Washington-Loving

[Anonymous]

My kids went to WL and always called it WL and will still call it WL, not Washington Liberty. Ironic they stuck with the "L" for the second name.

[Anonymous]

Why is it okay to live in a County named after Lee's plantation, but not have a school with his name on it? As a life long Arlingtonian, it'll always be "Lee" to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids went to WL and always called it WL and will still call it WL, not Washington Liberty. Ironic they stuck with the "L" for the second name.

It's not ironic, it was on purpose. They didn't want to have to change all the W-L logos around the school, on uniforms, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

Maybe racist. Maybe not. I don't know the mother. But, she is most certainly tone deaf and lacking in empathy. It's reasonable that minority students would not want to attend a school named after a Confederate, slave-owning, general.

From all accounts, the current students did not GAF.
Seriously, this was about the school board looking for cover from bad PR re: the WL boundary change that made headlines. They have consistently backed the values of segration time and again. They ,and the echo chamber that championed that ridiculous name, have no moral high ground.
I have no problem with virtue signaling, when people are actually virtuous. Arlington is deeply rotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids went to WL and always called it WL and will still call it WL, not Washington Liberty. Ironic they stuck with the "L" for the second name.

Why is it ironic? They wanted to keep the L for branding purposes, and they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

Maybe racist. Maybe not. I don't know the mother. But, she is most certainly tone deaf and lacking in empathy. It's reasonable that minority students would not want to attend a school named after a Confederate, slave-owning, general.

From all accounts, the current students did not GAF.
Seriously, this was about the school board looking for cover from bad PR re: the WL boundary change that made headlines. They have consistently backed the values of segration time and again. They ,and the echo chamber that championed that ridiculous name, have no moral high ground.
I have no problem with virtue signaling, when people are actually virtuous. Arlington is deeply rotten.

+1

There was no outcry for changing the name. I've had 4 kids attend W-L over the past decade, including a current student. They have all had diverse friends (one of the best things about the school). I have been very involved at the school, including with the PTA, four different sports teams, the Athletic Boosters, the marching band, committees dealing with overcrowding issues and volunteered for various and sundry events over the past decade. The only time I heard a single complaint about Lee was last year from a white student who had graduated a couple years before from Yorktown. I'm not saying that everyone was fine with the name or that the SB needed some huge public outrage before it could change the name, just that there was no outcry over Lee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

You, and people like you, are the reason the word "racist" is losing any meaning. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the heck was wrong with Monique O’Grady. She seemed so angry.

Maybe listening to a dozen or so delusional old white people pretend Robert E. Lee was a saint rubbed her the wrong way.

There was not even close to a dozen delusional old white people who spoke tonight about Robert E Lee as a saint. Maybe, at the most one old man who was pretty obviously wacko and made no sense at all.

Only a slight exaggeration as to the age and tenor of the speakers. All but two were white, and quite a few of them were scary.

Scary??? Seriously???? No. Not one of them. If you are that easily scared by people who say something that you disagree with, maybe you’d better retreat to your safe space.

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

So if someone felt passionate about keeping the old name they are racist and belong with the tiki torch crowd.... There is no middle ground with people like you. Either someone has to agree with you or they are a horrible, racist person. And this is why you’ve got no credibility.

+1,000,000
You nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the heck was wrong with Monique O’Grady. She seemed so angry.

Maybe listening to a dozen or so delusional old white people pretend Robert E. Lee was a saint rubbed her the wrong way.

There was not even close to a dozen delusional old white people who spoke tonight about Robert E Lee as a saint. Maybe, at the most one old man who was pretty obviously wacko and made no sense at all.

Only a slight exaggeration as to the age and tenor of the speakers. All but two were white, and quite a few of them were scary.

Scary??? Seriously???? No. Not one of them. If you are that easily scared by people who say something that you disagree with, maybe you’d better retreat to your safe space.

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

So if someone felt passionate about keeping the old name they are racist and belong with the tiki torch crowd.... There is no middle ground with people like you. Either someone has to agree with you or they are a horrible, racist person. And this is why you’ve got no credibility.

They don’t have to agree with me. But if they are essentially foaming at the mouth when purporting to explain how vitally important it is to retain a racist, Confederate name on a school building, they are unsettling and best to avoid.

Yes, you certainly are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

Maybe racist. Maybe not. I don't know the mother. But, she is most certainly tone deaf and lacking in empathy. It's reasonable that minority students would not want to attend a school named after a Confederate, slave-owning, general.

So then, you're all saying Washington *wasn't* a slave owner?? This is the most bizarre "controversy." You're against the name Lee, but not Washington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

Maybe racist. Maybe not. I don't know the mother. But, she is most certainly tone deaf and lacking in empathy. It's reasonable that minority students would not want to attend a school named after a Confederate, slave-owning, general.

From all accounts, the current students did not GAF.
Seriously, this was about the school board looking for cover from bad PR re: the WL boundary change that made headlines. They have consistently backed the values of segration time and again. They ,and the echo chamber that championed that ridiculous name, have no moral high ground.
I have no problem with virtue signaling, when people are actually virtuous. Arlington is deeply rotten.

Pretty ingenious school board of they kept school boundaries status quo by doing a social justice name change. School boundaries have far more real life implications than a school name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

Maybe racist. Maybe not. I don't know the mother. But, she is most certainly tone deaf and lacking in empathy. It's reasonable that minority students would not want to attend a school named after a Confederate, slave-owning, general.

So then, you're all saying Washington *wasn't* a slave owner?? This is the most bizarre "controversy." You're against the name Lee, but not Washington?

Yes, the school is still named after a slave-owning general.

[Anonymous]

So then, you're all saying Washington *wasn't* a slave owner?? This is the most bizarre "controversy." You're against the name Lee, but not Washington?


Yes, the school is still named after a slave-owning general.

Who, just happened to be the first President of our great country. Who was a "Founding Father" who is highly responsible for defeating the oppression of the King. Who fought for years to create this country.
And, by the way, another Lee was also significant in the founding of this country.

[Anonymous]

No surprise they landed on something so close to the original, while keeping the civil war colors etc.

Reminds me of boundary changes. Six months of meetings and drama followed by the movement of seventeen kids from Ashlawn to Barrett.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No surprise they landed on something so close to the original, while keeping the civil war colors etc.

Reminds me of boundary changes. Six months of meetings and drama followed by the movement of seventeen kids from Ashlawn to Barrett.

So you would have preferred a complete change of name and colors? At a cost of maybe $1.5M? Many would have complained at the waste of money when APS has at least equally pressing, arguably much more pressing, matters to deal with and a budget that can’t keep up