May 5, 2005

Confederates Defeat Vanderbilt

A Tennessee appeals court ruled Wednesday that Vanderbilt University may not drop “Confederate” from the name of a dormitory — unless the university is willing to return a donation it received in 1933 at the value of the donation in today’s dollars.

Looking for a job?

See all 190 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,608
Administrative: 2,143
Executive: 155
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The court’s ruling reverses a lower court’s decision that allowed Vanderbilt to drop “Confederate” from the name. Students and professors at Vanderbilt objected to the name, saying that it suggested university support for slavery and was offensive to black students. Following years of discussion of the issue, Vanderbilt dropped “Confederate” from the name of “Confederate Memorial Hall” in 2002. But the Tennessee chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which made the gift in 1933 and was assured then of the name the dormitory would have, took the university to court.

The appeals court unanimously rejected Vanderbilt’s argument that academic freedom gave it the right to change the name. Vanderbilt argued that the Supreme Court has given private colleges considerable latitude in their decisions. But the appeals court said that was irrelevant because the agreement to name the dormitory “Confederate Memorial Hall” was between a donor and a charitable group — and the government never forced the gift to be accepted.

“We fail to see how the adoption of a rule allowing universities to avoid their contractual and other voluntarily assumed legal obligations whenever, in the university’s opinion, those obligations have begun to impede their academic mission would advance principles of academic freedom,” the court ruled. “To the contrary, allowing Vanderbilt and other academic institutions to jettison their contractual and other legal obligations so casually would seriously impair their ability to raise money in the future by entering into gift agreements such as the ones at issue here.”

The appeals court refused to deal with Vanderbilt’s arguments about the message the name sent to black students. “It is not within the purview of this court to resolve the larger cultural and social conflicts regarding whether and how those who fought for the Confederacy should be honored or remembered.”

However, one of the judges who heard the case wrote a concurring opinion objecting to Vanderbilt’s statements about the word “Confederate.” Judge William B. Cain wrote that Vanderbilt has a “misperception” about the Confederacy. “A great majority of those who fought in the Confederate armies owned no slaves. Their homeland was invaded, and they rose up in defense of their homes and their farms. They fought the unequal struggle until nearly half their enlisted strength was crippled or beneath the sod. This dormitory is a memorial to them,” he wrote.

If Vanderbilt wants to change the name, the court’s decision said, it must repay the gift. The court rejected the idea of the Confederate group that the university be required to pay interest. The court said this wasn’t appropriate because the condition of the name of the dormitory was met for decades. However, the court said that it would also be unfair for Vanderbilt to get out of its obligation by returning $50,000, since that money was much more valuable in 1933 than it is today. So Vanderbilt would have to repay $50,000, as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index in the last 72 years.

A spokesman for Vanderbilt told the Nashville Tennessean that the university was studying the decision and weighing its options. An an e-mail message on Thursday, the spokesman also said that the decision would not prevent the university from dropping “Confederate” in the way it refers to the dormitory in campus publications, maps, Web sites, and housing assignments.

The original gift from the United Daughters of the Confederacy was not to Vanderbilt but to George Peabody College of Teachers. When Peabody merged into Vanderbilt in 1979, Vanderbilt assumed control of the building and the legal responsibilities of the college. In 1989, prior to changing the name, Vanderbilt put a plaque on the building acknowledging the gift and university officials have said that the plaque will remain, even if the name of the dorm is changed. Vanderbilt also argued — successfully in the lower court but unsuccessfully before the appeals court — that there were questions about whether the Peabody contract was ever valid, and that if it was, its requirements had been fulfilled.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Confederates Defeat Vaderbilt

It’s about time common sense prevailed in court, instead of politically correct bilge! If all things Confederate should be wiped away, so should all things American. The Confederacy was no more guilty of human rights violations than the United States. Look at what the US did to Native Americans for almost 300 years. Why do you think the Indians joined with the Confederacy and fought against the US? Anyone who is ready to ban anything Confederate without acknowledging the much longer standing violations of the US is not intellectually honest and should not even comment on the subject.

Josh Stovall, Researcher, at 1:32 pm EDT on May 10, 2005

Confederate vs. Vanderbilt

Confederate Vs. Vanderbilt ?

The recent court settlement at Vanderbilt University has huge impact concerning future heritage issues. The very mention of the word Confederate today means racism to people of all walks , and it should not be that way. This case settled once and for all , that memorials to the Confederacy and the soldiers that served in that conflict , have no racial overtones. Vanderbilt University can relax , let the Confederate name stay on their building , and move on with the great academic program going on there. I am very concerned when an institution of higher learning is so confused about American history as Vanderbilt is. I would say that the faculty there is badly misinformed and has misperceptions about the Confederacy that won’t stand when presented with all of the facts. One item worth mention here is the members of the United Daughters Of The Confederacy. One story described the Daughters as a bunch of little old ladies. These are a group of ladies that can be ruthless and persistent when riled ( and they are both young and old ). They stand behind the heritage and truth of the Confederate soldier with unwavering devotion. The irony in this issue is the real problem. While the Confederate soldier is looked upon with honor , pride , and dignity today , the man who is responsible for the formation of Vanderbilt University can not be described with any of these characteristics. Vanderbilt was a man who was not respected by his peers. His business dealings were shady and dishonest. His way of doing business would mean prison time for sure in today’s society. Even his immediate family had no respect for him due to his personal greed. Simply put , he was a robber baron. What Vanderbilt University should do is reexamine it’s founder. If there is any real issue here , it would be naming itself after a corrupt tyrant.

Jimmy Williams

Jimmy Williams, at 10:00 pm EDT on May 10, 2005

When Vandy originally was fighting to have the name changed, the president of the university declared that it was to “encourage diversity". I am ecstatic that the court has ruled against Vandy, because this is just another example of how the word “diversity” has become synonymous with extremist censorship, or more accurately, promotion of an amoral dogma. “Diversity” in this context meant “acceptance of everything as long as it’s not Confederate", much the same way that “diversity” in freedom-of-religion issues means “acceptance of everything, as long as it’s not GOD". There are many other examples. Many previous comments have already said this, but it’s worth repeating, thank God for level-headed, fact-reviewing judges in this case.

WCB, at 1:11 pm EDT on May 11, 2005

$750,000 in todays money? Really? Vanderbilt is a research facility. It is also a teaching facility. Many of the professors who teach at Vanderbilt are also involved in life saving research. I do not believe that taking down the word “Confederate” is worth that much money in a world that still needs a cure for so many illnesses and in which so many people are still uneducated. No one will change the facts of history. Erasing everything associated with the Confederacy and silencing her descendants will not change history. And it will not help those who are trying. In this case, it will only waste thousands of precious dollars that can be spent to better humanity. In fact it has already done so. There are Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. All of those men, all of them, were Americans, just as all the men for whom this building was built were Americans. Let them have peace. And let the money go to make our country a better place, not simply a muted place.

Chiq, at 7:55 pm EDT on July 18, 2005

Damn those liberal judges.

grad student, at 4:34 pm EDT on May 5, 2005

Its very sad that at a university, especially one in the south, Americans still believe all the lies and half-truths they were told in elemetary school. As the judge said there are more issues than slavery that caused the civil war. Millions of men did not fight bravely and die so that.006 percent of their population could have slaves. Maybe our courts would be better if people would just except the fact that we are proud of our heritage and history. If anyone in this country should be angry and offended it should be the Native Americans, but they were killed under the flag of the USA, not the CSA, and of course the United States government never did anything wrong...

Theodore, at 4:34 pm EDT on May 5, 2005

The Confederate flag is the symbol of our nation’s struggle against oppression; it marks the over-throw of our constitutional republic and the end of our founder’s experiment in freedom. Today, over a hundred and forty years later, much has been said and done but none of it changes a thing. The Confederate flag still stands as a cold, hard, unyielding TRUTH that I pray our nation will never escape.

Richard Stiles, at 10:28 pm EDT on May 5, 2005

Confederate Court Decision

How telling that a university responsible for teaching young men and women how to succeed in life have set an example of how one can should attempt to renege on a valid contract. No doubt much of the original $50,000 dollars came from the sacrifices of little old ladies simply wanting to honor their sons, husbands, and grandsons. Vanderbilt is so typical of modern academia — morally bankrupt and in a hurry to run off to court to use their twisted legal logic to skirt their responsibilities. How juvenile and irresponsible.

Rick Williams, at 12:12 pm EDT on May 6, 2005

The judgement handed down in this case is a terrific precedent for future heritage issues such as this one. The Confederacy has not been defended this way in a long time. In this case the U.D.C. defense used facts that are often ignored in the name of(incorrect) political correctness. The judge in this case deserves praise.

Jimmy Williams, misperceptions, at 5:57 am EDT on May 7, 2005

The Amerindians of the Indian Territory, now Oklahoma, generally sided with and fought for the Confederacy. If we are to ever “honor” the Amerindians, why not also honor the Confederate flag, for which they fought? The hate-mongers who seek to delete everything from history they deem politically incorrect or “insensitive” have suffered a minor setback. One can hope they suffer a major defeat in a higher, more conservative Supreme Court with new judges.——-Hugh

Hugh, Independent Scholar, at 5:57 am EDT on May 7, 2005

It’s about time. I applaud the appeals court for their level headed and UN-politically correct decision. This should serve as a wake up call to ALL Americans who, for the most part, have no clue that an important part of their history is systematically being erased.I ask “those people” who are doing the erasing what red herring they would be using to demonize the Confederacy if slavery had not been an issue? The fact is, slavery or not, that the Southern states had as much right, if not even more so, to seccede from the union as the New England states threatened to do in response to the war of 1812. Vandy’s decision to spit on it’s Southern roots goes much deeper than the whole “sensitivity” thing we are all being force fed.It’s part of a bigger war that is being waged against Conservative Constitutionalists. Most of which are located in the South. The traditional South is the last foothold of what this country was intended to be, and rightly should be if we want to survive into the next few generations. Once the South is defeated, and it will be if all things Confederate are removed, then the leftist’s with their secular peopaganda and their humanist lifestyles will be free to run roughshod over the whole country and take us into their utopia of mind numb “subjects” under the heel of the federal leviathon.Anyone who thinks that Communism was defeated in the cold war needs to look no further than Vandy’s actions in this case to see that it is alive and well and being pressed little by little into the minds of the American public.This is more than a small victory for the UDC and the South, it is a victory for American heritage.

Richard Uhlig, at 8:19 am EDT on May 7, 2005

Confederate Defeat Vanderbilt

I hope this win will turn the tide, We have lost so many. May GOD bless that court.

Paul T Caple, Confederate Hall, at 9:34 am EDT on May 7, 2005

CONFEDERATES DEFEAT VANDY

A deals a deal!even you skalawags have to play by the same rules!

RICHARD THURSTON, at 12:16 pm EDT on May 7, 2005

Confederates Defeat Vanderbilt

It’s good that the Vanderbilt community has been sharply reminded that legal obligations cannot simply be sloughed off whenever it seems convenient. Vanderbilt was banking on playing the “Confederacy card” in the expectation that general hostility to things Confederate would blind the legal system and allow a sly circumvention of contract law. Furthermore, the asinine and unctuous claim of “academic freedom” to support Vanderbilt’s “right” to change the name of Confederate Memorial Hall is a burning beacon of the rank hypocrisy that bars true academic inquiry. Last but not least, anyone stupid enough to think that a school founded by a Yankee robber baron who made his fortune helping to kill Confederate soldiers could ever somehow “endorse” the South, its institutions and its heritage, deserves to have the Confederacy rubbed in his or her face. Such ignorance deserves no less.

James Allen Knechtmann, at 4:03 pm EDT on May 7, 2005

Court ruling in favor of the name of the Vanderbilt Hall

The court did a superb job in considering the matter, and in the opinion might also have paraphrased Justice Holmes and added that the notion that we should be governed by our distant posterity is ridiculous. Those who object to the name of the building resulting from a UDC gift need to read a tad of the history of both the mid-19th Century Civil War South and that of the early 20th Century when the gift was made. Those same folks, at least during a few moments of reflection, should realize that history is whatever it truly was, and is not what we might wish it to have been or today have it be. Paul

Paul, history as it was, at 5:01 pm EDT on May 8, 2005

Small victory

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! (Rebel yell)

Finally, one small victory. May this victory be part of a bigger turn-around.

Deo Vindice

Confederate_Coqui, at 5:34 pm EDT on May 8, 2005

Confederate Memorial Hall

Three comments:

(1) I am very pleased that Tennessee judges grasp the simple principle that a deal is a deal.

(2) $50,000 in 1933 is worth $750,000 today.

(3) If I were running the UDC, I would take the money (if Vandy is willing) put the money to better use than leaving the capital tied up at Vandy.

GB, at 4:04 am EDT on May 9, 2005

Is it true that Rice University made a similar deal some years ago, allowing black students to attend, but thereby losing enough of their endowment that they had to start charging tuition?

At any rate, if it’s only $750,000, I don’t see why Vanderbilt wouldn’t just pay them back and change the name. They could probably easily get a donor willing to donate $750,000 to name it more tactfully!

Kenny Easwaran, at 7:59 am EDT on May 10, 2005