Below is a copy of a letter we sent to the committees for renaming UIC John Marshall Law School, and Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
---
To all the stakeholders in Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and UIC John Marshall:
My name is Hanna Kassis, an alumnus of UIC John Marshall and founder of RenameJohnMarshall.com. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this brief to your committees. I believe you are leaders in actually taking steps toward a possible name change. There are 16 other Marshall institutions across the country, and rename efforts on our end have fallen on deaf ears.
Across the US, 18 schools are named after John Marshall: two universities, three law schools, nine high schools, and 4 elementary schools. Most of these schools were founded in the last 120 years. Each carries the Marshall name because Marshall is revered as the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Yet Marshall had a very dark past that wasn't revealed until 2018 - that of a slave master.
I. John Marshall’s slave history was buried by “historians” and “scholars”.
At his death, Marshall owned almost 200 slaves as evidenced by his last and final will. Lead historians who covered Marshall's life in biographies failed to include this fact. Instead, they referenced earlier drafts of Marshall's will. In those earlier drafts Marshall only owned a dozen or so house servants. As time went on, while Marshall served as Chief Justice, his slave ownership increased. Each time Marshall re-wrote his will, the will included many more slaves. Marshall “historians” failed to reference later versions of Marshall’s will. Marshall’s slave history was buried.
II. The founders of Marshall institutions were NOT racist.
John Marshall's slave dealing past was hidden from our documented history.
I believe the founders of Marshall institutions simply weren't aware of the extent of Marshall's slave ownership, because historians buried it. It wasn't until 2018 that Marshall's history came to light thanks to Dr. Paul Finkelman. We cannot blame or fault the founders of Marshall schools for honoring John Marshall. They likely didn’t know about Marshall’s true past.
In fact, it is said that both Cleveland-Marshall and UIC John Marshall were established to give minorities and women opportunity as lawyers. If their current objective is any indication, we can only assume this as true. The founders must be given the benefit of the doubt here – they did not decide to honor John Marshall because they were racists; they honored him for his positive contribution to the legal world. However, if the founders had known of Marshall’s true history, perhaps Marshall’s name wouldn’t be on so many letterheads.
III. John Marshall’s opinions were tainted by his slave dealings.
As Chief Justice, Marshall was 7-0 in denying freedom in opinions he delivered. Marshall's slave ownership also increased as he served as Chief Justice. This tells us Marshall’s opinions were bias in favor of his slave dealings.
IV. The events of George Floyd were a catalyst for removing Marshall’s name.
When the events of George Floyd took place earlier this year, I felt compelled to do something about the name of my alma mater, UIC John Marshall. My first point of departure was to reach out to UIC John Marshall, and Cleveland-Marshall, a local law school here in Cleveland. I reached out to the dean of each school and to my surprise they were attentive and accepting of our efforts. The backlash, however, was overwhelming.
V. There are many defenses to removing Marshall’s name.
We’ve heard many defenses to removing Marshall’s name. These defenses came in the form of Facebook comments on ads, direct messages, the open forums from UIC’s debates, and email.
Many claimed that, by attempting to change the name, we are erasing history. Others acknowledged Marshall's slave dealings, but claimed his legal contribution is too great to remove his name. Some justified his slave ownership as being consistent with the times. Still others had budget and personal resume concerns. Below I address each defense.
· Defense #1 - Renaming our schools is erasing history.
Few if any lay people knew about Marshall's slave ownership before 2018. Many still didn't know about it after the renaming campaign began. Raising awareness about it is actually contributing to history, not erasing it. Also, the very act of renaming the institution itself becomes history. At the end of the day, there will be a right side, and a wrong side, to the renaming history. Which side will our institutions be on?
· Defense #2 - Marshall contributed too much to the legal jurisprudence.
Marshall isn't the brains behind the concept of Judicial Review set forth in Marbury v. Madison. Marshall adopted the concept from state courts, according to UIC John Marshall professor Cecil Hunt. The concept was alive and well before Marshall gave the Marbury opinion. To my knowledge, we do not know which judge actually contributed this to the legal world. Yet we do know Marshall gets all the credit. Does Marshall deserve the credit?
· Defense #3 - Everyone owned slaves at the time.
England banned slavery in 1806, five years into Marshall's term as Chief Justice. It's hard to believe Marshall wasn't aware of the moral awakening in England. After all, he adopted so much of his life from the English. Yet Marshall continued to increase his slave ownership, well after England abolished slavery. What was Marshall's ethos at the time?
· Defense #4 - Budget and personal resume concerns.
No comment.
VI. The name of our schools represents our ethos as a society.
As Dean Fisher said, "we accept our responsibility to evaluate our role in perpetuating racism, whether it is conscious or unconscious." Both schools are taking a deep look inward to determine if they should keep the Marshall name or not. I believe they should remove Marshall from their names.
UIC John Marshall and Cleveland-Marshall are urban law schools. They started on the premise of providing equal opportunity for women and minorities. Maintaining "Marshall" on the institution is inconsistent with that goal. The name of our schools represents our ethos in society today; not the ethos of someone almost 200 years ago. What is our ethos? Is it one of oppression, injustice and denying others freedom? Or is our ethos one of equality, justice and freedom for all?
VII. There is a right side and a wrong side to our history.
We should ask ourselves, in 100 years, when people look back on this, what will they say about our ethos? Will they say our schools did the right thing, or will they question our ethos the way we question Marshall's?
There is a right side and a wrong side to history we are making here. Both institutions need to be on the right side.
Associate Dean Samuel Jones at UIC John Marshall said it right. "Who we are, who we think we are, and who we want others to believe we are, must be the same thing.” The words are great in theory. However, removing Marshall's name is the only way to practically align the three.
VIII. Neither school should scapegoat the name change, despite the opportunity to do so.
Cleveland-Marshall and UIC John Marshall have both formed committees to rename. This means they are on the right side of history… so far.
But both schools have an opportunity to scapegoat the name change. The John Marshall Law School merged with UIC in August of 2019. The committee is discussing whether dropping “Marshall” should be should be accelerated ahead of the terms agreed to with UIC. If it is, the committee should say why and not skirt the opportunity to address its role in systemic racism.
Similarly, Cleveland-Marshall may formalize a potential merger with the University of Akron School of Law. With it, they can drop “Marshall” in its new name. Again, if the name is changed, the committee should say why and not skirt the opportunity to address its role in systemic racism.
Both schools are in a position to change the name without acknowledging the racist underpinnings. I urge both to please, do not do that. Your institutions need to get out in front of it, and communicate the true reason the name is to be changed.
I’m confident that now that the discussion has been opened, there is no turning back. But at the end of the day, the ultimate decision and responsibility to change the name rests on the committees and leaders of each institution.
The power is in our hands.
What will we decide?
_________________________________________
Hanna Kassis, Esq., CPA
RenameJohnMarshall.com