Ah, I see. One may reasonably surmise from his quote that Mr. Simkins participated in lynchings: and if so he was a murderer. You're saying that we should maintain the honor given to a likely murderer ... just to defend history, doncha know.
If the man was honored by having a campus building named after him, either it was for something beneficial and non-nefarious, or the entire institution should be held to account for having so honored him.
Simpkins was more than just a garden variety racist; he acted out on it. He might well have been honored for being nefarious; or, they may just have a tradition of naming buildings after past presidents.
Nevertheless, his activities were certainly no great secret, since he boasted about his them in an alumni magazine: he was proud of them; and the people of his time were obviously not ignorant of the facts.
More generally, one might say that the evidence points to UT having a dark past in regards to blacks. Simpkins was apparently just a particularly egregious example of a more general problem. Maybe they should be held to account.
What evidence? This stupid article on this particular incident?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
btw....smokin joe has a hell of a lot more credibility and LEGITIMACY to bitch about white on black racism should he choose than you and your little band of idjits like stormer can ever hope for in your bigoted zeal.
By your standards we can simply start by purging evryone who ever acted “racist or racialist” as a white man towards any minority from the founders and onwards
which means there won't be jack left but you silly poseurs giving it up for Sharia law and the rest of us will be relegated to some forgotten dustbin
i hope you enjoy it
crackers like you numbnuts are what gave us Obama...thanks u weakminded doofuss
No. Go back and re-read what I said. The first part was a general comment about the destruction of our history. History is history. warts and all. This Southerner may be stripped of his honors justifiably, but there is no denying the systematic removal of those who are judged by changing criteria of what is considered honorable (and again, I'm not defending this guy in particular).
Toward the end of your comment you showed signs of getting what I meant. Sometimes the conferring of 'honor' says more about those doing the honoring in the long run than the one who was 'honored'. (Take the recent crop of Nobel Prize winners, for example.)