Emma Brown
Reporter
Since its creation 140 years ago, Mississippi University for Women has undergone four name changes, but the January attempt at a new name proposal was a big setback in moving forward.
Mississippi Brightwell University, the name which was announced at Spring convocation, was unpopular to say the least. The proposed name brings redness out in a face and steam out of ears when mentioned, which that seems to be a popular reaction. No ‘for Women’, no ‘W’ and no history included in this go-around that is a constant struggle.
How can the name be changed without losing the history and mission of the university?
Proposed name change causes backlash
Dr. Ricki Garrett, a 1973 alum, has seen The W change, but the name is not something she sees needs changing. Dr. Garrett has spent the majority of her career advocating for women’s leadership and equality and that includes wanting The W to keep the focus ‘for Women.’
“We [alums] have said if you just absolutely have to change the name, we would not be happy about it,” Dr. Garrett said. “But we were willing to accept The W: A Mississippi University, so we’re really already compromising.”
The January 8th Brightwell proposal caused an influx of backlash from alumni, current students, and Columbus citizens, who all took to social media to voice their opinions and concerns. The backlash against this new name was enough to pause The W’s consideration of going forward with Brightwell two days after the initial announcement.
Petitions were drawn up and requests for those against the Brightwell name to contact local legislators became serious as scripts for phone calls, texts and emails were copied and pasted.
The naming taskforce then reconvened two weeks later on January 25th as the general reaction towards Brightwell seemed overly negative, and the plan was to try again. If at first, you don’t succeed, try, try again, right? Well, this battle has proven to be a try, try, try, try, try situation.
Once again, emails flew out, surveys filled inboxes, and public opinion was wanted one more time. However, this time, the surveys were straight to the point as three new names had already been chosen for the public.
Wynbridge, Welbright, and Wynbright. These new proposed names seemed to appease more people since the traditional ‘W’ was kept, but it still did not please everyone.
An early lack of transparency?
In addition to this survey, Amanda Clay Powers, co-chair of the naming taskforce, sent out a spreadsheet for people to write suggestions. The suggestions were broken down into six sections: alumni, faculty/staff, student, Chernoff Newman, Facebook and email suggestions.
The open suggestions were not completely limitless as the naming task force decided there should not be any directional or historical names included. The alumni list racked up a whopping 238 suggestions, while faculty/staff proposed 63 names and students wrote in just 18 suggestions.
The name change process is in a dire spot since the task force’s schedule set their sights on having a new name by July 1 after legislature approval. This rock-and-a-hard-place situation echoes the controversial attempt to change The W’s name back in 2009 under university president, Claudia Limbert.
Name change proposal in 2009
Two years before the name change discussion began in 2008, relations between Limbert and alumni had soured to the point that those years are now referred to as ‘the alumni wars.’
Dr. Garrett has been very involved with being a voice for alums, especially when she served as national alumni president for The W in 1991. When Limbert proposed a name change, alumni were unaware it was as serious as it was since on-campus alumni association groups had been dismissed. Alumni were only made aware of certain steps, which caused distrust in the administration.
“We did not realize where the process was at any one time,” Dr. Garrett said. “So, there was not a huge campaign to protect the name then, it was a push to try to get a new leader for the university since there had been problems almost from the beginning of her leadership.”
The situation seemed to worsen once Limbert made it clear The W was going to move past ‘for Women’ in favor of a more inclusive name. Welty University and Waverly University were proposed to keep the W name, but Reneau University made it the farthest before the attempt to change was a misfire.
The Welty and Reneau choices had historical value to The W, Columbus and the state of Mississippi, but much like the situation now, these names had to be vetted for controversy and approved by living ancestors.
Consideration for Welty University was dropped and cannot be revisited after the family of Eudora Welty declined the usage of her name. When it came between Waverly and Reneau, Reneau was ultimately chosen.
Reneau University was chosen in honor of one of The W’s founders and early women’s activist, Sallie Eola Reneau. Reneau was just 18 years old when she first lobbied for a women’s university in Mississippi, and six years after she died in 1878, The W was initially founded as Industrial Institute and College for the Education of White Girls of Mississippi- later shortened to IIL&C.
However, there were concerns regarding the history of Reneau’s family and roots in Mississippi. There were beliefs that Sallie came from a slave-holding family and plantation, which prompted the Lowndes County NAACP to dispute the choice of Reneau University and Waverly University as the names were said to be derived from old south plantations.
Columbus’ Commercial Dispatch later published a story that showed there were factual errors in Reneau’s family history. Perry Sansing, assistant to Claudia Limbert, proved these accusations to be false, but it served as a cautionary tale for the recent choices regarding historical names. Now, the boundaries as to what makes an acceptable name have been drawn.
Should the name be changed?
The W’s name change discussion seems to be never-ending. The debate on dropping ‘for Women’ or changing the name completely is nearly 40 years strong. Since The W became coeducational in 1982, male students have often called for a name that acknowledged their inclusion on campus.
Bobby Ware, a senior at The W, understands both sides of the name change argument but believes the choice of Brightwell was a major misstep. As a male current student, Ware sees the need for The W to seek more students and strengthen its financial standing since worried alumni have pulled their donations.
“We might get some interesting things for sure, but at the same time, I came to this college knowing it was named ‘University for Women’ and I was okay with that in the first place,” Ware said. “So, it will be a new change, it will hopefully bring in more money- I think that’s the main reason it’s a money thing.”
It was not until 1988 that male students acted to prompt a name change. A lawsuit, brought on by Darrell Glenn and David Turner and backed by Wilbur Colom, said The W’s name discouraged male students and violated Title IX which protects against sex-based discrimination.
Six years earlier, Colom was the attorney for Joe Hogan’s suit that made The W become coeducational. However, Colom’s later suit did not budge The W to change its name. These lawsuits did bring attention to the off-putting nature of the university’s name to prospective male students. It was not until 2009 that these concerns started to form into action.
Now, 15 years later, The W has reached the same rut in which Claudia Limbert got stuck. This time, though, the university seems to be determined that the change will happen.
If legislators vote for approval of a new name, it will be the first time in 50 years The W has been renamed and rebranded. Maybe a new chapter in The W’s history is on the horizon, but now it seems that only time will tell.