Clemson is currently undergoing a massive (and growing) facilities construction initiative that we are told will be the foundation for the future of University. However, something at least as pressing and significant as the raising and razing of buildings should become a priority for securing a sustainable shared destiny: the removal of the seven letters from the building currently known as Tillman Hall. We believe we could do more to build the foundation for Clemson’s future by that action than by all the building projects currently blanketing campus.
Earlier this year, the Clemson University Board of Trustees chose to retain the name Tillman Hall on the building previously known as Old Main. In an editorial in the Greenville News, the chair of the Clemson University Board of Trustees was quoted as saying that the Board “would not consider the name change and wanted to make more meaningful changes beyond the ‘symbolic gesture’ to rename Tillman Hall.” We respectfully disagree. Renaming Tillman Hall is more than symbolic, it is real. It is an affirmation that hatred, represented by actions or symbols, has no place in the Clemson University community now or in the future. While renaming Tillman Hall will, in isolation, fail to secure a sustainable and more inclusive future for the University, it is far more than symbolic. It is an affirmation that honoring those whose station and legacy were achieved in significant measure via the vilest actions of intolerance has no place at Clemson University now or in the future—even as the history, university-related role, and scholarly study of those same individuals must have an indelible role in our educational mission. It is an affirmation that community matters; that ignorance can be replaced with enlightenment; that the administration and our Board have a special responsibility as stewards of our institutional culture; and that we can hold, recognize, adapt to, and share changing values.
We have heard four reasons for not renaming Tillman Hall:
1. It is merely a symbolic gesture with no real impact. We disagree. The name may be symbolic but the removal of that symbol is a significant act. It is a public proclamation of what Clemson University is. Ben Tillman was complicit or directly responsible for the killing of many black people, an action for which he apparently felt no remorse. Why would we honor this legacy by retaining his name on one of the iconic buildings on campus? This is not to deny that such an action also contains symbolic elements. Ta-Nehisi Coates, in a recent Atlantic Monthly article speaking about the Confederate flag and its link to the killings in Charleston wrote: “The flag that Roof embraced, which many South Carolinians embrace, does not stand in opposition to this act—it endorses it.” We do not believe that retaining the name Tillman Hall endorses (symbolically or otherwise) Roof’s actions; however, removing the name provides strong and undeniably symbolic repudiation of his actions and the hatred engendered by individuals such as Mr. Tillman—and their checkered legacy.
2. This is not the right time. We agree, it is past the right time. The recent killings in Charleston dictate that we must make a clear statement that Clemson University is not the place for actions, or symbols, that support, even passively, bigotry and hatred.
3. There is nothing Clemson University can do to change the name since the State legislature is responsible for renaming buildings. We disagree. The Clemson University Board of Trustees has a policy for naming buildings and facilities. The Board policy includes a section on renaming buildings. It states: “Under extraordinary circumstances when the continued use of the name would compromise the public trust and reflect adversely upon the University, Clemson University reserves the right to rename the building or facility.” We believe retaining the name Tillman Hall in honor of an individual whose hatred and fear were expressed in the murder of citizens of South Carolina absolutely reflects adversely upon Clemson University and the Board should exercise its right to rename the building. If the process mandated by the Heritage Act, thoroughly described in a forthcoming Open Forum, must be followed then the Board should initiate the process.
4. If we remove the name people will forget the history of the Tillman period. We disagree. This is neither a logical nor even reasonably probable outcome unless there is an accompanying vacuum of intellectual leadership and vision. The newly renamed building can have a plaque, a wall, a room and/or some other educational historical reflection on Mr. Tillman, his times, an even fuller account of his role in the birth of the University, and a greater expression and understanding of the complex historical record associated with Mr. Tillman that undoubtedly reflects a complex individual in a highly imperfect time. We think removing the name provides strong repudiation of his actions and the hatred engendered by the legacy of men like Ben Tillman. The name on that building is not a reflection of heritage, it is a representation of hatred.
The Chairman of the Clemson University Board of Trustees also said in the editorial that he believed he had a “good sense of most of the Clemson faculty, alumni and students” and that “There is no appetite to start changing the names of buildings.” We urge the Clemson University community to show that we do indeed have an appetite to change the name of Tillman Hall. We believe it is time to step up and commit to each other that we will maintain Clemson University as not only a high seminary of learning, but also ensure it is a beacon of moral and intellectual integrity. To do otherwise is a step back.
We, the undersigned Past Presidents of the Faculty Senate, extend to the Board of Trustees an open invitation to, and an offer of sponsorship or assistance in hosting, a campus forum having a format of their choosing in which they can better gauge the campus appetite for changing the name of Tillman Hall, and participate in a civil and intellectual exchange of views regarding the Tillman issue and the future of the University.
Charlie Gooding
Beth Kunkel
Francis McGuire
Kelly Smith
Kinly Sturkie
Bill Surver
Fred Switzer
Holley Ulbrich
Dan Warner
The opinions expressed in this Open Forum are our own and not necessarily those of the Faculty Senate or any other entity on campus.
I join the Faculty Senate Past President signatories to the accompanying Open Forum in calling for forward movement on considering […]
Update / Correction: This Open Forum Letter was submitted earlier in the year, during the Spring 2015 Academic Term. Dr. […]
Here are some numbers you should know: Since 2006, 26% (700) of Clemson staff have been outsourced, moved to time-‐limited […]
In regard to renaming Tillman Hall, I encourage the faculty to resist indulging in political correctness that attempts to revise history and does nothing to address the real causes of the recent tragedy in Charleston.
This sort of action, carried to its logical conclusion, would result in a great many historical buildings and monuments to political figures of the 18th and 19th centuries being stripped of names such as Washington, Jefferson and Calhoun, among many others. Our history is not always pretty but it is ours and obscuring it is problematic.
Ben Tillman and his politics are long dead and no one I have ever known expressed any admiration for the common practices of the 19th century that he espoused. He is, however, a significant figure in the history of SC and Clemson. Erasing him and long tradition at Clemson by academic symbolism, instead of doing something useful to address the actual problem, would be a better use of the faculty’s time and energy.
Michael T. McCoy, Class of 1971
With this line of thinking, why would you only change the name of Tillman Hall. Why would you not change the name of the university? The university was originally a plantation John C Calhoun and Thomas G Clemson were both slave owners. Slaves are buried in unmarked graves Southeast of the stadium, possibly under the stadium. Why would you revisionists only stop with one change? I find the the idea of changing history offensive. Embrace the history and heritage. Change the future.
Addressing the reasons not to change that you mention:
1. Removing a symbol that has nothing to do with the current state of affairs will not correct or improve anything. There will never be agreement from those who want so-called symbols re-named or removed that enough is done. While I agree removing the flag from statehouse grounds is the appropriate thing to do at this time, if we rename Tillman, what is next – references to Calhoun, Thurmond, Clemson? Shall Washington & Lee University be renamed? Will all of this be directed at the South or will we include all those in other parts of the country that have similar skeletons in their closets? We need to get beyond trying to mend race relations with past symbols and address what needs to be done with current behavior. Harvey Gantt entered Clemson my freshman year. He was more than a symbol but rather than rename Tillman, name a newer building after him and let that “symbolize” the way things have changed over history.
2. There is no right time.
3. I don’t know the pertinent laws on this but I don’t think that should be the basis for objecting to the name change. There are better reasons.
4. Seems to me that forgetting history is one of the objectives. There are too many instances of “forgetting history” now. It is what it is and renaming and otherwise hiding references to it doesn’t change it or correct the errors that might have been made in a different time under different circumstances.
Bottom line – I think re-naming Tillman won’t have any lasting positive effect and would set a precedent that will be continued on and on.
I suggest that those who do not like the name Tilman on the “old main” building need to find another place to hang their hat.
Are we going to change the name of the Jefferson Memorial to the obama memorial or something just as insidious!
If it had not been for the work of Tilman, there would be no Clemson University. Yes he was a racist. GET OVER IT!
There are a lot of people in the history who did much good that in today’s world would not be thought well of. Like it or not, this is part of our history……………..
J. Mishoe, class of 68
I strongly support the position of this “..Appetite..Open Essay” that it is past time to change the primary icon of Clemson (other than the Tiger Paw) by removing Tillman from Old Main.
Two additional truths must be entered into the decision:
1)Changing the name does not detract from the tremendous battle courage or skill of the soldiers who fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War. Tillman’s heinous behavior was after peace was declared.
2)Naming a building HONORs the name! It does not recognize the occurrence or place held in history. Does the Board of Trustees and the Legislature really want to HONOR Tillman and his actions? If so, they should be required to present salient passages from Tillman’s speeches to the US Senate to every potential honor student, athletic recruit, business partner, and faculty with a declaration that this is what Clemson honors.
How can alumni who support the above essay’s intent, lend their support? I was born, raised, and educated in SC. My ancestors include James Lawrence Orr. I believe we have erred in the last 150 years; I do not want Clemson to look back in another 150 years and have missed this opportunity to move forward.
Please persist.
Bill Orr
BS ME 69