Boyer’s book details the “old University of Chicago” and it’s pretty clear that Douglas really had little to do with that institution as well, other than donating the land and perhaps relating some ideas for a grand university. His entire involvement was viewed controversially by Baptists who were fundamentally opposed to slavery. Regardless. The current University of Chicago is a separate institution with a separate founding. It has a titular affiliation with the old place and perhaps some later supporters who enthusiastically embraced the new. It also shares a Baptist zeal for education and mission. None of that is disputed or controversial, of course. Not sure if Boyer mentions this, but calling this 2nd institution the University of Chicago seemed to have more to do with the desire for this particular city to be identified with a great university than it did any desire for the new university to identify with the prior (which suffered an ignominious demise). To me it appears to be be more a “let’s try this again and do it right this time” than an attempt to carry forth a specific legacy.
Here is Zimmer’s e-mail to the campus (as an alum and parent, I did not receive this; one of my kids forwarded to me):
"To: Members of the University Community
From: Robert J. Zimmer, President, and Ka Yee C. Lee, Provost
Subject: Removal of Stephen A. Douglas Plaque and Stone
Date: July 7, 2020
On June 26, we wrote a message to the campus community to express the University’s commitment toward building a stronger, more inclusive University of Chicago.
As one step in this ongoing effort, we directed the removal of a bronze plaque of Stephen A. Douglas in Hutchinson Commons and a stone from the “Old University of Chicago,” which had been mounted in the wall of the Classics Building. The plaque was a gift from the University of Chicago Class of 1901 to recognize the earlier university, which was built on land in Bronzeville donated by Douglas but failed and closed in 1886. The stone was donated to the University of Chicago in 1927.
As John Boyer, Dean of the College and author of The University of Chicago: A History, notes, Douglas died in 1861 and had no connection to the University of Chicago that was founded in 1890 as a new institution with a distinct mission. Douglas profited from his wife’s ownership of a Mississippi plantation where Black people were enslaved. While it is critical to understand and address the ongoing legacy of slavery and oppression in this country, Douglas does not deserve to be honored on our campus. Both the plaque and the stone are being relocated to the University’s Special Collections Research Center.
The University of Chicago denounces racism in all forms and is committed to making positive and sustainable change on issues of racial bias and inequities."
I agree that Douglas doesn’t deserve to be honored on the campus as he really had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, his overall legacy has been controversial - at best. Perhaps they could have removed this silly plaque a generation or two ago when it was clear that the gifters from the class of 1901 had well passed on. THAT would have shown some forward thinking. Waiting till now is just a cheap way to virtue-signal. They didn’t seem to care about it one way or the other for decades. Refuse to believe that they only just now realized that Stephens had married the wrong girl. Or - worse - maybe they had rightly resisted caving into the mob in the past but now are afraid not to.
The stones should stay as they were gifts from the old university to the new. Made in a spirit of good will, they should be displayed as recognition that in 1892 the new university “got it right.”