I was somewhat surprised to see the following statement in Jessica Hirsch and Jason Rivera’s March 9th letter to the Daily:

“It is not yet known what information or documentation the university naming committee and the Board of Regents relied upon when approving the naming of Catt Hall. And it is not yet known whether information about Catt, perceived to be potentially controversial, was withheld during the naming process.”

The documents with the answers to these questions should be readily available in the university archives in three places: the records of the University Committee on Women, the professional papers of Laura Kline (who was chair on the UCW at the time in question) and the professional papers of Virgil Lagomarcino (who was chair of the building naming committee). In addition, the archives also should have the relevant minutes of the Board of Regents under call number L148 .B5.

However, since I already know the answers from my association with one of the key players, let me share me recollection of the events.

In summer of 1989, an individual associated with the university sent documentation regarding Catt’s alleged racist remarks to both Kline and Lagomarcino. Kline was already well aware of this information and was visibly annoyed that the matter was being brought up. She met with Lagomarcino and the building naming committee and convinced them that the information was unreliable.

The committee later approved renaming Old Botany after Catt, and Kline presented materials supporting the renaming to the Board of Regents. She made no mention of the racism issue in her remarks, and the individual who first brought up the issue did not attend the meeting. So far as I can recall, the regents approved renaming the building with no knowledge of Catt’s remarks.

Of course, my memories may be faulty, and certainly no one should reach any conclusions based on my recollections alone.

W. Scott Thune

Graduate student

Rhetoric and professional

communication