hudebnik | Cancelling bad people

Carol L. Folt, president of the University of Southern California, said Thursday that the university had removed from campus the name and bust of its fifth president, Rufus Von KleinSmid, a psychologist who promoted eugenics.

Mr. Rufus Von KleinSmid, whose tenure spanned the Great Depression and Second World War, died in 1964.

“He expanded research, academic programs, and curriculum in international relations,” Ms. Folt said in a public letter to the university. But, she added, “he was also an active supporter of eugenics, and his writings on the subject are at direct odds with U.S.C.’s multicultural community and our mission of diversity and inclusion.”

I'm unavoidably reminded of the Aonghais Issue, familiar to some of my friends in the SCA. Aonghais (pronounced "Angus") was King of the East twice in the 1970's before being convicted of murder-for-hire. It is East Kingdom tradition that at the Coronation of a new set of royalty (every six months), a herald recites the names of all the previous royalty of the East, and sometimes Aonghais's name is omitted, and the herald mentions only his Queen, Ysabeau (who happens to be a friend of mine). (The same may happen to a more-recent King of the East who was charged with murder last year -- I haven't been following the case, so I don't know whether he's been convicted.) It's a quandary: do you express your revulsion at his actions by omitting him from this "honor roll", or do you respect historic fact by including him with all the other people who actually held the position, whatever their great or small sins?

Robert E. Lee, from everything I've heard, was not just a good general but a great general. He was also a slave-owner, in service to a would-be nation that tried to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery (and for some other reasons, but that was the big one). He, like all the other political and military leaders of the Confederacy, indisputably committed treason.

George Washington, from everything I've heard, was at least a good general, if not a great general. He was also a slave-owner, in service to a would-be nation that tried to secede for a bunch of reasons, including its desire to import more white Europeans and push out the natives(1). All the same goes for Thomas Jefferson, except that he wasn't a general. And both of them, like all the other political and military leaders of the United States at the time, indisputably committed treason.

Where do you draw the line between a forgivable sin and an unforgivable one that makes you, to paraphrase Orwell, an "unhero", worthy of being removed from history (or at least having your statue torn down)? If we draw it between Washington and Jefferson on one hand, and Lee on the other, is it because racism was central to the Confederate secession, and only one among many motives for the American secession? Is it because our society had progressed between 1780 and 1860, so overt racism was slightly less forgivable than before? Is it because anti-black bias is more visible today than anti-native-American bias? Or is it because Washington and Jefferson won, and Lee lost?

If we draw the line between Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump on one hand, and Al Franken on the other, is it because the former's abuses were more severe and applied to dozens of women over decades, while the latter's seem to have been a one-off in his twenties? (Just to be clear, I'm fine with that reason.) Or is it because Franken is more humble and likeable? (Also true, but I'm not sure it's a good basis for line-drawing.)

It's very tempting to divide the world into "good people" and "bad people" -- indeed, Donald Trump has made his entire political career on that division -- with the latter not deserving recognition for their accomplishments, or in some cases even recognition as human beings with rights and moral standing. See Siderea's fascinating exploration of two moral modes. As she points out, treating some class of human beings as not-quite-human has been used to justify slavery, as well as antisemitism, anti-Hispanic bias, misogyny, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc.

But every leader in history, including everyone of whom we've ever put up a statue, had personal flaws and failings, and made mistakes. Some we excuse with "that's the way everybody thought at the time." (Insert your own favorite excuse here). But it's easy to reach those excuses through motivated reasoning: "I want to honor this person and not that one, so I need to find an excuse for doing so."

Maybe we'd be better off not putting up statues of people, lest we have to tear them down later when we learn more about or reassess their lives.

(1) From the Declaration of Independence:
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Cancelling bad people

no subject