Mississippi News OXFORD — A group of students gathers around a boardroom table made up of two smaller tables in order to plan their next steps. John Chappell locks the door and takes out a bag containing documents. He then spreads the documents on the table before his colleagues and the Croft Institute of International Studies reporter. Chappell stated, “This is it.” “This is it,” Chappell said. This room was used as a war room by the students for several nights per week, starting in January. They developed a strategy that would impress even those who were living in the back rooms of Jackson’s political brokers. The ultimate goal was to move the Confederate monument from the campus’ heart to an off-campus cemetery where hundreds of Confederate Army soldiers were buried. They had to first create the policy and legal framework for the move. This was after spending several weeks in the Croft room, about 30 yards from it. This is a complex undertaking at the University of Mississippi. It’s a place steeped with Confederate iconography and plagued by a history of racially violence and ongoing racist aggressions. The school has been endowed by wealthy, powerful white alumni who have refused to remove its troubling symbolism. As the most prominent ode to the Lost Cause, the 30-foot monument was erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1906. Despite national debates about the durability of these monuments in a South that is becoming more diverse, Oxford conversations remained quiet until last year, when Students Against Social Injustice began pressing the university to remove it. On Feb. 23, tension escalated when dozens from Mississippi and other states traveled here to defend the monument, and to support many of those values for which the Confederacy was founded. Eight black basketball players from Ole Miss knelt in protest at the national anthem played at the campus basketball arena. Jarvis Benson, a Grenada senior and president of Black Student Union, was one of six students involved in moving the monument. These considerations extend beyond the statue. It is located in the middle of campus, just before the administrative building. It perpetuates the stereotype that this institution is not suitable for me. My friends were shocked when I revealed that I was coming to school in this school. The fear my grandparents have about me going to school here is much greater than the damage that moving a statue can do. All of it, all of it — all it — is perpetuated and exacerbated by the presence and position of the statue and all it represents.” Benson said: “We claim that we follow ideals of inclusion diversity and respect for everyone.” It is contradictory for this symbol of hatred to be in the heart campus. National reporters arrived at Oxford this week to report on the tension and to watch the next game of the basketball team on Wednesday. The media frenzy was so intense that six students, who had worked for weeks to move it, called a planning meeting at 6:15 p.m. just as the national anthem started. For the past few weeks, this war room has been the students’ second residence. The students researched the state laws governing public entities’ rights to move such monuments and the relevant attorney general rulings. They also spoke with the university’s general Counsel to gain a better understanding of the law’s scope. The state law states that monuments erected in honor of specific wars (including “The War Between the States”) cannot be moved, removed, altered, altered, renamed, or rededicated. However, the office of Attorney General Jim Hood issued an opinion for McComb in 2017. McComb had requested clarifications to the state law. The opinion of the attorney general states that “we are of the opinion” that, upon a proper determination by the governing authority that the location is more appropriate to display the monument, a monument can be moved to a better location within the jurisdictional boundaries of the municipality. It later clarified that the state law should be understood to mean that a monument must “remain on public land for display and may not be removed form the municipality.” Students also analyzed recent practices at Southern universities, such as at University of North Carolina where activists overthrew a controversial monument to the Confederacy without having to go through the democratic process. Chapel Hill is perhaps the best example of the complexity of this issue. Margaret Spellings, president of the university system, stated that “the people who are paying bills in North Carolina, and who underwrite in very substantial ways the cost of operating this and every other institution within this system, by all polling seem to support the restoration the statue.” “Conversely, Chapel Hill seems strongly against the restoration of the statue.” Students mapped out how to use their personal relationships with leaders and influential student organizations. They mapped out political scenarios and devised strategies to make their plan public. They analyzed the potential votes of various student and faculty groups, and identified their supporters and critics. They surveyed the interest of staff, faculty and administrative leaders to see if they were interested in any plan that was eventually developed. The best chance of success was found in a resolution submitted to the Associated Student Body Senate. This is the student-elected legislative body that would allow the Confederate monument to be moved from campus’ heart to an on-campus cemetery, where hundreds of Confederate Army soldiers are buried. Chappell, a New Mexico senior, said that the pull of history is stronger than in any other place he’s ever been. He was one of six students who helped to draft and develop the resolution. “I believe that students want to be able to comprehend the history of this country without feeling overwhelmed by it. It is not in our nature to forget the past. Some alumni or the power brokers have this notion that we want to erase history. We have the Center for Civil War Research, the Center for Southern Studies, and the Slavery Research Group. This department is also a history department. While we want to keep history alive, there is a distinction between revering and remembering it. The University of Mississippi’s Confederate monument is dedicated to the memory of the “University Greys,” a Confederate army infantry composed almost entirely of university students. Gettysburg saw the death of all 135 soldiers from the infantry. According to data from the Southern Poverty Law Center, this monument was erected in 1906. It was one of many that were dedicated in Southern States between 1890-1820. In that period, Jim Crow laws were implemented by white Southerners following Reconstruction. This was the period when Southern state governments were run by freed slaves. Mississippi was the second Southern state that seceded from the Union. During this period, there were two African American House speakers, as well as the first African American senator and congressman. In order to disenfranchise African Americans, Mississippi later rewrote its constitution. According to newspaper clippings, Charles Scott, a Confederate veteran, delivered the main speech at the monument’s dedication ceremony. According to historians, Scott was also running for governor of Mississippi in 2016. Scott’s official platform for governor was released on March 31, 1906. It stated that Scott would “preserve and maintain civilization and white supremacy” in the south. “Marking public space with symbols extolling white southern nationalism effectively asserted power over all who had access to that area,” historians wrote. “These elite white southerners were, of course,” he wrote. They worked hard to disenfranchise African Americans and establish Jim Crow laws. They also lynched black people with grim enthusiasm well into the 20th century. The monument was a focal point for racist ideals. Charles Eagles, historian, wrote in his book “The Price of Defiance” that during the 1962 riot to integrate James Meredith’s university, Confederate monument-goers physically assaulted Duncan Gray, the Episcopal minister, who was there for violence prevention. Although there is no evidence that rioters used the monument as a rallying point or inflicting physical violence, UM historians stated in 2016 that it “constituted an important site in deed crisis: as a spot where white opponents to integration violently put their opponent down.” However, many students don’t like the statue’s presence on campus and feel it doesn’t reflect the values of the UM Creed. Arielle Hudson, an African American junior from Tunica, said that she interacts with students of all races on campus. She was one of six students involved in the resolution. “I must explain to prospective students and their families why the statue is on campus. In return, they must beg their parents to allow them to attend. It shouldn’t be necessary to continue explaining to parents why we want this school. You can even beg your parents to come here. These conversations are getting old. We should feel as welcome to this university as white students. Hudson said, “That statue is a constant reminder for black students on campus that there was once a time when we weren’t allowed here and that we weren’t wanted here.” It is located in the center of campus, where almost every student must travel to get to class. It is there every day. We are reminded of it every day.” The university adopted recommendations in 2014 to contextualize campus locations with plaques explaining the historical significance of controversial symbolism and iconography. In 2016, a contextualization committee approved the language for the plaque to be placed at the base the Confederate monument. Student leaders protested against the poor language and omission of mention of slavery in the plaque after it was installed. Later that year, the university installed a new plaque that included language about slavery. Sons of Confederate Veterans reopened a previous lawsuit against the university regarding the plaque’s installation. The lawsuit was dropped and the students used a line from a dismissal ruling to form their resolution. Katie Dames, a St. Louis sophomore and one of six resolution planners, stated that it was important to remember the history of this campus. However, it is also crucial that it doesn’t be left in the middle of campus where so many people don’t acknowledge the pain it causes. “A unifying process, and not polarizing one” The students expect to face backlash from conservatives, white alumni, or extremist groups. They say that they invited many campus organizations to the table because of this. They met with professors from the university who were part of the contextualization committee, which researched the origins and made recommendations to the university about how to give context. Dalton Hull is the College Republicans’ president. Dames serves as a student senator. Hull is one eight cosponsors. “Issues such as these are almost always placed in a political context,” stated Leah Davis, a Tupelo junior who is part of student government and was one of the six who created the resolution. “People who want conversations about this are made into, “Well, they’re all liberals.” And so it’s important to have many people around the table when discussing this — different political ideologies and views. This is the strategy that we used, and I believe it has a good shot.” The only problem with the resolution is the influence of powerful alumni on white Greek organizations. Instead of writing off the Greeks, the six-member group focused on gaining support from them. The ASB Senate is composed of several white Greek leaders, so the fate of the resolution could be influenced by the Greek bloc. The resolution was developed by six students, including Charlotte Armistead (a Tupelo native) and ASB senator representing “Greek Life.” Armistead, a white member of a sorority, was the liaison for the group with the white Greek letters organizations. She said that the response from Greeks has been positive. Armistead, whose ancestors served in the Civil War Confederacy, stated that she wanted to create the resolution because the monument’s prominent location “isn’t what Ole Miss stands for.” Armistead also said that it was foolish to be concerned about the resolutions getting traction among white sorority and fraternity members. There are many people in the Greek community that want this and will advocate for social changes. It is wrong to push the Greek community aside, or to write them off, and we wanted them to be part of the process. The university’s recent changes have been made to its student senate, which has largely led to similar resolutions to the one that will be considered next week. The university’s decision in 2015 not to fly the Confederate battle emblem-adorned state flag was one of the most significant. Many of the six students involved in the monument resolution were present on campus in 2015. The group took lessons from this experience when planning the resolution. “What we tried to do was come up with a bunch of people with different strengths,” Dames stated. Our process has consisted of communicating with all the different groups on campus as well as communicating with students in a research-based manner. This should be a unifying rather than polarizing process. “We want this to be an opportunity for dialogue, not an attack on other perspectives.” Next steps After the resolution was made public on March 1, it will take a while before the monument can move. The ASB Senate will vote in favor of the resolution Tuesday, March 5. It moves to the Faculty Senate and Graduate Student Council if 25 of the 48 senators agree. It will be moved to the Council of Academic Administrators if all three of these bodies affirm it. This body is composed of three vice chancellors for student affairs and top faculty council members. If the three bodies affirm it, the resolution will be placed on the desk at the university’s chanc
ellor. Larry Sparks will be the interim chancellor, while the state’s college boards searches for a permanent replacement to Jeffrey Vitter. Vitter was the former chancellor and he has since returned to teaching. The Institutions of Higher Learning trustees will make the final decision if Sparks agrees to it. Governor appoints the 12 college board members. Phil Bryant is a member of Sons of Confederate Veterans. He was elected in 2017. The group sued the university in 2016 for placing the contextualization plaque at monument. The monument’s fate will be decided by Jackson political appointees. However, the six students involved in the resolution believe that the democratic process supported and supported by many student organizations could offer a model for campus issues. “In the end this is our university. Chappell stated that we should be able decide the story about it. “We should have the ability to choose the symbols that represent the university. It’s exciting to see student groups stand up and say, “We are not represented in the Confederate statue.” The state flag of Mississippi does not represent us. ‘”