Confederates Defeat Vanderbilt

Inside Higher Education ^ | May 16, 2005 | Scott Jaschik

[TexConfederate1861]

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.

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

[TexConfederate1861]

Yes sireee.....


Anytime now the WLAT Brigade will show up, and the fun will begin:)

I am a submariner as well.....USS Sunfish SSN-649 1978-1981

[Blood of Tyrants]

Let's see. In 1933, a man would work all day for $1 (or less) and today an unskilled worker would make say $10 per hour or about $80. So, let's use a factor of 80 just for the heck of it. That comes out to $4 MILLION.

[TexConfederate1861]

Dixie Ping!

[southernnorthcarolina]

As a Vanderbilt alum (also UNC, as my tag line indicates), I can't tell you how much this gladdens my heart. Thanks so much for the post!

I've been following this issue for quite a while now. As it happens, I received just last week the spring quarterly edition of the alumni mag (creatively titled Vanderbilt Magazine), which contained a long, and I thought well-done and balanced, article commemorating the 25th anniversary of the "merger" between Vanderbilt and Peabody (more accurately, a takeover by Vanderbilt of an economically distressed, yet well-regarded, college devoted primarily to teacher education).

The two schools were (and are) adjacent, separated by 21st Avenue South, and had a long history of cooperation and cross-course registration; yet they seemed miles apart philosophically and academically (Vandy being the stodgy, even conservative, university, and Peabody being largely devoted to public service; therefore, a bit of role reversal in that Vandy tried to erase the "Confederate" name from its more liberal acquisition). The "Confederate Hall" issue was mentioned in a peripheral sense in the article, but I'm sure Vanderbilt had assumed its position would be upheld.

I believe I'll have a celebratory libation on this news. And my future donations to Vanderbilt, if any, will largely depend on the University's course of action on light of this ruling.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Not equivalent. In 1933 a man would work all day for one silver dollar and today silver is only $5.50/oz. $35 would represent an entire month's wages for many.

[Mustng959]

Maybe Vandy can dig into their enormous football winnings fund for the money. (/sarcasm off)

Hey I'm a Tennessee Volunteer fan, what do you expect!

But seriously, a good ruling and kudos to the judge for mentioning the protection of homeland by invading soldiers! Pretty much only the extremely wealthy landowners had slaves. I get irritated by people that assume that if you're born and bred in the South then you automatically support slavery, drink moonshine, never wear shoes, married your cousin, have one leg longer than the other because of the hilly landscape, ......... well you get the picture.
Southern and proud of it!

[sgtbono2002]

Thats Southron and proud of it.

[RXSalesman]

Yep, this is chump change compared to Vandy's multi-$ billion endowment. I hope they pay up and change the name. The DOC could then donate the funds to one of several civil war battlefield preservation efforts in Tennessee that really need the funding.

[sgtbono2002]

south•ron (suhth'r_n) n.
1. Often Southron. A person who lives in the south, especially an
Englishman as called by a Scotsman.
2. A native or inhabitant of the American South. Used by the
Confederates in the Civil War.

[jsk10]

as another vandy alumn, it's good to see our administration act like our football team. but hey, our team has never been beat by a bunch of girls. kirkland hall now has.

ha. i miss san antonio taco's more than i should....

john

[CurlyBill]

Gotta love it!!!

[rwfromkansas]

“A great majority of those who fought in the Confederate armies owned no slaves."

Indeed, less than 5 percent of the Confederacy owned slaves.

It is remarkable just how close the south came to winning the war.

[ikka]

I did say "at a minimum". You could get a loaf of bread for 10 cents then, and today a loaf of bread is about $1.10 to $1.25 , which would come out to $550K to $625K. Of course, that is all after-tax earnings, so if you take into account the much much heavier tax burden, it goes up from there.

[CurlyBill]

Anytime now the WLAT Brigade will show up, and the fun will begin:)

I think there are only a few WLATers left. Most have either been banned or can no longer argue their senseless points.... and just maybe some here at FR were actually embarassed to discover that they actually were brainwashed by leftist professors on this toipic.

[Jasper]

Great news!!
Our Southern ancestors smile from on high.

Thanks for the post Tex.

Deo Vindice,

/jasper

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

So, what does $50,000 in 1933 dollars come to today?

---

Roughly $743,460. See
http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm

for details.

[RichInOC]

Heh. Big deal. I thought everybody beat Vandy.

[baseballmom]

Confederates Defeat Vanderbilt

Good.

[FreedomCalls]

So, what does $50,000 in 1933 dollars come to today?

Go here:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

And plug in the numbers.

It seems $50,000 in 1933 is equal to $743,462 in 2005.

[TexConfederate1861]

If you think they are gone friend, have a look at this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1390366/posts?page=1391#1391


They have new recruits, and are just as vicious.....