SFUSD

SFUSD Considers Changing Schools’ Names

By Thomas K. Pendergast

A San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) committee is recommending 39 schools across the City, including seven in the Richmmond District, change their names. 

George Washington High School, Presidio Middle School, Theodore Roosevelt Middle School, Claire Lilienthal Elementary School, Alamo Elementary School, Frank McCoppin Elementary School and Sutro Elementary are all  recommended by the School Names Advisory Committee for name changes. 

The committee selected those and other schools based on the following “Guiding Principles”: anyone directly involved in the colonization of people; slave owners or participants in enslavement; perpetuators of genocide or slavery; those who exploit workers or people; those who directly oppressed or abused women, children, queer or transgender people; those connected to any human rights or environmental abuses; known racists and/or white supremacists and/or people who espoused racist beliefs.

The committee held its first meeting on Jan. 30 and another the next month. When the coronavirus threat started to spread, the meetings were put on hold. They continued with Zoom meetings starting in July. 

The move to change school names that some people consider offensive actually began in 2018 with the school board’s passage of Resolution No. 184-10A1, which called for the formation of such a group to “offer findings and recommendations … regarding the potential renaming of SFUSD schools …” 

During a Sept. 23 meeting, SF Board of Education President Mark Sanchez spoke to the committee about its origins.

“This committee was born from a resolution that commissioner (Stevon) Cook and I authored a couple of years ago. Obviously, the timeline has not been met. We’re a little behind and more behind than ever because of COVID, maybe.” Sanchez said. “But I really want to appreciate your work and also that you are meeting consistently throughout this pandemic. You’re taking a lot of flak, obviously the the board will too as it moves forward, but we’re prepared. This is a very diverse board, a very progressive board. And we are in a time right now where this kind of work has to be done for all of us…. So, yes all of us get ready for the backlash, of course, but keep working, keep strong and keep up the great work.”

And indeed, the backlash has already begun. During public comment at their meetings several members of various high school alumni associations expressed their opposition to the name changes. 

The vice president of the George Washington High School Alumni Association, Lope Yap Jr., who has been an active opponent of destroying the Victor Arnautoff murals on that campus, told the committee that the alumni association’s application to the National Park Service’s Historical American Building Survey list was approved last February. 

“This national recognition honors the entire campus,” Yap said. “This week a letter was sent to Mayor Breed and (SFUSD) Superintendent (Dr. Vincent) Matthews from Mt. Vernon, illustrating the reasons to honor George Washington. Washington’s accomplishments far outweigh his negatives. Please reconsider your motives and recommendations. We oppose any name changes for George Washington High School, and others schools for questionable reasons.”

During the next meeting, committee member Mariposa Villaluna, who was a vocal supporter of destroying the Arnautoff murals by painting them over, opposed the inclusion of alumni association members in any community outreach.

“We should not include alumni associations,” Villaluna said. “I consider them members of the public that are not currently part of SFUSD.”

Committee member Kim-Shree Maufas brought up the subject of how much these name changes might cost the district. 

“We’ve renamed a few schools in the last few years, so we should get information on how much that costs,” Maufus said. “Those are done and we can actually track how much those cost. Inherently, there’s going to be costs to add to this process. That shouldn’t prevent us from doing any kind of review or look but it would be nice to know.”

Committee member Adam Mehis had a different take on the cost issue. 

“There’s a cost to white supremacy,” Mehis said. “When there’s a name on a building after somebody, that when people know that history there’s trauma there. It affects people’s families … there’s an emotional impact there.”

Committee member Susie Mui-Shonk also weighed in on potential costs of changing school names. 

“You only have so much in the piggy bank. You can’t blow it all because you only have so much money and so many resources,” Mui-Shonk said. “Certain schools like Lowell, they do have ‘brand’ and they have ‘cache.’ If you talk about a community, kids want to hang their hat on that kind of stuff. I would think so and I think if you talk to the alumni they would think so as well.”

“I get a little nervous when you call schools, that they have ‘brand,’ or they have ‘branding,’” Villaluna responded. “I think we should step back from language like that. The cost in having a name that inflicts violence, that represents violence, is greater than someone being able to get into a certain school. I want to get away from that fear because, with SFUSD values, we’re supposed to be fearless.”

Villaluna also put Theodore Roosevelt Middle School on the list.

“He opposed civil rights and suffrage for Black folks,” she explained. “He opposed Black people voting.”

According to an article by Andrew Glass of Politico, however, the situation was a bit more complicated than that. 

In 1901, Booker T. Washington, an important Black leader, was the first Afro-American to be invited to dine at the White House, where he and Roosevelt discussed politics and racial issues. When word of the dinner reached the press, there was an outcry of criticism from many white people, particularly in the South. 

Glass claims that Roosevelt’s approach to racial issues was to proceed slowly toward the goal of social and economic equality, cautioning against imposing “radical changes” in government policy, hoping for “gradual adjustments” in the attitudes of white Americans toward ethnic minorities in a “passive, long-term approach toward extending full civil rights to African Americans.”  

In 1870, the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gave Black men the right to vote, but not women. According to the Library of Congress, however, the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means to limit the effect of that amendment disenfranchised Blacks for almost a century until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Regarding replacing school names with other people, as opposed to place names or the like, committee member Gregg Castro had an observation. 

“The use of historical figures, under all those criteria is really going to shorten the list,” Castro said. “Nobody’s perfect. But even beyond that, so many of American and world historical figures are going to have issues.”

Committee member Eric Myers, a union lawyer for hotel workers, had a different take on that. 

“I think there’s something powerful about historic people despite their flaws,” Myers said. “I don’t think we’re looking for saints here. I think we’re looking for people who had authentic lives and had contradictions. We’re not going to find perfect people but I don’t see that necessarily as the objective.”

To view upcoming committee meetings, members of the public can go to this web address: https://www.sfusd.edu/connect/get-involved/advisory-councils-committees/school-renaming-advisory-committee.

9 replies »

  1. I am proud to say that I am a graduate of George Washington High School (1960). If the decision to change the name is approved, there is no name to consider other than Jesus Christ High School, because He is the is only person who was and still is perfect! This whole name changing and tearing down statues and painting over historical murals is a terrible mistake….it changes nothing, causes more conflict between people, and is truly a shame. Janet Bailey

    Like

  2. The naming of schools after prominent (and positive) historical figures (e.g., George Washington, Abraham Lincoln) has precedence in many societies. Their perceived faults must be viewed in the context of their historical period and in comparison to others in their historical period. To exclude them as namesakes because of absolute comparison to current social and political mores is not realistic. Shall we rename them again when such social and political mores change? Furthermore, if we review other candidates to be potential namesakes, who sets the standards for their vetting?

    Like

  3. Do these people have any concept of history? Are they capable of understanding historical context? To choose one, George Washington, do they have any concept of what he accomplished counter to any historical context. We, the USA have many deep faults with slavery being central. That said, compare us to UK, Congo, Saudi Arabia… whomever you choose and on the whole we have been world leaders in liberty, freedom of speech and human rights. None of which is possible without Washington. This is pure ignorance and modern day Mccarthyism.
    PS please change the names on our Confederate forts. Those men were traitors and it is an affront to the many african american soldiers who serve us proudly.

    Like

  4. “We should not include alumni associations,” Villaluna said. “I consider them members of the public that are not currently part of SFUSD.”

    Members of the public ARE part of SFUSD. They fund the salaries of each and every employee through tax dollars. Every single voter in San Francisco is entitled to an opinion and entitled to holding the current board members accountable to carrying out their wishes and representing their voice.

    Real change makers build alliances, are strategic and get big change carefully and without a giant public spectacle. This committee is moving recklessly and aggressively towards a divisive path that is truly alarming. It is riling people up only to accomplish very little of substance and keep our school board members from the real work of closing our opportunity gap and balancing our very, very dire budget.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This committee thought Roosevelt was named after FDR and it is named after Teddy. It doesn’t take more than a quick search on the district’s own website to find this out. If you google you will also see it is designated a local landmark but I don’t know if that means the board has to consult with the city or not. This has been a farce all around. Alumni are part of the sfusd and just because one committee member doesn’t want to acknowledge it because they don’t want to hear what alumni have to say because they don’t want any opposition doesn’t make it less true.

    Like

  6. The committee member Mr. Pendergrast quoted is actually an SFUSD alum. There are a number of SFUSD alumni on the committee. The Board of Ed’s legislation that created this process was developed by a school board member who is an SFUSD alum.

    Alumni associations are technically private organizations. They are 501(c)(3) nonprofits, not public entities. Alumni and the general public are more than welcome to email the committee and school board express their opinions. The school district is prioritizing the *current* school staff and families (who have to live with the names day in and day out) in the renaming process. Current SFUSD families and SFUSD staff are the only groups that will be allowed to submit names. That’s as it should be.

    I fail to understand the pearl clutching around the renaming of schools that are currently named after people who enslaved Black people and massacred Native Americans – especially after the murder of George Floyd. Change is long overdue.

    Like

  7. How insulting. “Pearl clutching”. What a snide phrase. The murder of George Floyd has zero to do with justifying the changing of names of all these schools. They are named after the presidents who were responsible for leading the country that you are now living in and in which you received your own education (however much or little that education may be ) and in which you still choose to reside.. So what if they owned slaves?. Who did not in those times?? If the school names were to be changed, God forbid, who would decide the new name? How would we know that the person(s) choosing the name are the perfect and most qualified people to do the choosing? And how would we know that whoever’s name is chosen is the perfect person with no shady skeletons hidden in his/hercloset? To suggest that anyone who is an alumnus of any of these schools is not an interested or valid member of the school community is positively ludicrous. Who do you think pays taxes that in part go to supporting the schools? Do you think none of us have children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren who also attend these schools now? We have just as much right to want to see the school names go unchanged so that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will know who the presidents of our country were and to feel some pride in knowing of their valuable political leaderships. It is part of what a valid “education” is all about.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s