Washington-Loving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised people are so passionate about this issue. I am glad the school is being renamed because I don't think Lee should be honored. But after that, I do not care.

Folks will survive HS if it is named Washington-Loving and it will be offensive to no one. I don't think the students of Loving HS of Loving, NM are constantly mocked.

Really? Really??? This is why you think students here won't be mocked if the name is changed to Washington-Loving? Of course the name Loving HS in Loving, MN makes sense. That's like having Arlington HS, in Arlington, VA. The Lovings have nothing to do with Arlington.

I guess I really do not care if kids mock a HS name? Like I Honestly can't believe this is something that people are worried about. Folks are worried that another school will mock them during a football game? Like this is a legit concern of people? I thought mocking other schools during football games was par for the course?

I don't really care why the kids don't like it. They are the ones who have to live with it and should have some say, beyond a small group of students who were on the selection committee.

Put it to a vote of the student body with the top 2 choices -- Washington-Loving or Washington-Liberty.

I mean they don't like it now. In a few years they won't be at the school. In a few more the name will be normal and not new and strange and no one will care. And in a few more they will realize how meaningless HS (and what it is named) is.

That proves too much. If the name is meaningless, why change it, much less to a new one that everyone knows will invite ridicule for at least the next several years.

I didn't say a name wasn't important. I said HS isn't and in a few years the name will just be the norm. VA is for lovers anyway.

So to be clear. Who we chose to honor with schools or buildings is important and says a lot about our character as a community but I am not going to worry about kids mocking other kids because the people their school is named after have the laat name Loving instead of Smith.

Uh, yes, you did. If you want to walk it back now, that's a different issue.

But I do agree it says a lot about our character as a community if a small group of hand-picked advocates can ram a name that many find less than optimal down everyone else's throats.

Ha, no you are right. But I meant it in a different context, but yes I did say that. I apologize for misspeaking.

[Anonymous]

Let's change the name of Arlington while we're at it. There's no excuse for our County to be named after that traitor Lee's plantation.

[Anonymous]

This is a very creative approach on APS’s part to addressing the overcrowding at W-L.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard Yorktown kids are already calling them the W-L “Genitals.” This won’t be pretty.

Was this before or after they were spray painting the n-word on the school walls - with help from their parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

Well, it's something all right. I don't object to the idea behind the new name, but it's just a bad name for a school. Like, if there were a real-life person who had done something amazing but was named Seymour Butts, I wouldn't want a school named in his honor. But if 14-17 year olds are suddenly so evolved that Washington-Loving won't be a joke, go for it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a very creative approach on APS’s part to addressing the overcrowding at W-L.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

Well, it's something all right. I don't object to the idea behind the new name, but it's just a bad name for a school. Like, if there were a real-life person who had done something amazing but was named Seymour Butts, I wouldn't want a school named in his honor. But if 14-17 year olds are suddenly so evolved that Washington-Loving won't be a joke, go for it.

+1

If John Glenn had lived in Arlington for decades and his name had been John Loving instead, it would be one thing.

But the Lovings had no connection to Arlington, aren’t well known locally, and are being pulled out of a hat because they are associated with a civil rights lawsuit and their last name began with “L.”

It is certainly random enough to ensure that the word play on the name will persist for years, if that’s really the name picked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not Washington-Lincoln?

Not politically correct enough; two white men.

Come on. LINCOLN isn’t PC enough???

Yeah, really. Discovery elementary is named that because they didn't want to name it after astronaut, us senator and local resident John Glenn. Because he was a white dude. No one would say that out loud or admit it, but note, no problem naming Fleet after a non- white dude. that's how it goes.

They couldn't name it after John Glenn because he was still alive and school policy is to not name after living people. Had nothing to do with him being a white man.

That's a strange school policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not Washington-Lincoln?

Not politically correct enough; two white men.

Come on. LINCOLN isn’t PC enough???

Yeah, really. Discovery elementary is named that because they didn't want to name it after astronaut, us senator and local resident John Glenn. Because he was a white dude. No one would say that out loud or admit it, but note, no problem naming Fleet after a non- white dude. that's how it goes.

They couldn't name it after John Glenn because he was still alive and school policy is to not name after living people. Had nothing to do with him being a white man.

That's a strange school policy.

It's a very reasonable school policy. You don't want to name a school after somebody and then later learn he's a pedophile or embezzler or something. Of course, negative things can come out later.

But, overall, I think we just shouldn't name schools after people. Every ES/MS/HS I went to was named after either a geographic feature or the town/neighborhood. Boring but not contentious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And by PP's logic, those students won't be at the school in a few years (or even next year?) anyway so why should their preference override the opinion of the student body as a whole? The committee has done their work and came up with two top names. Now put it to a vote and everyone can live with the outcome.

None of the current students will be there in a few years, by which time people will have adjusted.

[Anonymous]

How many of the people saying the Lovings aren't well known are not AA?

[Anonymous]

Interesting...the school newspaper is presenting the issue as there are two equal names being proposed, both Washington-Loving and Washington Liberty. The focus is more on why change at all.

https://www.crossedsabres.org/news/2018/12/04/to-lee-or-not-to-lee/

[Anonymous]

Washington and Lee Univ. in VA has zero intention of changing their name

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of the people saying the Lovings aren't well known are not AA?

Yes, they're probably better known in the AA community but less than 9% of the W-L student body is AA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the people saying the Lovings aren't well known are not AA?

Yes, they're probably better known in the AA community but less than 9% of the W-L student body is AA.

What percentage is Native American?