Building Name Reviews

Principles of Building Name Reviews

Many UC Berkeley buildings are honorifically named after individuals with a tie to the institution’s history. In 2017 the campus first chartered a Building Name Review Committee in recognition that the legacy of a building’s namesake should be in alignment with the values and mission of the university, expressed in UC Berkeley’s Principles of Community. Building names are now reviewed through the Space Allocations and Capital Improvements (SACI) Committee, and relevant or ad-hoc subcommittees when appropriate. The committee is guided by the following principles when deciding to remove a building name:

  • As stated in the Regents of the University of California Policy 4400: University of California Diversity Statement The University of California renews its commitment to the full realization of its historic promise to recognize and nurture merit, talent, and achievement by supporting diversity and equal opportunity in its education, services, and administration, as well as research and creative activity. The University particularly acknowledges the acute need to remove barriers to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of talented students, faculty, and staff from historically excluded populations who are currently underrepresented.

  • We view it our intellectual and ethical responsibility to promote an inclusive, global perspective of the peoples and cultures of the world, particularly in view of past and current scholarship in the United States that may omit, ignore, or silence the perspectives of many groups, such as ethnic minorities, people from non-European nations, women, lesbian, gay, transgender, and disabled people among others.

  • Whether or not a building’s name is removed, we believe it is historically and socially valuable to retain a public record, perhaps in the form of a plaque in the building, that notes the building’s history of naming and the reasons for removing the name.

  • We place honesty and integrity in our teaching, learning, research, and administration at the highest level.

  • We recognize the intrinsic relationship between diversity and excellence in all our endeavors.

  • We affirm the dignity of all individuals and strive to uphold a just community in which discrimination and hate are not tolerated.

  • We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied communities.

  • We respect the differences as well as the commonalities that bring us together and call for civility and respect in our personal interactions.

  • We believe that active participation and leadership in addressing the most pressing issues facing our local and global communities are central to our educational mission.

  • We embrace open and equitable access to opportunities for learning and development as our obligation and goal.

Building Name Review Process

Any member of the University community (students, faculty, staff, and alumni) may initiate a review of a building’s name by submitting a written proposal. Please use the information on this page as a guide in making your case for the removal of a building name on the Berkeley campus. Final submissions and any supporting documents should be sent to spaceplanning@berkeley.edu.

By making a submission:

  • You are asking the Space Allocations and Capital Improvements Committee to consider whether to remove the name of a specific building on campus. If the committee agrees, it will recommend to the chancellor that the name be removed. If the chancellor agrees, the chancellor will recommend its removal to the University President. In the case of buildings named in recognition of philanthropic gifts, the President decides whether to forward the recommendation to the California Attorney General, who makes the final decision.

  • You agree that this proposal will be posted on this website so that campus community members may view this proposal and respond. (The contact information in the first question will be redacted.)

Proposals should address all of the following requirements:

The proposal should frame its argument consistent with the principles identified above. If an individual’s life is consistent with some of these principles and inconsistent with others, the proposal must make a case for why some principles outweigh others. For example, the named individual may have provided extensive service to the University, conducted important research, or made other contributions. However, this same individual may have acted to harm members of various groups. The proposal should explain why pernicious effects outweigh the contributions.

The proposal must make a compelling case for the removal of a building name by providing evidence, documenting the sources used, and explaining why those sources are reliable. The proposal may provide links to videos or other relevant online material prepared by the proposer.

Proposals should explicitly include:

  1. Proposer's name and affiliation with UC Berkeley, or the name of your group and its affiliation. Please include contact information for yourself or one member of your group (phone and email address), which will not be posted online.

  2. What building name do you propose removing?

  3. Why was the building named after this person? Was the name honorific or in recognition of a philanthropic gift (donation)?

  4. What service, if any, did this person perform for the University?

  5. What is the history of contesting the legacy of the building’s namesake, if any? From the time the building was named up until the present, have individuals or groups objected to using this name?

  6. Why do you believe that the legacy of the namesake is fundamentally at odds with the principles guiding the campus today. That is, explain why you believe that the legacy’s pernicious effects outweigh the individual’s contributions. 

  7. What is the likely impact on members of the University community if the name is retained or removed?

  8. Please add any other relevant information or arguments.

Once the committee receives a proposal it will initiate a review. The proposal must make a strong, stand-alone case for why a building name should be removed. That is, the case must be adequately documented and reasoned such that, in the absence of any evidence or reasoning to the contrary, a majority of the committee is willing to remove the name.  If a proposal fails to establish a stand-alone case or is otherwise incomplete, the committee will inform the proposer what additional information or reasoning is necessary to meet the necessary criteria for the case to go forward.

  1. Dissemination: An accepted proposal will be published online. Departments, administrators, faculty, staff, and students whose departments are located in the building will be contacted by email, when possible. Alumni, parents, friends, and donors will be notified through Berkeley Online, a monthly e-newsletter. If possible, the family of the individual will be informed. The committee will also contact Legal Affairs, Administration, Finance, the Vice Provost for Academic and Space Planning, and University Development and Alumni Relations (UDAR).

  2. Comments: The committee will ask members of the campus community to comment on the proposal for 2-5 weeks from the date it is posted (proposals that do not receive many comments may have shorter review periods).  Short comments are welcome. However, members of the campus community will have the opportunity to submit a position paper with the same level of detail and scholarship as that of the proposal. People who submit comments may indicate whether their comments are confidential, that is, for the committee alone, or whether they are willing to have their comments posted on our website.

  3. Post Proposal and Responses: The committee will curate and post responses adjacent to the proposal on its website. Any party may revise its case at any time prior to the committee’s final report.

  4. Additional Research: If needed (for example, if the cases submitted by the initiator and the commenters differ on basic facts), the committee may commission an independent analysis of the historical record concerning the naming of the building and the history of the relevant person(s) by a non-involved historian, lawyer, research librarian, or other competent party.

  5. Additional Comments: Once the cases are posted, the committee will again welcome comments from the community for 2-4 additional weeks. If the committee sees fit, it will hold one or more open meeting(s) so that all members of the campus can express their views. It may also hold a meeting with just the proposer and commentators who provide a well-documented position paper (see 2 above).

  6. Report: The committee will prepare an analysis and a recommendation for the chancellor. If the committee does not come to a consensus they will write separate recommendations to the chancellor. The committee may also suggest posting plaques, exhibits, murals, or taking other actions that recognize the concerns of the various parties.