Of course, then the next in line is the worst, by process of elimination, and the criteria for elimination become progressively less until capricious dislike is sufficient.
If the man was honored by having a campus building named after him, either it was for something beneficial and non-nefarious, or the entire institution should be held to account for having so honored him.
Ah, I see. One may reasonably surmise from his quote that Mr. Simkins participated in lynchings: and if so he was a murderer. You're saying that we should maintain the honor given to a likely murderer ... just to defend history, doncha know.
If the man was honored by having a campus building named after him, either it was for something beneficial and non-nefarious, or the entire institution should be held to account for having so honored him.
Simpkins was more than just a garden variety racist; he acted out on it. He might well have been honored for being nefarious; or, they may just have a tradition of naming buildings after past presidents.
Nevertheless, his activities were certainly no great secret, since he boasted about his them in an alumni magazine: he was proud of them; and the people of his time were obviously not ignorant of the facts.
More generally, one might say that the evidence points to UT having a dark past in regards to blacks. Simpkins was apparently just a particularly egregious example of a more general problem. Maybe they should be held to account.