John U. Bacon: I Had No Idea Yost Commission Existed
if the committee felt that his published work provided enough background material for the investigation, what would there be to discuss?
especially if the "committee" thought Bacon would disagree with their desires .... hmmm
Go Blue!
Here are the problems I have with this:
1. You don't convene a panel of Michigan historians to discuss Fielding Yost's life and legacy without including John U. Bacon on that panel.
2. Totally agree, they don't need Bacon's permission to use Bacon's words. But they're using his words to draw conclusions that he may or may not agree with. Why not just ask him to participate?
3. The University obviously thought that Bacon was extremely knowledgable when it came to Yost, which is why he is quoted so extensively in the report. So, if he's the Yost expert that everyone is citing, why not invite the Yost expert to actually sit on the panel?
4. The fact that he found out about this just this morning is ridiculous. He's not some ancillary figure in the Yost discussion. Nobody knows more about Fielding H. Yost than he does. (And Willis Ward.)
As to question 1, aside from the liason to the president's office, everyone on the panel is a tenured faculty member. Given the sensitivity of this topic, it's likely whoever put the committee together (and it's an impressive committee) didn't want to put someone in a position where the committee's decision didn't lead to pressure from people who are upset that threatened someone's position with the university (alternately, serving on the committee without compensation might have violated the lecturers' union contract).
I linked it above, but here's the report, which is IMO very well done.
https://pacouh.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/96/2021/05/Preliminar…
It also seems this is a standing committee named to consider issues of naming at the university, not a panel named specifically to consider Yost (I'm guessing this committee may have originally been convened to consider the renaming of C.C. Little).
In 2016 President Schlissel asked us to consider whether and how questions about the appropriateness of named spaces on the campus might be discussed and in response we developed the set of principles that were promulgated in January of 2017. Those principles reflect the belief that we are all wedded to the University’s past with all that is uplifting and troubling within it and that we must understand and remember it. However, the principles also reflect that historical memory and historical commemoration are not the same thing.
"However, the principles also reflect that historical memory and historical commemoration are not the same thing."
This is the point that many crying "cancel culture" fail to recognize/understand.
"Historical commemoration" is also the way the university keeps donor named buildings from being considered by this committee, which is kind of .... ehhhh.
They’ve already made up their mind that they are going to change the name. The call for public comment is just a show - I find it unsurprising that the comments can’t be made anonymously.
"So, if he's the Yost expert that everyone is citing, why not invite the Yost expert to actually sit on the panel?"
because he might defend Yost.
It seems the *committee* could have spoken with Bacon as part of their due diligence - if only to gain greater depth of his research.
Otherwise the OP feels like one of those "WATCH BACON TAKE DOWN SOME LIBS!" posts on the facebook.
Mgostore's new t-shirt is up.
Yost is Tost and sales will double
It sounds like he's just making it clear that whatever happens to the name is not his doing, but you can see that he's a bit perplexed, to say the least, that he is just now discovering all this had been going on, which I can understand. I suppose if I were being cited extensively, I might consider a consultation to ensure that the spirit of what I was saying was preserved a courtesy, just in case if nothing else, or at a minimum, clarifying questions from the committee itself. That's just me though.
I get Bacon's irritation. This isn't a matter of being cited yet not contacted. Of course, that happens all the time. I would suspect that the issue is that he has worked for and with the University of Michigan and no one had the respect to invite him as the well known scholar that he is, or at least make him aware that they were conducting this work?
Here is the email that I just received from Michigan Athletics:
The President’s Advisory Committee on University History is inviting members of the University of Michigan community to provide feedback on the committee’s preliminary recommendation to remove Fielding H. Yost’s name from Yost Ice Arena.
The preliminary recommendation by the committee comes after a year of study by the panel of university historians. The request to remove the name was made by several members of the campus community through the university’s established process for reviewing historical names on buildings. The Athletic Department has no role in the process or decisions of the committee.
Community members will have until June 7 to share feedback on the recommendation online through a new website portal (pacouh.umich.edu). A umich.edu email address is required to submit comments. Feedback also may be submitted by email or U.S. mail. No anonymous submissions will be permitted.
The committee indicated it is posting its preliminary summary of recommendations and the historical analysis online to collect feedback during an unusual year on the campus when many people worked and learned remotely.
An overall summary of the community’s feedback will be included as part of the committee’s final recommendation that will be shared with President Mark Schlissel. The president then has the authority to accept, reject, or modify the committee’s recommendation. Only the Board of Regents has the authority to remove an honorific building name.
So, they have been working on this for a year, and there is a local scholar that should be involved, or at least offered the opportunity, and yet they use his words and go to the public before even letting him know this is happening. I get it.
i don't read that as him being pissed. and certainly not PISSED.
He sounds- "I'm going to write a very measured tweet"- pissed.
So we know that JUB was not part of the committee, but has he stated what his opinions are regarding this matter?
I smell projection on the OP. Also the thread title makes it seem like it's a quote when JUB never said that.
Where does Bacon write “They used my words without permission.”?
The OP is the very reason Bacon has to make a statement at all.
I don't catch the vibe that he's upset, much less "PISSED". He's putting out a statement about his stance, since the panel cited his work. And they cited published work, so I don't see a big issue here.
Could the committee given him a courtesy call? Sure. Should the committee have included him, or at least interviewed him? Probably, but clearly they didn't want to. But this doesn't read as "PISSED" to me. Confused and maybe upset? Yep.
Setting the record straight on where he stands is how I read his statement.
Committee uses quotes from Bacon to frame their argument that Yost Arena should be renamed.
Michigan faithful misinterprets this as "Bacon wants to rename Yost Arena"
Bacon releases a statement to say he wasn't involved in the committee.
I think there are some people out there who really do believe that removing the name of this ice arena will tangibly better the lives of black people. The problematic part of it is that it seems like there are many out there who only want this to happen so they can have a proverbial feather in their cap. ("Look what we did.") Deliberating on this behind the scenes for a year only to have nothing come of it would feel pretty empty if I was on the committee.
Without some sort of accompanying social plan that will create actual change (and I don't even know what that would look like since this is a decision of Yost's from a century ago. I'd be open to hearing any type of coherent plan for that) this is just a gesture, nothing more IMO.
The final section of the report lays out the principles by which the committee acts (this is not just for Yost, but all questions of commemoration on campus, which address some of these comments... basically...
-What lesson does this name teach today?
-Were there those at the time who questioned the actions we describe?
-Does this name carry a different valence today than it did when it was selected in 1923?
And the conclusion in the last paragraph reads...
Some who read this report will wonder if we are “blaming” Yost for simply being a “man of his time.” We reject this view because our historical analysis reveals that Yost – and others at the University in his day – had choices to make and evidence from their own times indicating the right ones. In those very dark days in American racial history outlined here there were men and women in the state of Michigan, on the campus of the University of Michigan, among Black students and parents, among white allies, among undergraduate football players and protest leaders who refused to uphold the racist decisions and institutions managed by the “men of their time.”
Whoever wrote that last run-on sentence should be required to take remedial English. But isn’t that exactly what Yost did, eventually? Are we only to be judged on our worst offenses, and not our better actions? By Bacon’s telling, Yost reformed. His name should remain on the building for that reason alone.
Don't go near Ullysses. Or Faulkner. Or Garcia-Marquez. Hell, don't go near literature. That's the kind of sentence that E.B. White would drool over. And he was the kind of remedial English.
Yeah, that sentence is not a run-on. It's a compound sentence that contains a lot of information, but it's focused on one topic and relatively clear.
I don't think anyone has any proclivities toward this being a solution for racial issues in our country. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
This is the lament of everybody who settles for the status quo. They say, “Do x isn’t good enough to achieve anything.” Recommend more, and they say, “that’s too much. It will never work.”
You say "this is just a gesture," as if gestures are meaningless. The decision to change the name is certainly a gesture, but that doesn't make it meaningless or unimportant. If so, why are so many people adamant that the names shouldn't be changed, or that the statues shouldn't be removed, etc.? The report itself explains why a gesture is meaningful, and in this case why they think changing the name is warranted.
Right, report makes it seem like Bacon led the charge to get rid of Yost's name, but all he did was report on history. He had no role in the committee.
OK. In retrospect, I agree that the original post by JUB is not necessarily angry. But measured HOT TAKES are not any fun. He has subsequently clarified that he is only concerned that apparently people assume he endorsed the conclusions.
I read the summary of the findings from the group. There are no citations. JUB is not mentioned. The list of authors is right at the top and he is, obviously, not among them.
I see no reason for anyone to assume from the summary that JUB was involved or agreed with the conclusions. If there is more or if the full report is available, I could not find it.
As far as why JUB would not be interviewed or otherwise involved. The group is composed of accomplished academics. All of them have Ph.D.s in some field related to history. JUB is a well known author but he is not an academic. The only reason to involve him would be for PR reasons and to smooth the roll out by getting his endorsement out on WTKA etc. Academics don't do PR. They are famously bad at it. Assuming JUB should be involved is a little like assuming Bill Nye should be involved in making science policy. He is a famous scientist because he is on TV. Not because he is a great scientist but because he is an entertaining scientist.
It is entirely possible that the committee never even considered asking JUB. They may have cited his book just to have a citation for various well known quotes or facts. But he writes schmaltzy best selling history books. Not academic level history.
The committee chair is the director of the Bentley Library (and former dean of LS&A) which holds the university's historical records.
This also seems to be a standing university committee charged with considering issues of naming on campus, not an ad hoc committee charged with investigating the naming of Yost (it might make sense to have Bacon on that kind of committee).
Usually people don't notify them before citing written works. Unless they changed what he wrote properly citing a published written work is pretty standard procedure. Seems Bacon should be pissed at people thinking it was his fault, not the commission for citing his work. I don't think he's pissed though the think this could have been handled better comes across as a little petty.
Man, this shit just isn't that much fun anymore.
I think the "commission" was just a formality to do something the university was likely going to do anyway. A little surprising you wouldn't include the guy who wrote most of Michigan's athletic history if you actually wanted it to be anything more than a rubber stamp (not saying John U Bacon would've been in favor of keeping Yost's name, but I'm saying they probably just wanted to do the commission to check the box and move on)
The committee has existed since 2016 and has done similar investigations for at least 2 other buildings, including recommending the renaming of C.C. Little Hall (geneticist who was also a big believer in eugenics and later a tobacco-industry funded denier of links between smoking and lung cancer).
Aww Bacon’s ego is hurt.
Here is his issue....
To be clear, I'm not offended Michigan didn't invite me to work on the committee to consider renaming Yost Ice Arena, nor that they cited my work. All fair game. But I do take issue with the impression they created that I actively contributed to their report, as many have assumed
— John U. Bacon (@Johnubacon) May 24, 2021
I know I am alone on this one, especially on this chatboart, but I think JUB has an overly high opinion of himself and the relevance of his views. He teaches a pretend class at Michigan, he isn't Felix Frankfurter.
Hello, just dropping back in to correct this post.
I don't really want to wage my opinion on JUB's statement here, but I took two of his classes at Michigan, and there was nothing "pretend" about them. In fact, they were the most demanding and meticulous courses I took in my four years on campus. JUB asked a lot, demanded a lot, and it was a very, very tough road to scrape out even an A-.
So, if your perception is that his course titles look like softballs, maybe check the syllabus before you drop a hot take.
I'm going to trust your judgment on this one Bando because you actually took the classes. But I did laugh at "he isn't Felix Frankfurter." I mean, the name "Felix Frankfurter" is always kind of funny. And it was a pretty unexpected reference point. And finally--paling in comparison to Felix Frankfurter isn't really that much of an insult. I would be thrilled if someone looked at my work and said, "Eh, he's no Felix Frankfurter."
Take this from someone that took two self-graded classes and nearly failed Intro to Poetry - I think it is kind of pathetic to have classes about college sports or whatever he teaches.
Also have to question a guy that has dedicated vast portions of his life to cataloging our shitty football program.
December 29th, 2021 at 12:31 AM ^
"Hello, just dropping back in..."
You've been gone somewhere?
/s, but only very slightly.
Uh, this feels like the university faculty/administration just doing their elitist thing. Bacon, while popular among the fanbase, doesn't have traditional items in his CV that most academics crave--according to his profile page, his title is Intermittent Lecturer in Educational Studies. Also, the fact that he doesn't have a PhD would disqualify him in the minds of some (admittedly arrogant) faculty from participation in such a high-profile committee.
This is a standing committee, not an ad-hoc panel. They advise the president on all issues related to university history, not just the (re)naming of athletic facilities. Everyone has a PhD and is (or was) tenured. Half of them have named titles. It is a valid criticism to say that faculty are often "living in ivory towers" rather than dealing with the reality. But educational elitism is real (and not limited to university faculty).
That being said, this committee has some optics issues.
- It is all faculty. Can't we get even some token student representation?
- The members mostly present as white (7/8 based on profile pics and my cursory glance).
- There is a small gender imbalance (3 present as female, 5 present as male based on profile pics/names)
We now live in a PC Correct better be WOKE or we will Cancel your ass society..If u read between the Lines Hes PISSED.....and he should be They are just looking for a reason to prove their wokeness...its now a race to see who can out Woke each other....I for one am SICK of all of it..To judge people from past gone generations and hold them to todays standards is wrong and unfair..When is enuf enuf? Trying to erase history is a very dangerous and marxist thing to do
And if you're arguing that we shouldn't dig into what Yost actually did, who's trying to efface history?
Forgive me for trying to ID your argument, though. There's so little spelling, punctuation, or reason to be had there that I probably should have left well enough alone.
Sounds to me hes just annoyed people are blowing up his phone over something he had nothing to do with and didn't even know was happening.
There are significant problems with race that Michigan needs to address. To wit, the 17 public universities in the state are significantly underrated with black enrollment.
Study: Michigan among worst in black university enrollment
Michigan ranked the third-worst out of 41 states the report examined for black student enrollment at four-year institutions in 2016. Only 8.7 percent of undergraduate students at Michigan's 15 public universities are black, while it should be 17.1 percent, according to the report.
For those of you who dislike the Detroit News and want data that drills down, here's an article from the New York Times article: Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1% Than the Bottom 60%. Find Yours.
When you plug in University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, you find that Michigan wasn't quite "that bad." In 2017, Michigan "only" has 9.3% from the top 1% of income (630k +) and had a whopping 16.3% from the bottom 60% of income (<65k.) To be fair, this is more of a class and income issue than a race issue.
In 2019, 4.26% of the total student body of 48,090 was black or African American. LINK: Data USA: University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. This compares to 14.4% of the total population in Michigan being black.
In an opinion piece in yesterday's NY Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof talks about the shallowness of racial reconciliation and dealing with racism.
Since Floyd’s death, we’ve focused on racial inequities in the criminal justice system, and it has been easy for liberal white Americans — my tribe — to feel indignant and righteous while blaming others. But in some areas, such as an unjust education system, we are part of the problem.
At the very time that America was having a racial reckoning about criminal justice, Democratic states were closing in-person schooling in ways that particularly harmed nonwhite students. Race gaps increased, according to research by McKinsey & Company, and a Federal Reserve study suggests that higher dropout rates for marginalized students will have long-term consequences.
More broadly, we in the United States embrace a public education system based on local financing that ensures that poor kids go to poor schools and rich kids to rich schools.
Yes, it’s a “public” school system with “free” education. So anyone who can afford a typical home in Palo Alto, Calif., costing $3.2 million, can then send children to superb schools. And less than 2 percent of Palo Alto’s population is Black.
So, what's my point? The issue here is whether we should re-name Yost, because of Yost's racism. I am 100% fine with renaming Yost. I have no strong attachment to keeping the name "Yost," although, as others have noted, we are judging someone who came from a different time and era with modern standards, a dubious enterprise at best. I digress: this isn't my issue, and it is clear that Yost was racist.
My issue is that renaming Yost is a symbolic measure that does absolutely nothing to fix current problems. Renaming Yost is a clear case of "virtue signalling." School Administrators, Regents, politicians, and faculty, love handing out symbolism. It costs them virtually nothing. Like maybe changing the name of Yost to say, Scooter Vaughn, who was a black hockey player at Michigan.
I'd like to see real change that makes a real difference to so-called "people of color." (It isn't clear to me that Asians qualify as POC, although they sometimes, in a racist way, have been called "Yellow.") Maybe the University of Michigan could be a leader in changing the public education system, so that it isn't tied to local financing. Maybe the University of Michigan could work to change single dwelling zoning laws that currently make sure poor people of color don't live in East Grand Rapids, Beverly Hills, Northville, Berkley, Birmingham, Novi, or the Gross Pointes, and make it impossible to build subsidized apartment buildings in those locales.
My problem isn't with renaming Yost. Just get it done already. My problem is with virtue signalling that makes rich progressives feel good, but doesn't do a doggone thing to help the poor and disadvantaged get into Michigan and succeed at Michigan.
I realize this is way, way too long, and no one will read it, and I'm just ranting. Fair enough.
TL;DR. Synopsis: rename Yost, but also make real change that helps black students at Michigan.