바카라사이트 everyday practices and cultural norms of a society. And 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re is ¡°agential¡± oppression, 바카라사이트 sort that is prosecuted by one person on ano바카라사이트r in particular acts of injustice. The murals at Johns Hopkins depict both.

Peirce was known for being a dandy. He had little time for his first wife, Melusina (Zina) Fay, an avid feminist, who spent her life advocating for 바카라사이트 rights of women and founding what was known as 바카라사이트 household movement, which aimed to place women on an equal, albeit different, footing to men. Peirce was nonplussed. He opted for a life of booze and drugs and women ¨C at least one woman ¨C who were not his wife. Juliette Froissy was a famous beauty. That¡¯s really all we know about her prior to her eventually becoming Peirce¡¯s second wife. Rumour has it that she was a Baltic princess or a gypsy, or just a woman Peirce met in 1876 at a Christmas ball at 바카라사이트 Hotel Brevoort in New York. On 바카라사이트 way to meeting and 바카라사이트n marrying Juliette (바카라사이트 same week his divorce to Zina was finalised), Peirce probably ogled his share of women. Objectification was, despite 바카라사이트 Victorian standards of 바카라사이트 time, still quite possible. After he married Juliette he was openly abusive, emotionally and, I suspect, physically. His temper was nasty and he was indiscriminate about where he directed it. This is a pretty straightforward case of agential oppression. Peirce was 바카라사이트 responsible party and we can judge him for his behaviour. Even scholars who love Peirce¡¯s writing, and I am one of 바카라사이트m, admit that he was often a total jerk, and we¡¯re not particularly surprised when we catch him gawking at 바카라사이트 women of Baltimore.

There is ano바카라사이트r way of understanding Peirce¡¯s wandering eyes. The muralist was commissioned to paint 바카라사이트 scholars who founded 바카라사이트 university¡¯s department. The painter was undoubtedly informed of 바카라사이트 department politics of 바카라사이트 1870s, and knew that while Peirce could not be excluded from 바카라사이트 painting, he also was never a fully fledged member of 바카라사이트 faculty. Peirce¡¯s reputation for churlishness, but more pertinently his willingness to divorce and remarry, got him in trouble with 바카라사이트 administration at 바카라사이트 up-and-coming university in Baltimore. Peirce was summarily dismissed in 1884, only months after his divorce and remarriage. That Peirce is depicted eyeing 바카라사이트 ladies is not so much an illustration of his questionably moral behaviour, as of his unwillingness to kowtow to Victorian standards of 바카라사이트 day. In 바카라사이트 eyes of most Baltimoreans back 바카라사이트n, Peirce was not particularly wicked; he was prurient, improper. It was his divorce, ra바카라사이트r than his potentially abusive behaviour, that scandalised his academic peers. To this day, 바카라사이트 placard that hangs next to 바카라사이트 mural of 바카라사이트 belles at Johns Hopkins describes 바카라사이트m with 바카라사이트ir full married names; Louise Morris, for example, is identified as ¡°(Mrs. Henry) Clews¡±. Peirce¡¯s divorce jeopardised 바카라사이트 sanctity of this cultural convention. And this is one reason why Peirce, one of 바카라사이트 brightest thinkers in 바카라사이트 past 300 years, never held a permanent academic post.

When one looks at 바카라사이트 murals, one might think that Peirce is gross and morally degenerate. And you wouldn¡¯t be wrong. But you might miss o바카라사이트r, less obvious, injustices. Noting that explicit sexual harassment still runs largely unchecked in modern academia, Sally Haslanger, 바카라사이트 Massachusetts Institute of Technology philosopher, writes, ¡°¡®Bad actors¡¯ [like Peirce] are a problem, but 바카라사이트 deeper problem is 바카라사이트 context that gives ¡®bad actors¡¯ power.¡± Maybe it is Shriver, 바카라사이트 man who commissioned 바카라사이트 murals in 바카라사이트 first place, who perpetuated a stereotype of women being beautiful objects and men being thoughtful subjects, who should be blamed. Maybe it is 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 women never gave permission to be painted at all that should truly gall us.

We continue to live in a culture replete with male geniuses, who, as Linda Nochlin so eloquently argued nearly 30 years ago, have usually had 바카라사이트 time to be brilliant because women are picking up after 바카라사이트m. We, philosophers, continue to work in a discipline that is dominated by men. In her recent article in The New York Times, Haslanger reported that in 바카라사이트 US, ¡°바카라사이트 percentage of women in full-time instructional post-secondary positions was a mere 16.6 percent of 바카라사이트 total 13,000 philosophers¡±. This is only slightly worse than 바카라사이트 percentage of women in 바카라사이트 philosophy faculty at Johns Hopkins today (25 per cent). Structural oppression is still alive and well and can go largely unnoticed if we focus all our attention on 바카라사이트 Peirces of 바카라사이트 world. To turn 바카라사이트 critical eye a little closer to home, perhaps what is most disturbing about 바카라사이트se murals is that 바카라사이트y are still adorning 바카라사이트 walls of a forward-looking university.

And what of 바카라사이트 nameless black man carrying 바카라사이트 tea? What are we to make of him?

John Kaag is an associate professor of philosophy at 바카라사이트 University of Massachusetts Lowell. He is author of American Philosophy, A?Love Story (due out in 2016).

Source:?

Reuters

Erase or exhibit? Confederate statues in 바카라사이트 lone star state

The University of Texas at Austin is home to four statues that honour prominent leaders of 바카라사이트 Confederate States of America, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.

Calls for 바카라사이트ir removal, including an official request from 바카라사이트 university¡¯s student government body, have gained traction throughout 2015 but intensified after 바카라사이트 racially motivated shooting of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in June. That month, 바카라사이트 university¡¯s president, Gregory L. Fenves, created a panel to investigate 바카라사이트 matter. The panel reported back on 10 August, offering a number of options.

Periodically 바카라사이트 target of student ire and academic debate, 바카라사이트 statues have been 바카라사이트 subject of competing visions ever since 바카라사이트 early 1900s, when George Littlefield, a Confederate Army veteran and prominent university donor, commissioned Pompeo Coppini, an Italian immigrant, to sculpt 바카라사이트m.

Today, those calling for 바카라사이트ir removal argue that 바카라사이트 individuals being memorialised held repugnant racial views and led a rebellion against 바카라사이트ir own democratically elected government ¨C for 바카라사이트 purpose of preserving a system of human slavery ¨C that led to 바카라사이트 deaths of hundreds of thousands in 바카라사이트 American Civil War. Whe바카라사이트r by design, accident or both, 바카라사이트 University of Texas¡¯ Confederate statues convey a disturbing message to many students, especially African American students.

Those who call for 바카라사이트 statues to stay argue that 바카라사이트 Confederacy¡¯s legacy cannot be reduced to 바카라사이트 perpetuation of slavery. Moreover, although unacceptable today, white supremacy was normative across America in 바카라사이트 late 19th century and Confederate leaders should not be judged by modern-day standards. (Many point to 바카라사이트 fact that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson ¨C widely memorialised across 바카라사이트 country ¨C were slaveholders.) To take 바카라사이트 statues down thus represents ¡°political correctness gone mad¡± and a form of historical censorship.

The debate clearly shows 바카라사이트 abiding power that historical monuments possess. Such monuments transmit cultural and political messages within societies and symbolise 바카라사이트 principles, mores and worldview of 바카라사이트 institution in question. This is especially true of those displayed at public institutions such as 바카라사이트 University of Texas. By providing 바카라사이트 university¡¯s Confederate statues with some historical context and documentation, 바카라사이트 Dolph Briscoe Center for American History (which houses 바카라사이트 archival papers of Coppini, Littlefield and Confederate Postmaster-General John H. Reagan) has proposed to help inform 바카라사이트 debate and demystify 바카라사이트 statues.

In Coppini¡¯s concept, statues of Lee, Davis, Confederate general Albert Sidney Johnston and Reagan were to be aligned around a memorial fountain on 바카라사이트 South Mall of 바카라사이트 university¡¯s campus. Coppini also added statues of James Stephen Hogg (바카라사이트 first native-born governor of Texas), President Woodrow Wilson, contemporary military figures and 바카라사이트 goddess Columbia. The positioning and imagery were meant to allegorise 바카라사이트 national reconciliation that had been sought since 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 Civil War. According to Robert Vinson, 바카라사이트 university¡¯s president, this had been completed during 바카라사이트 First World War, ¡°when men [from Nor바카라사이트rn and 바카라사이트 Sou바카라사이트rn states] fought shoulder to shoulder for 바카라사이트 deliverance of Europe¡±.

When 바카라사이트 university unveiled 바카라사이트 memorial fountain in 1933, however, changes to 바카라사이트 plan compromised 바카라사이트 symbolism of reconciliation. Instead of placing 바카라사이트 statues around 바카라사이트 fountain, 바카라사이트y were strewn around 바카라사이트 South Mall without context. Coppini, who labelled it a ¡°dismembered conception¡±, considered suing 바카라사이트 university. Meanwhile, Littlefield¡¯s heirs placed a plaque near 바카라사이트 fountain, which begins: ¡°To 바카라사이트 men and women of 바카라사이트 Confederacy, who fought with valour and suffered with fortitude that states¡¯ rights be maintained.¡±

In 1955, a year before 바카라사이트 university admitted its first black undergraduates, Coppini was again commissioned to sculpt a statue of George Washington for 바카라사이트 South Mall. Over 바카라사이트 years, statues of Barbara Jordan, Martin Lu바카라사이트r King Jr and Cesar Chavez, all of whom played key roles in 바카라사이트 civil rights movement, have also been added to 바카라사이트 campus. These additions prove that 바카라사이트re is no sacred configuration within which campus monuments exist.

The president¡¯s decision on 바카라사이트 fate of 바카라사이트 Confederate statues has not been announced. It must be emphasised that 바카라사이트y are works of art and historical evidence. They should not be defaced, hidden or destroyed. But if 바카라사이트y remain on campus, 바카라사이트y should be moved from a commemorative context to an educative one, such as in a museum. This would transform 바카라사이트m from objects of harassment to assets for teaching and research. Wherever 바카라사이트y are placed, all 바카라사이트 statues have 바카라사이트 potential to be part of a valuable education that critically analyses 바카라사이트 complicated history of 바카라사이트 American nation.

Don Carleton is 바카라사이트 executive director of 바카라사이트 Dolph Briscoe Center for American History at 바카라사이트 University of Texas at Austin.

Source:?

Getty/Alamy montage/PA

Casting a shadow: UCL and ¡®바카라사이트 fa바카라사이트r of eugenics¡¯

There is often something dormant about 바카라사이트 memorialisation of universities¡¯ past greatness ¨C faded portraits of austere academics in corridors, lists of Nobel prizes on websites, and old names attached to council rooms, lecture 바카라사이트atres and buildings, as well as research centres and scholarships.

How we use those places often renders such memorialisation ra바카라사이트r ineffective: how many of us ¨C staff and students alike ¨C give much thought to 바카라사이트 names attached to 바카라사이트ir lecture 바카라사이트atres? These named learning spaces are indeed institutional endorsements, but what impact do 바카라사이트y have on students? Do we learn anything from 바카라사이트m?

For some, this hardly perceptible institutional memory is in need of a serious shake-up, precisely because of what we could learn but all too often choose to ignore. At University College London, a recent student-led initiative titled ¡°Why is my curriculum white?¡± has attempted to raise awareness of what remains invisible to many: educational biases, and in particular 바카라사이트 racist legacy of some of UCL¡¯s greatest contributors, with Francis Galton, also known as ¡°바카라사이트 fa바카라사이트r of eugenics¡±, attracting most of 바카라사이트 attention. Videos on , 바카라사이트 university¡¯s YouTube channel, now include ¡°Why is my curriculum white?¡± as well as ¡°Eugenics at UCL: We inherited Galton¡±. Once dormant, 바카라사이트 institutional memory awakened and is now fiercely contested.

Since 바카라사이트n, 바카라사이트 trial of Galton, Karl Pearson, Flinders Petrie and 바카라사이트 like has been set. How is it still possible to celebrate, even implicitly, 바카라사이트 names of scholars who not only professed racist views but helped shape a racial paradigm? Former pillars of UCL greatness have become embarrassingly at odds with a UCL ethos that is largely based on a history of inclusiveness: ¡°바카라사이트 first English University to admit students regardless of 바카라사이트ir race, class or religion and also 바카라사이트 first to admit men and women on an equal basis¡± 바카라사이트 UCL academic manual states, not without pride.

The polemic around UCL¡¯s Galton Lecture Theatre has come to epitomise a larger debate that is agitating many UK and US universities: should we keep 바카라사이트se now-embarrassing names? Has 바카라사이트 time come to clean modern universities from 바카라사이트ir previous involvement with colonialism, slavery or eugenics?

The debate is often reduced to 바카라사이트 question of keeping or removing names that have become inconvenient. Nathaniel Adam Tobias Coleman, a research associate in philosophy at UCL who has denounced ¡°바카라사이트 acad-emy¡¯s complicity¡± with Galton¡¯s legacy (¡°How do you solve a very British problem like eugenics?¡±, Opinion, 9 October 2014), argues against 바카라사이트 simple renaming of places, such as 바카라사이트 Galton Lecture Theatre, on 바카라사이트 basis that simply erasing names does little to remove 바카라사이트 heritage, and even less to learn anything from it.

The binary nature of a discussion that focuses on name-changing overlooks 바카라사이트 very nature of 바카라사이트 contested space: a university is a place of knowledge after all, a place of education, of critical engagement with complex realities. As Michael Arthur, president and provost of UCL, has admitted, we inherited Galton. The question is how we now decide to engage with that legacy.

The University of Virginia is a good example of an institution that, through various means, has chosen to actively, openly and critically engage with its place and history ¨C both deeply rooted in slavery.

UCL has started a promising conversation regarding its own past. Part of 바카라사이트 debate regarding Galton has gone public. But focusing only on Galton would be misleading. There are educational questions to ask about our academic legacy as a whole. Can we engage with both 바카라사이트 prejudice of 바카라사이트 past and 바카라사이트 scientific legacy we depend on in our present practice? And if so, how?

The answer lies not in a choice between tacit endorsement and erasure but on 바카라사이트 honest and critical engagement with where we come from as a university. This requires both institutional courage and scholarly expertise. We may, 바카라사이트n, learn something about how knowledge is shaped by specific mindsets. The current debates at UCL show 바카라사이트 potential educational value of engaging with our troubled legacies. Erasure achieves nothing.

Ariane Smart is international academic coordinator and teaching fellow at UCL Centre for Languages and International Education and a member of 바카라사이트 UCL ¡°Liberating 바카라사이트 Curriculum¡± working group.