Building Naming Project Task Force Summary Report and Recommendations Berkeley DF April 2017 Table of Contents Cover Letter April 3, 2017 Dear Chancellor Dirks, Last fall our Building Naming Project Task Force convened for the first time at the direction of your office and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion. The establishment of this task force responds to years of protest over the naming of Barrows Hall, as well as the growing national (and global) conversation and protest over controversial building names on university campuses. We thank you for charging our task force with considering how our campus should address the questions and concerns surrounding building names. The Task Force, chaired by Na’ilah Nasir, Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion, includes undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and ex officio staff representatives from the Office of Legal Affairs and University Development & Alumni Relations. We entered into this endeavor with varied understandings and interests, and through research, exploration, and dialogue came to consensus regarding our vision. In broad terms, the goals of the Task Force were to (1) understand current grievances over building naming, (2) review established policies on building naming, and (3) offer recommendations for addressing the current concerns over Barrows Hall and what we see as gaps in the current policies and practices around the naming of buildings. We present here our process and recommendations for your review and response. Best, Building Naming Project Task Force Na’ilah Nasir (Chair) - Vice Chancellor for Equity & Inclusion Holly Doremus - Professor, Law; Academic Senate Jenny Kwon (Staff to the Task Force) - Special Projects Administrator, Office of the Chancellor Therese Leone (ex officio) - Associate Campus Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Jovan Lewis - Assistant Professor, African American Studies, Geography Rachel Lim - PhD Student, Ethnic Studies Nancy McKinney (ex officio) - Executive Director, Donor and Gift Services, University Development & Alumni Relations 3 Fred Nichols - Undergraduate Student, German and Sociology of Architecture Cheyenne Overall - Graduate Student, Law School History and Context Universities across the nation have faced increasing numbers of protests over controversial names of buildings on their campuses. At UC Berkeley, Barrows Hall, named after the anthropologist and former University of California President David Prescott Barrows has been the subject of much protest. When opened in the mid 1960s, Barrows Hall housed the Business School and Departments of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology. After the now-named Haas School of Business, moved to its current location in 1995, various other departments were relocated to Barrows Hall. It currently houses Political Science, Sociology, Ethnic Studies (including Asian American & Asian Diaspora Studies, Chicana/o & Latina/o Studies, and Native American Studies), African American & African Diaspora Studies, Near Eastern Studies, the Energy and Resources Group, and Gender & Women’s Studies. In the spring of 2015, the Black Student Union (BSU) demanded the renaming of Barrows Hall as part of a broader movement to draw attention to the needs of Black students. In their list of demands, the BSU wrote: Barrows was an imperialist by way of anthropology, and participated in perpetuating American colonialism, the creation of damaging stereotypes, and the subsequent destruction of cultures in the Philippines, and several regions of Africa. Given that the African American Studies, Ethnic Studies Departments, Gender and Women's Studies Departments are housed in this building, Barrows’ name directly opposes the mission of these departments. Additionally, using the hashtag #RenameBarrowsHall, student leaders have proposed a mural project in Barrows Hall that reflects voices of leaders of color. The 2015 concerns expressed by the BSU reflect an historic one by students, particularly those studying within the walls of Barrows Hall. We anticipate these protests will continue until this issue is addressed. We recognize that building names carry enormous symbolic meaning. Furthermore, names associated with the legacies of slavery, U.S. imperialism, and misogyny place uneven burdens on groups that already feel marginalized on campus. Because the Barrows Hall controversy was an important driver of the decision to create this Task Force, we began our work with a discussion of that issue. We concluded that we could not and should not make specific “un-naming” recommendations based solely on our personal assessments. Seeking principles to guide our discussion, we reviewed existing Campus and University naming policies, specifically the University “Policy on 4 Naming University Properties, Academic and Non-Academic Programs, and Facilities” (University Policy) and the “UC Berkeley Principles for Naming” (Berkeley Principles). We found that these existing policies cover the process for naming or renaming a building in some detail, but say little about the substance of naming choices. We take the Barrows controversy seriously, and have no doubt that Berkeley will face similar controversies in the future. We are strongly of the view that campus names carry important messages, and should reflect campus values. We also acknowledge that members of the campus community may perceive the symbolic meaning of names differently. We are troubled that no current policies provide guidance on how to incorporate institutional values in naming decisions, and are convinced that the Berkeley campus and the University of California would benefit from such guidance. We are also acutely aware that our Task Force is a small group that does not necessarily represent all relevant constituencies or views. We therefore recommend that the campus pursue a broader process to understand how the names of facilities, programs, and spaces can further or be in tension with institutional values, and develop principles to guide naming and renaming that explicitly incorporate those values. Committee Overview and Process Charge The Task Force’s original charge included the following: ⦁ Gain an understanding of the policies that direct the naming/un-naming of buildings on our campus; ⦁ Consider the histories of buildings with names that may prove problematic; ⦁ Consider the implications for making any name changes; and ⦁ Summarize in a report recommendations to the Chancellor for any actions. Task Force Membership Chair Na’ilah Nasir - Vice Chancellor for Equity & Inclusion Faculty Holly Doremus - Professor, Law; Academic Senate representative Jovan Lewis - Assistant Professor, African American Studies, Geography Students Rachel Lim - PhD Student, Ethnic Studies Fred Nichols - Undergraduate Student, German and Sociology of Architecture Cheyenne Overall - Graduate Student, Law School; Undergraduate alumnus Staff Jenny Kwon (Staff to the Task Force) - Special Projects Administrator, Office of the 5 Chancellor Therese Leone (ex officio) - Associate Campus Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Nancy McKinney (ex officio) - Executive Director, Donor and Gift Services, University Development & Alumni Relations Process Over the last ten months, the following steps were taken: ⦁ Reviewed Research on Building Names - In advance of the launch of the Task Force, staff in the Office of the Chancellor and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Equity & Inclusion did some initial cursory research on the names of each of the 100+ buildings on campus. Staff drew up a list of about ten buildings with names connected to individuals with possible controversial histories (Barrows Hall included). ⦁ Reviewed Existing Policies - With the help of Task Force member Nancy McKinney from University Development & Alumni Relations, the Task Force reviewed existing University and Campus policies governing building naming. A summary of this review is provided in the next section of this report. There are two of particular policies of relevance: ⦁ UC Systemwide Policy on Naming University Properties, Academic and Non-Academic Programs, and Facilities (see Appendix A). ⦁ UC Berkeley Principles for Naming (see Appendix B). ⦁ ⦁ Reviewed History of Current Building(s) of Concern at Berkeley - As mentioned, there is a long history now of protest against the name of Barrows Hall (and to a lesser extent LeConte Hall). Student members provided valuable information about protest history and student priorities. Reviewed the Experience of Other Universities - The Task Force also reviewed as many cases as we could find of other universities that have grappled with building naming questions in recent years (see Appendix C). The Task Force was particularly impressed by a November 21, 2016 report released by Yale University’s Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming (see Appendix D). This report informed our recommendations below. Review of Existing Policies and Protocols Before summarizing our recommendations to existing policy, we explain our understanding of existing building naming policies and protocols. UC Systemwide Policy on Naming Properties The UC Systemwide Policy on Naming University Properties, Academic and NonAcademic Programs, and Facilities informs all naming approvals across the UC system. It offers procedural guidelines for considering the naming of buildings, spaces, outdoor facilities, and/or programs, with the understanding that authority on final approval of 6 all building namings resides with the UC President. The University Policy draws a distinction between those honored in the absence of a gift, and those honored in direct connection with philanthropy. In the absence of a gift, honorees must “have achieved distinction” in service to the University or larger community. Where a name is proposed in connection with a gift, “the eminence, reputation and integrity” of the honoree are listed among the factors to be considered, but no guidance is offered on how those factors should be evaluated. The full policy is listed in Appendix A. UC Berkeley Principles for Naming There is a campus-specific process that takes place in advance of submitting building naming recommendations to the UC President per the above policy (see below). These principles clearly outline the logistical and approval processes for assigning names to buildings. The Berkeley Principles echo the University Policy’s language for naming criteria. However, neither addresses renaming in any context other than the end of the useful life of the named facility or program. As the Berkeley Principles explain, “the campus’ traditional practice is to maintain the naming for the useful life of such facility, program or public space.” The full principles document is included as Appendix B. Naming Types and Process There are two main types of namings. The type of naming informs the process for approving the name. ⦁ Honorific Naming - An honorific name means that there is no gift attached to the name, but rather that a decision is made to name a building/program in honor of someone (for their extraordinary contributions to the university, symbolism with the building/programs, etc.). Many of our campus buildings have honorific names, including Barrows Hall. ⦁ Process - In the case of honorific namings, a campus unit proposes a naming to the Vice Provost for Academic and Space Planning who, in turn, seeks input on the proposal from the Subcommittee on Naming of the Academic Senate Space Assignments and Capital Improvements Committee (SACI). The Vice Provost considers that input and decides whether or not to recommend to the Chancellor that the naming be submitted to the UC President for final approval. If the Chancellor agrees, the naming recommendation is moved forward to the President. 7 ⦁ ⦁ Un-naming Process - Although never used on a UC campus to this date, there exists a process for un-naming an already named building when a recommendation to do so has been put forth. In the case of an honorific naming, with the facilitation of the Vice Provost for Academic and Space Planning, the Chancellor would submit a request to the Office of the President. If the President approves, the building can be unnamed. Philanthropic Naming - A philanthropic naming recognizes a person/entity that has made a significant gift to the university. ⦁ Naming Process - In the case of philanthropic namings, a campus unit proposes a naming to the Vice Chancellor for University Development & Alumni Relations (UDAR), who in turn seeks input from the Naming Advisory Task Force. The Vice Chancellor considers that input and decides whether or not to recommend to the Chancellor that the naming be submitted to the UC President for final approval. If the Chancellor agrees, the naming recommendation is moved forward to the President. 8 ⦁ Un-naming Process - Again, the un-naming process has not been used on a UC campus to this date. In the case of a philanthropic naming, according to the UC Systemwide Policy on Naming, and because namings associated with philanthropic gifts are managed according to state laws governing trusts, “If at any time following the approval of a naming, circumstances change substantially so that the continued use of that name may compromise the public trust, the General Counsel of the University will consult with the California Attorney General regarding future action.” In such a case, with the facilitation of the Vice Chancellor for UDAR the Chancellor would submit a request to the Office of the President to seek the State Attorney General’s approval to un-name a building. If the Office of the President does not support doing so, the building cannot be un-named. If the Office of the President does support doing so, and if the State Attorney General approves, the building can be un-named. Renaming a building would follow the same procedures of naming outlined above. 9 Recommendations Existing UC Systemwide and UC Berkeley specific naming policies provide good procedural direction for going through the naming approval process. What is currently missing are the guiding principles and values that inform choices about whose name should be attached to campus facilities, programs, or spaces. For example, does a name align with the mission and values of the campus, what is the impact of the name in relation to the activities of the building, what is the level of transparency and community engagement in the naming selection process, etc.? Existing policies provide little help in understanding how naming proposals should be evaluated. They do not explicitly acknowledge the importance of names as a public statement of campus and university values; provide any guidance on evaluating how names align with or are in tension with the mission and values of our university; or address the appropriate level of transparency and community engagement in the naming selection process. In addition to serving as guideposts for original naming, clearer principles could inform decisions about un-naming buildings, programs, or other facilities. We recommend that the campus promptly begin the process of revising the UC Berkeley Principles for Naming to explicitly address the connection between naming decisions and the mission and values of the campus. Revised Principles should begin from the premise that the names of campus facilities and programs should reflect campus values, both initially and over time. They should articulate both procedural and substantive guidance for evaluating proposed names and name removal. We are not the right body to carry out this recommendation. Naming and name removal 10 decisions relate to campus values in ways that are complex and potentially contested. A broader group should be constituted, and that group should invite input from all relevant campus communities. Suggestions on membership of such a committee are offered later in this report. We offer the following recommended principles, many of them drawn from the carefully considered and drafted Yale Report, as a starting point for campus discussion on amending current campus policies. ⦁ The principal legacy of the namesake of a building should be in alignment with the values and mission of the university. This principle recognizes that honorees may have complex histories. The namesake of a building should hold as their principal legacy a portfolio that aligns with the values and mission of the university: "The distinctive mission of the University is to serve society as a center of higher learning, providing long-term societal benefits through transmitting advanced knowledge, discovering new knowledge, and functioning as an active working repository of organized knowledge. That obligation, more specifically, includes undergraduate education, graduate and professional education, research, and other kinds of public service, which are shaped and bounded by the central pervasive mission of discovering and advancing knowledge." The values of UC Berkeley are expressed in our Principles of Community: ⦁ We place honesty and integrity in our teaching, learning, research and administration at the highest level. ⦁ We recognize the intrinsic relationship between diversity and excellence in all our endeavors. ⦁ We affirm the dignity of all individuals and strive to uphold a just community in which discrimination and hate are not tolerated. ⦁ We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied communities. ⦁ We respect the differences as well as the commonalities that bring us together and call for civility and respect in our personal interactions. ⦁ We believe that active participation and leadership in addressing the most pressing issues facing our local and global communities are central to our educational mission. ⦁ We embrace open and equitable access to opportunities for learning and development as our obligation and goal. 11 However, no honoree should be expected to reflect modern values in every aspect of their life. The Yale Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming Report cites the example of Frederick Douglass, whose principal legacies as an abolitionist and an advocate for civil rights overrode some of his problematic statements contrasting African Americans with American Indians. ⦁ The naming of the building should be reviewed for consistency with campus values, regardless of the size or scope of an associated gift. ⦁ The namesake of a building should be considered with particular attention when in relation to the goals of community development and engagement in a building. This principle is especially important when considering buildings on campus with the added purposes of building community and engagement. An example of this might be a student development center or residence hall where students not only form bonds with each other, but also develop attachments to the building. ⦁ There should be opportunities for members of the community to learn about the building naming processes in progress and to ask questions, give input, and inform the decision. Community engagement not only ensures transparency of the process and exposure to differing viewpoints, but it in particular serves to give the students, staff, and faculty who will inhabit a building an opportunity to share their needs and interests in having a name that reflects the goals of the programs and services connected with that building. Currently, this engagement happens through the work of the Naming Advisory Task Force and Subcommittee on Namings for philanthropic and honorific namings, respectively. ⦁ Recognizing that the namesake of a building should carry a legacy that aligns with the values of the university, reconsidering existing names should be considered only in exceptional circumstances. Our understanding of historical figures can and should change over time. We recognize that names which seemed consistent with campus values when assigned may later come to be seen as out of step with the current lived values of the university. We should also, however, be cognizant that we ourselves cannot know how history will view our own current naming choices. We also recognize that campus names come to carry their own significance for members of our community independent of the history of the honoree. Building or program names may be associated by alumni and others with their experience on campus, 12 with no intent to endorse the person whose name has been adopted. Putting those considerations together, we believe that name removal should be a rare choice, reserved for situations in which there is a strong and sustained community consensus that the current name is inconsistent with important campus values. ⦁ There should be a mechanism set in place for people to submit concerns about current names. The university has an obligation to listen to the concerns of all community members. We recommend the establishment of a process where a community member or group can formally submit concerns to a group empowered to call for changes. All concerns should be reviewed, but particular attention should be given to namings with sustained concerns that are expressed consistently over time, year after year. The concerns around Barrows Hall would be an example of such a grievance. ⦁ Even if renaming is determined not to be appropriate, the university should consider other options that could acknowledge and address objections to or concerns about names. Regardless of the outcome of a grievance, the university should consider additional options such as art exhibits, murals, plaques, etc. to acknowledge or recognize the concerns. Recognizing that the UC Berkeley Principles draw on the UC Systemwide Policy, we further urge the University to reconsider and revise that policy, through a transparent and inclusive process, to more explicitly incorporate University values and to deal directly with the issue of name removal. Recommendation to Establish a Formal Building Naming Review Committee In addition to revisions to the UC Berkeley Principles on Naming, the Task Force recommends the establishment of a committee to formally review grievances raised by the campus community and to facilitate a transparent assessment of existing building namings. This committee will not play a role in the approval of new building namings, but rather will facilitate a name review process. This committee may be constituted from existing bodies, including: ⦁ Office of the Vice Chancellor for Equity & Inclusion - Potentially chaired by the VCEI ⦁ Diversity, Equity, and Campus Climate (DECC) Committee of the Academic 13 ⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Senate Office of the Vice Provost for Academic & Space Planning, the Space Assignment and Capital Improvements Committee (SACI) Office of the Vice Chancellor for University Development & Alumni Relations (UDAR) -- Advisory only ASUC/GA student representation Summary The Task Force acknowledges that the recommendations of this report may not fully satisfy all community members, especially if there was an expectation of decisions on specific building names. Changes to existing names involves complex issues, and ones that we acknowledge require in-depth review by a more broadly constituted group with input from the full range of campus stakeholders. Our hope was to offer our collective suggestions for the best next steps to address the topic of names that some find inappropriate, insensitive, or otherwise objectionable. In the spirit of transparency, the Task Force plans to present its recommendations and share its process with the campus community through a variety of outlets, including possible DailyCal/News Center coverage, library exhibit, engagement with the 150 anniversary events, meeting with student and alumni groups, etc. By revising the UC Berkeley Principles for Naming and establishing a formal Building Naming Review Committee, we hope that there will be a clearer process for assessing the appropriateness of building names going forward. We look forward to hearing your responses to our recommendations. Appendix A UC Systemwide Policy on Naming University Properties, Academic and Non-Academic Programs, and Facilities 12/2002 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY DAVIS . IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE - SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA - SANTA CRUZ OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Phone; (510) 987-9074 Fax: (510) 9873086 December 19, 2002 CHANCELLORS LABORATORY DIRECTORS VICE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Dear Colleagues: Enclosed is the revised Policy on Naming University Properties, Academic and Non- Academic Programs, and Facilities, which supersedes the Presidential policy issued in March 1996. Guidelines regarding consideration and approval of naming prOposals are included. The Guidelines address several new issues: 1) renaming of structures that have reached the end of their usefulness, (2) namings for corporations, (3) namings affected by changed circumstances, and (4) a consultation process that is responsive to con?dential circumstances. The Guidelines specify that Chancellors seek the widest possible counsel when considering proposals for naming or renaming in order to take advantage of the institution?s collective memory. In addition, the Guidelines require documentation of all deliberations regarding proposals for campus?approved namings, as well as those approved by the President. Due to the legal obligations implicit in gift agreements, the integral roles of the General Counsel and campus counsel have been underscored. Corporate namings, while permitted, must be handled with additional care. Corporate logos should not appear on campus signage, to avoid the appearance of advertising. The University has traditionally supported an interval between the University service or death of an employee and an honorary naming for that individual. The Guidelines now specify that in honorary naming circumstances, the interval between these events shall be two years. Elected of?cials have been added to the list of closely associated individuals for whom an honorary naming may not take place during elected service or during the two-year interval. No interval is required when the proposed naming is the condition of a gift. This proviso has always existed, but is now stated directly rather than implied. 15 16 -2- The policy may be found on the UCOP Presidential policy website Questions regarding the policy and related guidelines should be directed to Assistant Vice President Brad Barber. Sincerely, Richard C. Atkinson President Enclosure cc: Members, President?s Cabinet Special Assistant Gardner Principal Of?cers of The Regents 17 18 December 19, 2002 Policy on Naming University Properties, Academic and Non?Academic Programs, and Facilities The University of California has a long?standing tradition of naming University properties, academic and non?academic programs, and facilities in honor of persons or entities that have made important contributions to enable the teaching, research and public service mission of the University. All naming in recognition of an honoree must be consistent with the University's role as a public trust. Accordingly, all such proposals shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with this policy, and with related University policies and guidelines. In 1996, The Regents delegated to the President authority for naming all University properties, programs, and facilities. While certain authorities for naming have been re-delegated to the Chanceilors, the following guidelines shall govern any naming decision. Guidelines for Naming Universigg Properties, Academic and Non-Academic Programs= and Facilities I. No commitment regarding naming shall be made to a donor or a non-donor honoree prior to approval of the related proposal for naming. Each proposal shall be made in writing in accordance with these guidelines. The proposal and record of the action taken shall be maintained in the permanent archives of the campus or laboratory. 11. Each proposal for naming shall be considered on its merits and not because a gift meets a particular predetermined goal. In this regard, all due attention shall be given to both the long-term and short?term appropriateness of a naming. A proposal for naming shall include documentation of the following: A. A thorough analysis of the proposal in relation to naming policy and guidelines, as well as a ?nancial review; B. A consultation process to provide the bene?t of the collective institutional memory and a broad campus perspective with regard to naming activities. The process shall involve one or more of the following: (1) a standing committee on naming to include regular faculty and staff representation; (2) the executive committee of the Academic Senate; or (3) an appropriate consultative process that represents broad institutional interests; and C. Review by campus or laboratory counsel, or by the General Counsel of the University, as appropriate. 19 20 IV. VI. VII. When a facility or area is named in recognition of a donor or a nonwdonor honoree, that name will generally be effective for the useful life of the facility or the designated use of the area. If a facility must be replaced or substantially renovated, or the use of an area re- designated, it may be named for a new donor, subject to the speci?c terms and conditions set forth in any gift agreements related to the prior naming action. In any proposal for naming an academic or non?academic program in recognition of a donor or a non-donor honoree, consideration should be given to ensure that any associated endowment will be suf?cient to sustain the program, since the naming shall be in effect for the life of the program. When the proposed naming of a facility would recognize an individual, Regents? policy requires the complete name of the individual be used. The last name of the individual so honored may be used in referring informally to the facility and may be used on the name plaque af?xed to the facility. Naming in honor of an individual with no gift involved A. No commitment for naming shall be made prior to approval of the proposed name. B. A proposed honoree shall have achieved distinction in one or more of the following ways: 1. While serving the University in an academic capacity, the individual has demonstrated high scholarly distinction and has earned a national or international reputation; 2. While serving the University in an important administrative capacity, the individual has rendered distinguished service which warrants recognition of the individual?s exceptional contributions to the welfare of the University; 3. The individual has contributed in truly exceptional ways to the welfare of the institution or achieved such unique distinction as to warrant recognition. C. When an individual has served the University in an academic or important administrative capacity, or has served the community, state, or nation in an elected or appointed position, a proposal may be made for naming in honor of the individual on the earlier of the following: 1. two years after retirement or other separation from the University or from elected or appointed of?ce; or 21 22 2. two years after the person's death, if the person had not yet retired or otherwise separated from the University. Note: A naming in honor of an individual who has retired from the University but has been recalled to full or part time employment may be made based on the earlier of the two above criteria, notwithstanding the recall status. Naming involving a gift A. Campus counsel, laboratory counsel, or the General Counsel of the University, as appropriate, shall review draft language for a gift agreement that includes then prOposed naming of a University property, academic and non?academic program, and/or facility in recognition of the gift. 1. No commitment for naming shall be made prior to approval of the proposed name. 2. In reviewing a request for approval of naming, consideration shall be given to: a. the signi?cance of the proposed gift as it relates to the realization and/or success of the project or to the enhancement of the project's usefulness to the University; b. the urgency of need for the project or for support funds for the project; c. the eminence, reputation and integrity of the individual or entity whose name is proposed; and d. the relationship of the individual or entity to the University. 3. The gift shall constitute a signi?cant portion of the total cost of the project to be named. The gift shall either: (1) fund the total cost of the project to be named; or (2) provide substantial funding for that portion of the total cost which would not have been available from another source (such as federal or state loans or appropriations, student fees, or bond issues). 4. To avoid any appearance of commercial in?uence or con?ict of interest, additional due diligence should be taken before recommending the naming of a major program or area, building, open space, or roadway that involves the name of a corporation or a corporate foundation. The naming for an individual associated with a corporation should be handled as any naming for an individual. 23 24 5. Corporate names may be used to designate individual rooms or suites of rooms, as well as endowed chairs and professorships. Plaques in public spaces within buildings may recognize the contributions of corporations. The size, design, and wording of plaques and other signs that acknowledge corporate generosity and express University appreciation should be modest in size and exclude logos to avoid the appearance of advertising. 6. A naming conferred in recognition of a pledge is contingent on ful?llment of that pledge and will be approved on that condition. 7. When a proposed naming for an individual is accompanied by a gift, and the individual to be honored is serving the University in an academic or administrative capacity, or is serving the community, state, or nation in an elected or appointed position, the naming may take effect upon approval. Renaming A proposal to rename a facility or area or to add a second name shall adhere to the criteria outlined above. In addition, these principles shall be followed: A. Any proposal to rename a facility or area or to add a second name in recognition of a gift shall be reviewed by the General Counsel of the University. The review shall include any gift documents pertaining to the original gift and related naming, as well as the gift documents pertaining to the subsequent gift and proposed renaming. When a facility that has been named in recognition of a gift or an individual has reached the end of its useful life and will be replaced or substantially renovated, the replaced or renovated structure may be renamed in recognition of another gift. When an area named in recognition of a gift or in honor of an individual will be developed for another use, the new facilities may be named in recognition of new gifts. Appropriate recognition of earlier donors and honorees shall be included in or adjacent to new and renovated facilities, as well as in redeveloped areas. When a facility or area is proposed for renaming, campus or University representatives will make all reasonable efforts to inform in advance the original donors or honorees and their immediate family members. Campus and Laboratory Responsibility Each Chancellor and the Laboratory Director shall designate an of?cer to coordinate all proposals for naming, maintain records on gift documentation and the related consultation 25 26 process, and assure consistency in donor and public communications related to each gift and its restricted use. Changed Circumstances If the campus or laboratory proposes to change the function of a named facility or area, it must document the review of related gift agreements to determine if the proposed use is consistent with the restrictions that may have been previously stipulated. Ifthe proposal for change in use is inconsistent, the campus or laboratory counsel or the General Counsel of the University shall be consulted. If at any time following the approval of a naming, circumstances change substantially so that the continued use of that name may compromise the public trust, the General Counsel of the University will consult with the California Attorney General regarding future action. Related Policies and Documents 1. Regents? Policy on Naming Facilities to Include the Full Name of the Individual, February 18, 1966. Regents? Policy on Commemorative Displays, March 8, 1940. Regents? Policy on Naming Residence Halls, November 20, 1959. Regents? Policy on Gifts and EndOWments with Respect to Private Institutions, July 21, 1961. Regents? Policy on Fundraising Campaigns, July 16, 1993 (amended November 19, 1993). Regents? Policy on Professorial Name Chairs, November 16, 1962 (amended May 17, 1963). Policy on Endowed Chairs and Professorships and the Administrative Guidelines and Procedures: Endowed Chairs and Professorships, May 21, 1998. Presidential Delegation of Authority to the Chancellors regarding Naming University Properties, Programs, and Facilities, October 14, 1993. Vice President Baker letter to Chancellors regarding authority for naming facilities and programs, June 14, 1996. 27 Appendix UC Berkeley Principles for Naming - 3/2016 28 UNIVERSITY BERKELEY :U?illAdthson it with] 42th! 31A) 042 ?74 lax lirkipr?r??'i?it?l?lct?lt?y L?Elu LFRE VIC l' HANK IZI AND ALUMNI Rlil ATIONS March 16, 2016 CHANCELLOR DIRKS Re: Approval of UC Berkeley Principles for Naming Upon the recommendation of its Subcommittee on Naming, the Space Assignments and Capital Improvements Committee recommends that you approve the UC Berkeley Principles for Naming. The University has a long?standing tradition of naming University properties, academic and non- acadcmic programs as well as facilities to honor persons or entities that have made important contributions to enable the teaching, research, and public service mission of the University. All naming must be consistent with the University's role as a public trust. Accordingly, all naming proposals will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the University of California's Policy on Naming University Properties, Academic and Non-Academic Programs and Facilities Naming Policy"), with this UC Berkeley Principles for Naming, and with related University policies. Attached is the final version ofthe Principles for Naming document for your review. If you have any questions feel free to contact me to discuss further. If you approve the proposed Principles for Naming? please sign below and return this to our of?ces. mm lie Hooper Andrew Szeri ice Chancellor, Vice Provost, Strategic Academic niversity Development and Alumni Relations and Facilities Planning and Chair, attachment cc: Chiel?ol?StaffNils Gilman Chief of Staff Kim Kincan non Executive Director Nancy Lubich McKinney Chief of Staff John Scruggs approve the proposed Principles for Naming. inn/Adi, mt Nicholas Dirks lfatc/ 29 University of California, Berkeley Vice Provost. Strategic Academic and Facilities Planning and University Development and Alumni Relations UC BERKELEY PRINCIPLES FOR NAMING raved March 2016 The University has a long-standing tradition of naming University properties, academic and non- academic programs as well as facilities to honor persons or entities that have made important contributions to enable the teaching, research, and public service mission of the University. All naming must be consistent with the University's role as a public trust. Accordingly, all naming proposals will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Universiu l?olic\ on Naming Unimrsity Properties, Academic and Non-Academic Programs and Facilities Naming Policy?), with this UC Berkeley Principles for Naming, and with related University policies. Principles for Naming of Facilities 1. Review hv 8.: Subcommittce on Naming: Naming a University property, program or facility is a significant honor. To ensure compliance with this principle and the guidelines set forth in the UC Naming PoEicy as well as to ensure broad consultation from a wide campus perspective, Space Assignments and Capital improvements Committee and its Subcommittee on Naming will review all names proposed for properties, academic and non-academic programs as weil as facilities, not involving a gift, and will recommend action to the Chancellor. lt?a naming requires particular urgency, the Chancellor may consult with and Subcommittee chairs or available committee members. 2. Naming, in Honor of individuaLLNo Gift Involved: The campus may name properties, including public spaces and roadways. programs and facilities to honor members of the University's academic community who have made extraordinary contributions to teaching and research; members of the University's administration who have rendered distinguished and exceptional service to the University community; or individuals who have contributed in truly exceptional ways to the welfare of the University or society or have achieved such unique distinction as to warrant such recognition. The University will use the same criteria for assessing the naming opportunity as outlined in the UC Naming Policy. There should be an appropriate relationship between the use of the property, facility or program and the person for whom it is named, and, where the naming is for an individual who has served in an academic or administrative capacity for the University or in an elected or appointed government position, the proposal may be made no earlier than two years after the individual's retirement or separation from such position or two years after the individual's death ifthe individual had not yet retired or separated. 3. Naming to Recounizc a Gill bum lndividualjs): Properties, facilities and programs may also be named for a donor or a person(s) proposed by a donor when the donor?s contribution makes possible signi?cant additions and changes to University facilities or operations The University will use the same criteria for assessing the naming opportunity as outlined in the UC Naming Policy. University Development and Alumni Reiations (U DAR), in coordination with a campus advisory committee, wili review naming proposals submitted by the campus involving a gift from an individual(s). UDAR will submit these naming recommendations to the Chancellor for review and approval. 30 31 Naming In (Summation: While the University has a preference For recognizing individuals through naming opportunities, corporate namings may also be made but should be reviewed with additional care. UDAR, in coordination with a campus advisory committee, will review naming proposals submitted by the campus involving a gift by an entity. To avoid the appearance ofcommercial in?uence or conflict ot?interest, the University will conduct the additional due diligence set forth in Attachment l. The campus shall consider and review possible corporate gift and sponsorship opportunities for naming on a case?by-case basis. The size, design, and wording of plaques or other signs acknowledging corporate generosity should avoid creating any appearance of advertising and be appropriately tailored to the nature of the facilities or properties being considered. Naming to honor an individual associated with a corporate gift, whether from a for?profit or not-for-pro?t corporation, should be consistent with the principles for honoring an individual. UDAR will submit. these naming recommendations to the Chancellor for review and approval. Significance ofGitt: When the campus names a new facility or space to recognize a gift, the amount of the gill should represent a significant percentage ofthe total cost ofthe facility or space. Duration of Naming: With respect to recognizing a donor or a non?donor honoree, names of facilities, programs or public spaces, the campus' traditional practice is to maintain the naming for the useful life of such facility, program or public space. When a change in the use ofa named facility occurs because a program moves or space is reassigned or demolished, some form of continuing recognition should be considered, such as an appropriately sized plaque or other form ofrecognition. in exceptional cases, a name may be transferred to another facility, especially when the name re?ects an enduring part ot?the University?s history. The review process set forth in these Principles will govern all naming changes or transfers. Naming in connection with a business contract: UDAR will be consulted by University Business Partnerships and Services and will review draft language of any business contract involving a naming When the campus recognizes a corporate naming in connection with a sponsorship opportunity or other business contract, the naming will typically be for a de?ned length of time and be associated with a particular revenue opportunity. The University has the authority to terminate the naming in the event the entity breaches its obligations. When the commercial af?liation terminates, the naming will also terminate. As is the case with corporate naming to recognize gills, the campus should exercise additional due diligence prior to such a naming, consistent with the principles described in Attachment I below. However, the due-diligence review and standards for corporate naming associated with sponsorships or other commercial transactions should take into account that the transactions are typically short term and enable the University to terminate the relationship. 32 33 Naming In (Summation: While the University has a preference For recognizing individuals through naming opportunities, corporate namings may also be made but should be reviewed with additional care. UDAR, in coordination with a campus advisory committee, will review naming proposals submitted by the campus involving a gift by an entity. To avoid the appearance ofcommercial in?uence or conflict ot?interest, the University will conduct the additional due diligence set forth in Attachment l. The campus shall consider and review possible corporate gift and sponsorship opportunities for naming on a case?by-case basis. The size, design, and wording of plaques or other signs acknowledging corporate generosity should avoid creating any appearance of advertising and be appropriately tailored to the nature of the facilities or properties being considered. Naming to honor an individual associated with a corporate gift, whether from a for?profit or not-for-pro?t corporation, should be consistent with the principles for honoring an individual. UDAR will submit. these naming recommendations to the Chancellor for review and approval. Significance ofGitt: When the campus names a new facility or space to recognize a gift, the amount of the gill should represent a significant percentage ofthe total cost ofthe facility or space. Duration of Naming: With respect to recognizing a donor or a non?donor honoree, names of facilities, programs or public spaces, the campus' traditional practice is to maintain the naming for the useful life of such facility, program or public space. When a change in the use ofa named facility occurs because a program moves or space is reassigned or demolished, some form of continuing recognition should be considered, such as an appropriately sized plaque or other form ofrecognition. in exceptional cases, a name may be transferred to another facility, especially when the name re?ects an enduring part ot?the University?s history. The review process set forth in these Principles will govern all naming changes or transfers. Naming in connection with a business contract: UDAR will be consulted by University Business Partnerships and Services and will review draft language of any business contract involving a naming When the campus recognizes a corporate naming in connection with a sponsorship opportunity or other business contract, the naming will typically be for a de?ned length of time and be associated with a particular revenue opportunity. The University has the authority to terminate the naming in the event the entity breaches its obligations. When the commercial af?liation terminates, the naming will also terminate. As is the case with corporate naming to recognize gills, the campus should exercise additional due diligence prior to such a naming, consistent with the principles described in Attachment I below. However, the due-diligence review and standards for corporate naming associated with sponsorships or other commercial transactions should take into account that the transactions are typically short term and enable the University to terminate the relationship. 34 35 Attachment 1 Procedures for Due Diligence for Corporate Naming Opportunities Depending on the nature of the naming opportunity (cg. recognizing a gift or naming in association with business contract), the campus division, college and/or departments and campus af?liated units considering a corporate naming request will submit a detailed proposal to University Development and Alumni Relations (UDAR). UDAR will consult with appropriate campus units including, but not limited to Legal Affairs, Administration Finance, Vice Provost for Strategic Academic and Facilities Planning, as well as the relevant college/department, stakeholder faculty and student groups. Administration Finance will assess the ?nancials of a sponsoring corporation in a naming proposal associated with a business contract. UDAR will assess the corporate history, business practices, reputation, long-tenn trajectory and any other factor appropriate to considering a long~term naming associated with recognizing a gift. After reviewing the corporate naming proposal and related details, UDAR shall submit the naming proposal to the Chancellor for review and approval. The campus may subject reviewers to con?dentiality obligations, especially where corporate ?nancial or other proprietary information is submitted to support the naming request. 36 Appendix C Relevant News and Decisions Related to Universities and Naming/Renaming As of Jan 2017 Amherst - Amherst trustees in January voted to drop "Lord Jeff," the school's unofficial mascot inspired by Lord Jeffery Amherst, the 18th-century British army officer for whom the town was named - and who suggested that smallpox be used as a weapon against Native Americans. Clemson University - Faculty voted to ask university to change the name of Tillman Hall, former South Carolina governor who implemented Jim Crow laws. The university decided not to change the name. Duke University - Will rename a building once named for Charles Aycock, former governor and white supremacist. The hall was renamed “East Residence Hall.” Georgetown University - Decided to rename Mulledy Hall and McSherry Hall, which were named after former university presidents who “organized the sale of Jesuit-owned slaves to help pay off campus debt in the 1830’s.” Harvard University - Harvard Law School’s seal featured the crest of Isaac Royall Jr, a slaveholding family. Harvard gave the school permission to remove the crest. Middle Tennessee State University - Considering changing the name of the ROTC building, named after Nathan Bedford Forrest. The are going through the process with the Tennessee Historical Commission to rename the building. Oxford University - Oxford, where members of the campus community campaigned for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College. Rhodes is considered one of the most prominent British imperialists of the 19th century. Oriel college decided not to remove the statue. Princeton University - Their public policy schools is named after Woodrow Wilson. The university decided to keep the name. Stanford University - Launched a committee to review the principles for campus names in response to protest regarding four places on campus named after Father Junipero Serra. As of May 2016, the committee was taking public comment on recommendations. University of Maryland - The football stadium was named after Harry C. "Curley" 37 Byrd, a former university president who opposed racial integration. The board voted to rename the stadium to Maryland Stadium. University of Mississippi - Building named after former governor James Vardaman, white supremacist. School decided not to rename building, but put up signs explaining the context of the building’s history. University of New Mexico - People have been protesting to change the seal, which depicts images of the European conquest of the Americans. The UNM Board of Regents will be considering the change at their November 15th meeting. University of North Carolina - Board of Trustees have voted to rename Saunders Hall, named after William Saunders, KKK leader. A 10-3 board vote resulted in the building being renamed Carolina Hall. University of Oregon - Dunn Hall (a residence hall) was named after a former professor, Frederic Dunn, a KKK leader. The Board of Trustees voted unanimously to rename the building temporarily to Cedar Hall while a more formal process is established for a permanent name. University of Texas, Austin - Had a residence hall and park named after William Stewart Simkins, who taught law at the school and was a leader of the KKK. The UT Board of Regents voted unanimously to rename the building in 2010 to Creekside Residence Hall and Creekside Hall. Yale University - Students signed petition to change the name of residential college named after John Calhoun. Former vice president to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, pro slavery. In April 2016 the university decided to keep the name. In August 2016, launched a committee that could lead to the name being removed. In December 2016, announced a new policy to review building renaming. “That policy requires anyone calling for a renaming to submit a formal application, including a dossier of historical research justifying the renaming according…” In February 2017, the university reversed its previous decision, announcing that it will in fact rename Calhoun College. 38 Appendix D Letter of the Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming at Yale University November 21, 2016 To President Salovey, On August 1, you asked our Committee to articulate principles to guide the University in deciding whether to remove “a historical name from a building or other prominent structure or space on campus.” To do this, you requested that we review renaming debates at Yale and elsewhere. In the report accompanying this letter, we describe the history we reviewed and present a set of principles. In this letter, we say a few words about how we went about our work. The first task we set ourselves was to develop a process that would guide our thinking on the question before us. The Committee read scholarship on the history and theory of naming and renaming. We studied renaming debates in other times and places. We researched the experience at Yale, and we tried to use the scholarly expertise in history represented on our Committee. We were aware that our Committee was constituted after more than a year of controversy on campus over the name of Calhoun College. We were aware, too, that our Committee was constituted after two years of conversation about the names of two new colleges. As a result, we faced a certain exhaustion in the University community with the question of building names. To accommodate this, we obtained many of the communications arising out of last year’s debate over the name of Calhoun College. We also sought new input and new ideas. The Committee received many different opinions on the question before it. For now, it suffices to say that the views we received arrayed themselves across a wide range. Such a diversity of views, many of them deeply and powerfully felt, might have stymied us had we understood our mandate to be a report dictated by majority opinion or by the intensity with which opinions were held. We conceived of our task, however, as developing a reasoned answer, not necessarily the most popular answer. In this respect, every suggestion made us better students of the issues involved.* In all our work, we have tried to model the sort of process that might be employed in 39 any future application of the principles we articulate in this report. Two limits in our charge shaped our work. Our mandate did not include the power to recommend that any particular building name be changed. Nor were we charged with developing a new name for any such building. We viewed these limits on our authority as felicitous rather than constraining. They gave us the freedom to deliberate on the problem of renaming in a light informed by the University’s recent controversies, but not unduly influenced by them. We adopt the report and its principles unanimously. John Fabian Witt (chair) Yale College ’94, ’99 J.D., ’00 Ph.D., Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law and Professor of History G. Leonard (Len) Baker, Jr. Yale College ’64 Tom A. Bernstein, Esq. Yale College ’74, ’77 J.D. David Blight (advisor) Class of 1954 Professor of History Beverly Gage Yale College ’94, Professor of History Jonathan Holloway ’95 Ph.D., Dean of Yale College; Edmund S. Morgan Professor of African American Studies, History, and American Studies Lalani Perry Director of Communications, Human Resources Dasia Moore Yale Undergraduate, '18 Sharon Oster Frederic D. Wolfe Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship; Dean, Yale School of Management (2008-11) 40 Stephen Pitti Yale College ’91, Professor of History and of American Studies; Director, Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity and Transnational Migration; Head of Ezra Stiles College Wilhelmina M. (Mimi) Wright Yale College ’86 Wendy Xiao Yale M.D./Ph.D. candidate (Neuroscience) Committee website and full report available here: http://president.yale.edu/advisory-groups/presidents-committees/committeeestablish-principles-renaming-0 41