{shortcode-26f595ceb4ed2e097b36c62f127ed85480648a7c}

More than 200 Harvard affiliates have already signed a petition calling for the denaming of Winthrop House.

And they’re right. It’s time to dename Winthrop House.

Winthrop House is named for two John Winthrops. The first enslaved at least seven people, ordered 17 prisoners in the Pequot War to be sold as slaves, and helped legalize slavery in Massachusetts. The second owned two enslaved individuals and allowed students to prepare defenses of slavery at Harvard’s 1773 Commencement.

As we have opined before, we should carefully consider the facts of every individual case before calling for denaming. Historical context is undoubtedly important; however, if we move to contextualize the Winthrops, we should do the same for the African and Indigenous people they subjugated. A holistic evaluation of the facts leads us to find particular merit in denaming Winthrop House.

There are those who argue denaming is only symbolic, but we view this as a feature, not a flaw. Denaming is indeed symbolic, but that’s because it remedies the equally symbolic process of venerating individuals through naming.

Others may accuse the campaign to dename Winthrop as erasure of Harvard’s history, but building names are not the concern of history. No one can deny the weight of the Winthrops in Harvard’s historical lineage — Harvard’s own extensive monographs, archival records, and institutional heritage would not allow for it.

Instead, building names are the concern of public memory: a reflection of our collective values, of the actions and people we wish to commemorate in plaques above the heads of students shuffling day after day through our hallowed halls.

Even if denaming Winthrop could constitute erasure from Harvard’s history, this school’s public memory should be updated with each incoming generation’s views. Some would ask us to reconsider the Winthrops as figures of their time, but — particularly as a collection of students rather than trained historians — our relationship to history is tinged by present-tense glasses. With fresh undergrads cycling in every four years, our campus is by nature not a stagnant space. We can change its names.

To dename a building named in honor of individuals whose actions do not align with our values is a laudable solution within the framework at hand. We appreciate the organizers of this petition — who include members of the Generational African American Students Association and Natives at Harvard College — for the effort, research, and courage they have dedicated to this cause. We hope that similar initiatives will be undertaken in response to the plethora of other buildings on campus honoring oppressors.

The petition to dename Winthrop has the potential to be the first success of the formal Faculty of Arts and Sciences process of submitting denaming requests. If not approved, it can only be reconsidered after five years, except under “extraordinary circumstances.” We call upon Harvard’s administration to take this opportunity to prove their commitment to the denaming initiative, by seeing a well-founded, highly-supported request to fruition.

Still, denaming is hardly the end-all be-all to remedying Harvard’s long history of oppression and legacy of slavery.

Denaming should be paired with intentional naming anew. Naming Harvard’s Houses exclusively after white people suggests that people of color are immaterial to Harvard’s storied history — a proposition far from reality. We urge Houses to consider diversifying whom their physical spaces honor.

Outside of building names that exist in the realm of public memory, remembering our history is essential to cultivate our collective reckoning and inspire change. As we have repeatedly advocated for, Harvard should curate a museum of institutional failings, so that every student who enters this institution understands its past marred with profound wrongs. We wait with bated breath for the record of the House formerly known as Winthrop to enter this museum’s collections.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.