The Fulbright duality OPINION

Senator’s name chosen to promote peace, understanding

My colleague Randall Woods [“Fulbright: A tale of two icons,” July 13] set out perfectly the contrasting legacies of the late Sen. J. William Fulbright: the early and haunted legacy of political survival in an era of persistent racism, and the later and luminous legacy as a crusader for international understanding and peace.

Now the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and, specifically, its College of Arts and Sciences are being asked to decide whether the early legacy should, indeed must, eclipse the latter. Professor Woods concludes that although icons are important, constitutional rights and social justice are more important. I agree with his conclusion, but not with its implication that in the case of Fulbright College the name should be struck and the statue toppled.

When the College of Arts and Sciences decided in 1980 to become the J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences it marked a new chapter at the University of Arkansas. Up to that point, the constituent colleges were labeled generically as the College of Business Administration, the College of Law, the College of Agriculture, etc. By embracing the name of its most distinguished graduate, the faculty and administration of the College of Arts and Sciences deliberately chose to honor the senator and, moreover, to embrace in its educational mission the promotion of international peace and understanding. Since that time, several of the other colleges and units have followed suit, creating the Sam Walton College of Business, the Leflar Law Center, the Eleanor Mann College of Nursing, the Fay Jones College of Architecture, the David and Barbara Pryor Center for Arkansas Oral and Visual History and the Dale Bumpers College of Agriculture.

Such dedications are not trivial decisions and require not only extensive consideration of worthiness but also the support of faculty and administration. In the case of the naming of Fulbright College, no one was more involved, no one more central than Professor Woods, who later in his distinguished career served as dean of this very college.

In my then-capacity as associate dean, I conducted the freshman orientation for new students for over a decade. During these sessions for students and parents I explained why the students were matriculating in a college named for the senator, how his vision of international understanding had shaped our curriculum, and what, as a faculty, we hoped might guide these students’ future contributions to world peace. I stand by those words today.

I also acknowledge that I never mentioned Fulbright’s early failures. I trust my successors can and will remedy my omissions. But that remedy cannot occur if the name is erased, the iconic statue opposite the Peace Fountain taken down. Our current historical moment, long in coming and triggered by the Black Lives Matter movement, rightfully demands adjustments, corrections, contextualization and admission of error. I submit it should not result in “cancelling” a figure who is genuinely and uniquely important to the state of Arkansas.

To those who worry that today’s Black students may be uncomfortable walking by Fulbright’s statue or accepting a diploma bearing his name, I further submit that it is not the function of college to make students feel comfortable. The function is to help them think, to develop critical habits of mind that will search, challenge and reach independent judgment. To that end, an iconic statue of a thoughtful, pensive Fulbright at the foot of the Fay Jones Peace Fountain could, and should, serve as an example of a public life that broke its early strictures and became great.