USC’s decision not to pursue renaming buildings erodes faith in school’s leadership

Was it all a joke?

Was the creation of the USC Presidential Commission on University History just a fun way to pass the time?

Emails between top University of South Carolina officials show that the school never planned to ask the state legislature to rename multiple buildings on campus regardless of what the commission recommended.

The creation of the commission and the months of work involved, including collecting input from students and faculty, turns out to have been window dressing designed to appease anyone who was actually seeking to change a culture that memorialized racists, segregationists and slavery.

Our reporter Lucas Daprile learned that months before the commission released its final report it had “already prepared public statements saying both the state’s Heritage Act and lawmakers prevented them from changing the controversial building names.”

Daprile’s story explains that in one email exchange, a top university official shared with Interim President Harris Pastides a July article from The State Media Co. quoting legislators saying they wouldn’t allow a vote on renaming USC’s buildings.

How did Pastides respond?

“Don’t they know that we weren’t planning to ask,” Pastides wrote in an email.

At the time, the state’s Heritage Act still required a two-thirds approval from both the state’s House and Senate to change the name of a building named for a historical figure. That law was changed in September when the state Supreme Court ruled the two-thirds requirement was unconstitutional.

Whatever the voting requirement at the time, the school’s stance seems to have been why bother?

The commission’s website claims that it was created “to examine and address historical context at the university, from evaluating and re-naming university buildings to broadening acknowledgment of key groups and individuals that have contributed to the university over time.”

Sadly, all the talk of “broadening acknowledgment” was just that - talk.

Asked about the revelations, USC spokesman Jeff Stensland said,“The Commission’s work was always broader than building names, and as you know, there is a well-documented state law that prevents institutions from changing the names of buildings. He continued, ”The Commission’s work was intended to include the full scope of how the university has evolved, allowing us to better educate students, faculty, staff, visitors, and local community members about the complex history of the university, to include the contributions of marginalized and underrepresented people whose voices have typically not been heard.”

What does that even mean?

Will a day ever come when a Black student doesn’t have to walk into a building named after someone who believed they were second-class citizens or even mere property?

The reality is that placing a person’s name on a building means something.

It means that person - their beliefs, their work, their values - are held in high esteem, and a host of buildings on the Columbia campus currently tell us exactly what traits the USC administration values.

We urge the university to act in good faith and make a genuine effort to reckon with its past.

The commission members put in the time and effort. Don’t let their work go to waste.