I’m no history professor, but the proposal for a panel of them to advise seems pretty sensible to me. I also like the idea of ending the process with an interpretive display of the history inside Deady Hall, or whatever it may be called.
To: Members of the University of Oregon Community
From: President Michael H. Schill
Re: Process for considering the denaming of Deady and Dunn Halls
Date: May 6, 2016
Debates concerning university building and statuary naming and denaming decisions have placed several important issues front and center across the nation. One particular issue is the challenge many prestigious universities face as they grapple with how to recognize historic figures whose opinions and views have proved to be abhorrent by today’s moral standards. It’s a challenge, too, for the University of Oregon as well as a leadership opportunity. As an institution that embraces diversity and understands the critical importance of inclusion in preserving the university’s status as a flagship public research institution, the UO stands on the shoulders of prior generations of Oregonians. These architects and builders of its excellence and its legacy included people who, like many of their generation, fostered—and sometimes championed—supremacist ideologies and exclusionary practices that are anathema to the values of the university today. Thus, the university struggles, like many of its peers, with the challenge of how to honor the legacy of those who created the strong institution we value today, while acknowledging and grappling with their often deeply flawed personal views and hateful actions.
Our goal must be vigilance in celebrating the diversity of races, ethnicities, religious perspectives, genders, sexualities, and ideologies that empower our intellectually vibrant community, while acknowledging the flaws and the strengths of those who contributed to the university’s legacy, some of whose flaws have been too long ignored. Just as this nation wrestles with the need to acknowledge the deep personal flaws of many of its Founding Fathers, while still appreciating the sacrifice and foresight they brought to the creation of our republic, the University of Oregon must examine the entire legacy of those whose efforts created our institution. We must acknowledge that an uncritical celebration of those whose thoughts and actions contributed to historic oppression adds to an environment that is perceived as hostile and unwelcoming to many people whose contributions are today so critical to the success of the university and society at large.
It is within this context that the University of Oregon, as a leading research institution that encourages lifelong learning as well as academic excellence, will take on the question of whether the names of Dunn and Deady Halls should be changed, using the process and the criteria set forth below.
In February, I charged a working group of faculty and staff members, students, and community members to suggest to me a set of criteria for denaming buildings on campus. I received that report and a separate report written by one member of the working group. Over the ensuing weeks I have consulted with a variety of faculty members and representatives of various campus constituencies, including some deans, members of the Black Student Task Force, and senior administrators. I would very much like to thank the working group for its careful analysis of the problem. Similarly, I would like to thank the Black Student Task Force for bringing the matter to my attention and for providing me with valuable insight and advice.
After these consultations and a good deal of reflection, I have decided to implement the following criteria and process to address the question of whether the names of Dunn Hall and Deady Hall should be changed. The criteria, while informed by the efforts of the working group on denaming buildings, are my work product and not theirs. Building on their recommendations, and after deliberation and consultation, I have determined to follow this process for an examination of whether to dename Dunn Hall, Deady Hall, or both.
Criteria for Denaming Dunn and/or Deady Halls
A building shall be considered for denaming if the person for whom a building is named acted in one of the following ways:
- Actively sponsored legislation or lobbied on behalf of laws and policies that perpetuated historic and contemporary acts of genocide and indigenous dispossession, slavery or internment, and/or promoted exclusionary migration or immigration laws, restrictive naturalization and voting laws, antimiscegenation laws, alien land laws, and laws or practices promoting racial segregation in housing and public accommodations.
- Promoted violence against an individual or group based on race, gender, religion, immigration status, sexual identity, or political affiliation.
- Was a member of a nongovernmental organization or society that promoted or engaged in acts of violence or intimidation targeting individuals or groups based on race, gender, religion, immigration status, sexual identity, or political affiliation.
- Engaged in practices, behaviors, or other actions that contravene the values articulated in the university’s mission statement and bring infamy or dishonor to the university.
- Demonstrated discriminatory, racist, homophobic, or misogynist views that actively promoted systemic oppression, taking into consideration the mores of the era in which he or she lived.
- Failed to take redemptive action, particularly in the context of the specific actions and behaviors set forth above.
Procedures
I will appoint a panel of three historians with demonstrated knowledge of the history of the state of Oregon and charge that panel with the task of examining the commemoration of Dunn and Deady Halls in light of the criteria set forth above. Specifically, the panel will be asked to evaluate whether Matthew Deady or Frederic Dunn engaged in the actions or behaviors set forth in the first five enumerated criteria above and, if so, whether their lives showed evidence of redemption (criterion number 6).
The panel will be asked to seek input from a broad array of sources, focused on information from the historical record. To the extent relevant information is available from persons outside the group, they should feel free to contact those individuals.
Once the panel of history experts reports back to me, a moderated webpage will be established by the university on which the report will be published and where individuals will be able to register their own views on whether the halls should be renamed. To the extent practical, information on the historical records of Dunn and Deady will also be published on the website.
I will take under consideration the reports of the panel of history experts, the material posted on the website, and any other relevant information, and decide whether to recommend the denaming of Deady and/or Dunn Halls to the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon. If I decide to recommend a denaming of one or both buildings, I will forward that recommendation to the board for final decision. If I decide not to recommend such a denaming, the matter will be deemed closed.
Regardless of whether I recommend denaming the halls to the board, I will entertain appropriate steps by which the university may acknowledge the full and accurate record of Dunn and Deady’s impact on the history of the university and the state of Oregon—and commit to the following:
- The creation of interpretive displays to be erected in a prominent place in Dunn and Deady Halls explaining each building’s history, the history of those with whom the buildings were affiliated, and how those histories might be viewed in their own times and in contemporary Oregon.
- A program for the installation of interpretive apparatuses, as appropriate, in selected campus buildings, statuary, and other permanent commemorative installations that outline their respective histories, the histories of those after whom they’ve been named, inclusive of all historical information.
- Genuine efforts to erect other representative icons on campus that speak to the contributions of underrepresented peoples at the university, in the region, across the state, and throughout the United States at large.
President Schill has done an excellent job of managing this controversy. His criteria is sound and his decision to engage historians to provide an unbiased look at the history is wise. Allowing a public comment period on the historian report is a great example of participatory democracy.
Finally, President Schill also nails it when he commits to putting up interpretative displays to address issues like the life of Matthew Deady.
This is how an institution of higher education should act.
While I disagree with Alec Boyd on the Deady renaming I wholeheartedly agree with this comment.
President Schill has demonstrated the leadership qualities he suggests our entire university can play on this issue.
The first thing any good historian should tell you is that there is no such thing as an unbiased look at history. That’s largely what led us to the current moment.
Call me old school, but I think that historians should strive for “unbiased.” I believe that history is something that ideally should be “uncovered” not manufactured. The mantra that it is impossible to be unbiased, while strictly speaking true, all too often seems to be a justification for the kind of pseudo-history we see popularized by “historicans” like David Barton. President Schill, I think, does not want the his historians to act with a preconceived outcome in mind, but to look at the evidence and provide him with an interpretation that they believe fairly represents what is being evidenced. I call that an “unbiased look.” You can feel free to disagree, but I think you picking at nits.
There is very little reason to believe that three historians can address the issues that the community group introduced. First, historians are likely to hold very different opinions about these historical characters depending on their area of expertise (even if we narrow to the PNW or to OR). For example, a specialist on tribal sovereignty is likely to have a very different opinion of Deady than someone who wrote his biography (or the equivalent). How is Schill going to construct this panel?
Second, the very terms of the debate belittle the contemporary experience of race on the University of Oregon campus. A more relevant expert may be someone like Daniel HoSang who can address the ways in which racial regimes perpetuate contemporary hierarchies. HoSang may have his reasons to side with keeping the buildings’ names (or not), yet there would at least be someone in the room who can offer insight into how these debates over history affect contemporary race relations.
I would hope that the purpose of the panel is to serve as expert witnesses who can supply knowledgeable and contextualized information about all sides of this issue, which can then be used to make a good decision which is in line with the priorities of the university community. But it seems likely to me that what’s going to happen is that instead we’ll get an “unbiased” tribunal passing retroactive judgment on whether or not Dunn and Deady were racists (whatever that means). As Dr. Arendt correctly points out, this completely misses the point of renaming.
First, the point of the three expert panel is not to opine on “the contemporary experience of race on the University of Oregon campus.” The point of the three expert panel is to delve into the historical record to ascertain what the historical record indicates about Deady as to Schill’s six criteria.
For example, the second criteria is:
2. Promoted violence against an individual or group based on race, gender, religion, immigration status, sexual identity, or political affiliation.
Whether this criteria is implicated is something that can be established by the historic record. We have access to a wealth of material about Deady and Dunn. We certainly don’t need a specialist on tribal sovereignty or critical race theory to ascertain what the historical record tells us with regard to that criteria. We just need someone without preconceived notions who can sift the available information (Deady’s diaries and writings, the public record, and information about Deady).
It’s a very useful criteria that is directly on-point to the issue here. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Deady ever promoted such violence. To the contrary, he was a vocal protector of the largest minority groups in Oregon (Asians and Native Americans) from violence. Dunn, on the other hand, does appear to have supported violence in his role with the local KKK.
President Schill acted, I think, entirely appropriately when he said:
“In order for us to achieve our mission of being inclusive or diverse, I don’t think we need to take a big symbolic action if that symbolic action is wrong. We need to actually do the right thing, and to do the right thing, it has to be based on knowledge and truth rather than an emotion. We’re an educational institution, right? Educational institutions are governed by the brain, not just by the heart. We would do a disservice to our mission as an educational institution if we were to take somebody’s name off a building when in reality it would be fine to be on the building. I have no desire to burn a historical figure in effigy in order to make me feel better and to make our students feel better. If it’s the right thing to do to take Deady’s name off of the building, then we should do that.”
UO is an educational institution. The Deady Hall controversy largely stems from, in my opinion, a misstating of history floated about a year ago. The issue is not whether some students don’t like Deady’s name on a building. The issue is whether the information that causes those students to not like Deady’s name on a building is accurate, full and complete. An institute of Higher Education should not shy away from educating students in the hope of banishing fears founded on ignorance or misinformation.
Boyd’s comments here, and President Schill’s plan and criteria for denaming are all good, except for one flaw. I believe the significance of a person’s accomplishments and contributions (beyond redemption) for the university and the state should be part of the equation– we are looking at the balance of the good and the bad in a long and active life..
Frankly, given Deady’s flagrant support of slavery and the Exclusion law we wouldn’t even consider keeping his name had he not done so much for the University of Oregon as a the head of the Board of Trustees and so much for the state as a pioneer, civic leader and Federal judge. He was a Great Man with a Great Flaw.
I see the importance of the three historians- objective as possible- in studying and evaluating the historic record. It will then be up to the community and the president to make an interpretation of its meaning.
If we remove his name it would be in spite of his accomplishments and “‘redemption”, and if we retain it, it will be in spite of his racist politics. Not a simple choice.
Good comments.
“If we remove his name it would be in spite of his accomplishments and ‘redemption’, and if we retain it, it will be in spite of his racist politics. Not a simple choice.”
To expand: I agree it is not a simple choice. But, an institute of higher education should not be reducing complex problems to simple choices.
Based on my reading of the historical record, Deady supported allowing slavery in a locale apparently devoid of slaves, when he didn’t own slaves, to no avail as the electorate disagreed, and for only a short period of time. It is a thought-crime of no real world import, and he changed his mind shortly thereafter (as evidenced by his switch from the pro-slavery Democratic Party to the anti-slavery Republican Party at the start of the Civil War).
Deady also, along with 90% of Oregonians, supported excluding blacks from the state. This legal exclusion, however, was quickly confined to the dustbin by the Civil War and never had any real world impact that I have seen.
But, on the other side of the ledger, Deady vocally supported the rights of native Americans, acted to protect the safety and rights of Asian immigrants from mob violence and discrimination as both a judge and as an opinion-making leading citizen, and championed the rights of women to become members of the Oregon Bar.
These are the complexities to the man which make the simple choices advocated by some opponents of Deady inappropriate. The largely irrelevant actions of Deady for a few years as a young man seem far outweighed, to me, by the decades of beneficial acts.
Add to that his role in building this state and University, and the choice, while remaining one which requires a complex and nuanced look, becomes which I find easy to make.
Agreed, Deady did many great things. Yes, I so stipulated.
However, you may find this a choice “which I find easy to make.” I don’t. In fact I’m amazed at all those who see this as a clear choice on either side. If your comment were just as strongly anti-Deady, I’d be reacting just as seriously.
As i read your dismissal of the significance of Deady’s support of slavery I wonder if you realize how long, and how strongly, he supported slavery here (where we already had a few slaves, see Nokes.) I wonder if you’ve thought about the possibility that had George Williams not written his powerful Free State Letter which turned around public sentiment, Oregon might have gone for slavery. And I have to wonder if you realize just how horrible slavery could be.
Finally I wonder if you have read those four post-war pro-slavery entries in Deady’s diary, which reveal how this brilliant intellectual really felt about slavery and those of us who oppose it.. So I have to wonder how you feel about Deady’s positive view of slavery all his life. Do you feel he was right, that slavery wasn’t really all that bad as we “enthusiasts” say?
Looking forward to your answers.
Douglas,
Deady only publicly supported slavery in Oregon for a short period. As far as I know, he owned no slaves, nor did his parents. He mainly resided in Maryland and Ohio and his parents were farmers. He did not move to Oregon until 1849, and was admitted to the Bar and elected to the Legislature in 1850. He was out of the Legislature by 1853 and appointed to the Oregon Supreme Court that year. I know of no legislative action he took in favor of slavery. Oregon’s pre-statehood black exclusion law pre-dated his time in the Legislature. He did become a member of the Democratic Party. As an Oregon Supreme Court Justice I am also unaware of any action he took that was pro-slavery.
As far as I am aware, all of his public advocacy for slavery and exclusion of minorities took place in the context of the events surrounding the 1857 Constitutional Convention. Slavery was abolished in Oregon by the Oregon Constitution so, again, his “support” of slavery amounted to ineffective advocacy. Exclusion of blacks was continued, with about 90% of the electorate supporting exclusion. And that is why we have the debate we have today.
But, with the start of the Civil War, Deady’s stance towards these issues appears to have changed. He wrote into Oregon’s code of civil procedure rules which granted blacks certain rights that they did not previously have. He abandoned the pro-slavery Democratic Party and became a Republican. He never again, as far as I know, made public pronouncements favoring such discrimination.
To the contrary, in public life he championed the right of minorities and women through his actions and words.
His diaries are not the most cogent of documents, but they do reveal some of his inner thoughts. I do not think they evidence a “positive view of slavery all his life.” He may have had a more sanguine view of slavery in the 1860s that we do today. We can debate why that might be. We can agree to fault those inner thoughts. But, I tend to judge people based on their public acts more than their inner thought.
For me, Deady’s repentance of his support for excluding blacks during a finite time early in his life is seen in his public acts protecting minority rights for decades in his later life.
I believe that Deady’s path is similar to Earl Warren, who supported the internment of Japanese Americans but would later in life repeatedly act to protect minorities. It can reasonably be argued that Deady’s bad acts were of much much less harm and significance than those of Warren. Warren’s strong advocacy of internment was successful and profoundly damaged 120,000 people including Yasui. Deady’s advocacy was ineffective and irrelevant.
For me, the irony of the debate about Deady is that many want to replace his name with that of Yasui. But, if Deady had been the judge in Yasui’s trial I think Yasui would have walked free based on Deady’s actions with regard to Asian rights and his judicial opinions.
However, I am open to persuasion. I expect that we will all be presented with a much more complex and nuanced picture of Deady by the historian panel than I can provide. I look forward to the report. I have no doubt that historians such as yourself will be reviewing it with a fine tooth comb and the public comment period will lead to still more insights.
Please do not take this as an attack by I am surprised by your speculation that I don’t realize just horrible slavery could be. I do. I suspect all of us concerned with this issue do. I do not think Prof. Mooney, Prof. Coleman, Scott Bartlett, myself, or other public advocates of Deady have an ounce of Confederate sympathy in us and none fail to understand the evil of slavery. I would expect that you, a retired Professor, would understand that one can view Deady as worthy of honor without misunderstanding slavery. The implication in your speculation that anyone who can find it “easy” to support Deady must be ignorant is unworthy.
Hopefully, the historian report and the public comment period will foster an exchange of ideas that is more scholarly than that we see on anonymous message boards. I think you will have valuable insights to offer, so I will look forward to your comments.
This “Deady renaming issue” has brought forth a refreshing rekindling of interest in the history of our university and our state.
Alec Boyd has made some good points in defense of keeping MP Deady’s name on our university’s iconic first building.
However, I’ve advocated neither for nor against the denaming. Rather, I’ve supported objectivity, striking a balance, looking for information supporting both positions. I’ve praised Deady’s accomplishments and “redemption.” I encourage everyone to read his cogent diary, perhaps the best –and most interesting –history of 19th century Oregon.
Where I’ve read disinformation attacking Deady, for example as the claim he belonged to the Knights of the Golden Circle, I’ve defended him. In this case, however, I’ve seen a need to provide balance in a different direction.
So far there has been no discussion of what we know about Deady’s innermost thoughts on slavery, as shown in his private entrees in his diary. I’ve asked Alec if he has read them, and what his feelings might be, so I’ll throw the same question out to everyone who is interested.
Malcom Clark, editor of his diary, concluded “despite his troubled conscience he never once faced up to the fact that the institution was inherently evil.” How did this revered intellectual actually regard slavery in his later years and how do WE feel about the evil of slavery?
Here are the four post Civil-War statements concerning slavery found in Deady’s diary, in his own, private words:
************
January 1 1878 p. 253
“Reading Dod[d]ridges “Notes on a Western Country”….Portions of it very interesting to me as it goes over much of the country of my boyhood. I often heard my father speak of the book and some of the stories he used to tell me from it I recognized immediately. His chapter on Slaves and Slavery in Maryland is morbid and exaggerated. I never knew an anti-Slavery zealot who could talk about Negro Slavery or slaveholders and tell the truth about either. Men and women , who were otherwise the very best of people, upon this subject habitually spoke in the language of gross exaggeration and calumny. With enthusiasts–particularly moral enthusiasts, the end justifies the means, therefore it was right to ‘take’ or ‘make’ an extreme case and represent that as the rule of intercourse between master and slave.”
November 1 1884 p. 454
“Have been reading [S H] Gay’s “Life of Madison” during the week. An interesting book in some respects but very lopsided on the slavery question. Fifty years will have to pass before the popular mind recovers its equilibrium on this question. The war and the result of it have made a man who owned Negroes or obeyed and respected the injunctions and limitations of the Constitution on this subject look like a criminal by [sic) this generation.”
October 22 1887 p. 524
“Finished ‘Henry Clay’ last night. A pleasant and suggestive book, with a strong antislavery bias and a strong tendency to judge men on the slavery question by the circumstances of today rather than then.”
February 21 1890 p. 587
“Also read Dr. [Joseph] Holt’s address on the race problem delivered Jan. 15th in the Unitarian Church at Portland. He takes my ground that the slave trade and Negro slavery were the means providential or otherwise by which the Negro was educated and prepared for his present career of self dependence.” {Dr. Holt of Virginia had been a Confederate surgeon during the Civil War according to Clark’s notes.}
*******
It wouldn’t be easy for any of us to read those four statements to a group of our black students, look them in the eye, and tell them “Deady was one of the greatest Oregonians of the 1800s.”
Douglas,
As I said, I look forward to your posts. And I think this is a good one. Your post goes to the heart of the debate that the historians will focus on and Schill must ultimately decide. Here’s my view:
I do not view the first three diary entries as a defense of slavery. Instead, they memorialize Deady’s inner thoughts that not every slave holder was evil, criminal or morally bankrupt when judged by the mores of their time. As he put it: “to judge men on the slavery question by the circumstances of today rather than then.” This is a conversation we still have today as we discuss the legacy of the Founders of our country. Deady’s position is little different than those who support continuing to honor Washington or Jefferson. Should Deady be disqualified for privately holding such a view?
To be clear, I see (1) no wish for a resumption of slavery or (2) any desire that slavery had not been abolished. Nor do his comments reflect the opinion that free blacks are unworthy of equal rights and citizenship.
In my view, and perhaps this is because I am a lawyer, Deady’s first three comments reflect a trait most good jurists strive for: The ability to view all sides of an issue and avoid extreme judgments as to someone’s character. It is easy to demonize, it is harder to understand a person’s motivations when viewing them retroactively. Deady does not appear to be defending slavery, he appears to be suggesting that there should be more moderation in how slave holders are viewed than he saw in the texts which he was scrutinizing. Again, this is exactly the debate we face in judging our country’s Founders.
Finally, I don’t see Deady as condemning all who opposed slavery. Deady’s comment about “anti-slavery zealots” seems aimed at exactly what he describes. Good men and women who, with the best of intentions, adopted a philosophy that the “ends justifies the means” in making their case against slavery. He is essentially railing against what he viewed as exagerated propaganda. Again, is this a private view which renders Deady unfit to be honored?
The fourth comment is the one that may be the most troubling. Deady is basically stating that he believes that slavery had an unintended beneficial effect of (my choice of word) “civilizing” black Africans so that they could be good citizens in the U.S. However, again, Deady is not arguing for a resumption of slavery or even arguing it should never have been abolished. Instead, he accepts that blacks have successfully assumed a position of “self dependence” in the U.S. – an acceptance of free blacks.
Still, Deady appears to subscribe to the view that slavery had a civilizing impact on slaves, I infer by providing them with skills and knowledge necessary to achieve success as a freeman in the U.S. While this may or may not have been true, it ignores that the slaves had no choice in the matter and no desire to come to the U.S. So if posited as a justification for slavery, I view it as entirely outweighed. But, I’m not convinced that it is Deady’s position that the incidental benefit of becoming a self dependent citizen of the U.S. justified the institution. It seems to be more a practical observation of the path trod by slaves towards U.S. citizenship. In any event, is such a private thought disqualifying?
If Deady’s private diaries after the Civil War detailed his abhorence for blacks and other minorities, support for white supremacy, a desire to undermine the civil rights for blacks by instituting Jim Crow, and regret at the demise of slavery or a desire to see it resumed, then I would be much more concerned by Deady Hall. Especially, if those inner thoughts were consistent with public actions. But, what I see in Deady’s public actions is a desire to protect minorities (including use of federal statutes intended to protect minorities as they were intended, something that few jurists had the courage or moral fortitude to do), promote law and order, respect for legal rights, etc., with no private musing in his diaries which appear inconsistent with his acts.
But, as I said before, I am looking forward to being further educated on this issue. This process has a lot of value. And if, at the end of the day, Deady Hall is renamed, I am sure it will be a thoughtful decision made with the right criteria in mind. Right now, I’m not convinced it should be and those comment don’t change my view. One benefit I see of Schill’s process is that, unlike on a message board, the historians will be able to view Deady’s diary comments in their full context instead of as brief snippets that can be spun in various ways. It should be an interesting process.
I continue to look forward to reading your thoughts.
“DEADY-FULLILOVE HALL”
Alec,
I also enjoy reading your comments. From seeing your ability to frame your arguments I do believe you must have been a successful lawyer.
There are a number of important points in your essay, but as it’s late and those are too heavy for now, I’d like to bring up just one of these:
“One benefit I see of Schill’s process is that, unlike on a message board, the historians will be able to view Deady’s diary comments in their full context instead of as brief snippets that can be spun in various ways. It should be an interesting process.”
Actually Alec you can find those “snippets” in your copy of Deady’s diary; You’ll see that these generally have no specific context where found, they are but random comments concerning a book he’d just read which tweaked his thoughts on slavery.
On the other hand in the broader context of his later life these diary comments on slavery are unique, they stand out in contrast to the generally positive racial thoughts and experiences his diary reveals. Hard to figure.
Which brings me to my current suggestion for the new name of Deady Hall– which all readers of Deady’s diary will cheerfully recognize:
DEADY-FULLILOVE HALL
Douglas,
Another great post. When I said “full context,” I met the full context of his life and other writings of the time. I was not asserting you took anything out of context. IMHO, you hit the nail on the head when you write:
“On the other hand in the broader context of his later life these diary comments on slavery are unique, they stand out in contrast to the generally positive racial thoughts and experiences his diary reveals. Hard to figure.”
Alec,
Glad you like the point of the “broader context” of Deady’s later life–and you’d have a deeper understanding of this if you’d look up James Fullilove in Deady’s diary– primary documents are a lot more interesting than secondary sources.
But we’ll see how all this balances out against Deady’s abominable racist behavior prior to the Civil War and these four post-war sympathetic slavery comments in his diary.
But lets’ stop and think about what this is all about– not just Deady and Dunn, but how to make the UO campus more welcoming to minority students, especially African-Americans, by following President Schill’s recommendations. This is hardly just “political correctness” as too many have charged, but rather a national movement to make our universities more equitable and representative of America’s diverse population. Can we all commit to that?
There’s an excellent article in last week’s (May 16) Christian Science Monitor on some creative programs to accomplish this at two Southern Universities, Florida State U and U North Carolina.
While their states’ racial makeup and history of slavery are vastly different than our own exclusionary past, they have some great ideas I think we could borrow. It’s about student SUCCESS, not just filling diversity numbers. All students need a sense of belonging, that this is THEIR community too.
Understanding that “Changing how students feel about the present revolves in part around how they view the past”, for example, at UNC they hold regular tours of the campus, touching on black history there as well as the remnants of slavery, including pointing out buildings named for white men who played roles in “the oppression of fellow humans through slavery and segregation.”
–the guide, Robert Porter, states “If schools had taught us all the real, whole story [about our history], our country would be different.”
HERE! HERE!
Doug,
Complete agree with your May 18 7:43 comment.
This whole debate about Deady started from a proposal to add historical information displays or plaques around campus. Somehow, it morphed into a campaign for denaming. I’m glad that Schill’s proposal gets the education and interpretative display component back on track, and I think your comments about UNC are something that should be brought to Schill’s attention.
I would add to Douglas Card’s quotes from Deady’s diary a crucial fact about the available evidence: We do not have access to his diaries from the 1857 convention or earlier (we know he wrote diaries during this period). We not have his diaries from when he was campaigning for the repugnant Joseph Lane in 1860. We only have versions of his personal diaries written well after the Confederacy lost the war. This is the corpus from which Card draws these quotes (the Clark book).
Very important comment, Trond, thank you. I’m happy to give you (and Alec) thumbs- up (thumb-ups?) . We definitely aren’t getting the whole story, the full-blown Deady of his passionate pro-slavery days and I apologize if my posts have been misleading in drawing from a limited “corpus.”.
True, we only have those later, “sanitized” post-war diaries starting in 1871. We don’t know what happened to the earlier ones, but Lucy may have tossed them. It’s a blessing for history the rest of these remain, Lydia and all. But even these were edited by Clark and we don’t know what is missing. In one of the funniest editing deletions, Deady is complaining about some pain– and we read (as I sorta recall) “I have a bad pain in my left (omitted.)”.
Which really isn’t funny, as Deady had way too many pains and one of the things I most admired about him was his will power in overcoming these pains.
Regarding his earlier thoughts, what we do have of Deady’s words from that key period of the 1850s are mostly in his letters and speeches, of which we fortunately have a lot. Many of these are reproduced in Hendrickson’s history of Joe Lane, and Noke’s recent history of slavery, for example. In Nokes we see that during the Convention Deady was eager to be sure an amendment keeping all black kids out of schools was passed–(p. 135)– “DEADY…In Ohio, under a provision similar to that report, they had admitted negroes into their schools. He favored the amendment.” So if we had those early diaries we’d see a lot of this ugly racism. On the other hand, the beauty, and the complexity, of Deady is he did change greatly on such issues eventually– but not right away.
In 1858, after Oregonians had voted down slavery, his friend Joe Lane pronounced slavery dead in Oregon, told his followers the people had spoken. Deady, on the other hand, still ran for judge on a pro-slavery ticket. But eventually he did turn himself around.
Thanks again Trond and I hope to hear more from someone who has actually explored Deady’s writings.
Remember, “Deady-Fullilove Hall.”
More great comments.
I have to say though, Trond, that I am far less interested in Deady’s private thoughts than his public actions. I think we can all agree that his public actions prior to the Civil War were to our values largely abhorent, but also of no real practical impact. I believe we should also agree that his public actions after the start of the Civil War were to our values largely laudatory and also of great impact.
Alec Boyd to my mind makes important arguments about assessing Deady in a full and nuanced way. Which is why it surprises me he gives so little weight to some of his acts.
A prominent member of the Salem Cabal and the man who presided over the 1857 convention, Deady acted before and during the convention. Instead of saying, for example, “we should not exclude blacks” he said “we should exclude blacks” and during the convention joined others in pushing for more rather than less restrictive language. These were statements and acts of some consequence.
Some at the convention objected to the efforts to exclude and at least two voted against the constitution for that reason, by my recollection. Presiding over the convention his role had less direct impact than some others but the evidence we have is that he was active to a non-trivial degree in decisions on language. For example, he selected the members of the committee adapting Indiana exclusion language.
Campaigning around the state for Joseph Lane in 1960 as a prominent member of the party and former presiding officer at the constitutional convention was acting. It was acting and speaking on behalf of the rabidly pro-slavery ticket. A ticket formed for the particular purpose of advocating for the preservation and expansion of slavery. Again, statements and actions.
Perhaps the arguments in favor of renaming don’t carry enough weight to support that decision. I do think it unwise to bracket out Deady’s racist statements and actions with what amounts to “everyone was racist, so those acts don’t really count”. I think the do count, should count, and without giving a precise measure they do not strike me as small.
Deady was not some yeoman farmer with anti-black attitudes. He was one of the leading figures in the dominant political machine of the period, presided over the convention, helping to engineer the black exclusion language, and campaigned for one of the most contemptible political figures this state has ever produced.
Those acts do not define his entire legacy. But they are in my view a critical part of any honest assessment of his legacy.
Thank you “Anonymous” for your comments to Alec Boyd on the significance of Mathew Deady’s pro-slavery actions. They help “flesh out” the his role at that key historic moment.
As we await the report form the “Three Wise Historians” I’d like to add some afterthoughts: My view now is that Deady’s name should NOT be taken off, for two reasons:
First, his many good works and later “reformation”;
But more important, one simple reason: Bad as his pre-war acts and words were, they don’t equate to the level of the original definition of the Black Lives Matter demands (and President Schill’s key theme), which was association of the figure with the KKK or similar violent racist organizations such as the Knights of the Golden Circle. The two figures specifically named were Deady and F.S. Dunn, a known KKK leader.
Thanks to misinformation and rumors, some of which are still being spread, Deady was included here and he should not have been. There is no evidence for this membership and it goes against his distaste for violence and law-breaking. If Deady’s name is retained, all those who believed this KKK myth are likely to be pretty angry and disappointed. If you hear that rumor please try to correct it.
After having said this, I want to say how disappointed I am that certain leading figures have been trying to dismiss peoples’ concerns about Deady as just “political correctness.” As Anonymous notes, there was more to his actions than Alec Boyd has mentioned.
I’d like to revisit the May 7 RG story by Diane Dietz on the renaming committee’s report and disagreements. In this, the chair Charise Cheney disagreed with member James Mooney, eminent emeritus law school professor who had filed a dissenting opinion.
According to the article, “UO professor Charise Cheney, chairwoman of that committee, suggested that some people — including a pair of retired Lane Circuit Court judges — were “dismissing and silencing” students’ concerns about the building names, according to emails The Register-Guard obtained through a public records request.”
In response, Mooney dismissed the seriousness of Deady’s role:
“By comparison [to slave-owning presidents],” Mooney wrote in his minority report, “Deady’s few 1857 pro-slavery statements were merely a brief episode in the life of a young foolish politician, and utterly without operational effect.”
Hmm, what will the three historians say, I wonder?
However, the key difference difference between Cheney and Mooney was over THE EXCLUSION LAW.”
[RG’s Dietz continuing] “Among the disputed issues is Oregon’s history of the exclusionary law, which remained on the books into the 20th century.
“Cheney says the law is to blame for the low population of blacks in Oregon — including at the UO, where 2 percent of the student body is black.
“There is a reason that the state of Oregon has one of the lowest black populations in the nation, and that stems from a legal history in which Deady actively participated,” Cheney wrote in emailed replies to former Lane County Circuit Court judges Pierre Van Rysselberghe and Jim Hargreaves.
“The judges in emails had told the committee the UO shouldn’t rewrite history to meet modern standards of political correctness.
“Mooney, in an email to Cheney, listed states with a lower percentage black population than Oregon, including Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and Maine. None of those had an exclusionary law like Oregon’s.
“Goodness,” Mooney wrote to Cheney in an email disputing the idea that the exclusionary law caused Oregon’s low population of black residents,
“There can’t be more than 25 people outside our state who’ve ever even heard of Judge Deady or the clause. Indeed, until three months ago, I daresay there weren’t 25 within Oregon itself,” Mooney wrote.
“Schill, who said he’s reading about Oregon history, said that until the controversy erupted, he’d never heard of Oregon’s odd and reprehensible exclusionary law.”
THE QUESTION – Who will the historians say is closer to the truth here, Cheney or Mooney?
First, I’ll say if no more than 25 folks in Oregon had heard of the Exclusion clause, then I’m a failure as a teacher and writer, for I discussed it with my students in appropriate sociology classes, mentioned it in my book “Camas to Courthouse, Early Lane County History” and other items.
Actually, while there is no way to perfectly measure Deady’s role here, nor just what was the exact effect on African-American immigration of this particular 1857 law, most historians would likely agree it sent a clear message to black people: “Not Wanted.”
As Greg Nokes concluded in his recent well researched book on Oregon slavery “Breaking Chains”:
“But while the exclusion laws were rarely enforced in Oregon, the tragic legacy of the laws was that THEY DISCOURAGED BLACKS FROM COMING AT ALL.” p. 171 [MY CAPS]
So on THIS particular question between Mooney and Cheney, I’ll take Cheney.
A final personal note– The jocularity of this eminent emeritus law professor Mooney bothers me a bit. This series of exclusion laws and associated attitudes meant that I grew up in a virtually all white state, and we’ve had trouble overcoming that ever since.
In my own life back as a college boy I experienced a piece of this one night, as I was with a black buddy who was turned away from a nightclub in North Bend. I saw the pain. Fortunately he was able to sue under Oregon’s new 1953 Public Accommodation Law, (First test case) which was a huge step forward in Oregon’s legal racial history. Some will remember that Mark Hatfield and the Rutherfords had a lot to do with that great new law.
For those who seek a more in-depth review of Oregon’s tortuous racial history, may I recommend Elizabeth McClagan’s “A Peculiar Paradise, A History of Blacks in Oregon 1788-1940.”
We’re moving on, but still have far to go. It’s interesting that of the 11 RG on-line “Civil Comments” on this Dietz article, all 11 ridiculed the University of Oregon for even wasting its time on such a stupid PC idea.
I was with him up to the qualifiers “nongovernmental” and “mores of the era,” because I don’t think state-sponsored, formerly-socially-acceptable mistreatment should be given a pass. I also think that the the right to decide whether or not subsequent actions are “redemptive” belongs to the people on the receiving end of an injustice.
I was with Alec until he wrote “criteria is”.
C’mon, if you are going to make a grammar flame, at least keep abreast of current usage. “Criterion” as the singular form of “criteria” is going the way of “datum” as the singular form of “data” and “agendum” as the singular form of “agenda” (which very few use any more). Feel free to take the conservative approach to usage, but forgive me if I go with the modern trend.
There are better fora for grammar flaming…
I’m no grammarian, but shouldn’t it be “renaming” rather than “denaming?” Don’t mean to defame you.