Fenwick History: What are people saying?

The fact that Bishop Fenwick had people as slaves and profited from them was absolutely abhorrent behavior; but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is a founding father of Xavier University and should be celebrated as such. I think that fact about him owning people as slaves should be part of the Student Orientation of Xavier, that way it's not like Xavier is trying to veil that information. This is a separate conversation than what is taking place with the Confederate Generals and the Confederate Flag. I know Georgetown University in Washington D.C. had a similar situation, and one of their stipulations was that if you could prove that you were one of the descendants of the people that were held as slaves, your tuition was free to the school. It looks like Xavier is trying to be proactive about getting this rectified which is the correct way to go about it. You can never rectify what he did with those people but you do have a chance to educate people on a key way our country and major institutions were built on the backs of, and how it still hits closer to home than they think today.

I dont believe that Fenwick dorms should be renamed. Although he owned slaves, it was a common practice in his day and altogether I think he did more good than harm. I think that there is a difference between monuments and locations named for someone who fought for a "good" cause (everyone has different beliefs of what is good) and someone who simply existed during slavery. Changing the name won't change the history of Xavier, and by acknowledging our past, we can educate people about Edward Fenwick. We should come to terms with our past, not cover it up.

The name should not be changed. We cannot judge history with today's perspectives. Changing the name would be removing a part of the school's history. It is important to know all history, the good and the bad. If we sanitize history, we do not learn from it. Therefore, I believe the name should stay.

Based on everything I know of Edward Fenwick and my personal thoughts and feelings towards this sensitive subject, I believe Xavier should keep the name of Fenwick Hall as is.

I don't want to diminish the fact that Edward Fenwick was a slaveholder, but based on the limited information we have of his treatment of those slaves, I don't think there's enough evidence to change the name of the building. Yes, he owned and sold several slaves during his lifetime but I don't think that should overshadow everything great he did. There's simply not enough information available to make a sound judgement. He could have very well been a gracious owner and treated his slaves with kindness and an open heart. I could even argue that those slaves probably had a better life being a slave than being free as life in America in the late 1700's early 1800's was extremely tough. Again, I just want to be clear that I don't think slavery is ever a good thing.

I think the best thing that Xavier University, as an institution with high educational and moral standards, can do is to simply put a plaque on the main entrance to Fenwick Place. The plaque can say, as elegantly as possible, Xavier University recognizes the fact that this building is named after a slaveholder. However, by keeping the Fenwick name, this building stands in recognition and remembrance of the way WE were and how WE will never be again.

When it comes to this situation, I hold the opinion that Fenwick Hall should not be renamed. Much like everyone else who has replied to this point, I believe it is difficult to hold him accountable for actions that were merely the norm at the time of his life. I also believe that the use of his name is simply to commemorate that he founded this university rather than celebrating his entire life and everything, bad or good, that comes with it. We can not change the founder of the University any easier than we can change Fenwick's life. It's fairly similar to the larger scale example of the founding fathers. Most, if not all, of them were slaveholding white men who probably were caught up in the customs of the time period. Much like Fenwick, we can't discount what they did because of a bad action or actions that don't meet the societal standards of 2017.

I think one student had an excellent recommendation regarding the plaque. It is a good way to be able to recognize the goods and the bas that came with the founder rather than choosing to attempt to forget about him.

Xavier University is bigger and longer lasting than any one single moment in time. This institution has stood for almost two centuries. The brick and mortar of its buildings may come and go with the technological innovations of architecture and structure, but the foundations remain the same; so too in its history. Wanting the past to be different than what it is does not make it so. If we disagree with one person’s path (essentially, judging them) because of one aspect of their life, then we must do the same for all. That means that George Washington University will have to have its name changed. So will Thomas Jefferson University. And James Madison University. And. And. And. Unfortunately, owning slaves was something that a lot of people did back when it was a legal practice. If these same people lived in today’s world, I can guarantee you that they would own several pieces of various farming equipment that would do the work that all those slaves did back then. But then where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? If you see a black person with the last name of Washington or Jefferson, do they have to change their name too? Because what if they are somehow a descendent of one of the slaves owned by either man?

I don’t want to rehash the discussion that we had in our last class, but it doesn’t matter if Fenwick was a good person or bad, or if he treated his slaves well or poorly. He owned slaves. According to today’s standards, that is all that we need to know in order to judge an entire person’s life and achievements. None of their other deeds seem to matter, even if it is on the scale of founding an institution of higher learning or treating Native Americans as humans rather than savages in a time when their numbers were being diminished on a scale close to genocide (do we need to bring up Thomas Jefferson again and the whole Westward Expansion thing?).

No. Xavier University should not change the name of Fenwick Place. Much to one student’s point, we should focus on educating those who do not know of Fenwick: his life, his deeds, his journey, his heritage. If the building gets renamed then that is just one more example of an opportunity lost that would have enabled us to begin the conversation about how to move on from slavery, rather than just avoid it because it is painful.

I feel like changing the name now doesn't change that fact that the school was founded by Edward Fenwick. There will always be something that will tie the school back to its history. Of course it's not okay to have a building named after someone who owned and sold slaves, but that was how he was raised. He also did a lot of good too. I wouldn't have known anything about the meaning behind the name of Fenwick until it was brought up in class and that's probably how a lot of other students on campus are. I don't have a strong position on either side to keep or change the name. Even if given the opportunity to change the name, what would it be? The next name could have some meaning to it that could offend people as well.

Throughout history great leaders and powerful people have not been perfect or may have had some sort of scandal tied to their legacy. For example, should we not celebrate a holiday such as Christopher Columbus Day due to his mistreatment of Native Americans? Should we not acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr. as the voice of the civil rights movement because he was accused of having an affair with another woman during his time as a civil rights leader? Those flaws don't take away from their positive impact on the world or change the way we view them in generations to come.

I think there is a fundamental difference between reasons for renaming Fenwick Place, and ridding the country of confederate monuments. Would anyone making the argument for renaming Fenwick place also make the same argument against George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? They owned slaves also. They did so because, simply and cruelly, it was a big part of the economic growth of the United States. Now, just because a practice is common place doesn't make it any less inhumane. This is where people like Washington, Jefferson, and Fenwick differ from confederate war heroes. One side chose to slide to side of humanity, while the other stood up to keep the institution of slavery. The confederate states wanted to keep their free labor so badly they actually separated from the country, and engaged in armed conflict to save a barbaric and uncivilized "tradition". Robert E. Lee was no doubt a great General, but that doesn't make him, or any other confederate soldier any less of a traitor to their country. What do we call the few American people who joined the Taliban, or fought for Germany in WW2? We call them traitors, because that is the correct term. Bishop Fenwick may have taken part in owning slaves, but when morality kicked in (better late than never I suppose) he literally chose right over wrong. His name should stay. He represents much more than being just a slave owner, just like Washington, Jefferson, and many others who had the greater good of the country in mind.

I believe that Bishop Edward Fenwick Place should keep it's name despite the history of Fenwick himself owning slaves. The building has been around for many years and there is a lot of history on the Xavier Campus including the Bishop Edward Fenwick Place. Yes, Fenwick owned slaves but there were also hundreds of slave owners back in that time so it is not like he is the only one, which is why I think the name on the building should stay the same.

In my opinion, I think we shouldn't have to change the name of Bishop Edward Fenwick Place. If we as a society want to get rid of all of the racist stuff that happened in the past then we should do it with everything and not just pick and choose. For example Thomas Jefferson the writer of the Declaration of Independence and one of our presidents was a known slave owner. But there are no discussions about anything with his name on it. Why should we take away the accomplishments of a good man because of a mistake he made in his past.

In my opinion, Xavier should not rename Bishop Edward Fenwick Place because of two reasons. The first reason is that changing the name of a place will not change the history behind it, and will not change the fact that Edward Fenwick was the founder of this university. The second reason is from a Jesuit theological point of view. One of the values Jesuits hold dear is that of forming and educating agents of change. This means "Teaching behaviors that reflect critical thought and responsible action on moral and ethical issues" (Creighton University). Because this name change is such an important moral and ethical issue, I believe leaving it up will continue a critical dialogue for generations to come.

Right or left. Up or down. Good or evil. When debating a multitude of issues present in the modern world, society often desires to concretely define the issues using this black and white methodology. However, as clearly illustrated by Bishop Edward Fenwick's life and role, the issue more complex than just two sides, leaving us with a great "grey" issue to be resolved.

Although Edward Fenwick was the first Catholic bishop of Cincinnati and the founder of Xavier University, his life was far from perfect. In fact, he was the owner and purchaser of slaves. As a Xavier community, it is our job to reflect on, pray about, and discuss whether the bad in Bishop Fenwick's life outweighs the good.

In the Xavier motto, we hear that Xavier is all for one, and one for all. By owning slaves, Fenwick did not embody this important piece of Xavier. By changing the name of Fenwick Place, Xavier can make an important statement about its commitment to the equality of all people.

Xavier should remove the name from the building. The building should be renamed in a way that does not alienate anyone and does not turn the issue into "us versus them". Xavier could choose a name which hopes to include the spirit of all who live and work there. The name changing should be addressed in a series of speeches, letters, activities to help the community work its way carefully through this delicate process of dismantling a tool of American oppression. Great care must be taken through this process to decide on a way to honor everyone appropriately without trying to cover up the shameful history of American slavery and its lasting effects on our culture. As Jesus stood WITH the oppressed, our community must strive to stand with those who still live in the lasting shadow of this oppression.

I’m going to just be blunt here, I don’t think that we should change or do anything to the naming of the building. I think that we can compare most things in this world to history. Most things that you will ever do in life (for the average person ) have been done by someone, or someone has gone through exactly what you are going through. I think that we should look at these things and be able to learn from mistakes made by them before us, so as to not be repeated. Slavery is a very dark part of American history. BUT its still a part of our history.
In order to be able to look at history and reflect on the observations of those before us you need to be aware of the situation. I think that by changing the name of the building to hide the fact that the founder of this school owned and sold slaves would be tremendously ruining the name of Bishop Edward Fenwick. I do not see the reason to crucify the founder of this school over the mere fact that he was born into a slave holding family. This man (like all of us) did not decide when and where he was born or what he was born into.
Instead of looking at the blemishes on Bishop Edward Fenwick's past, I think we should look at all of the commendable things. He is the founder of this University, He did great things for Christians and early settlements in the Kentucky and Ohio area as well as sell the slaves that he owned to help build the church.
So in short, I don’t think that we should hide our history, I think we should embrace the fact that this man has done great things; let's not focus on his wrong doings. We do not need to destroy or remove the parts of history that we do not like, instead lets embrace our past ancestors, learn from their mistakes and build a better tomorrow.

I believe the name of Bishop Edward Fenwick Place should remain. The positive contributions that Fenwick has made should outweigh the negative connotations that remain with him. Looking at the time period, we cannot make decisions that majority of individuals partook in. Fenwick was apart of a cultural norm and did not believe in the actions taken place while focusing on other actions. These actions ultimately made the decision of naming a major building after him.

If you ask me, the name should not be changed. Foremost, Fenwick impacted the Catholic faith, not only in Ohio, but in Cincinnati, where Xavier University is located. For being the first consecrated Bishop of Cincinnati, I believe Xavier is trying to commemorate one of the first people who affected the Catholic community in Cincinnati. Also, he built the first Catholic church in Ohio. I believe that is admirable because it paved the way for the foundation of Catholicism in the state of Ohio. He created the church as a place where people can be one with God and support their friends. I think just that says a lot about his dedication to his faith and his fellow brothers and sisters. I believe he owned slaves because it was normal for people to ask for help to maintain their property.

In my opinion, Edward Fenwick made history. He was humble and very helpful person with others. He suffered with depression for entire his life, but found ways to overcome his depression in order to make a positive contribution to society. He worked really hard to open what became Xavier High School and Xavier University. As a Muslim I am so proud that I will graduate from a Catholic school that has a great history fighting for justice and education like Xavier University.

After reading the information provided about Bishop Edward Fenwick, I do not believe that because he owned slaves, that should discredit the accomplishments he achieved in his lifetime. Bishop Edward Fenwick was not perfect, and having slaves was wrong, but in that time period it was part of the culture. I feel like people should know the bad that he has done, but I also feel like people should recognize the good he has done. For example, he was apart of starting the Athenaeum which is now Xavier University, a college that has students from many different backgrounds and races.

When examining questions such as this, it is important to keep in mind, when and why the building was dedicated. Bishop Edward Fenwick Place was built in 2011. Unlike many of the Confederate monuments which were built in the early 20th century, the dedication of this building does not coincide with a flare in racism. As much as the media would like to deny it, race relations in the United States are as good as they've ever been.

We have discussed this for many class periods now and I have come to grasp the good and bad of Edward Fenwick. People should understand the full character of this man instead of just labelling him as a "slave-holder." That is only one aspect of his life. Edward Fenwick was a man who cared about others. He was bishop of Cincinnati when he didn't even feel qualified to do so. Obviously, people saw the good in him to become that role in society. He started this amazing university that we all attend today. He did not even get the best education but he believed in the power of education. He was not wealthy but he still lived a happy life. There are many good aspect of this man. But, he was a slaveholder. If we remove the name of that building I feel like it is due to only remembering the bad part of him. He inherited slaves. They were placed on his hands without him really having a say. On top of that, historians do not know if he treated his slaves poorly. Some people in society treated slaves fairly and like they were part of their family. There are a lot of unknowns about this man. What would I suggest Xavier to do? To educate. In order to keep the name of that building the students should be educated on who he was good and bad. Maybe once many students are educated about this man the students can take a poll on what they would like to see be done about this building.

Based on the knowledge and what I now know of Edward Fenwick, I believe we should leave the building name as is. Living in Fenwick and gathering and realizing what he did as a whole, from his days going to college and yes, owning slaves and even becoming Cincinnati's first Bishop they attitude for at least me remains the same. He was a very uneducated man for his position but was a goal setter. With that, it kinda gives me a glimpse or can be sort of relatable towards what college is like. Most of us come into college with no education or knowledge especially in the field of major of interest but we have a goal or an ambition to do something or be someone. Fenwick sort of remind me of that. Although people may argue that he was a slaveholder, there, unfortunately, is not enough evidence to confirm or deny how bad or good he treated his slaves. Some historians and evidence of people that knew Fenwick did say that he did treat his slaves as in essence co-workers. From Geroge Washington to Anthony Johnson, famous people who we know honor or remember in a positive light were also slaveholders.



The reality is although students may be educated on who Fenwick is, I believe most students wouldn't care if the name was changed since most are not interested in the history, and the twisted the honest truth. Living in Fenwick myself changing the name of the building would have no significant change in my education or daily routine or life aspect. Xavier should survey either the entire Fenwick community residents or the entire student body with the facts of who, and what Fenwick did and we believe they names should change and if so to what. Since it is our school and we are the ones living here.

My personal belief is that there is no perfect human being on earth (unless we refer to Jesus Christ). Edward Fenwick was a man that become a slaveholder due to the fact that his family owned slave and he inherited everything due to him as a son in his family after his father died. I don't believe he had intentions of owning and operating slaves as a way of life, it was just what he was given as his inheritance to take care of his family's estates. I don't believe that is the title he would like to hold in his honor. He seemed to really care about people because instead of squandering all of his inheritance away, he made decisions to build schools and support others. His type of service to others was dedicated and planned as best to his abilities according to what history tells of his financial spending. Xavier should honor his name because he did found the schools and the principles which the school operates under is one of service to others and very honorable. Fenwick is a part of America's history and in history, there are both good and bad parts to the story. We shouldn't erase what has happened and sugarcoat things because history is the retelling of our lives. Our lives unfold all happiness and pain in our memories, just like how slavery is an open wound for people today. One way to learn from history is to retell the story of others, what others have learned through their mistakes and experiences. There isn't much evidence stating Fenwick was an evil man with evil intentions, but based off his accounts of modesty and humility, records of how he handled things, I think he was just doing the best he could with what he was given, just as we all are given in life. We're handed these roles that we weren't expecting to take and the responsibility of inheritance is a heavy burden. Xavier can make aware of the fact that he was a slaveholder, but that wasn't his identity. His service and works are to be remembered that he contributed for the good of society. I don't think anyone deserves their names to be anywhere, but it is a way to honor those that have added positively and in founding of this jesuit school with jesuit beliefs, not once is "slavery" mentioned when I think of the jesuit community.

Personally I do not think it that the Fenwick should be renamed. While he did own slaves in his lifetime he was for the most part a pretty good person. During this time in American history most wealthy individuals owned slaves it is a bad part of our country's history. He even admitted that Ohio was better due to the fact that it was a free state. He was a very important person in Xavier University's history and I believe the name should stay the same.

While I believe that it is abhorrent that our school was founded by a slaveholding "christian," and while I also think that we should-- as a whole-- rename the building that honors him, I don't think the school would be willing to do so. There are some who would protest that "he was a good slave holder and did wonders for our school," but the fact of the matter still stands: he was a slave holder and seller. I can't stand behind that.

I would rename the building in a similar fashion to Georgetown's and College of the Holy Cross's decision to rename of the Mulledy buildings, including Georgetown's commensurate religious ceremony. Jacob McHardy remains my oldest known ancestor on my mother's side. McHardy lived his life enslaved to another human being. He purchased his children out of slavery in the 1860s, and I still have the original documents from Boone County, Kentucky; it really didn't happen that long ago. McHardy's daughter was my grandfather's grandmother. I'm not sure off hand of his owner's name, but if I learn of any buildings named after his owner, I'll be the first to demand a re-dedication. It doesn't necessarily have to be renamed in honor of the people who were enslaved, but slaveholders committed a serious crime whose victims' descendants remember to this day.

I personally believe we should not have a slaveholders name as one of our buildings on campus. I firmly believe the building should be renamed. The more people find out about who this man was, the more people will start to protest the name on the building.

I personally believe that the building should be renamed. Regardless of whether or not you believe that we can't judge historical persons with present day standards, the fact of the matter is that this man owned slaves and discriminated against them because of the color of his skin. Yes, he did some good things, namely founding this school, but that does not absolve him of his more despicable actions.

Considering the discussions that took place in class and the state of this problem in the American society today, the lens in which we view Edward Fenwick may be slightly extreme in the sense that we are looking back at his ownership of slaves through today's ethical standards. May I mention that, my stance on this particular topic is extreme. Ethically speaking, the hindrance of one's freedom and rights is universally immoral; it does not comply with universal laws as a result hinders innate right regardless of how well they were treated or not, they still had their freedom compromised and their choices and opportunities limited. It is irrelevant how "well" or "good" these slaves were treated or lived under his "mastership."

Jumping off my moral philosophical high horse, it is also important to consider that judging the the actions of Edward Fenwick by today's moral standard may be fallacious. This because the cultural norms of that time did not only permitted him to fully engage in this way of living, but permitted him to carry on with a family tradition or "trade." This is where the, details of the whole story matters, because as a whole his entire contribution to the world may not have revolved around owning slaves, that may have been a small portion of his entire life, maybe he advocated for the abolishing slavery, maybe there is more to be known about this whole scenario. This is where all the flaws arise; our lack of knowledge in matters of such great importance. It goes beyond the name of a man on a building, it goes beyond taking it down or not, because in the end we can take down as many names as we want but our lack of knowledge would be our destruction. It is quite pathetic to say the least that we lack the knowledge and understanding to make such a decision relevant to the evolution of the American society.

To answer the question, changing the name of Fenwick Hall may not be the answer the problem at hand, as mentioned in class, the essence of this particular history would be lost and may be bound to be repeated. At the same time, keeping the name diminishes his role in the aspect of slavery (which according to history, he played a major part in), he would be celebrated whether we chose to acknowledge it or not with is name on buildings e.t.c

Dare I say there is a significant difference between, remembrance and celebration of a person. It is up to Xavier to decide what path they want to thread on. It is not up to one persons personal feelings towards this, but a collective understanding of what the facts are. Edward Fenwick can be remembered in a million and one ways, maybe celebrating him is not one them.

Since none of my ancestors were forced into slavery, my opinion is limited and meaningless, but the purpose of naming a building after a person is to honor them. Many of you are saying keeping the name would help educate people so that slavery doesn't happen again. I'm wondering how they would be educated? At a visit or during orientation, would the guide explain to new or prospective students that "he was immoral, but everybody was doing it and he may have been nice"? Or even "well, Jesus never said explicitly not to dehumanize his people and use as currency"? There are different ways to remember the bad times beside honoring them. Does anybody have a real idea of how this would be done without changing the name? The ideas in class seemed like separate parks or museums where historical atrocities were not celebrated, but remembered. I agree with one student who said that celebrating the guy in this way is not a good idea.

I believe that Xavier should should consider renaming the building. Fenwick did some great things, such as founding this school and St. Xavier high school, but his buying and selling of slaves should not be overlooked as a result of this. I think that Xavier should acknowledge his positive contributions to this school and the Jesuit mission as a whole, but I believe naming a building after him chooses to ignore the despicable things he did and celebrate the good things, thus painting him as faultless person.

After thinking this over over that last few classes, I have concluded that the name should be changed. It is a fact that Fenwick was a slaveholder, and the idea and concept of slavery is so horrible that we should not give Fenwick the honor of having a building named after him. I disagree that doing this is covering up history, because the name change would not be to cover up what Fenwick did, it would be to not honor him because of what he did, and this is an important distinction to make. Another point I have been thinking about is that if Father Graham knew that he was a slave holder, the building would have never been named after him in the first place. Although I can see the side where people would like them name to stay the same, I believe that slavery was and is an awful thing and we should not be honoring it on our campus.

He isn't guilty because he was born into a family of slave owners, he's guilty because he bought and sold humans of his own volition. 19th century America isn't some ancient civilization whose values are too disconnected from today's to even consider condemning people for enslaving human beings. My grandfather's grandmother was a slave. I have the original documents from Boone County demonstrating her emancipation when her father -also born a slave- had to purchase her freedom. There were plenty of people in the 19th century (and through all of history for that matter) who recognized slavery was wrong -and get this, there were even enough that they fought a war to end it. He's guilty and I'm not embracing him. I'll be happy to read about him in a history book, but I'm not raising his name to this idolatry just because he founded a school that was later renovated, renamed, and repurposed such that he wouldn't even recognize today. I'm not saying he was evil, but not only did he not take any part in erecting that building, the school he founded wasn't even in the same location, and given that he committed serious crimes there is no point in naming NEW things, with which he had nothing to do, after him.

In short I do not believe that Fenwick Place should be renamed. There are a couple of reasons that I hold this stance.

One of these reasons is because owning slaves was the cultural context in which Fenwick was raised in. Yes, I understand that the ownership, even though you can't own a human, of another human being is unacceptable, but that was the nature of the day. Fenwick did not chose the time in which he was born, he simply adhered to the social norms of late 1700s and early 1800s.

The second is that I don't understand the importance of having a building being named after a human, no matter how famous or how much money, he or she has or had. Frankly, I do not know the stories behind any of the buildings on campus until I am told, I think its overdone.

Third, I think that Fenwick is too important to the school's history to completely write him out of the narrative. He founded the school, and that should be taught, in conjuction with fact that he owned slaves. A holistic and unbiased approach to education is always the one that should be followed, even though it often is not. We touched on this in class with how Germany approaches teaching the Holocaust and World War II. They are very upfront it, and I believe that the United States should be as well about many aspects in their history (The Trail of Tears, Slavery, Japanese Internment Camps, etc.).

Finally, I agree with one student when he said that the best thing for Xavier to do is to be transparent about the naming and place a plaque stating the entire career of Edward Fenwick.

When judging historical crimes, it is important to keep in mind their severity at that time. Genocide has always been unpardonable, but there was a time when slavery was a judged a necessary evil by some. It was a way of life that many were raised and trained to adopt. To not be labeled an enslaving monster, would one have to release all his slaves and give up his plantation? Was every slaveholder morally inferior (worse than that, a monster) compared to every non slave holder, even when slave holding was a situation they were born into? It is very important to keep in mind that to rebel against massive societal pressures and norms is a difficult task requiring immense courage, and should not be considered the baseline to simply not being considered a historical pariah.

We must be accommodating when we look back at slaveholders and judge their actions as they fit into the social framework of their time. In Fenwick's case, there is no evidence that he was a cruel or exploitative slave owner, and simply because he did not take the outstanding efforts to actively combat slavery should not be held harshly against him, nor should that be reason to remove his name from Xavier.

Edward Fenwick lived in a different era, when standards and norms were different than today's (no matter how wrong they were), so in my opinion he shouldn't be judged by the standards we live by today. He did found this school, which makes him a very important person in this schools history, so his name should be somehow linked with the school.