From Adam Falk:

To the Williams Community,

Built over a period of more than two centuries, the Williams campus is a collection of structures old and new. We are fortunate to have been bequeathed such a remarkably diverse set of facilities, and in our commitment to sustainability we renovate and reuse old buildings as often as we reasonably can.

The students are diverse . . . the faculty is diverse . . . even the buildings are diverse! Diversity is every modern college’s godhead. Not that there is anything wrong with that!

But it is also true that as many campus buildings were constructed in eras quite different from our own, at times they were decorated in ways that seem problematic in a modern context. The same is true of some of the monuments that are found on our campus. How do such forms of decoration, conceived in an earlier time, affect our capacity to be a fully inclusive community in this century? And what should be done about historical images that portray Williams as less welcoming than we are or aspire to be?

Why raise this topic now? Why send out this e-mail? Perplexing. I have seen zero discussion on campus about “problematic” monuments. Has anyone else?

The most famous example that I can think of is/was the swastika on the side of Weston.

DSCN2138.JPG

Previous discussion here and here. I had heard that this had been sandblasted away last year. True? Who made that decisions and why did they make it?

Back to Falk:

I would like our community to consider these questions—which go beyond any one object—in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. With that purpose in mind, I’m assembling a special committee of students, faculty, staff, and alumni to bring forward recommendations of a nature both general (what principles should guide us?) and specific (what should we do about a particular piece that’s of concern?).

EphBlog is here to help! What is a list of problematic objects/monuments/images that the committee should consider? Needless to say, a lot of the books in the library will need to go . . .

My thanks go to Karen Merrill, chair of the history department and former dean of the college, who will lead the committee. Additional members will include:

Joe Cruz ’91, professor of philosophy
Katarzyna Pieprzak, professor and chair of Romance languages
David L. Smith, professor of English
Keli Gail, secretary of the college
Ferentz Lafargue, director of the Davis Center
Kevin Murphy, curator of American art, WCMA
Rick Spalding, chaplain to the college
Leila Jere ’91, president of the Society of Alumni

Smart presidents know the answer that they want ahead of time and select the committee accordingly. What answer does Falk want?

The committee will also include three students, whom I will name in consultation with College Council and the Minority Coalition. The committee will begin its work in the new calendar year, at which time it will outline the process for engaging the wider community about these questions.

This was a stupid decision when Falk made it, as later events proved clear. (Discussion coming tomorrow.) Why privilege the Minority Coalition? They don’t have a reputation for sober discussion and reasonable decision-making. Much better is to, ahead of time, pick students for the committee. Needless to say, the three would be racial diverse, with at least one African American member. But Falk hardly needs Min Co to accomplish that. Any member of the committee would be happy to suggest a dozen names, all of whom would be honored to be asked.

Finally, I should note that one item is of particular concern, a mural in the Black Room of the recently renovated Log depicting Mohawk Chief Hendrick, Ephraim Williams, and others before a battle. Because the mural portrays the Mohawks in a way that is potentially problematic, I have instructed that it be temporarily covered while the committee considers the larger questions with which it is charged. I expect that in the course of its work the committee will issue a recommendation regarding this particular mural. Covering it now is not intended to be a prejudgment—of any kind—of the committee’s eventual recommendation, which we anticipate in due course.

Is this the painting that Falk is talking about?

log

If so, what is the problem? And, if this painting can’t be hung at The Log, then there must be a score of paintings at The Clark that will have to go . . .

I’m grateful to the committee members for undertaking this important task. We begin this work out of genuine care and concern both for the Williams we inherited and the Williams we continue to create together.

Sincerely,
Adam Falk
President

If I were Falk, I would focus the College’s energy elsewhere.

Facebooktwitter
Print  •  Email