‘Incestuous rapist’: William & Mary students demand removal of Thomas Jefferson statute

Earlier in the semester, students at the University of Missouri defaced the campus’ statute of Thomas Jefferson with post-it notes calling him a “racist rapist,” for example. A petition had also been started to call for its removal. While the unrest has been brought to a national level, the same issue with Jefferson is now being seen at other schools.

Thomas Jefferson is not even safe at his own alma mater — the College of William & Mary. President Woodrow Wilson is not safe at his alma mater either at Princeton, where he served as president. This is sadly not a shock.

Breitbart recently reported on similar campaigns on W&M campus as had been at Missouri. Post-it notes referred to Jefferson as an ‘incestuous rapist’ and ‘racist.’

In Breitbart’s reporting is also a link to a piece earlier this month in The Flat Hat, a student paper, titled “Reaction Should Be Based on Facts.” In it, author Miguel Locsin admits that he can see both sides condemning or hailing Jefferson. There is a particularly interesting point:

I found myself perplexed, not because someone dared to insult one of America’s greatest founders, nor because I found myself outraged that Thomas Jefferson, a racist slaveholder, has a prominent statue in our school. I found myself perplexed because I simply could not take a side, even though I felt like I should have easily been able to…

Why should have Locsin been able to though? He himself admits expressing emotion, in a rather clear statement, about how “Thomas Jefferson, a racist slaveholder, has a prominent statute in [his] school.” Perhaps this is because Jefferson is a noted alumni. Also, as Locsin does admit, there are many accomplishments to his name.

Locsin himself also points out, later in the same paragraph that “people today might not even be able to post such messages on Jefferson’s statue as they did without the right to freedom of speech that anti-Federalists like Jefferson pushed for.”

Locsin also points to situations Missouri and Yale, saying, “it will become apparent that some situations no longer have a “right” and a “wrong” side. It is important then that we take a step back, analyze and pick out the “good” elements from each nuanced idea, stand by them and use these ideas to better today’s society.”

Locsin also argues that how to view Jefferson is subjective:

There is no truly right side to the statue situation, as both sides have extremely legitimate, important and powerful arguments. There is extreme nuance to the Thomas Jefferson debate when both sides are taken into account. That degree of nuance is entirely subjective, as it is dependent on one’s perspective at any given moment.

There is a way to answer or argue that point, and to answer Locsin’s question of “which side would you take? The answer isn’t that simple, is it?” It perhaps is simple, and not so much subjective.

Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. But, his philosophy of and the founding documents he authored also guided the country away from that dreaded institution.

After all, it was Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Related Content