Who's John Rogers
- Thread starter chito_and_leon
- Start date
His name is on the law school building (but not the name of the law school). He isn't banished. He was a founding member of a community wing of the KKK, along with most other founding members of our city. Apparently, the man was not that bad of a guy and Sharon Bell, of the law firm Rogers and Bell (and trustee of the Chapman trust) said he was not racist. He also was instrumental in the law school becoming part of TU and was the attorney for the Chapmans.
The 1920s KKK was not all about white clothes and burning crosses. No one wants to talk about that. I get that. But it's hard to view these things in the context in which they occurred.
That said, I'm OK with them changing the name of the building, as long as they don't name it after Kathy Taylor. It always seemed kind of goofy to me. That building was a disaster until a few years ago. I wouldn't want my name on it, even after the renovations.
The 1920s KKK was not all about white clothes and burning crosses. No one wants to talk about that. I get that. But it's hard to view these things in the context in which they occurred.
That said, I'm OK with them changing the name of the building, as long as they don't name it after Kathy Taylor. It always seemed kind of goofy to me. That building was a disaster until a few years ago. I wouldn't want my name on it, even after the renovations.
Interesting, thanks. The "KKK wasn't so bad" thing seems a lot like "Hezbollah isn't so bad because they run hospitals"...
Not what I said. My point is that you have to look at some things in context. Rogers appears to have done more good than bad. He was even on the commission that investigated the race riot, which happened around the same time he started this group.
I know it's not practical to return the money but it doesn't sit well with me that we don't mind taking his.
Charities and universities wouldn't exist if they minded taking money from shady people.
I think if you dug into the pasts of any of Tulsa's elite families you would find this kind of activity. Not condoning it; just saying that it was the normal of the time.
The nations founders were slave holders.. Doesn't mean that their constitutional legacy hasn't benefitted the freed children of those slaves... Same here.. JR may have been a racist douche but the building with his name on it has produced a lot of great civil liberties minded jurists.. Several of whom I am honored to call my friends.
To attempt to make up for the past by erasing offensive reminders of it is insane.
Agreed for the most part. I feel like there was potentially a rush to judgment here. Then again, this is the same law school that was involved in suing the city over the race riot.
I'm not taking a stance in the merit of that case either way. My point is that when you talk about issues like that, they are so complex that taking some action now to correct something bad that happened generations ago seems kind of cheap. It reminds me of renaming the Brady Distrcit after a photographer who never came to Tulsa.
There is a "hey look at me" aspect to this that leaves me with a bad taste. I don't know what this really accomplishes nor do I know how much the board of trustees looked at this in depth. I'm sure it was very thoughtful. In my experience, when you try to throw away history based upon modern viewpoints, you're likely making a mistake.
I'm not taking a stance in the merit of that case either way. My point is that when you talk about issues like that, they are so complex that taking some action now to correct something bad that happened generations ago seems kind of cheap. It reminds me of renaming the Brady Distrcit after a photographer who never came to Tulsa.
There is a "hey look at me" aspect to this that leaves me with a bad taste. I don't know what this really accomplishes nor do I know how much the board of trustees looked at this in depth. I'm sure it was very thoughtful. In my experience, when you try to throw away history based upon modern viewpoints, you're likely making a mistake.
Agree with you both.
My point on the money is why stop with removing the name if he is that shameful? I don't like the hypocrisy of him being so offensive we need to amend history while still directly benefitting from all the good this man did.
My point on the money is why stop with removing the name if he is that shameful? I don't like the hypocrisy of him being so offensive we need to amend history while still directly benefitting from all the good this man did.
With his name gone, there's room for someone else's name to go up (and money to come in). It's the circle of life.
I have no problem with keeping names of buildings up to date with the current mores. It's a message sent today and looking forward and that's a message that should be current and forward looking.
And of course to the winner go the spoils and bro was on the losing side. Nobody's removing Abraham Lincoln's name from anything.
I have no problem with keeping names of buildings up to date with the current mores. It's a message sent today and looking forward and that's a message that should be current and forward looking.
And of course to the winner go the spoils and bro was on the losing side. Nobody's removing Abraham Lincoln's name from anything.
I guess it depends on whether you define "quality" as "agrees with Gold" or "true".
The people that we honor matters, not to them (this guy I take it is dead, regardless of what you believe about what happens next, he's not worrying about this), but as a way of showing the living what we value and what we as a society believe is right, especially in a university, which exists to shape young people into educated and upstanding adults. It matters today to point a way to the future by using examples of greatness and virtue from the past. When those people point not to a vision of virtue and greatness that we wish to teach and emulate but rather to moral failing, then it makes sense not to honor them. They no longer advance our mission and goals. This isn't to erase them from history, but teaching history is the work of books and plaques, not building names.
You'd think so too if you'd said it first
I know today's political correctness means we can't criticize anyone for anything and can't judge anyone for anything they believe or say, but I still believe in right and wrong, and removing a dudes name because we think he doesn't teach lessons of values and morals is fine for me.
Not a big fan of the "all the kids were doing it" argument.
The people that we honor matters, not to them (this guy I take it is dead, regardless of what you believe about what happens next, he's not worrying about this), but as a way of showing the living what we value and what we as a society believe is right, especially in a university, which exists to shape young people into educated and upstanding adults. It matters today to point a way to the future by using examples of greatness and virtue from the past. When those people point not to a vision of virtue and greatness that we wish to teach and emulate but rather to moral failing, then it makes sense not to honor them. They no longer advance our mission and goals. This isn't to erase them from history, but teaching history is the work of books and plaques, not building names.
You'd think so too if you'd said it first
I know today's political correctness means we can't criticize anyone for anything and can't judge anyone for anything they believe or say, but I still believe in right and wrong, and removing a dudes name because we think he doesn't teach lessons of values and morals is fine for me.
Not a big fan of the "all the kids were doing it" argument.
All these SJW's are trying to create "safe places" everywhere. The current generation of college students will be unable to cope with anything negative.
Similar threads
