U-M Panel Recommends Taking Yost's Name Off Building
LINK.
"A panel has recommended the university remove Yost's name and is asking members of the school campus community for feedback on the proposal. The President’s Advisory Committee on University History is accepting input on the plan until June 7."
The irony is that without Yost, UM would be another Indiana.
Children of Red has a nice ring to it.
Sounds like the communist youth movement.
Communists are coming?
WOLVERINES!
I really value history and tradition but they might as well get out infront of this now. I assume Schembechler is next?
I am sure I could google more of the concerns people have - but the article specifically highlights this as one of the main reasons they recommended changing the name.
I assume there is "worse" out there on him? I mean, it was the 1940's and another team refused to play. He didn't personally discriminate against Willis Ward in this instance - he bowed to the "cancel culture" of the time and didn't play his star.
Seems "minor" compared to a lot of other shady characters.
Racism was the cancel culture of the day? I don't even know where to start on that one, so I'll stick to the other bad argument.
Yost absolutely personally discriminated against Willis Ward. Yost was opposed to having black players on the football team because of "a simple, Anglo-Saxon desire for clear energetic sport." Yost, as athletic director, scheduled Georgia Tech specifically to cause this problem. When Georgia Teach suggested canceling the game, Yost was adamant that it be played, and assured them that Ward would be benched.
Michigan didn't have another black football player for 7 more years, after Yost retired.
The last bit is also pretty reprehensible, even at the time...
That the benching severely damaged many undergraduate students, including, first, Ward himself who experienced the immediate indignity of the action and felt it undermined his competitive spirit in other areas. But other damaged students included the members of the football team (which happened to include Ward friend and future President Gerald Ford) who were outraged and demoralized by the decision, and the student leaders of the protests against the benching who were shamefully expelled later based in part on an on-campus investigation by Pinkerton detectives who were hired by Yost and paid for by athletic department funds.
Yep - all good information not referenced in the article and I shared my lack of knowledge about Yost above.
Not great.
LOL - ok, way to ignore the first part I stated: "I am sure I could google more of the concerns people have - but the article specifically highlights this as one of the main reasons they recommended changing the name."
I explicitly stated I didn't know much about his past outside of what is present in the article. The example in the article provides zero context and has a weak characterization of what happened - if the article you shared is accurate (no reason not to believe it is).
And I DID put cancel culture in quotes, which you also conveniently ignored and want to make a character judgement. Ok.
If Yost went against popular opinion (which in the 1930's would have been very anti-black), yes, he would have faced backlash in the court of public opinion - and knowing powerful boosters throughout the years, administration, whomever - could have been ousted for going against said public opinion. Hence - cancel culture ("CANCEL CULTURE") of the time.
The example in the article provided almost no context that you provided - but thank you for sharing an article. I've not read John U. Bacon's book either.
what is the evidence suggesting that "Yost, as athletic director, scheduled Georgia Tech specifically to cause this problem."? Just curious.
And what if he gave a speech to the entire team, apologizing to Ward that he was going to do this while telling the rest of the team to whip their arse without their best player?
What does valuing history and tradition have to do with naming things after people? Changing the name of a building doesn't mean Yost suddenly doesn't exist anymore
Taking names down from buildings may not appease everybody. I fear it won't stop with just Yost.
Probably not. Schembechler is the likely next target. But what about all the buildings named after Taubman, a convicted of price fixing fraud? I'd imagine if you go back further in history, you'll find more dark parts of U-M leaders' pasts.
I'm a 1978 graduate of what was then called the U-M College of Architecture and Urban Planning, and I'm still irritated that Taubman was later able to barnacle his name to the college because he made a shitload of money developing architecturally mediocre shopping malls.
as a fellow architecture grad (87 and 93), i agree 100%.
I know that I'm going to get negged, but it has to be said:
1) The Sotheby's price fixing conviction was absolutely the case of an overzealous prosecutor doing whatever he could to take down the rich and powerful. The actual criminal turned state's evidence to save her own hide and gave questionable testimony about what Taubman knew of her scheme.
2) Hating on someone who gave over $250 MM to the University for medical research, architecture and other facilities is just a bad look. He also gave money to Harvard, Brown, the Center for Creative Studies in downtown Detroit, etc.
In the early '80's, Taubman bought A&W out of bankruptcy (saving an iconic American brand) and launched a 1/3 lb burger to compete against McDonald's 1/4 lb'er. It flopped and surveys revealed that it flopped because more than half of people thought that a 1/3 lb was less than a 1/4 lb (3<4). From that point forward he poured his fortune into philanthropy aimed at education.
Correct. The price fixing was between Sotheby's CEO and Christie's CEO. The prosecutor offered a deal to both CEOs but only on the grounds they implicated Taubman. Aside from their testimony, there's no evidence against him.
Hating on someone who gave over $250 MM to the University for medical research, architecture and other facilities is just a bad look.
I'm not "hating on someone" who's donating large sums of money—in part I'm questioning why wealthy people always need their names plastered on the institutions they're supposedly so selflessly helping. Well, it's not really a mystery—it's ego, plain and simple.
With respect to the architecture school, it's great Taubman was a donor, but the structures he developed will never in a thousand years be considered as anything more than bland, cookie-cutter developer architecture with just enough "design" flourishes to enable them to be considered somewhat "upscale."
More to the point, it's incredibly ironic that Taubman's name is now attached permanently to an urban planning program, a field of study that has been strenuously making the argument for fifty years that virtually unrestrained suburban/exurban development—in which shopping malls have played an absolutely central role—has contributed hugely to the hollowing out of major urban cores all over the country, including Detroit.
One of my neighbors is a retired long-time faculty member of the urban planning program, and to say that the UP planning faculty at the time were aghast at the imposition of Taubman's name on the college is an understatement.
With respect, I don't agree with what you say about donors "plastering" their names on buildings or the like. I've heard many people with that view, but a naming right for a nonprofit organization is not something to be scorned. It's to be encouraged. And it's not to glorify the donor.
Years ago I was involved in a fundraising campaign for a religious organization. The question came up over whether we should allow naming rights. Some people expressed the same view as some on here: "Why do people need to have their names on things? They should just donate without asking for credit." Our fundraising consultant said, "You don't do it to glorify the donors. You do it to show that these things didn't just happen. They happened because people who came before you were willing to pay for them. If a donor wants to be anonymous, you should try to talk him or her out of it because of the example it sets, You do it so that every time someone sees a name on an item (building, classroom, something even smaller) they know why we have it." And that's right. Every time someone walks into a building or a classroom, they will know that that building or classroom was there because someone donated the money for it. And if, G-d willing, that person is someday in a position to do the same, they will.
Well said and well reasoned even though I personally would be uncomfortable plastering my name on a building since I still believe that the purpose of charity is to serve the cause, not your own ego. Fortunately, this likely only a hypothetical moral dilemma and not a real one given my utter inability to ever donate a large enough sum.
Duplicate. Sorry. I blame it on my Macbook.
let's be clear here. i have no opinion whatsoever on taubman vis-a-vis guilt / innocence / shady / not shady. i truly don't care either way.
my problem is the naming of an any public institution after someone because they gave money to it. period, full stop.
i'm very happy that my degree doesn't say i got it from the "a. alfred taubman college of architecture and urban planning." him funding medical research and trying to save a&w doesn't make me feel any different.
He also went to jail didn't he?
"Mediocre" is false. They are dismal and destructive. Fortunately, many will be removed from the landscape in the next few year.
Thank you for your comment and it get me thinking about the others you refer to. You made my point about all the others.
I think removing Schembechler will tear apart all of the living football alums who played for him as well as all other before and after him. Not to mention how many donors will be affected-in a negative way.
I fear Cancel Culture will run rampant across this university and that would be really bad. I can hope and pray it doesn't happen.
I would be glad if they took most, if not all of the names down. Many reasons to. I would like to see a balance, meaning more appeal to the future and less grabbing on to the past. A huge part of Michigan’s culture problems in the AD seems anchored to too many people living for the past at the expense of needed change.
consequences of being a deeply shitty person is not "cancel culture" its accountability.
exactly.
Who is being held accountable? Yost? Even if taking his name down is the right thing to do, its not really holding anyone accountable. It's all about the image of the University and who they want to prominently associate with from their past. We're not punishing dead people who were born in the 1800s for being racist. I guess the university is being accountable by doing this? It's kind of a vague accountability at best.
There's nothing "cancel culture" about any of this. It's about removing the names from a building when that name has become tarnished.
There will still be a hockey team. You can still call it Yost.
No, you can't. Because you'll be corrected by those who know better.
Taking someone’s name off a building isn’t ‘cancelling’ them. Their name will still show up in the record books, they will still be associated with the university and people who are interested can still learn about them (both the good and the bad). Taking Yost’s name off the building where we play hockey doesn’t ‘cancel’ him in any way, but sure - go ahead and clutch those pearls it makes you feel better.
Not sure why you are getting negged. I can think of no likely scenario where Harbaugh would continue coaching here if Schembechler were to be cancelled. Schembechler is one of Jim's greatest mentors. On the other hand, a lot of people here would be happy to see Harbaugh go.
What was the basis for the recommendation?
I mean you could name it after Red and it would make more sense anyway. As far as I can tell Yost had little to nothing to do with hockey. Red made Michigan hockey what it is today.
He was athletic director when we played Ga Tech in 1934 (in Ann Arbor, BTW). GT wouldn't play us unless Willis Ward was benched and Yost autobenched him.
Im a little more surprised we haven't named something for Willis Ward.
If they rename it after another individual or individuals, I think calling it the "Ward-Ford Memorial Arena" or the "Willis Ward Arena" should be considered.
In general I believe we should name more buildings after players. They truly put their bodies and futures on the line for the school
Basically because Fielding Yost was somewhat racist (shocking that someone born in 1871 in WV would have different idea of racial justice as those of us living today, I know).
A large deal is made about Yost only having one black athlete on the football team during his tenure: Willis Ward (great personal story if you don't know who that is). Michigan had a game against Georgia Tech (during the segregated 1930s) and Tech would not play if Ward did - so Yost obliged and had Ward sit that game. Maybe not the best response from a moral standpoint, but certainly understandable from that time in history (and Yost was far from being alone to be put in that predicament).
One could argue that Yost wasn't progressive enough and did not do enough to promote racial/social justice (when that was not part of his job description or expectations from the university). One could also point out that Yost was the first to *integrate* Michigan football and bring in student-athletes of color (and probably got a fair amount of blowback from some quarters for doing so).
I hate this trend of modern revisionist character judgement instead of placing things/people in proper context. Was Yost (or other figures such as Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, etc.) an "ideal" role model for today? Of course not (and how many people would actually ever meet that kind of standard?). Does this mean they shouldn't be recognized & honored for their positive achievements?
(I see the website is having reply posts go to the wrong comments again. Good job HUEL.)
I agree that revisionist history can be tricky, especially with people born generations ago when, admittedly, times and social norms were different. And yeah, Yost (like most people) was idiosyncratic - he supported Jewish athletes playing at UM during a time when anti-Semitism was prevalent, but also was pretty anti-Catholic (and by extension anti-immigrant) and was a driving force against letting Notre Dame into the conference. He's a complex human being, like we all are.
But it's also why naming buildings after them isn't worth it in my eyes, especially when these transgressions are known at the time. Plus, and I'll admit I don't know the timelines completely, wasn't Yost the AD at the time the Fieldhouse was named? If so, that's probably an additional reason to side-eye the whole naming decision.
BronxBlue,
perfectly stated. I’m all for honoring the achievements. Books, museums, displays in the stadium, all fine. But we don’t need buildings named for people.
Elihu Yale.
Leland Stanford. Your point, I presume, is that if the brand associated with the name is strong enough, even the most judgmental among us will not want to change it. Yost just doesn’t deliver enough brand to get past today’s inquisitors. Yale and Stanford do. I wonder how many of us would be able to survive a close inspection of our lives according to the standards of 2075, whatever they may be?
Yost was also a blood-enemy of Knute Rockne, so to blame him for not wanting ND on an anti-Catholic/anti-immigrant campaign is a bit ridiculous. Do we think there weren't any Catholics on his teams at Michigan (or anywhere else)? There are as many Catholics in the world as there are Protestant...
This.
I think Yost was far more anti-ND than anti-Catholic (if at all).
didn't Rockne's cheating go to the root of Yost's hatred of him?