College named after Robert E. Lee is taking down its Confederate flags

[bigtree]

Vox ?@voxdotcom 2m
A college named after Robert E. Lee is taking down its Confederate flags: http://vox.com/e/5647880

A Virginia college has displayed Confederate flags next to a statue of Robert E. Lee for at least 80 years. On Tuesday, Washington & Lee University agreed to take the flags down.

The display, in the chapel where Lee is buried, looked like this:



The private Virginia college also acknowledged that owning slaves for 26 years in the 19th century was "a regrettable chapter of our history."

But Washington & Lee, named in part after the Confederate general who served as its president after the Civil War, isn't promising to cancel classes on Martin Luther King, Jr., day. (It commemorates the day now with speakers and service projects.) Nor will the university stop the Sons of Confederate Veterans from holding events in its chapel, as protests from a group of law students have demanded . . .


President Ruscio's Message to the Community on July 8

In a message to the Washington and Lee community on April 21, I indicated that I would continue to communicate with you as necessary about issues raised this past spring by some law students and covered extensively in the media.

Ever since the students' letter to me and to members of the Board of Trustees became public, misinformation and erroneous assumptions have combined with emotionally charged reactions to create more heat than light. The often divisive nature of the conversations may have occasionally diverted our attention from these essential questions: How do we sustain a community that is based on mutual respect for everyone? How do we effectively celebrate our varied backgrounds and experiences as well as what we have in common?

As we examine these questions and the broader issues, though, I want to report here on several specific questions. In considering them, I have tried to call upon our principal values at Washington and Lee - our respect for one another, the civility we accord each other even when we disagree, our appeals to reason rather than emotion, our reverence for history along with our courage to examine it critically and learn from it, and our focus on the future even as we draw strength from the past.

These qualities complicate rather than simplify the resolution of these issues. That is the price an institution with a firm set of values and a complex history should willingly pay. These are legitimately complicated matters, and they are often uncomfortable, too; I fervently hope that one of the outcomes of these deliberations is that we become more comfortable dealing with them than we have been before.

1. The question about the regimental battle flags in Lee Chapel requires us to clarify the purpose, meaning and history of the flags, as well as the purpose and meaning of the chapel and the museum below the chapel. In 1930, several original and historic battle flags - "colors" that had been captured or surrendered to the Union army - were placed near the statue of Lee. The University did not own them. They were the property of the Museum of the Confederacy, now part of the American Civil War Museum, which asked us to return them in the 1990s because the manner of display in the chapel was causing their deterioration. They were replaced with reproductions, which are not historic and are not genuine artifacts.

The purpose of historic flags in a university setting is to educate. They are not to be displayed for decoration, which would diminish their significance, or for glorification, or to make a statement about past conflicts. The reproductions are not genuinely historic; nor are they displayed with any information or background about what they are. The absence of such explanation allows those who either "oppose" or "support" them to assert their own subjective and frequently incorrect interpretations.

Consequently, we will remove these reproductions from their current location and will enter into an agreement with the American Civil War Museum, in Richmond, to receive on loan one or more of the original flags, now restored, for display on a rotating basis in the Lee Chapel Museum, the appropriate location for such a display. In this way, those who wish to view these artifacts may do so, and the stories behind them can be properly told. You may view a history of the flags in the chapel at http://go.wlu.edu/chapel-flags-history.

2. I will urge the undergraduate faculty to decide this fall whether to cancel classes on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The faculty have authority over the academic calendar. I trust their judgment and will support their decision. I will recommend, however, that they not cancel classes. The question has never been whether or not we "fully recognize" King Day; the question is how we choose to honor Dr. King. For many years, we have offered both the W&L and Lexington communities an impressive array of presentations, service projects and performances to commemorate Dr. King's life. I worry that this compelling series of events would give way to an uneventful three-day weekend. Canceling classes may have symbolic significance; I prefer the substance of our current programs over the symbolism of a day off.

3. The University will continue to study its historic involvement with slavery. We acknowledge that this was a regrettable chapter of our history, and we must confront and try to understand this chapter. At Washington and Lee, we learn from the past, and this is an episode from which there is much to learn. In 1826, Washington College came into possession of between 70 and 80 enslaved people from the estate of "Jockey" John Robinson. Until 1852, the institution benefited from their enslaved labor and, in some cases, from their sale. Acknowledging that historical record - and acknowledging the contributions of those individuals - will require coming to terms with a part of our past that we wish had been different but that we cannot ignore. We are committed to telling the University's history accurately, including the stories of many individuals who should not be overlooked. That process is now underway through a special working group that was initially convened last fall and has begun to develop a timeline of the history of African Americans at the University and to explore other ways in which we can illuminate and recognize this history. See http://go.wlu.edu/af-am-timeline.

4. Groups not affiliated with the University may continue to use Lee Chapel for events so long as they do so in accordance with our established policies and guidelines. This includes such non-University events as the annual lecture sponsored by an outside group as part of the statewide Lee-Jackson Day observance in Lexington. (W&L does not observe that state holiday.) As a private university, we are not bound by the same legal and constitutional First Amendment constraints as public institutions. As an educational institution devoted to free and open inquiry, however, we are bound by these values. We can and do impose conditions for Lee Chapel's use and for the use of all campus facilities. For example, a group may not "march" on our campus or use our campus as a platform for its own displays or statements. If it wishes to use the chapel for a lecture and adheres to our policies, however, it may do so.

5. In five years as president of Washington College (and in three as superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy), Robert E. Lee displayed his estimable skill as an innovative and inspiring educator. I personally take pride in his significant accomplishments here and will not apologize for the crucial role he played in shaping this institution. Affection for and criticism of historical figures living in complicated times are not mutually exclusive positions, however, as the scholar Joseph Ellis concluded after his study of Thomas Jefferson. Ellis found it difficult to "steer an honorable course between evisceration and idolatry" when it came to Jefferson. As I have listened to and read comments about Lee these past few months, I have felt the same way. Lee was an imperfect individual living in imperfect times. Lee deserves, and his record can withstand, an honest appraisal by those who understand the complexities of history. His considerable contributions to this institution are part of that record.

These important conversations will continue, as they should; they will be fruitful only if those on all sides are willing to listen to one another with respect. As challenging as these issues are, I firmly believe there is considerable common ground that we will find if we work together in a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation. I regret that the conversation seemed to begin with what divides us rather than what unites us. I hope the future is one of continued careful examination and further defining of our common purpose.

This is also an opportunity. I cannot imagine another institution more challenged by the complexity of history while at the same time more capable of illuminating not just our own history but the wider scope of our nation's. Our own arc of history traces that of our nation, from the founding period through the painful divide of the Civil War and up to the present time. We cannot and should not avoid these issues. Indeed, we ought to lead in addressing them.

I hope that will be the case.