PAIGE MITCHELL, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES
Proposal Type
Traditional Panel
Seeking
- Seeking Additional Presenters
- Seeking General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
- Memory
- Social Justice
Abstract
In the Fall of 2018, an exhibit called “A Campus Divided,” which opened at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, caused a stir on campus and in the larger Twin Cities community. Highlighting the controversial nature of some prominent historical university presidents and administrators, the exhibit questioned the commemoration of these figures and the buildings which bore their names
Therefore, the authors hope to present on the topic of institutional history and naming. The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has held various discussions over the past few months on the topic, resulting in outright denial of the university’s discriminatory history by the Board of Regents and other university administrators.
Description
Ultimately, the Board of Regents rejected the proposal for building renaming, and emphasized the importance of further work and discussion on the issue. This issue is fresh and raw, with many people left feeling disrespected and frustrated by the board and the larger University. Recently, institutions around the nation have begun to grapple with their histories, and so it is pressing that these conversations start now and continue as the process unfolds.
Therefore, the authors propose a structured conversation or panel which will consider the topic of institutional histories, and the various responses of administrators. Two panel participants would include the authors of this proposal, Paige Mitchell, and Laura Leppink. Both are Master’s students at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities in the Heritage Studies and Public History Program. Paige Mitchell is currently writing an institutional history for the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation in St.Paul, Minnesota, and Laura Leppink was a researcher for the Task Force on Building Names and Institutional History and helped compile the Task Force’s report.
This panel or conversation would hopefully unite fellow professionals or students who are facing similar experiences at their institutions, with the goal of sharing possible solutions or intellectual directions. We are looking for more panelists from different institutions who might provide other perspectives on the issue.
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly: Paige Mitchell, [email protected]
All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 1, 2019. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.
Paige, I am intrigued by the community and administrative response of your university around this exhibit. I think this session would be great with fellow presenters at others institutions that have had to deal with their contentious pasts and confront them. There is another session prposal that is somewhat getting at the same thing entitled Presenting Racial Histories- at Predominately White Institutions. Perhaps y’all could talk and combine?
Hi, Rebecca!
I apologize for the delayed response! Thank you for pointing my attention to the other proposal! I will be sure to get in contact.
We have had scholars from other institutions contact us about joining the panel, so I am excited about the possibilities for this panel!
Paige and Laura,
Would you consider archivists with similar experiences of preserving collections for universities that largely consist of the papers, ephemera, and material lives of the controversial persons’ in question? I feel that many University Archivists also struggle with this dynamic of performing their profession on a collection that is mandated to them much like the University is naming buildings after donors and controversial alumnus.
Hi, Kimberlee!
Definitely! We have quite a few scholars interested in the panel, so I can add you to our email thread if you are interested in joining! You can drop your email here, or can reach me at [email protected].
I’d love to be a part of this panel and think the case study I’ve been working on would be a great fit if you widened the scope a bit. I’ve edited a book of late Victorian love letters (Iinked below) that were once hidden by the institution where I work because of their queer content . A lot of the project has been my effort to deal with our contentious past decisions and confront them, to borrow the phrasing in Rebecca’s comment. I’m an editor trained in archives management and museum studies who researches LGBTQ+ history, so I could bring an archival/editorial/queer perspective to things.
http://www.mnhs.org/mnhspress/books/precious-and-adored
https://www.autostraddle.com/precious-and-adored-reading-victorian-love-letters-writing-queer-history/
Hi, Lizzie!
Wow! This sounds great! We are actually interested in widening the scope, as we have the possibility of talking about the institutional histories of a charitable foundation and a hospital, along with universities.
You can leave your email here, or email me at [email protected] and I can join you in on the email thread that we have going! We are hoping to arrange a Skype call or some other video call soon to hash out details and figure out how to collaborate and create a great panel session!
Best,
Paige
Hi all!
I’d love to talk about the issues we have here at the University of South Carolina. One of the women’s dorms is named after J. Marion Simms, known as the father of modern gynecology. This legacy is complicated by the fact that Simms learned most of everything through operating on the bodies of enslaved women. Understandably, several student organizations would like to see this changed, but are stopped by a “compromise” put together by the SC legislature in 2000. In that agreement, the confederate flag was brought down from the top of the state house and raised on a flag pole on the grounds (removed completely four years ago in the wake of the Charleston massacre). The agreement also saw the dedication of a monument to African Americans in SC. The insidious part of the plan demanded that any further change to buildings, monuments, streets, or anything else governed by the state must be approved by a 3/4 vote by the legislature. This effectively means that any change is all but impossible.