It is too often the case in lengthy, wearisome public debates that the initial issues that spark a debate are clouded, even forgotten. For instance, in the 0. J. Simpson drama, the fact that two people were brutally murdered often seemed irrelevant to the ongoing public debate about race and justice. Who was the real murderer, if not 0. J.? Regardless of his guilt or innocence, this question was lost in the political and rhetorical shuffle.

A similar, but more complex, loss of focus has occurred in the ongoing debate over Catt Hall. In all the sparring back and forth about censorship, violation of rules, students’ rights and conduct probation, what happened to the issue of Catt’s “racist” remarks? I place racist in quotation marks, not to defend Catt’s position, but because her views need to be placed in the proper context. If we decide to judge everyone by present-day standards (if there are such things anymore) every building, street, or foundation memorializing Columbus, Jefferson or Lincoln will have to be renamed. Many buildings on the ISU campus will suffer the same fate due to “racism” or “sexism.”

In an academic climate of increasing racial polarization, it’s not surprising that The Movement says Catt was a racist, while the administration denies it. But a rational analysis of the meaning of Catt’s “racism” has been lost. The tiresome debate in the Daily has failed to focus on her remarks in a historical context. By placing ourselves in Catt’s shoes can we perhaps understand (not condone) her position? Is not this one of the objectives of those pushing for “diversity” and “multiculturalism”? The ideal of understanding where others are coming from?

In Woman Suffrage and Politics (1923), Catt remarked, “American women who know the history of their country will always resent the fact that American men chose to enfranchise Negroes fresh from slavery before enfranchising American wives and mothers.” As an educated, politically-minded woman of the early twentieth century, her resentment is understandable. After all, nearly fifty years passed between the 15th and 19th Amendments.

Of course, I’m not excusing Catt’s “racism” anymore than I condone Abraham Lincoln’s racial views or Thomas Jefferson’s comments about his slaves. However, I am saying that historical figures must be understood in their own context. Therefore, if we decide to memorialize them, we must be prepared to take the good with the bad. Human beings are not simply good or evil. No one, dead or alive, is without sin. If, after carefully weighing the evidence, it is decided that Catt’s historical influence was negative, then the building should undoubtedly be renamed. However, we must remember two things: 1 ) Racist or not, Catt contributed to the voting rights of African-American women and 2) Historical figures are neither the paragons of virtue nor the exemplars of evil that we would like them to be.

Robinson Yost

Graduate Student

Department of History