Johns Hopkins

I graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 1974.  Yesterday, I got an email from the President of the University wringing his hands over recently discovered census data that Hopkins, the person, owned slaves at one point.  Hopkins, a successful merchant, lived in Maryland - a slave state not affected by the Emancipation - prior to and after the Civil War.  He died in 1873.  

The evidence is that he listed up to five enslaved household members in the national census many years before the Civil War.  Prior to the discovery of this evidence, most believed that Hopkins was an pure abolitionist, not a "later to the cause" abolitionist.  Hopkins left his vast estate to create the University and the Hospital that bear his name, world famous institutions of learning and medicine.  Now, the University is inviting a discussion over what this recent discovery means, suggesting that Hopkins' legacy may be irreparably tarnished to the point that the University should be renamed, perhaps after Lloyd Garrison, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump.

I have no problem discussing what, if anything, this newly-discovered evidence means about Johns Hopkins, the person.  But the very idea that it should ruin his reputation or cause the University to be renamed sickens me.  While I am perfectly fine with reviling people who were responsible for evil or perpetuating it, I am not fine at all with reviling people who were believed to be good and decent in the times they lived, although they did things that we now believe to be wrong, morally or otherwise.  Slavery, despite its long history and Biblical imprimatur, lost the debate and no decent person believes slavery is morally justified.   But there are other topics open to debate now that may become, like slavery, a practice that make future generations wonder how their ancestors could have been so immoral.

Is it possible someday that the questions surrounding transgender issues will be settled to a moral certainty?  We will someday know to a moral certainty that 9-year-old should or should not be able to make decisions about surgery relating to gender identity?  

Will racism ever be one hundred percent immoral?  Hating dark-skinned people because they are dark skinned is clearly immoral.  So, why isn't hating light-skinned people because they are "white" immoral?  Should I be offended when someone derisively calls me an "old white man," which I am?  Racism exists now, and it is condoned, and in many cases championed by people who believe they were or are the victims of discrimination.  Do two wrongs, actually, make a right?  I could be wrong, but I understand that anti-Semitism is a form of racism, yet it seems to be ok in many circles because some people have had bad experiences with people they believe to be Jewish.

Will we ever sort out the problems caused by religious fanaticism?  Yes, I am referring to Islamic extremism, but not merely that.  I realize that not all Muslims are extremists, but the vast majority of them are slow to condemn the extremists, and in their heart of hearts are fine with fewer infidels who draw cartoons of Mohamed.  Plus, while I am open to hearing contrary evidence, some cultures are fine with killing children and civilians more so than other cultures.  

I think we need to worry about ourselves, not the flawed people of our past.  In fact, should we not admire people who were among the first to realize that their culture's accepted practices should no longer be accepted?  Bedford Forest continued to be an asshole until he died, so let's tear down his statues.  Johns Hopkins is not, however, Bedford Forest.

We need to correct past wrongs, but sometimes that is impractical, and sometimes way too much time has passed to figure out who is left to punish.  Assuming we decided to make reparations for slavery, would I be taxed despite having no relatives in the USA before 1866, and would Barack Obama be entitled to money even though his mother was white and his father was a native of Africa, not a descendent of American slaves?  While I'm sure we can work out a complex system, remember:  A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work.  Simple systems can be made more complex, but complicated problems require something more than a simple solution.

I sincerely hope they do not change the name of JHU.  I feel the same way about Washington, Jefferson, and other folks who actually owned slaves and never advocated abolition.  Confederate monuments are another story altogether, but primarily because the monuments were erected in connection with efforts to further racism despite the abolition of slavery.  Destroying them, however, makes no sense to me past the feel good nature of catharsis.  Should we have torn down Auschwitz instead of turning it into a tourist attraction?  Arguments could be made for and against.  Arguments against Johns Hopkins, however, do not interest me.