burritos said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/uc-berkeley-law-school-strips-182501010.html
Quote:
The law school at the University of California, Berkeley has stripped itself of a 19th century namesake who espoused racist views that led to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.
John Boalt's name was removed from a school building Thursday after a three-year process. University officials say this is the first time UC Berkeley has removed a facility's name due to the character or actions of its namesake.
Didn't know that. Wonder if Furd will ever be changed the University of Palo Alto? That'd be funny. Was Mr. Palo Alto(Mr. High Stick in espanol) a racist?
FYI there are a number of Boalt Hall alumni (myself included) who objected to the deletion of Boalt name from "Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall)"
Raised in Ohio before the Civil War he was studying in Heidelberg when the Civil War broke out. He did not have to but he returned to America and volunteered for the Union army to fight against slavery.
After the war he made a fortune in the Nevada Silver Rush. Moved to Oakland then SF. Became a judge.
After his death his wife gave a large donation when asked by Benjamin IDE Wheeler to help found a law school in Berkeley (one of the few colleges in the US that did not discriminate by religion,race or gender).
She encouraged women to enroll and set aside a room in the law school where women law students could be free of jeers from the male students.
She was so much a part of the law school that in her death President Wheeler and the Dean were her pallbearers and her portrait was placed in the law library where it still hangs.
Boalt was and has been a leader in recruiting and graduating women lawyers.
We felt it was unfair and disparaging to remove the name of Boalt who with his wife was a Progressive in his time and would probably be one if he were alive today.
He did not own slaves (as did Jefferson or Bishop Berkeley after whom Berkeley was named). He did not fight to preserve slavery as many prominent figures in the South did (including Robert E Lee) nor did he take unfair advantage of Chinese workers sending many to their deaths (as did Leland Stanford).
He did not advocate killing or depriving the Chinese immigrants of America of their property (as many others in California and the West and South did)
At the time that Boalt came to California in 1871 there was and had been violence and riots in California and the West against Chinese during the economic downturns
There were riots, murders and massacres of Chinese in Colorado Washington Oregon Montana and Nevada and California (the worst were in Denver Rock Springs Elko Tacoma, Seattle Los Angeles, truckee)
The uprisings led to the passage of the Chinese exclusion act in 1882. Which was supported by the all the labor unions in the US (except the IWW), the governors and legislators of the various states and an overwhelming majority in the US Congress.
Boalt was criticized for one little known article that he published in 1877 following the outbreak of a riot in SF which resulted in 4 deaths and the destruction of a large part of Chinatown
The riot was led by Denis Kearney (yes that Kearney) and his Workingman's Labor Party.
The article pointed out the differences between Chinese and white Americans and declaring that it would be difficult for the Chinese to assimilate stating that it would take 100 years for the Chinese to be accepted as equals. He did support the movement for the exclusion of immigrants from China. He did not support any violence. In fact the article spoke highly of various characteristics of the Chinese immigrants
In fact the article was a classic judge's approach. He was speaking to people who had just rioted the month before and he was saying I understand and yes we should not admit more Chinese But the Chinese are not all bad. Boalt was trying to defuse a bad situation
In connection with the passage of the Exclusion act Boalt's article was like adding a tea cup of water to a tsunami
In fact long before Boalt ever came to CA the CA legislature passed the first California Chinese exclusion act in 1858 which was overturned by the CA Supreme count in 1862.
California was primed and ready to go for another exclusion act even before Boalt arrived in Ca.
All in all Boalt was not like many other people whose name has been removed from buildings. He was a good guy who fought against prejudice during the Civil War was a Progressive in his time and would be a Progressive today.
Finally Boalt was not far wrong about it taking 100 years for Chinese to be accepted as equal. As became evident by the further restrictios in Asian immigration in the 1920's (Roughly 40- 50 years later) and the Japanese interment in the 1940's roughly 60-70s years later
Boalt "got a bum rap"
Why take his name off the law school and replace it with the name of a slave holder "Berkeley"?
