We are white, straight, middle-class women in the academy, and we are not proud of the legacy of the so-called “heroine” and ISU alumna, Carrie Chapman Catt. Authors of the article “Catt’s words taken out of context,” argue that voices leading the drive to rename Catt Hall have misrepresented Catt by decontextualizing her rhetoric.

Their position involves recontextualizing Catt by explaining that it was “acceptable” in 1917 to use the argument and language of white supremacy. The very simple question we must ask here is, “acceptable to whom?”

We shouldn’t have to point out that appealing to an audience’s belief in white supremacy would not have been acceptable to people of color, even in 1917. The authors themselves are guilty of decontextualizing Catt by assuming the only context for understanding her is that of a dominant, white American public. But even from that perspective, the assumption the authors seem to make is that every white suffragist would have found Catt’s tactics acceptable.

In fact, as it has been argued in this space before, Catt was heavily criticized by her peers for what the authors term “acceptable” strategies.

The authors argue that Catt’s life does not reflect racism, but there is very little difference between someone who is a racist and someone who participates in racist speech or acts. Carrie Chapman Catt was certainly a consummate rhetorician.

When speaking to NAACP she could argue for the inclusion of women of color. But when speaking to Southern white men, she assured them that the exclusion of women of color in the voting process would advance white supremacy. The fact that she seems to have known better just makes her advocacy of white supremacy more insidious.

As long as we are again talking about this issue of context, let’s think for a minute what it means to memorialize someone with the dedication of a building.

When we memorialize any person we commemorate them for noble acts of honor and courage. We remember and we celebrate victories. But we conveniently forget the disgraceful, cowardly acts that were committed against the many victims who perished in the battle. Inscribing Catt’s name in stone on Old Botany is the ultimate act of taking Catt out of her context.

You can’t have part of her unless you’re willing to take all of her. And we are not willing to take her racism, classism or xenophobia.

Finally, we want to say how glad we are that the authors of “Catt’s words taken out of context” are making their voices heard. We’re glad that they have read other letters on the issue and have conducted research to explore their own interpretations, but we think this is a dialogue that should have taken place before the building was named.

We’re deeply disturbed that a committee without diverse representation was appointed to name a building that was supposed to celebrate diverse representation.

This belated dialogue has come about as a result of the September 29th Movement’s insistence on a more democratically-run university.

Whether you agree with the Movement’s views or not, they have worked tirelessly to promote a space for democracy on campus. Now that dialogue is happening and differing interpretations are being offered, it’s time to reopen the naming process — this time with more democracy and diversity.

We completely disagree with the authors’ interpretation of Catt’s views, but we are glad that there are women on campus who are writing in solidarity about something they feel strongly about.

However, we believe women on this campus deserve better than a memorial to a woman that does not represent ideas of equality or values that we can embrace ourselves.

We won’t embrace any woman as a “heroine” who worked for the rights of white women, but did so at the expense of the rights of women of color.

---

Lisa Hermsen

Graduate student

English

---

Laurie McCartan

Graduate student

English