We want to help the school. We are doing this because we love the school. Morally, removing Lee from the name and brand of the university is the right thing to do. It's also the right thing to do from a business perspective. The university is boxed in, even though they may not see it or admit it yet. Lee is the primary brand of the university, and he is one of the primary symbols of white supremacy.

Despite the great work in admissions, especially in the last few years, the Lee name is a hindrance. After many events within the last decade, it will be more of an obstacle. Ask the professionals in admissions. Ask the coaches who are serious about recruiting for diversity.

It is an obstacle in recruiting adults as well. President Dudley said in 2021 that in the previous two years, 45% of tenure-track faculty hires were people of color and 20% were Black. That sounds great, but it doesn't take a math major to realize that he is talking about 20 people, 9 people, and 4 people. That is not enough. There are no Black cabinet members.

It may not affect giving immediately, but many younger alumni also support a name change. This will become even more apparent as millennials and Gen-Z begin to make the kind of money to donate in large amounts.

We want to make sure that history is accurate. We want to take Lee out of the lost-cause mythology and place him back into history. Nobody wants to pretend that Lee did not exist.

After Germany’s defeat in WW2, the Germans did not name universities after Rommel. They did not teach that the Nazis were great men fighting for a noble cause. They did not build monuments to Rommel either. But Nazi Germany did not disappear from history because it IS history—it happened. In fact, that period and those historical figures have been studied and written about endlessly because they are fascinating.

We buy into facts. Actual history. The history that is not mythology. When we learn new facts, we are open to revising our own views. In fact, that is a a foundational principle of a liberal arts education.

Revisionism refers to re-interpretation of historical accounts. We reject the revisionist label as it relates to Lee, because we are evaluating him objectively based on the introduction of facts that previously have been suppressed by those who promoted the myths and lies of Lost Cause narratives, including the university itself.

The lost-cause idolization of Lee IS revisionist history. He was a traitor against the United States of America. He didn't fight the "Union", he fought against the United States Army.

We disagree. We believe that the truth provides firm footing.
But if it is a slippery slope, it's because it's built on a mountain of myths, lies, and legends built over the past 150 years to support a racist and classist mindset, and it’s time that it be torn down. We don't know where it stops, but we are saying that it can start with Lee.

We do not know what the future looks like. No one does. But we DO believe that the risk of the status quo is more dangerous than the risk of change, both from a moral and a business perspective. We believe that the longer that the university wastes time and energy trying to rationalize the legacy of Lee, the more pain there will be for all members of the university community. 

As it stands. With the name, the University is the largest Confederate monument in the United States.

The name is also more harmful than any statue. Because it is an undeserved and undesired honor that legitimizes what the man stood for. Because it was the foundation of a business model based on name recognition, not merit.

It was the foundation of a culture, rather than a small aesthetic piece of it. The trustees were trading on Lee's name. Then the university intentionally propagated a mythology, ethos, and culture after the fact to justify and inflate Lee’s “contributions to the school” so that the university could continue to prosper. 

Generations pass. But we hope not.

The amount of money that several handfuls of donors have given to the school is astounding in its generosity. It has changed lives. It bothers us when people cast those patrons in a negative light. “Rich old people,” “White and Loaded”—those sorts of labels bother us.

Those people have done more for the university and for students over the years than most of us will ever be able to do. Our belief is that those people have supported the school because they love the whole school—not just one part of it. We think they love the school more than they love Lee. In fact, that's not only true of the super-wealthy. It's true of almost all donors.

We will not propose a new name. We think that there should be a renaming process led by the Board of Trustees working with people who are experts in such things (i.e., branding agencies). 

 Further, we believe that if that process is transparent, and seeks input from all members of the university community, that it will provide an opportunity for healing. We also believe that the process will offer the university an unprecedented opportunity, complete with millions of dollars in free media, to tell the wider world about its values and strategic initiatives, and that it will be a tremendous asset in recruiting students, faculty, coaches, and key leaders. In fact, it will be the first time in ages that the university will have the opportunity to tell its own story, rather than reacting to current events.

We do not want to blow up anything. We are saying that the foundation is already collapsing. Changing the name of the university on moral and business grounds is an issue that does not reside on the left-right political continuum.

Honestly, we do not think that a hard pivot to the left is very likely, given the school’s history, its alumni, its trustees, and so forth. But even if the university were to double down on its reputation as an institution that produces conservative thought leaders, it can better claim moral high ground if its name and brand do not double as a symbol of white supremacy.

hanging the name opens the door for the university to create a culture more in line with its values and 21st century initiatives. We hope that students will participate in building that culture. As alumni, it is not our place to be overly prescriptive about how those initiatives are implemented.