Minority Position Statement from RSAC Members This report is from the committee now comprising the minority opinion on what advice RSAC should give the PAUSD School Board about renaming schools. It is designed to provide a means of compromise with the majority, or to provide a basis for a minority opinion to the Board if that is not possible. It represents the best judgment of the committee members as to what is in the best interests of all students, including ethnic and economic minorities and to our community. Symbols have always had special significance in our country s history. Whether considering the flag, the Liberty Bell, or the Statue of Liberty, Americans have imbued these items with deep meaning. They all represent values and traditions that Americans hold dear. The flag is always displayed in public and on ceremonial occasions. The Liberty Bell is on permanent display in Philadelphia and draws thousands of visitors each year. The same is true of the Statue of Liberty, which serves as a beacon of freedom to the many visitors who enter the United States through New York. These examples serve as proof of how important symbols are to our society. Whatever the symbol, people attach special importance to it. Symbols can carry both positive and negative connotations. There are some symbols that can be both positive and negative in the minds of different individuals. As an example, the Confederate battle flag has been revered by some who wish to honor the sacrifice and service of Confederate soldiers. To others, that same flag represents the cruelty and oppression of slavery. In such situations, those deciding on the appropriate display of the symbol have had to consider how the positive aspects balance against the negative. In much the same way, we have a similar situation in Palo Alto now. The question of renaming Jordan, Terman,and Cubberley schools is based upon the premise that the names serve as symbols to young people and to the community. At the time each school was opened, the district wished to honor each namesake in gratitude for their service to the community. David Starr Jordan was the first president of Stanford University and responsible for guiding it to its status as a leader in higher education; Lewis Terman was a pioneer in psychology and researcher who developed the Stanford-Binet intelligence test; Ellwood Cubberley was a distinguished educator who led the Stanford Department of Education. In their own era they were honored and respected not only for their many achievements but also for the values of hard work, dedication, and service they projected to the Palo Alto community. These men were symbols of the community s values and so were considered worthy of the honor of having schools named after them. This view has not been challenged until recently, when it has come to light that they all had philosophical connections to the Eugenics movement, which posited that heredity and race play a factor in natural intelligence and behavior. Although widely
accepted in intellectual and progressive circles at the time (late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries), this ideology has been widely discredited as false science and latent racism. We are now faced with a decision to make on whether these men should continue to be honored or disqualified due to their involvement with an ideology that we now consider to be repugnant and non-inclusive. A proposition to change the names of these schools is now being considered. The fundamental premise of the proponents of this measure is that symbols do matter, and that the names of schools should reflect the values of the community today. They argue that the names associated with the schools should be positive and reflect the diverse character of the Palo Alto community; that the association with Eugenics taints and disqualifies their legacy; and that students, especially students of color, are being harmed psychologically by the negative connotations with Eugenics. These arguments have the benefit of appearing to be morally pure. Eugenics has been thoroughly discredited as a science and a philosophy. It is understandable why we citizens of the twenty-first century should discard the irrelevant and offensive legacies from the past and look forward into the future. Each generation must define its own values and set a course for a meaningful future. We all refute Eugenics ideology and want to be responsive to the needs of every student in our community. On the surface, it is a very simple question with a simple answer. However, the facts below the surface are much more complex. For those favoring the name change, the names Jordan, Terman, and Cubberley carry only negative connotations with Eugenics. However, for many current and former students, parents and community members, these names connote very positive images. Yes, symbols do matter, and the images these names evoke are not of an ugly racist ideology, but of shared memories, community, and growing up. As decades have passed, these names have been decreasingly associated with their namesakes and increasingly with the place. Jordan is in its eightieth year, and thousands of students have passed through its portals. There are many two and three generation families whose shared memories are passed down from fathers to sons, mothers to daughters, grandparents to grandchildren. When these former students think of Jordan, they think of tending the Victory Garden during World War II, or going to sock hops in the fifties, or participating in donkey basketball and the Gilroy Clothing Drive in the sixties. They think of their friends who went on to fight and die in foreign wars, and of their mentors and teachers, such as the legendary Hugh Center. These collective memories extend in an unbroken stream and are passed down from one generation to the next. They have become more than mere memories. Collectively, they form an important tapestry of who and what Palo Alto is. Students come and go; staff members come and go; administrators come and go. All are important and leave their mark on Jordan s history, but all are fleeting and transitory. The school binds everyone together and the school s name is an important piece of that collective identity. To change the name of this school will sever the connection with the past. The
school will still be here, but the symbolic connection to the past will be gone. We are the guardians of our past, and need to be mindful of the full impact this will bring. The Palo Alto of today has been formed and shaped not only by its current residents, but also by everyone who has come before. This past deserves to be preserved. Palo Alto is not the only community that has had to grapple with this issue. Since 2010, the renaming of certain buildings has been considered and debated at several universities, including Georgetown, Duke, Yale, Princeton, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Oregon and University of Alabama. Some have chosen to rename the buildings in question and others, like Princeton, have elected to retain the contested names. The reasons for bringing up the possibility of renaming have varied from institution to institution, but most have revolved around the issue of racism. Objections have been raised to buildings named after white supremacists, KKK leaders, supporters of slavery, and notable people who were known to possess racist views, such as Woodrow Wilson. In some cases, monuments, statues, and even the images on stained glass windows have been called into question. Although the primary arguments in favor of renaming vary, the thread that binds them together is the desire to make a positive and decisive stand against racism by refusing to honor those who supported it. Opponents also have cited many reasons against renaming. One of the most notable is the desire to maintain tradition and continuity between past and present. Times and values change, but our institutions provide the thread of continuity that extends from one generation to the next. In the report that Yale s renaming committee issued on whether to rename Calhoun Hall (after John C. Calhoun, the noted secessionist and supporter of slavery), the following viewpoint was offered: There are many reasons to honor tradition at a university. Historical names are a source of knowledge. Tradition often carries wisdom that is not immediately apparent to the current generation; no generation stands alone at the end of history with perfect moral hindsight. Moreover, names produce continuity in the symbols around which students and alumni develop bonds with the university and bonds with one another. Those bonds often help to establish lifelong connections of great value to members of the University community and to the University. In addition to this powerful argument, there are many who feel that renaming institutions, however well intentioned, serves as a moral Band-Aid that glosses over deeper issues, such as the continuing presence of the achievement gap, and mutes the lessons of history. Writing in the April 2016 online edition of the Tuscaloosa News, Harvey H. Jackson, professor emeritus of Jacksonville State University, states, History should not be manipulated to make us feel good about ourselves. Instead, history should be acknowledged for what it is, or was, for like it or not, we are a consequence of it.
When deciding on whether to rename its own schools, Palo Alto will have to consider these same issues and more. These are public schools that have a responsibility to educate and include students from many diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Is there a way that the district can demonstrate its commitment and sensitivity to its many diverse students as well as preserve the heritage and tradition of its schools? Although the two sides in this issue appear to be far apart, there is a possible solution. In the true spirit of democracy, we propose a compromise. In order to support the position that changing the school names will represent a positive change and send a message that the school district and the citizens of Palo Alto reject Eugenics and all attempts to exclude any ethnic group, there should a public ceremony or multiple ceremonies that formally remove the full names of David Starr Jordan, Lewis Terman, and Ellwood Cubberley from the official records of the schools or facilities. However, in order to preserve the positive connection to the schools histories, the generic names of Jordan, Terman, and Cubberley should be retained. As with most compromises, this is not a perfect solution but should satisfy the primary aims of both sides. The controversial and emotional nature of this issue justifies a compromise, as the stakes are high for each side. In the end, however, it will be possible to preserve the past and safeguard the future. In addition, the district should consider the inclusion of curriculum to teach the basics of the Eugenics movement and the role it played in California and Palo Alto s history, as well as its impact on future world history. An important element in the study of history is to give students a sense of the past and how we have progressed through the years to the present. In order to do this, students need to understand the mistakes of the past. Combined with study of the history of the naming of the schools, all students will be better informed about the nature of the society of many years ago, in which the namesakes lived, and their roles in that society. If the names are completely erased there will be little reason to expect the students to be interested for long in such studies, even if offered. At the same time the students will see that renaming with related names has recognized that the people behind the names have been relegated to less importance than the symbols represented by the presently commonly used names. The community interest will likewise be served by not completely abandoning the historic names that are symbolic to the large number of people who live in our community. The name shortenings, rather than elimination, are not necessarily linked. The Jordan name-shortening, instead of elimination, is the highest priority because of the time the name has been in place and Jordan s key role in the founding of our community. Terman is slightly less important, but, positively, it would now imply Frederick Terman, a prime figure in the formation of Silicon Valley, and not only his father, Lewis Terman. A Cubberley name shortening, rather than elimination, is of tertiary importance, because it is no longer a school. The strong emotions that both the positive and negative connotations of the school names as symbols evoke serve as a reminder that the issue of renaming needs to be approached with great sensitivity and respect for both viewpoints, as well as an open mind toward an equitable solution to this issue. The district can make a positive
statement for inclusion and also retain its heritage. In this way, the past, present, and future will continue to be inextricably linked together.