The Cancellation of Fredric March, or How to Spectacularly Fail Your Students

I read this piece by John McWhorter in the New York Times over the weekend. The gist is that the University of Wisconsin removed the name of famous alumnus, Fredric March, from buildings on two campuses after students pressured the administration. March, the Oscar-winning Hollywood actor and lifetime civil rights activist, had attended Wisconsin in the late 19-teens. While he was there, he briefly belonged to an honorary fraternity named the Ku Klux Klan.

Have you heard this one? Well, it might sound hard to believe, but this Klan was unrelated to the the KKK, the infamous American terrorist organization. That group, its first iteration active during the Reconstruction until 1871, was newly reformed around 1915 (evidently inspired by D.W. Griffith’s racist cinematic masterpiece, The Birth of a Nation) but did not become nationally recognized until the early twenties. There’s no evidence that the fraternity Klan was anything more than a way to recognize college students’ scholastic achievements. A few years later, when the racist KKK became well known, the fraternity changed its name to avoid any association with the group.

But let’s just say, for a moment, even though it’s almost certainly not true, that Fredric March, later a star in the golden age of Hollywood, had joined a racist organization as a college student in 1919. But then he must have regretted it? Because he devoted his star power, for the rest of his life, to the cause of civil rights, first as an anti-fascist, then during the Red Scare, then working with Martin Luther King prior to Birmingham and as a lifelong supporter of the NAACP and many artists of color. He publicly supported black artists during Jim Crow, when most white artists were sitting by silently. He’s considered a civil rights icon.

So, even in the worst case scenario, he more than erased any youthful fuckups with decades of tireless activism. Even in the worst case made up story, his sins could perhaps be forgiven?

Nevertheless, an American public university, instead of seeing a teachable moment in aid of its more ignorant students, co-signed for a know-nothing mob. Why? In what scenario, in what worldview, is this an acceptable response? The school is failing its students.

And there’s no “woke” argument to be made in favor of this erasure, is there? Surely, an ally like Fredric March should be celebrated? Unless there’s a good reason? This wasn’t just a “bad reason,” it was an outright mistake.

So, I know, “cancel culture” is not really a thing, it’s just a right wing talking point, it’s just a way for old white men to avoid responsibility for raping everything, no one has a right to a book deal, nothing ever really happens to any of them, it’s about time they got got—I know, I get it. That means this March business isn’t an example of cancel culture, it’s something else.

It certainly doesn’t “matter” that the guy’s name isn’t on those buildings anymore. He’s dead. He doesn’t care. And I suppose we could argue that there’s no need to remember people in this way, by naming structures after them. Fredric March made movies, anyway. He’ll be remembered for as long as the movies are remembered.

What’s the principle? For me it comes down to the lessons they’re teaching.

1. If you suspect someone of badness, that’s enough to convict them in the public eye.

2. If someone has been convicted in this way, the solution is to, at least symbolically, erase them from the public sphere. In March’s case, it was enough to remove his name from the daily reality of this cohort of students.

3. There is no distinction between guilt and guilt-by-association. So, despite the fact that there’s no connection between the fraternity Klan and the terrorist Klan, apart from a name, which has its own linguistic history, the connotation alone is enough. Listen to the words of the Osh Kosh campus chancellor, Andrew Leavitt, as quoted in the article, “I no longer possess — and this institution should reject — the privilege of nuancing explanations as to how a person even tangentially affiliated with an organization founded on hate has his name honorifically posted on a public building.”

The privilege of nuancing explanations is an interesting phrase, isn’t it? How can we translate that? 

How about I refuse to allow the complex nature of reality to cause my students discomfort, does that work?

As a teacher, I just find this kind of thing appalling. It’s illiberal. It’s infantilizing. It’s insulting.