By: Cooper Castelle
Huxley College of the Environment is no more. After more than a year of deliberation, the Legacy Review Task Force assigned by Western Washington University to address the controversy made the decision to formally drop the name in December. The college will henceforth be known as College of the Environment.
In the midst of evolving political climates, those involved in the deliberations were well aware of the potential backlash the university would face. Whether legitimate or not, the term ‘cancel culture’ has permeated much of current political dialogues. The university’s decision therefore has not escaped accusations of the phenomenon; prominent figures both affiliated and unaffiliated with the college – including a former dean — have publicly criticized this decision as an example of cancel culture.
“Our legacy on this issue is how we legitimized creationist disinformation, advanced the religious right wedge strategy to undermine evolution, science, and how we fell into that trap,” said former dean Steve Hollenhorst.
Others associated with the College of the Environment offered different perspectives. Molly Adolfson, a member of the College’s Dean’s Advisory Board views this decision “…as an opportunity to acknowledge Huxley’s contributions to science, accepting him as a flawed but brilliant individual, and moving on to a new, more inclusive name for the college.”
WWU is, of course, not alone as a target of anti-cancel culture sentiment. Even the specific contention regarding Thomas Huxley is not unique to WWU. Imperial College London is considering removing several statues and buildings named after the famous 19th century English biologist and anthropologist.
Known informally as “Darwin’s Bulldog,” Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) was a fierce advocate for Darwin’s theory of evolution. He is credited with the coining of the term ‘Agnosticism’ as well as bringing scientific dialogues to the forefront of modern society.
Between 1846 and 1850, Huxley served as an assistant surgeon on the HMS Rattlesnake of the British Royal Navy. While voyaging along the coasts of Australia and Papua New Guinea, Huxley conducted experiments on various sea anemones, jellyfish, hydras, and sea nettles. This research would later help him prove that modern vertebrates descend from sea squirts, also known as ascidians. Upon his return to Great Britain, his scientific endeavors would lead to success at the Royal Society of London from which his popularity and influence eventually grew.
One of Huxley’s most famous moments came from a debate he had with a conservative bishop at the British Association for the Advancement of Sciences in 1860 in which the bishop, in reference to the then-novel theory of evolution, mocked Huxley by asking if he had apes on his grandmother’s or grandfather’s side of the family. Huxley retorted that he would rather descend from an ape than a wealthy bishop who used his authority to delegitimize scientific evidence.
Along with his long and decorated career in the sciences, Huxley is also remembered for his now-infamous 1865 essay, Emancipation – Black and White, in which he made several racist claims. Although he was an abolitionist, various other essays published by Huxley reveal further bias and racist remarks. Despite attempts as far back as the 1950’s to absolve the famous scientist, his reputation is beginning to succumb to a growing body of controversial evidence.
Regardless, there has been plenty of pushback against the university’s decision. Steve Hollenhorst, a former dean of the college, published an op-ed in the Seattle Times this past Spring in which he criticized the notion of removing Huxley’s name. Hollenhorst drew the comparison between Thomas Huxley and the university’s namesake, slave owner George Washington. Hollenhorst queried why the Task Force would focus on the removal of an abolitionist of slavery rather than a slave owner.
In addition, he noted the irony that while Huxley’s initial adversaries were conservative Christians, modern adversaries are progressive members of the scientific community. Finally, when referencing anti-evolutionist and creationist Henry M. Morris, who wrote a 1973 article accusing Huxley of racism, Hollenhorst reminded readers that Morris’ intention was to divide those who did not support anti-evolutionist views. This act and others like it, Hollenhorst claimed, are at least partially responsible for misleading those who now harbor anti-Huxley sentiment.
“We can never give up the fight against right-wing creationist disinformation, and the erosive effect it has on the academic integrity of secular institutions like WWU,” said Hollenhorst in the wake of the Task Force’s decision.
Although prejudiced, Hollenhorst argued, Huxley was less-so than his peers. Emancipation – Black and White, even with overtly racist rhetoric, was in fact written in defense of then-president Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.
Hollenhorst concluded by noting that although Huxley was flawed, he was nonetheless also responsible for making modern conversations such as this possible. His scientific achievements as well as his rejection of inequality and religious authority helped lay the groundwork for a more equitable society in which we live today.
Huxley “…was an antiracist before there was such a thing,” said Hollenhorst, “…paving the way for our efforts today.”
The Legacy Review task force was wary of removing Huxley’s name on the basis of faulty misinformation. If the name was to be removed, the rationale needed to be justified on the grounds of legitimate investigative research. It should also be noted that this publication released an article in early 2021 that unfortunately cited irreputable sources published to intentionally discredit the scientist.
Before analyzing the Task Force’s official report, one could name several additional reasons to remove Huxley’s name, regardless of any potentially harmful rhetoric he may have espoused. The university could benefit from additional buildings named after BIPOC individuals, WWU’s current mission statement (which includes an emphasis on equity) is not well reflected by Thomas Huxley’s contemporary reputation and the fact that the original naming of the college was not formally approved by a board of trustees.
According to the Legacy Review Task Force’s official report addressed to WWU President Sabah Randhawa last June, “…the Task Force began with a review and discussion of similar legacy review processes and principles of de-naming at other institutions, including Stanford University, Yale College, and Princeton University.”
This led to the determination of three main evaluative criteria, those being: “The harm caused by retaining the name,” “The potential harms of renaming” and “Considering and weighing relevant factors,” of which there are several sub-categories.
Based on these criteria, the Task Force voted unanimously to remove Huxley’s name from the College of the Environment.
After-the-fact, Adolfson expressed a sentiment felt by many: “I feel the Task Force’s close review of Huxley’s published work and his positions over the decades provided enough evidence that his views on race, although not surprising for his time, cloud his scientific achievements.”
For their research, the Task Force invited four scholars to provide their expertise on Huxley and the Victorian Era in which he lived. While their values and opinions varied, according to the report, three common themes nonetheless persisted: “Huxley’s views about natural racial and gender inequalities, the role of these hierarchical views in the application of Darwin’s theory of evolution to humans, and the development of scientific racism more generally.”
The report acknowledged the beliefs of many modern scholars that Huxley was progressive for his era, but the Task Force ultimately found the evidence for such claims insufficient. Slavery was abolished in Great Britain in 1833, more than three decades before Huxley wrote Emancipation – Black and White. The motives behind Huxley’s abolitionism were also questioned and further research revealed that he was in support of abolitionism for the benefit of the former masters as much as enslaved people. This suggested that Huxley’s views on race were no more progressive than that of his peers.
Additional affirmation of the potential harm caused by Huxley’s affiliation with the college derived from a 1969 speech given by Huxley’s grandson, who was at that time a former president of the British Eugenics Society. Of all of Huxley’s descendants, the fact that the one chosen for the college’s inaugural speech championed such a philosophy implied that such views were considered a legitimate component of Huxley’s legacy.
When Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859, he had not yet addressed the evolution of Homo Sapiens. It was Thomas Huxley who first inquired into the nature of human evolution, and in doing so, he made racism a central component of his theory (specifically by way of ‘Huxley’s Law’ which emphasized an intellectual hierarchy between races).
The report further concluded that although “…Huxley’s exact position within the two sides of the monogenism versus polygenism debate is still contested among many historians… his rule about a hierarchy of races is an explicitly racist concept.”
Huxley had no direct connection to the university, which some members of the Task Force justified as reason to hold him to an even higher moral standard than what would be otherwise. Although the college’s founders chose Huxley’s name based on the enduring and respectable scientific values he represented – among them, “intellectual fearlessness” – the Task Force ultimately used these same intellectual virtues, to reject the namesake. Huxley’s contradiction to the institution’s mission statement as well as the harm experienced by students of color resulting from his affiliation provided sufficient reason to renounce his name.
“I think this is an opportunity for the university to acknowledge that his contribution to racist rhetoric does not provide inspiration or promote a message of inclusion, and move on,” said Adolfson.
2022 begins a new era for WWU’s College of the Environment. The legacy and public opinion regarding this resolution will likely evolve in the years and decades to come. In that time, history will continue to be re-evaluated. Despite the unanimity with which the Legacy Review Task Force executed their decision, there remains significant opposition and concern, both with regards to this specific action as well as its reciprocal implications. In criticism of Imperial College London’s consideration for the removal of Huxley’s affiliation with their institution, Stephen Warren, a professor at the university since 1994, declared that “If Huxley is to be cancelled, no one from the past is secure.”
Considering the current rate of social reconstruction, one can only speculate what widely-accepted public figures or social constructs will one day become morally reprehensible. In the meantime, students and faculty alike can expect to benefit from a decision that, at the very least, formally and publicly exemplifies the university’s emphasis on diversity and inclusion.