A standoff over a University of Minnesota push to rename campus buildings is escalating into a war of words pitting regents against top administrators, as well as student and faculty leaders.
In a letter to the campus community, the U's president and provost included a rare public rebuke of regents who sharply criticized a campus task force report, which called for stripping the names of former administrators from Coffman Memorial Union and three other buildings. Faculty leaders, a deans' group and the U student government have echoed that critique, suggesting some regents were disrespectful to academics on the task force.
Unchastened, regents have pushed back, with one, Michael Hsu, calling for an investigation into whether the task force members intentionally left out exculpatory evidence in making a case that the late administrators backed campus housing segregation and other racist practices in the 1930s and '40s.
"I think it's disrespectful to submit a report like this and expect us to accept it without question," he said.
Although others on the U's governing board balk at launching an investigation, most agree they need more information to make a decision on renaming the buildings. Now the university is grappling with what the next steps should be.
Last fall, U President Eric Kaler and Provost Karen Hanson charged a task force made up primarily of faculty to examine the legacies of the four late namesakes — presidents Lotus Coffman and Walter Coffey, Dean Edward Nicholson and Vice President William Middlebrook — and issue recommendations. The resulting 125-page report said they were all implicated in backing the exclusion of black students from university dorms or, in the case of Nicholson, in surveilling Jewish faculty and students.
Kaler backed the report's recommendations to remove their names from campus buildings, pending meetings with their descendants. But during a March board meeting that ran out of time before task force co-chairs could fully address concerns, some regents did not mince words. They questioned why the report largely failed to address the role of the U's governing board and suggested the university should have engaged relatives sooner.
For Hsu, a prime example of what he sees as troubling omissions are the July 1935 Board of Regents minutes. They say the board reaffirmed a policy giving Coffman discretion over the housing issue — even as its members unanimously opined that the U should continue to allow only whites in residence halls.