Denaming proposals

Guiding principles

In its report, the Committee to Articulate Principles on Renaming offered several principles that could guide decisions around denaming and renaming. From these recommendations, the University has formalized guiding principles for considering requests for denaming as follows:

1. Because this is an academic institution dedicated to research and teaching, all efforts should be grounded in historical inquiry and in careful deliberation and investigation.
2. The decision to remove a name should not be undertaken lightly. It should be informed by deep examination and learning, and the process leading to the decision should be characterized by reason, persuasion, and discussion that is robust and respectful.
3. The judgment about whether to initiate a review should rest primarily on the completeness of the submission, not the number of identified proponents or the strength of their convictions.
4. The process should reflect compassion for the members of our community and a commitment to their full participation in our mission.
5. The process should approach our history with humility, in recognition of the imperative to remember but with the courage to reckon with past actions or beliefs that were flawed. 
6. Community consensus is not a prerequisite to act on a request, but there is an expectation that any request that moves forward to review will allow for the solicitation of views from stakeholders.

Review process

Once a denaming request has been submitted, it will be directed to the Office of the President and Provost for review by an initial review committee. This committee will evaluate the submission for the following criteria:

1. Whether the request is complete (i.e., whether it addresses all required questions and demonstrates substantial research and analysis);
2. Whether the request comes from an individual who meets the eligibility requirements;
3. Whether the request pertains to a name that already has been considered through this process;
4. Whether the request sets forth a substantial and reasonably persuasive case for denaming; and
5. Whether there is a gift or other legal agreement that bears upon the ability to dename.  

Possible outcomes of the initial review:

1. The submission does not move forward for full review because it does not meet the eligibility criteria, is incomplete, is viewed to be without merit, is contrary to legal obligations, or because an alternative resolution of the matters addressed in the submission is identified.
2. Substantive denaming review is determined to be appropriate. Generally, full review would be conducted by the applicable School under its procedures, but in some circumstances the University may handle the full review under the procedures described in Section D of the University Process for Considering Requests for Denaming, with School participation as appropriate. 

In cases where requests do not move forward to full review, the Office of the President and Provost will provide an explanation to the party or parties making the request. If the request failed to proceed because it was incomplete, the party or parties making the request may revise and resubmit the request for consideration at the next opportunity for submission of requests. 

For requests that advance to a full review, the Office of the Dean of the associated School will appoint a dedicated advisory committee to undertake the review. Each committee may work in conjunction with other School or University offices as appropriate and will provide a final recommendation that the Dean either:

• Take no action;
• Dename; or
• Keep the name but contextualize it.

In instances when the full review is conducted by the University, the Office of the President and Provost will appoint a dedicated advisory committee to undertake the review and to make a final recommendation to the President.