Jamie,

You bring up some very important issues, and I am familiar with some of the the examples. There have been some people at various universities, as well as in the general public, who have objected to memorials, symbols, and other elements of the Confederacy in public settings. But Jim's question focused on the teaching of history in the classroom. That is what I was responding to. There is an important difference, not only in context but approach.

There are many controversial historical people, movements, and events covered in history classes. For instance, an entry-level World History class I was a teaching assistant in spent a few class periods talking about the history of Islam and its influence on Middle Eastern, African, and world history. Nobody really objected to covering such history appropriately in class...but if monuments and other memorials to Muhammad were placed on campus, it may have been a different story. The same can be said with topics such as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. Teachers are relatively free to cover these issues in a classroom setting, yet memorials and other public displays of these elements of history can be quite objectionalbe.

Plaques, monuments, and building names are all important aspects of a university's image to the public. They are not so much about education, in that setting, as about identification and celebration. How a university official may handle a public display is not always indicative of the academic freedom professors there enjoy.