Playing Name Games

The Porteus Hall issue is an excuse to get nothing done.

In 1927, Stanley Porteus, after whom Porteus Hall was named, cowrote "Temperament and Race," a controversial book detailing the results of Porteus' studies on various ethnic groups. This book and its uncomplimentary classifications of our Hawaiian forefathers' social adeptness, have caused the recent effort to have Porteus Hall renamed.

Despite the contributions Porteus provided the university throughout his tenure, his book is a fine example of the ethnocentrism and isolationist mindset of his time. By today's standards, his statements can be described mildly as politically incorrect; in stronger words, they are blatant, closed-minded racism.

Yet is it fair to use today's contemporary "enlightenment" to judge Porteus unworthy of having a building named after him? Although it may be true that his research, if it were performed in the present, would only qualify him for speedy unemployment, I believe his work can only be viewed fairly through the lens of his own time.

During the 1920s, the Territory of Hawai`i was the only U.S. possession where Porteus could have performed any racial studies with as much ethnic diversity available. Tackling such a difficult chore as to determine the ethnic superiority of races, even then, was controversial work.

Even through his conclusions were jaded by his own WASP values, he was not afraid to present his social studies for public evaluation. The fact that he published his results without fear of posterity's perceptions of him is admirable.

Understanding his point of view, I can without emotion dismiss Porteus' race studies as faulty, biased, inconclusive, and subjective. His own views convict him when, in Chapter 20, he says the Chinese lack the organizational genius of the Japanese, being more interested in making money than improving their political or social standing.

This, however, would be the same as evaluating the entire Europeans continent's population based on a sample of the residents of the original 13 colonies. Both the Chinese laborers nd the European colonists, it could be said, preferred money to social advancements in their home countries. Both groups represented only a small segment of a larger, heterogenous group of different cultures and languages.

Suffice to say, then, that Porteus' studies were nothing more than a nice effort. Despite his erroneous perceptions, I don't think I should have to bother learning a new name. It's just not worth the effort or the expense. UH can't even afford to buy a letter "c" to fix the "Sin lair" Library sign.

Not even the College of Business has been able to muster enough fund to fix its Student Services Center, which has, through unrepaired vandalism, been rendered the student "servi es" center. If CBA can't come up with the money, how on earth are we going to come up with enough letter to rename the entire building?! If only we could somehow get Kenneth Mortimer on "Wheel of Fortune."

And even if UH could afford it (without a tuition increased of 40 percent in one year), what would we call it? Certainly no human, dead or alive, would meet ASUH Senate President C. Mamo Kim's standards. The likely candidate for the new building would have to be inoffensive to everyone and politically neutral. These traits would, in my opinion, be the complete opposite of the person I would expect a political science building to be named for.

On top of that, why is ASUH trying to rename buildings when we haven't even finished naming the ones that have yet to be named in the first place?

For example, the Art Building. Does this conjure up the kind of abstract imager one would expect from that department? I think this name has about as much creativity as a bowl of soggy corn flakes. How about "The Nexus of Ingenious and Innovative Energies"?

Another good example of a bland name is the School of Architecture. What kind of lofty, awe-inspiring appellation is that? How about "The House of Stone and Light"? (That one is already taken, however -- it's the name for the Grand Canyon in one Native American language. [Havasupai])

This shows just how much our campus is in need of a bit more originality.

The Center of Hawaiian Studies cracks me up. We have, right next door, Hale Aloha. This dormitory with a Hawaiian name houses a good number of our undergraduate Mainland students, while CHS gets an English name. Doesn't this seem a bit ironic?

Perhaps we should give our permanent structures names that reflect our current student body's ethnic composition. We have a Watanabe Hall for those of Japanese descent. We have the Jefferson and Lincoln Halls for those of Caucasian ancestry. I'd even advocate keeping the Pope and St. John Plant Science Laboratories for the sake of the few religious groups on campus.

Heck, we even have a Holmes Hall, although I doubt it was named in honor of a prominent African-American.

The point I'm trying to make here is that renaming Porteus Hall is a fruitless endeavor that will benefit the few ASUH senators who can attract attention to themselves by making a big stink about the whole affair much more than any other concerned party.

I'd venture to say the vast majority of campus students have never though of, cared for, or troubled themselves with the origins of our buildings' names.

I recommend the student body commit itself to its usual course of untiring, undeterred apathy. This way, one will feel pressured or uncomfortable, and again, nothing will get done.