Last week, UNC-Greensboro’s Board of Trustees voted to rename its former Aycock Auditorium, which we applaud. The man it was named after, Charles Aycock, was a former governor of North Carolina who rode to power as part of a white supremacist political movement. We are happy for the activists on UNC-G’s campus that made this change possible. Yet, this change on a campus less than an hour away from here reflects how sad it is that UNC persists in its rule to enforce a 16-year ban on changes to building names.
As we have argued before, dismissing the possibility of further name changes for 16 years appears to be an effort to undercut needed discussions about the troubled history of our university.
There is merit to the argument that figures in the past should be judged by the standards of their times. Even in our own age, well-intentioned people are capable of horrific behavior encouraged or tolerated by the norms of our society.
At the same time, this must never be an excuse to disregard the inherent human value of those voices erased from history — the victims of violence at the hands of other humans. Every victim of lynching in North Carolina in Aycock’s time understood the full force and effect of white supremacy as angry mobs took their lives and mutilated their bodies. These were people with families, influence and agency too.
And Charles Aycock was not merely a man of his time taught to think in white supremacist terms; he actively encouraged it to forward his own political fortunes.
We don’t believe we should necessarily dance on Aycock’s grave or refuse to engage with a holistic understanding of his effect on North Carolina. After all, Aycock also argued for democratic access to education. He was a human being. We all carry flaws.
But the lives of those who died because of the white supremacy Aycock espoused didn’t matter any less than his. We have a solemn duty to constantly re-examine our history and the people in it we choose to honor.
Our understanding of the extreme violence and terror associated with his political rule means we cannot continue to honor him or others like him in good conscience. After all, we have a residence hall named after this very same man. We should follow the examples of other universities in our system.
We must continue to discuss the meaning of whose names we choose to honor. Closing any possibility of change is an abdication of the Board of Trustees’ responsibility.
