During the debate surrounding Carrie Chapman Catt Hall, Irarely have encountered a truly compelling case from either Catt Hall supporters or anti-Catt Hall demonstrators.

Let’s analyze the main points surrounding the debate, and perhaps you’ll become as confused as I am as to the right course of action.

Let’s start with the platform of the September 29th Movement, whose efforts of persuasion leave something to be desired.

A little over a week ago the Daily published an “In My View…” column authored by September 29th Movement member Milton McGriff.

The opinion piece, entitled “An open letter to David Mosby,” basically summed up the reasons for renaming Catt Hall.

“The September 29th Movement feels saddened by your (Mosby’s) decision to go public with your reasoning that opposes the renaming of Carrie Chapman Catt Hall,” McGriff wrote.

Another section reads, “By publicly aligning yourself with them (Catt supporters), you bring your own powers of judgement into question.”

Immediately, the word “public” caught my eye.

If Mr. Mosby had kept his opinions to himself, but still held opinions contrary to the Movement, how would anti-Catt Hall supporters react?

It would seem the Movement “feels saddened”by Mr. Mosby’s “decision to go public.”

Isn’t one of the major complaints of the Movement that they were not given the opportunity to voice their opinions adequately, that the university administration was not listening to what they had to say?

Rather ironic for a group that is frustrated by the lack of opportunity to voice their opinion to begrudge someone for simply exercising their right to free speech.

Alas, politics.

Mr. McGriff also tells Mosby to “get real, my brother.” He adds that “…your opinions align you… with Dr. Jischke’s views emanating from the Big House.”

In other words, Mosby is to rely upon not what he believes, but should remember where his true loyalty lies, which apparently should always be the African-American community.

Solidarity for solidarity’s sake is a shaky principle upon which to conduct political action.

Race and racism are always sensitive areas, and unfortunately are venues that can often be exploited. It was insinuated at times that people who opposed the renaming of Catt Hall were racist.

This argument distracts from the real issue. Rather than now debating and discussing whether or not we should have Catt’s name adorning a campus building, people now have to defend themselves and illustrate why they’re not racists.

In military terms, this is known as a flanking maneuver. While this maneuver is morally unsound, it is, unfortunately, effective.

The defense of Catt Hall doesn’t hold up to intellectual scrutiny, either.

The argument defending Catt by saying that her racist views were simply in keeping with her time doesn’t wash.

People are responsible for their actions and words, not an era or a society.

By excusing (and that’s what you’re doing by making this argument, offering up excuses) Catt’s racism as simply a “product of her time,” you are also, in theory, excusing the Holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow laws, the genocidal policies resulting in the massacre of Native Americans and every other historical injustice because the perpetrators of these crimes were “products of their times” as well.

There are certain principles that span generations. The belief in the sanctity of human life, belief in the right to freely express yourself, belief in the right to love who you wish…

These are principles of thought that throughout the ages, at certain points, have come under attack, but their universal truth and validity cannot be diminished because it became fashionable for a period of time to trample on these beliefs.

What was fashionable is not the issue. We’re not talking parachute pants, feathering your hair or Wham! here.

Ed Krafsur wrote in a letter to the editor that “Catt shouldn’t be judged by today’s standard of ‘political correctness.'”

I wouldn’t call defending the rights and expression of beliefs of human beings “politically correct.” I’d call it a “moral imperative,” as Val Kilmer said in Real Genius.

The other defense of Catt is that she offered women’s suffrage as an opportunity for white supremacists to continue to keep African-Americans from having a significant political voice.

Shrewd politics, some would say. A necessary evil, others say.

Bull, I say. Compromising one’s integrity is not something to be celebrated.

If this was the situation, why did Catt feel the need to compromise on freedom when John Brown, Frederick Douglass and the Quakers didn’t?

The question must be asked, if political expediency was Catt’s motivation, was it worth it?

Is the enfranchisement of one group worth the immoral subjugation of another a palpable tactic?

Is that truly the fight for freedom or simply the fight to make yourself free at the cost of others?

Rose Swanson, president of the local chapter of the League of Women Voters, cited Catt’s donation of $100,000 to Iowa State University as a reason to maintain the name of the building.

“Yes, Alex, I’ll take bribery for a hundred…”

In the end, a quote from ISU student Leslie Rides, who attended the forum, ring the trues: “We need to look at the totality rather than just focusing on the good or the bad.”

From my research, I see Catt as a valiant supporter of women’s rights who exploited the prejudice of white supremacists.

While Iemphatically support the cause of women’s suffrage, I am not willing to excuse the tainted method in which she did fight for it.

But after all the carnage and controversy, Mr. Mosby raises the most valid point: changing the name of the building does nothing to address the social injustices enacted on women and minorities of yesterday and today.

It does nothing to address the issues of minority retention and matriculation at ISU.

Let’s do something positive.

Let’s not fight over names and symbols and buildings when they’re only indicative of the real issues that lie unscathed and unaddressed.

Tim Davis is a senior in Theater Studies from Carlisle.