Granted the whole issue is inconsequential, but Dr. Dorsey was asked for her expert opinion on an historical matter, and her response was that the grounds of this name change were based on completely ahistorical misinformation. I've actually heard this urban legend and googled it, as I do whenever I hear stories that sound a little fishy to me (aka all the time). I don't strongly fault any of the people working for dining services, but I respect Dr. Dorsey's attempt to ensure that, when we're forming beliefs and actions based upon our sense of history, that this "sense" has some rational grounding and we're not just dicking about. That, to me, is one of the major reasons we have historians in the first place.

I also was asked by the author of this story about the name change.

My basic response was the same as Professor Dorsey's. The word picnic's etymology is, as a matter of historical fact, not at all related to slavery or race. It didn't take long with a bit of Google-fu to verify that this is the case, and to learn something about the origins of the rumor to the contrary.

What I suggested to Ramya Gopal is that there's some very good scholarship available on folklore and rumor in general and in the work of Patricia Turner, on rumor in African-American communities in specific. It is perfectly possible to have a very sympathetic reading of why and how people come to believe things which are not true and yet not be indifferent (as some commenters here seem to be) to what is or is not true.

The online essay by the curator of the Jim Crow Museum makes exactly this point. It does not, as the story above suggests, disagree with or offer a counterpoint to Professor Dorsey's argument. It starts by insisting just as strenuously that the rumored etymology of "picnic" is completely incorrect. David Pilgrim also offers an interpretation of how and why the rumor gained credibility.

---------------

As a matter of institutional policy, are some of you seriously suggesting that any staff member who has a belief about the negative meaning or connotations of a word or practice on the campus should, as a matter of sensitive and sympathetic management, be accommodated, whether or not that belief is accurate? If a staff member comes to believe that "Trotter Hall" is an indirectly anti-Semitic reference to pigs and kosher dietary restrictions, should the college change the name?

We live in a community whose central purpose is knowledge and teaching. I'm not sure why some of you think it would be a terrible burden for a supervisor to make a quick call across campus to one of a number of faculty who could confirm or correct a belief of a staff member before taking actions premised on that belief. Arguing that whatever someone believes, they ought to be sensitively accommodated in that belief strikes me as more condescending by far than to have a common expectation for truth and knowledge that holds for the whole of the institution.

Professor Burke, if a student reporter was to come to you with a question, deciding that you're probably a far better source than most things he or she could Google, would you tell her that if she was "loathe to take a course on racial history" at the very least she could try "picking up a book" ?

I don't think that the problem is with what Dr. Dorsey is saying-- she's absolutely right that these sort of things do trivialize real instances of racism. But was there a more sensitive way she could have conveyed that? If Dr. Dorsey would have had no problem saying something like that to the staff member who felt uncomfortable with the name in the first place, I'm just really taken aback at the lack of compassion.

Wow: To be fair, I was the one who put the "pick up a book" words in Dr. Dorsey's mouth -- what she wrote was "read a book." I embellished because what I read in her comments was condescension, and that’s why I characterized her comments that way.

I should clarify my stance, which I may have muddied up by pointing out that Linda is just trying to be compassionate and accommodating: I actually largely agree with what Dr. Dorsey wrote, including that inane efforts trivialize real efforts, and I actually largely disagree with what Andy Reid wrote, which is that what really matters is good intentions.

What I should have said is that Linda and Dr. Dorsey have different jobs: Dr. Dorsey’s involves studying history and making use of resources such as dictionaries and books. Linda has different priorities: making sure everything in Dining Services runs smoothly and all her employees feel comfortable in the workplace (as well as other stuff, but I’m summarizing). The historian said that the cook and Linda should have done their research, which she characterized as very trivial (“go to the library and read a book”). I assumed that it wasn’t that easy, and with that assumption voiced my opinion that evaluating history is complicated and involves a lot of training, so historians shouldn’t condescend to people who have different priorities.

I tried to make this point before, but I didn’t do a great job: a lot of my opinion on the matter depends on how easily debunked the picnic rumor is: if a quick Google search shows that it’s totally false (as Prof Burke and Peter ’11 suggest), then Dr. Dorsey wasn’t so out of line for characterizing the research as trivial. Her tone still bothers me, but I think she was completely in the right for correcting the inaccuracy and pointing out that the change was superficial anyway.

Professor Burke, you make some good points, especially about how it’s condescending to accommodate people’s erroneous beliefs because we think they don’t (er, shouldn’t have to) know any better. One thing I’d like to point out, though, is that students, staff, supervisors, and whoever else might be less likely to make that call across campus to faculty experts if they believe they will get a response basically saying, “you’re ignorant, your question is so silly it’s offensive to those of us who really know history, go read a book.”

In the hope that the third time will indeed be the charm, a few points of clarification.
First – No staff person contacted me to ask a question about the urban legend concerning the word picnic. Indeed I’ve had no conversation with any members of the staff on this matter. Despite the ease with which folks too timid to identify themselves but happy to assault my character suggest I was being condescending to a staff member – had a staff member asked me in person or in print about the picnic story, I, like Dr. Burke would have directed them to Patricia Turner’s book I heard it through the grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture and/or to several academic sites which debunk this and other urban legends.
Second – my admittedly rather acerbic reaction to the Swarthmore College student, a soon to be graduating senior, who emailed me and asked me to “tell me more about the charged history of this word or comment on this change” was rooted in my amazement that said student was writing me to ask about an urban legend that is at least a decade old. An urban legend that has been debunked time and time again – even in a Julie Dash film, Love Song, made in 2000.
Third – should readers be willing to take the time to go back and read my actual comments they will note that my second response was to a question seeking clarification about my point of view. I ended that response with these words “If students (not staff, not supervisors, not administrators but students who are here to learn) are loathe to take a course while at Swarthmore to learn about America’s racial history, they can at the very least, go to the library and read a book. “ I believe reading is essential to gaining knowledge and therefore understanding. For the record, I reject, whole-heartedly, the sense that working class people are somehow unable to access knowledge by reading and frankly am stunned that readers of this forum are so condescending as to think that only people with Ph.Ds can master understanding.
Fourth - Dr. Bruce Dorsey and Dr. Marge Murphy both teach courses in which students could learn the racial history of America among other things. I also teach such courses. Lastly, all faculty believe their field of expertise is important, not more important than any other, but important.
I am happy to speak with individuals who identify themselves should any students or staff members have any further questions.
Dr. Dorsey

I, for one, heard that "gullible" was not in the dictionary.

I agree with "Wow" that the author of this article was asking an authoritative source because it makes the article more interesting (clearly, look at the comments!) but, in general if you're doing journalism, it's best to have a good grasp of the topic BEFORE asking people questions so they'll think you're actually worth talking to. I think in this case not doing that researched actually biased the tone of the response.

Oh, and, viola: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=picnic+racist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The best lesson to get out of this is to google everything. You very quickly develop a sense for the sorts of things people say that probably have no grounding in reality. Snopes is always a good source.

On the other hand, it's super old-fashioned to ONLY recommend books. If I checked out a book for every little thing that I was curious about, I would either be swimming in a mountain of books or I would stop being curious about so many things. Books are for when there's a topic that you want to know more about than a website can tell you but, alas, they haven't made a movie about it yet.

Also, total non sequitur but that google link that I just pasted gave you a remarkable amount of information about me.

Mr. Stafford, please.

No one asked my opinion, and I do not want to be didactic, but let's think twice before slandering a person in order to stand up for abstract concepts that will likely remain in the Swat bubble.

Linda McDougall didn't post some pamphlet on lynching, she just changed the name (a really stupid name) of a SHARPLES BAR. Burke, did you really read what was written, either in this article (suggested that the word ‘picnic’ had negative connotations in slave days--nothing about word origins) or Mr. Pilgrim's (The word picnic did not begin with the lynching of black Americans; however, the lynching of blacks often occurred in picnic-like settings.) The point was NEVER about the etymology of a word (an inane topic indeed) but about its usage through American history. This was not so simple a subject to be cleared up with a google search, and the bottom line was an employee was uncomfortable--whether or not their discomfort was rigorously historically backed up seems a tad irrelevant. Oh, and I can't IMAGINE how anyone reading this article has any urge to take a class with Professor Doctor Arbiter-of-Knowledge Dorsey.

j, I don't think your hateful comments have a place anywhere.

You are clearly not on the level of the conversation being had.

While we're at it, I must strenuously object to the naming of Asian bar. It implies a homogeneity among the Asian community that is simply offensive and untrue. I am surprised that in this supposedly "enlightened" time we still cling to the Orientalist myth of a broad and uniform "East." Perhaps we should rename it "China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Mongolia Bar."

... wait, is "j" hateful because... because he's making a... a point you don't like? uh uh uh

Or, because he's disrespecting a professor who was, in turn, disrespectful?

uh uh uh

unless yr bein' ironicz, in which case you win the whole thing, man

While we're at it, let's levy a "Smart Tax" because smart people earn more on average than stupid people.

Given that the author advocates considering implementing a "Beauty Tax", he/she would probably be a beneficiary of such a "Smart Tax"

(I apologize in advance for this post. The internet just makes it too easy to flame. I'm sure the author is a lovely, brilliant person)

This is one of those odd pieces that baffles and terrifies, whether intended as earnest suggestion or satire.

I would have bought the mink carcasses. I didn't know that was an option. Maybe there should be better advertising for mink carcasses. Next Super Bowl, maybe.

Also: "For another thing, it would have been nice if the student interns had been allowed to cull ideas"

I would not appreciate that. I am against all culls.

The campus-wide snowball fight was an amazing idea. Whoever thought of it, props to you!

DG, what happens to Willets Cat when it snows like this? Does he die?

no worries: throughout the weekend willets cat has been sighted happily preening and napping in worth (dorm).

The cartoon accompanying this piece showing an apparently clueless staring deer adjacent to a "no deer crossing" road sign makes me sick. What on earth is wrong with you people? Curtis Roberts '75