Skip to Main Content
Colby College logo Go to colby.edu homepage

Removal of Names Policy and Procedures

Removal of Names Policy and Procedures

Policy

Approved by: Board of Trustees
Responsible Department: Office of the General Counsel
Responsible Admin: Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of the College
Effective Date: April 18, 2026
Last Updated: April 18, 2026

Summary:

In the past few years, institutions have undertaken to remove names from buildings and other spaces, as well as funds and scholarships, because of a namesake’s legacy, conduct, actions, omissions or other cause. Much like Colby College’s policy addressing the process and factors to be considered in revoking an honorary degree, this policy is intended as guidance – setting forth a set of principles to address such situations.

Principles:

  1. Because the decision to remove a name from a feature of the College undoes a presumably well-considered decision made by the College to name a feature in the past, there is a presumption against removal of a name on the basis of the namesake’s
  2. Removal of a name from a feature of the College on the basis of the legacy, conduct, actions, omissions or other cause, and values associated with its namesake, is warranted when there is strong and clear evidence that these are fundamentally at odds with the mission of the College and create a harmful environment that undermines the ability of current students to fully participate in the educational experience the College seeks to provide or the ability of faculty or staff to fully participate in the work of the College.
  3. If the basis of the request rests upon claims of misconduct, there must be clear, demonstrated evidence of serious actions, misconduct or behavior that directly and unacceptably contradicts the College’s mission and values.
    1. In the instance of criminal conduct, clear, demonstrated evidence typically means a criminal conviction.
    2. In the instance of misconduct that is not criminal in nature, clear, demonstrated evidence would typically mean the objective validation by a generally recognized independent agency, commission, licensing, or other body that the namesake committed the misconduct.
  1. There are relevant time principles to be considered when the namesake is a historical figure whose principal legacy is challenged in the present:
    1. The present circumstances and their impact vis-à-vis the figure’s principal legacy: Is the life and work of the individual which gave rise to a naming decision now seen as clearly repugnant?
    2. The era of the namesake’s life and work, and was the relevant principal legacy which formed the basis for the naming decision significantly contested or objectionable in the time and place which the namesake lived.
    3. The circumstances of the original naming

The goal of these time principles is to evaluate if, how, and why the principal legacy of the namesake contradicts the College’s mission and values.1

  1. In addition to the guidance above, other non-determinative factors to be considered include:
    1. Whether association with the namesake reflects poorly on the integrity of the
    2. Whether the perceived harm/adverse impacts caused by the renaming outweighs the perceived harm/adverse impacts of retaining the name.2
    3. Whether the entity impacted by the name removal is central to the College community and to the experience of students, staff, or faculty.
  1. In addition to the decision itself, the College should also evaluate what obligations of non-erasure, contextualization, and process are warranted – either in the decision to remove or to retain the name?
  2. In addition to removal of a name based on the namesake’s legacy, removal is warranted when a gift is not fulfilled given the terms on which such naming was approved.

1  A key source of guidance is Yale University’s “Letter of the Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming” (“CEPR Report”) and the university’s subsequent principles guide. Yale’s CEPR Report states, “A principal legacy would be fundamentally at odds with the mission of the University if, for example, it contradicted the University’s avowed goal of making the world a better place through, among other things, the education of future leaders in an ‘ethical, interdependent, and diverse community.’ A principal legacy of racism and bigotry would contradict this role.” Pg. 20

2 It is impossible to identify (and quantify) every possible type of harm or adverse impact that may result from a re-naming decision. As a general rule, the terms “harm” and “adverse impact” should be construed broadly. In addition to obvious “harms” such as reputational harm, other types of harm might include financial harm, “physical” harm (resulting from removal, dismantling, demolition or alteration of a feature) harm, political or legal harm, and harm experienced by Colby community members.

Sources:

Yale University’s Renaming Principles and Procedure: https://ogc.yale.edu/governance/historic-documents/renaming-procedure

Yale’s Letter of the Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming: https://president.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/CEPR_FINAL_12-2-16.pdf

Stanford University’s Principles and Procedures for Renaming Buildings: https://equity.stanford.edu/principles-and-procedures-renaming-buildings-and-other-features-stanford-university

New York Times, “When the Names on Campus Buildings Evoke a Racist Past”: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/task-force-university-racism.html

Harvard University Articulates Principles for “Denaming”: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/12/harvard-denaming-principles

Princeton University, “Report of the Trustee Committee on Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy at Princeton”: https://www.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2017/08/Wilson-Committee-Report-Final.pdf

Princeton, Office of Communications, “Board of Trustees’ decision on removing Woodrow Wilson’s name from public policy school and residential college”: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/27/board-trustees-decision-removing-woodrow-wilsons-name-public-policy-school-and

Procedures

Last Updated: April 20, 2026

Colby College Procedures for Removal of Names

These procedures describe the process for consideration of a request for the removal of a name pursuant to the College’s removal of names policy.

  1. The process to remove a name begins at the request of the President or through a request made by a member of the Colby community. The request should include:
    • The specific behavior or conduct by the namesake after whom a feature is named that fundamentally violates the College’s mission and values.
    • How the principles in the College’s Removal of Names policy apply to the request that the name be removed, including supporting historical and other evidence.
  2. After a request is submitted:
    • The President will consult with senior staff and/or trustees to determine if the request to remove the name should undergo further review.
    • If the President, following such consultation, determines the request should be further reviewed, the President will appoint a group of advisors (“the committee”). Depending on the content of the request, the committee may consist of trustees, faculty members, staff, and students, with efforts to appoint a committee representative of the diversity of Colby’s community. The committee will consider the question of name removal by applying the principles outlined in the policy.
    • The committee should gather historical facts, evidence, scholarly expertise, and community input, as well as any other factors identified by the President, to assist in its evaluation. Included in this review should be the circumstances, terms, conditions, and restrictions that were agreed to as part of the naming, especially if it was associated with a gift.
    • If the recommendation is to remove the name, the committee should address concerns about “erasing history”.1 Likewise, if the decision is to retain the name, “there may be obligations on the College’s part to ensure that preservation does not have the effect of distorting history.”2
    • The committee will submit a report with recommendations on the removal of names request, to the President. In the instance of those naming designations approved by the Board of Trustees, the Board shall render a final decision on the The Board, upon recommendation by the President, may designate others to render a final decision on a request, based on the content of the request and the committee’s report.
    • The decision and the basis for the decision should be clearly and promptly communicated to the Colby community.
  3. These procedures may be amended or modified by the President; provided any amendment or modification does not contravene the Removal of Names policy. Notice of any amendments or modifications shall be provided to the College community

 

1 Yale University’s “Letter of the Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming” (“CEPR Report”) articulated its opinion on this point, noting that “Names communicate historical information, but they confer honor as well. These two features of a name can be disentangled if renaming is accompanied by creative and substantial efforts to mitigate the possible erasure of history. Changing a name is thus not synonymous with erasing history.” There are ways to archive the historical significance of the name of a building to ensure the legacy of the honoree’s relationship with the College is not forgotten. The College may provide information on why the space was named in the first place and why it has been renamed. (E.g., museum-like exhibits, installations around the building, plaques, and signs).

2 Id.