> "It is a big, overt statement that the contributions of those people are no longer respected." That's the crux of your argument. In this case, when talking a

> "It is a big, overt statement that the contributions of those people are no longer respected." That's the crux of your argument. In this case, when talking about Calhoun College and the concept of "erasing history" it's not that the concern that Calhoun's name will be lost, but rather than part of the identity of the college and all the events tied to it will be. It's easy enough to think that a name change will be "simple" but it's the question of how you refer to events in the past, how you get the community to reflect this change, and how you are able to respectfully honor the history of the college in the light of this change, without making everything that occurred in the past seem like an error or portrayed in a negative light. Yale's choice to go forward is something that I'm proud of as this has been a point of contention in our community, but it has also spurred new questions of how we deal with the identity and history of the college.