George Washington University Should Not Be Renamed By Ezra Meyer
Several days ago, a fellow student of mine published an op-ed in the Washington Post that calls on our university, the George Washington University, to change its name. The op-ed plays into the recent trend of judging historical figures by the standards some hold today. It also indulges in contemporary platitudes by placing the blame for current university issues on “systemic racism, institutional inequality and white supremacy.”
The author argues that the logical ways to move forward are by renaming the university (along with several other institutions at the school), by appointing an African-American president, by increasing enrollment of African-American students, and by implementing a “decolonized university curriculum.”
After acknowledging the absurdity of this article, it’s important to first address the main topic: removing President Washington’s name from our school. The main substantiation used here is Washington’s slaveholding. Slaveholding and the subjugation of others is unacceptable by any moral standard and is an understandable grievance. That being bluntly said, we cannot allow that to eclipse his legacy and his vision both for our country and our university. We cannot selectively and arbitrarily apply only that standard of moral decency to simply yield some political currency.
Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that it was Washington’s desire for a university in our nation’s capital that inspired the founding of this school. Attempting to erase this man from our history does a great disservice even to the motives of those who are propagating this nonsense. Flawed as he may have been, the person who is almost single-handedly responsible for the erection and preservation of our republic still deserves to be recognized and is worthy of our admiration.
The values that Washington devoted his life to are what allow people to publicly make these outlandish arguments today. The notion that America and what it stands for is rooted in evil is disrespectful to so many around the world who live in societies that do not maintain these values. It is also insulting to the countless heroes who have sacrificed their lives to preserve these values.
The op-ed also calls for the Winston Churchill Library to be removed, with no justification for doing so given whatsoever. We’ve seen this demand countless times now, often by those claiming to be “anti-fascist.” The irony that “anti-fascists” are offended by reverence for Winston Churchill, the great vanquisher of fascism, is particularly rich. What’s more, it was Churchill himself who cynically characterized the democratic system in a Yogi Berra–esque way as “the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”
It’s now fashionable, not to constructively criticize our country, but to say that it is an inherently iniquitous and irredeemable nation founded by immoral and bigoted men. This fad persists on campuses in general and on mine in particular. There have been sweeping attempts to “cancel” George Washington and rename just about every building at our university. The author of this op-ed, for example, also demands James Madison’s name be removed from campus, and there was a similar push two years ago to do the same with James Monroe. This effort was led by a school group known as Students Against Imperialism, yet they seemingly and amusingly neglected the fact that one of President Monroe’s greatest accomplishments, the Monroe Doctrine, directed United States policy to oppose European imperialism in the Americas categorically.
These little episodes that we hear about on college campuses may provide us with a brief eye roll or even a chuckle, but they should also be cause for real concern. Not only are these preposterous arguments being promoted in major media organs such as the Post; the tolerance for dissent against views that would have shocked the average person just a few years ago is dissipating. Any deviation from the talking points can amount to social suicide.
I don’t intend to hagiographically or blindly defend George Washington. My goal is not to rationalize any of his morally objectionable actions. But any controversy in that regard does not negate the good he did and the impact he left on free society. I think he was a great man with a great vision whose legacy indeed merits our defense. The best way to do so is by embracing his complexity, rejecting lazy oversimplifications, and upholding the institutions that honor his vision.
Comments are closed.
