The decision by the university to retire the Colonial is ignorant of American history and further divides an already fractured student body.
T he George Washington University announced yesterday that it will discontinue use of the Colonial as the school’s mascot. While this decision was supposedly made in the name of school unity, in reality, it will only gratify radical factions of the student body and perpetuate division within the school community.
The Colonial mascot referenced the colonists of revolutionary America, who fought for independence in opposition to colonialism. Thus, this decision continues the recent trend at my school of rejecting American history.
It was only a month ago that calls for the school itself to be renamed culminated in a major Washington Post op-ed. Proponents of removing Washington’s name from the school ignore or reject any arguments in favor of keeping it; they categorically oppose honoring the man’s legacy. Indeed, conventional wisdom on my campus and in similar liberal circles has moved away from reverence for our Founders and the values on which they based this country. Their perception of our nation has shifted to one that emphasizes its inherent evil, together with a degree of incorrigibility that only radical systematic change can overcome. And they believe that systematic change must begin with the erasure of American history and our legacy.
Removing the Colonial mascot is a step in that direction. In the university’s announcement, it claims that the decision was intended to unify the student body, in alleged recognition of “a significant difference in connotation for the term Colonials.” It is true that “Colonial” now means different things to different students, but that’s only because opponents of the moniker have grossly misconstrued its meaning. At this point, these opponents are well aware of the fact that it does not refer to colonizers. Yet they willfully ignore that key piece of reality to advance their agenda.
The rationale used by the university is the more concerning aspect, though. There is hardly an issue, especially one so politically charged, on which the administration will find consensus within the student body. And how can the decision itself be for the sake of unity when it further polarizes the student body and rekindles a contentious environment that had largely dissipated on this specific matter?
If the university continues to make these types of decisions in the same manner, then I worry about the future of the institution. As inconceivable as it may have been just a year or two ago, George Washington himself has now become a figure of controversy on our campus. Now that the Colonial is gone, it’s only a matter of time until Washington is brought before the campus guillotine by our resident Robespierres.
How long after that until the university says that George Washington is no longer a figure who can unite us? Those administration members who make this decision will hide behind that as their sole defense, attempting to relieve themselves of any responsibility. The same goes for James Madison, James Monroe, Winston Churchill, and every other important historical figure whose name marks buildings or institutions on our campus.
It is important to acknowledge that there was a student referendum on removing the Colonial that did pass. But it passed by a narrow margin, and the majority of the student body did not participate in the vote. That just goes to show that most students don’t really care enough to invest the time and effort in getting involved with this issue. The passionate conservatives and the passionate liberals were likely the bulk of the voters, and at a school like mine, there are more politically active students on the left than there are on the right.
Furthermore, as this vote took place in the 2018–2019 academic year, there are likely few participating voters who are current students at the school. Those who voted in this referendum are mostly now alumni. Yet I would imagine that if the entirety of the alumni community were polled, the results would be different.
The university said this decision was the result of a deliberative process. In fact, it was born out of impulse and trends. The leadership of the school has pandered to mercurial partisan ideology and taken another step in the wrong direction.
Since this decision is clearly final, I hope the university will choose a new mascot that equally embodies the values Washington and the Continental Army fought for. I hope with much more fervor, however, that the George Washington University will cease its embrace of this pervasive culture when it has to face the more-consequential decisions that are on the horizon.