> Well maybe, having the name "in the public" like that will make it more likely that people will stay aware of the history. If the name is removed from the pub

> Well maybe, having the name "in the public" like that will make it more likely that people will stay aware of the history. If the name is removed from the public and found only in books that are dusty on the shelves of an archive, that's less likely. In my experience, organizations tend to downplay the misdeeds of those whose name and likeness are prominently displayed in or around their buildings. It's just not terribly easy for an organization to talk frankly about such things without it getting really awkward, so they tend to just ... not talk about it. I also supremely doubt that many people learned about Millikan's life from the building, ditto for his more troubled aspects. I also doubt that many people here have, or ever will, visit that building. The move to rename this building probably taught more people about his troubled aspects than the building itself ever did. Instead I think it's more fair to say that naming a building after anyone is a tribute and an attempt to hold someone up as a model to be followed by those who go there. I think there's an interesting and nuanced discussion to be had about whether Millikan's negative aspects justify his removal, but I think arguing that we need his name on a building in order to remember him and his eugenicist past are a bit silly, frankly.