Canadian Historians Push Back Against School Name Changes in Toronto

A group of prominent Canadian historians is regrouping after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) decided this week to move forward with removing the names of Sir John A. Macdonald, Egerton Ryerson, and Henry Dundas from three of its schools. This decision has sparked a significant debate about historical interpretation and the role of education in shaping public memory.

The Canadian Institute for Historical Education (CIHE) wrote to the TDSB earlier this month, attempting to stave off the name changes in favor of a process advised by prominent historians within the organization. The CIHE had published the “Principles for Naming and Renaming” in early 2024, which were devised as professional historical guidance for school boards, municipalities, and similar public bodies undertaking naming reviews.

However, on Wednesday night, the full board voted 11-7 to move ahead with the name changes. J.D.M. Stewart, a CIHE member and Canadian historian with 30 years of experience as a teacher and author of “Being Prime Minister,” commented, “That’s an improvement on the 6-1 vote at the committee level.”

Stewart also expressed regret that the move is going ahead, stating, “At least some minds were changed” at the board level. The CIHE Executive Director, Alan Williams, watched the meeting live and noted that while the staff reports correctly stated Macdonald “built the nation,” Egerton Ryerson was central to the creation of the Ontario public school system, and Henry Dundas was a prominent abolitionist, they also said these three men were “nonetheless (links) to systems of oppression.”

When TDSB staff was asked about professionals consulted for the historical background, notes Williams, they spoke about three sociologists — not historians. Having written the TDSB and making a presentation at a meeting of the Planning and Priorities Committee that preceded the full board vote, the CIHE is now considering what next steps might be made to stem the ahistorical tide.

The TDSB is pressing forward with the renaming process. Emma Moynihan, communications adviser with the TDSB, told reporters in an email on Thursday that the superintendent of education will form a school renaming committee to consider possible names. The committee will include seven students (students in Grades 7 to 12 will represent themselves and younger students will be represented by their parents/guardians/caregivers), two school staff, two school council or parent/guardian/caregiver representatives, the Principal, the Superintendent of Education, and the local Trustee.

Submissions from the school’s students, staff, and school council will be invited. Then a shortlist of three names will be drawn up. The principal at each school will conduct a student vote, says Moynihan, then the committee will review the results of the student vote and determine which name will be recommended. Next, the process will move back to the TDSB, where the superintendent of education will present the recommendation of the renaming committee “to the appropriate standing committee and the Board of Trustees for approval.”

This debate in Canada mirrors similar controversies in the United States, where schools and public institutions have grappled with the legacy of historical figures. For instance, in 2020, the University of Virginia removed the name of Thomas Jefferson from its law school, citing his ownership of slaves. Similarly, in 2021, the U.S. Army renamed nine bases that were named after Confederate generals, a move that sparked both praise and criticism.

In the United States, the renaming of schools and public institutions often involves a delicate balance between acknowledging historical figures’ contributions and recognizing their problematic legacies. For example, the renaming of schools named after Confederate leaders has been a contentious issue, with some arguing that these names honor a history of oppression, while others see them as part of a broader historical narrative.

The debate in Toronto highlights the broader issue of how societies choose to remember and honor their history. As historian J.D.M. Stewart points out, “At least some minds were changed” at the board level, indicating that there is room for dialogue and reconsideration. However, the decision to move forward with the name changes, despite the CIHE’s efforts, suggests a growing trend towards reevaluating historical figures and their legacies.

In the United States, this trend is also evident in the ongoing debates about Confederate monuments and the renaming of schools and public spaces. For example, in 2020, the city of Charlottesville, Virginia, removed a statue of Robert E. Lee, a decision that was met with both support and opposition. Similarly, in 2021, the U.S. Army renamed nine bases that were named after Confederate generals, a move that sparked both praise and criticism.

The Canadian debate also raises questions about the role of historians in shaping public policy. As Alan Williams notes, the TDSB staff relied on sociologists rather than historians for historical background, which raises concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the historical context provided. This issue is not unique to Canada; in the United States, similar concerns have been raised about the involvement of historians in public policy decisions.

In conclusion, the debate in Toronto over the renaming of schools highlights the complexities of historical interpretation and the role of education in shaping public memory. As societies continue to grapple with the legacies of historical figures, it is crucial to engage in open and informed dialogue, considering both the contributions and the problematic aspects of these figures. The CIHE’s efforts to provide professional historical guidance and the TDSB’s decision to move forward with the name changes reflect the ongoing tension between historical accuracy and the desire to acknowledge and address systemic oppression.