Harvard Law School Heraldry Discussions

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
15 March 2016 13:31
 

QuiQuog;105628 wrote:

By taking the endowment of the person and associating his name and arms with it, they’re obligated to keeping the memory of him as per their original agreement, warts and all, as well as acknowledging that the ideals of the founders were not as rosy as they would like to portray. If we accept that it’s right and proper to hide a history that they don’t want to explain, we might as well put into motion actions to change the US flag. I say bad on them if they change it.


Purging culture is a slippery slope, and somewhere down that slope does sit the American flag itself. Of course, it’s been the emblem of many things that appeal to our present sensibility (black soldiers marching off behind Robert Gould Shaw to end slavery), but that it’s also been the emblem of many things we now find appalling (e.g., black soldiers marching off to exterminate the Plains Indians) is also beyond dispute. A mature society could live with this paradox. In any case, the extraordinary good done for the nation by Harvard-educated lawyers surely mitigates, and perhaps even redeems, the questionable means by which the Royall family acquired the funds to endow Harvard Law School. And to the point about schools being obliged to honor the terms of endowments, I haven’t looked into this case enough to know what, exactly, those terms were, but the norm today when non-profits of any sort renege on donor agreements—for instance by renaming a building when a stipulation of the gift that got it built in the first place was that it be named for the donor—is to return the donor’s money with appropriate interest. I think that if Harvard is going to expose the Royall descendants, such as there may be, to opprobrium, they ought to be willing to do that.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
15 March 2016 14:15
 

Luis Cid;105629 wrote:

This type of silliness needs to stop.  Harvard law needs to take a deep breath on this one.  No change to the coat of arms would be appropriate.  The agenda of this protesters goes beyond Harvard and is not honest nor benign but is the type of view that would denigrate our entire history to be re-written by them and imposed by fiat if they had their way.


Hear, hear.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
16 March 2016 03:21
 

Personally I don’t disagree, but it’s their arms and for better or worse their call. Freedom of speech and expression, in heraldry as in the rest of life, is like the Biblical rain, which falleth on the just and the unjust alike.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
21 March 2016 12:13
 

Michael F. McCartney;105645 wrote:

...but it’s their arms and for better or worse their call.


I agree that it is their arms to do with as they please. However, where I have a problem is in the definition of "their". That is to say I have no trouble with the leadership of the Law School and/or the University deciding that they wish to change the coat of arms because they don’t want the unfortunate association. However, I have a big problem with this originating with students. Just because you attend an institution doesn’t give you the right or the privilege to dictate to that institution what it may or may not do with its symbols. Contrary to what most of today’s spoiled Millenials think attending a school that has a coat of arms which uses elements from the coat of arms of someone who owned slaves does not equal the students themselves being forced into condoning slavery nor is it a reflection on their own opinions, beliefs or integrity. If they don’t want to be associated with an institution that uses such symbols because of a personal objection then they are free not to patronize that school and to seek an education in the law elsewhere. However, engaging in politically correct bullying as a means of forcing the institution with which you are only temporarily associated to take action because you don’t like the symbolism is exactly the kind of behavior those same Millenials are always decrying.

 

Simply put: they just go to school there so it isn’t up to them. If they don’t like it then they can go to school someplace else.

 

If the Law School examines the situation and decides after consideration to keep their coat of arms the way that it is then that’s where the matter should end. Somehow, however, I doubt it will be that simple. Somehow, I imagine that the students who launched this protest won’t let it go until they get their way and I have an enormous problem with that.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
21 March 2016 14:33
 

I don’t disagree with anything Fr Guy wrote; but I was under the impression (maybe incorrect) that the college officials have recently decided to drop the old arms, and will be looking into a replacement design.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 March 2016 17:54
 

gselvester;105699 wrote:

However, engaging in politically correct bullying as a means of forcing the institution with which you are only temporarily associated to take action because you don’t like the symbolism is exactly the kind of behavior those same Millenials are always decrying.


The whole thing is completely disingenuous. These same students were almost certainly quite eager to go to Harvard, and suddenly, now that they’re there, the school’s symbols are abrasive to them?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
21 March 2016 18:18
 

gselvester;105699 wrote:

However, I have a big problem with this originating with students.


I come to the same substantive conclusion on this issue as Fr. Guy (although, as Mike McC points out, we’re fulminating over nothing at this point as the whole thing seems to be a done deal).

 

However, I’d put a slightly different twist on Fr. Guy’s argument.  I actually would defend the students’ stake in the arms of their school.  But I’m reminded of a presentation someone made at the 50th anniversary conference sponsored by TIOH a few years ago.  It may have been Chuck Mugno, or perhaps someone else, but the idea was that the heraldic symbols of a military unit do not belong just to the officers and soldiers who are assigned to it at the time the symbols are adopted, but to all who have ever been members of the unit and all who will ever be members in the future.  I don’t recall if the lecturer said it, but this might even extend to "the daughters of the regiment" as well as its sons and spouses.

 

It seems to me that this same logic extends to the arms of other institutions as well.  The arms of HLS belong just as much to the generations of students and faculty who have gone before as they do to those who happen to be on the staff or in attendance in 2015-16.  It’s apparently too late now, but it would have been appropriate for them to have a voice in this decision.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
21 March 2016 22:09
 

"...all who have ever been members ... and all who will ever be members in the future…" - elegantly put. While off-topic for this particular thread, we should include this in design discussions for new arms generally, whether for families, schools, churches, or whatever, with the possible exception of arms for celibate clergy who are not open to sharing their personal arms with immediate or extended family.

Back to this thread and the Standard of the East, hopefully some of their alums will politely but firmly remind the college officials that the alumni, who are frequently reminded of their moral obligation to support alma mater, deserve at least as much respect and opportunity for input as the current crop of wet-behind-the-ears students and their professors.  Moral obligations cut both ways.  (The point is not the decision, but the way in which it was made.)

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
06 April 2016 11:20
 

I think far more can be gained by acknowledging and addressing our history than by brushing it aside altogether.  Our history has made us who we are today – both the positive and the negative.  We must take every opportunity to learn from the fear, ignorance, and hatred that dominated the past.

If I may lift a quote: “It’s our history. Better or worse, it’s our history. We’re not going to lock it in the basement or brush it with a new coat of paint. It’s our history.”

 

Harvard Law School, based on Isaac Royall (1719-81)
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Harvard_Law_School_shield.svg/200px-Harvard_Law_School_shield.svg.png
</div>

 

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2016 12:54
 

steven harris;105789 wrote:

I think far more can be gained by acknowledging and addressing our history than by brushing it aside altogether.  Our history has made us who we are today – both the positive and the negative.  We must take every opportunity to learn from the fear, ignorance, and hatred that dominated the past.

If I may lift a quote: β€œIt’s our history. Better or worse, it’s our history. We’re not going to lock it in the basement or brush it with a new coat of paint. It’s our history.”

 

Harvard Law School, based on Isaac Royall (1719-81)
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Harvard_Law_School_shield.svg/200px-Harvard_Law_School_shield.svg.png

</div>


Steve, you could not possibly have stated this point any better.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 April 2016 16:12
 

Whose quote?  This is after all Harvard, so we need footnotes! wink

 
Mark Olivo
 
Avatar
 
 
Mark Olivo
Total Posts:  536
Joined  23-02-2005
 
 
 
06 April 2016 16:56
 

I think what is abrasive to people is not the change itself, but that it represents the fear, ignorance, and hatred of the present.

/beatingdeadhorse

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
08 April 2016 12:55
 

I think that this letter nicely puts it all into perspective. It also recognizes that the institution isn’t interested in whitewashing it’s past connections to slavery, but rather learning from them.

https://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Harvard_Corp_letter_shield.pdf

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
08 April 2016 13:29
 

It would be interesting to see the (at least two) submissions noted in the letter, if they are available to the non-Harvard public; and of course to see what they eventually come up with.