(Photo by Adam Carr)
Editor’s note: Have something on your mind? “Community Voices” is the place to let Milwaukee hear what you have to say. To be considered, we need your name, email address and phone number for verification. Please email your submissions to info@milwaukeenns.org.
Jeven Horton is a former Ronald Reagan IB High School and Marquette University student currently pursuing a career in creative and journalistic writing.
I was somewhat disappointed that a graduating classmate of mine recently wrote an opinion piece that lessened the importance of changing the name of Reagan IB High School.
As my classmate put it, it should be up to the community to decide. As a member of the community and an alum, as she is, I wholeheartedly disagree with what I read.
I attended Reagan IB High school as the only child of a minority household with African American and Mexican parents. My elders viewed this opportunity as a success because I excelled in ways that can be uncommon — unfortunately — where I come from.
Reagan IB High School pushed me to think and learn in ways that I wouldn’t have otherwise, and that’s what makes the lack of progress in changing the school’s name so distasteful.
True progress isn’t found from maintaining heritage and attaching it to hopeful imagery — it’s found by actually making change, accepting the change and forging a better path for any and all who follow.
A dubious legacy
My classmate is a Latinx woman who has found success at Reagan and beyond, who may have fought the stigma that follows students from Milwaukee Public Schools who seek higher education. I congratulate her on that, but that doesn’t make the namesake of the school something that should be coveted.
The name “Ronald Reagan” holds a hefty weight in America. Among people with a similar background to mine, who experienced his presidency in the 1980s, the feelings are complex at best and hostile at worst. In that era, his attack on low-income neighborhoods would have hampered someone like me from going to the school that bears his name.
The school is named after a president who actively attacked people like me, calling African delegates to the United Nations “monkeys” and laughing with Richard Nixon at the thought of African leaders being “uncomfortable” wearing shoes — a clear suggestion that we’re primal and unintelligent.
He is the embodiment of the racial divide and inequality of a bygone era of America that we love to say doesn’t exist anymore. So why should his name be so prominently seen on one of the most promising schools in Milwaukee?
Reagan’s name should not be attached to the success of young people who would have been deprived of opportunity during his presidency.
Ronald Reagan can be remembered as a former president, but he should not be an emblem for a future America that he did not advocate for, especially when it’s built from the diversity he tried to gut.
We need to do the right thing
To me, “Reagan” was just the name of a building that housed people who actually helped me. The school opened so many doors and gave me so many opportunities — I’d be mistaken to act like the school’s staff and teachers didn’t give me the hope to continue on my path. Without the school, I would not have achieved my dream of going to college.
But that doesn’t mean things couldn’t be better, and Reagan is a microcosm of Milwaukee at its core.
There is a sense of inclusivity at the school, but it stumbles in certain aspects, especially for African American students. While reading my classmate’s opinion article, I couldn’t help but feel a tinge of optimistic ignorance.
It’s indicative of a culture that can be harmful to minorities who cannot access higher, or even adequate education, like one that is available in a school like Reagan. That culture can pit institutions against one another when we should be trying our hardest as a whole community to better one another.
We should not constantly elevate ourselves with academic statistics that reinforce constant and consistent disparity. Those same statistics are rewarded with better resources for the school that buys the most into systemic competition, worsening our disparity. This resembles the system that was forged by Ronald Regan himself, that in turn held down an entire generation of minorities.
This is our community. We are tired of the injustices of a system that gives stagnant responses and sees us as inconvenient when we put pressure on the slightest issue. We’re a generation tired of dealing with bygone “heroes” who are idolized for vilifying people who we were raised by.
I do not want to be a generation that actively tries to fight systemic racism while allowing some of the best students after us—who could be minorities—to go to a school named for a president who developed and enforced a system that would have held them down. It’s hypocritical and shows fear of change, for us—as the graduated class—to be complacent.
A mindset like that was not developed, cultivated and forged in the high school that I went to.
While the pandemic puts a lot of us in inconvenient positions, inconvenience is something that minorities have become accustomed to for years.
Right now, we need to do the right thing for future generations, so they don’t have to waste their time fighting battles like we are doing for generations of the past.
“Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched—criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders by those led—this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society.”
-W.E.B. Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk,” 1903
The author makes a very good point in questioning why high performing schools should receive more funding and resources than other schools. These schools, with their more select student bodies, should, in fact, be expected to do more with less since they (supposedly) possess the capacity to be more creative and efficient. This is one way in which the strong in our society can show their strength and leadership, and I would like to extend this challenge to our suburban neighbors.
On the other hand, the author elevates interpersonal comments made by President Reagan that were probably never meant to be heard, while at the same time leaving unmentioned substantial policies he backed which significantly improved the condition of people of color, such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Also, critiques such as “his attack on low income neighborhoods”, “embodiment of racial divide and inequality” and “gut diversity” need to be substantiated with specific policies and examples. Otherwise, it’s just name-calling.
This is a wonderful school with an unfortunate name. Reagan may have made racist and demeaning comments privately, but he also publicly championed the false image of “welfare Cadillac,” as part of a campaign to diminish resources to the most needy and worthy in our nation, while massively boosting the military budget in a campaign to bankrupt the USSR in a never-ending arms race. He blatantly broke the law by illegally continuing to send US funds to support terrorists in Nicaragua who among other things shot and wounded the Rev. Lucius Walker, the first African-American professional to work on the southside of Milwaukee, and an ambassador for peace. Thousands of others, including teachers and students in Nicaragua whom we do not know personally, were victims as well. There are many courageous people who fought for social justice and against racism such as Ida B. Wells, who are much more deserving.
These are all good points. There are many with a better knowledge of the Reagan presidency than myself who might dispute them or provide additional perspectives on his legacy. However, I will say this… There are very few, if any, U.S. Presidents who have no dark sides. The job is full of nuanced decisions and necessary compromises. If Reagan had not been in some ways successful, he would not have been re-elected with the fifth largest share of the popular vote. In fact, he won Wisconsin by nearly a ten point margin.
On reading this a second time, I must note that the “welfare Cadillac” point may be pertinent, but the other points such as “diminished resources for the most needy” and “boosting the military budget” are more about economic philosophy and political gamesmanship than anything associated with race. As for the events described in Nicaragua, they were certainly unfortunate, but again, the motivation was economic and political – nothing to do with race or racism.
President Reagan did not have specific programs to address racial inequality. (I would guess he felt a strong economy was more important.) Nevertheless, this does not make him a racist. I think the case against him on this count is very weak.
I would never make any excuses for Reagan. He did more harm than good. I have only one thing to thank him for. He changed my mother, a lifelong Republican, into a Democrat. Her words, “I can’t believe I voted for that man!” Only once, though, only once. I’d love to see the name of the school changed to someone deserving of the honor. Jeven Horton wrote a very heartfelt and intelligent article.
The Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday was enacted at the federal level by legislation signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986
Wikipedia: Martin Luther King Jr.