Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

African-American Alums Support VMI, General Wins

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

From left, Phil Wilkerson, Adam Randolph, Harry Gore, Jr. and Richard Valentine were among the first five Black cadets accepted to Virginia Military Institute in September 1968. Photo courtesy of Harry Gore, Jr., published in the Richmond Free Press.

Letter from VMI Senior African American Alumni to the VMI Board of Visitors.

The numerous articles about the Virginia Military Institute, both from alumni and non-alumni, have been troubling to us as Senior African American Alumni (SAAA) [several members of the classes of ’72 to ‘76] of VMI. We have known the Institute to be a premier leadership institution and we have also experienced racial incidents. When wholly considered, VMI is an outstanding institution of higher-learning to which many of us owe a debt of gratitude.

This letter is in support of The Virginia Military Institute and Superintendent MG Cedric Wins, VMI Class of ‘85. As Senior African American Alumni, each of us has immensely benefited from the VMI experience. In 1968, VMI welcomed five African American young men to become part of the Corps of Cadets and to be the first black students. By all accounts, it was successful because VMI prepared for it to be successful. At the end of the previous academic year, the upcoming First-Class was challenged to lead the way for the integration of these “new” students into the Corps of Cadets. They were told, if these five black cadets failed, the First-Class would have failed to do its job.

It has been disappointing to hear that various alumni have downplayed that racial incidents happened. Even more, it has been disheartening to read how certain alumni have questioned the integrity of MG Wins and members of his administration, something unheard of until he was appointed Superintendent. As stated by a member of the SAAA, “for every one distasteful and belittling act that took place when I was there, I could count ten uplifting and enriching things. On the whole, VMI was life-enhancing for me and many others.”

In reference to the words and actions of some alumni, another member of the group said, “These behaviors are more heartbreaking than any damaging personal actions (unintentional or intentional) that I experienced while attending VMI.”

Throughout our cadetship, racial incidents were handled by the cadet leadership and the administration. During the ensuing years, those incidents did not fester to become a part of the policy or fabric of the school. It was a period of change for the Institute and VMI endured the changes for its betterment. Unfortunately, incidents have crept back into the environment that demand changes to bring us back to our true self.

With the many years of work experience after graduation and the opportunity to look back at benefits gained from the VMI experience, the Senior African American Alumni are fully supportive of our Institute, new leadership, Board of Visitors’ strategic guidance, and the necessary changes. MG Wins is a man of honor, of great character, an outstanding leader, and one who has a great love for the Institute. He has our full support. MG Wins is a prime example of the stellar leader that VMI produces. He is a leader who demonstrates the discipline to effectively listen, fairly analyze, collaboratively plan and implement the changes necessary to improve the principled-driven qualities of the VMI experience.

We, the Senior African American Alumni, wholeheartedly support the Institute, MG Cedric Wins, and MG Wins’ One Corps, One VMI plan which focuses on Honor, Diversity and Inclusion, The VMI Brand, Competing and Winning, and the concept of One VMI. The foundational strengths of VMI (the Honor System, Rat Line, and Military System) are not being changed. As stated in the Unifying Action Plan, the strength of VMI is in its diversity of experiences, thoughts, abilities, and backgrounds. By relying on each other, we all succeed.

The Institute must continue to strive to produce educated and honorable men and women equipped to be leaders in the 21st Century. We believe VMI, under the guidance of MG Wins is heading in the appropriate direction to achieve this goal. We ask the VMI Family to support the Superintendent and the administration, as well — One VMI!

Signed by:

Harry W. Gore ‘72
Adam L. Randolph ‘72
Richard E. Valentine ‘72
Philip L. Wilkerson, Jr. ‘72
Mac A. Bowman ‘73
Charles L. Tyler, Jr ‘74
Marvin L. Watts ‘74
Eugene Williams ‘74
Raleigh L. James, Jr. ‘75
Samuel F. Moultrie, Jr. ‘75
Ronald J. Norman ‘75
Frank P. Delaine ‘76
Ronnie Moore ‘76

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

31 responses to “African-American Alums Support VMI, General Wins”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Refreshing to see alumni supporting the VMI administration.

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      It’s also refreshing to see the governor and General Assembly no longer bullying VMI.

  2. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    Thank you for this brave statement! As always, you and Gen. Wins have my full support.

  3. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
    Carmen Villani Jr

    I certainly respect the fact that fellow alumni, to include two of my BR’s, have come forward to share this point of view. While we may disagree as to how we preserve our “true self,” we agree as to the importance of doing so. It is my firm belief that had we, as alumni regardless of skin color or sex, come together as one voice in the beginning refuting the false charge of structural racism, not to be confused with individual acts of it, and in combination with numerous communications by alumni to those in charge being at least acknowledged, this discussion would not be taking place right now. Rather, we saw several alumni feeding that narrative to the detriment of cadets and alumni alike. It has been unfortunate to see but we should never lose sight of the importance of every American citizen to freely express their opinion without concern for having to experience hate and/or vitriolic verbal attacks.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      They’re literally calling you out, and in my opinion, rightfully so. Take it up with them. Directly.

      1. Jake Spivey Avatar
        Jake Spivey

        You still don’t get it. All you see, all you want (to see), is VMI as a monolithic entity (cadets, faculty, staff & alumni) existing/changing in your preferred direction. Diversity, Michael. Diversity. Let me help you. Merriam-Webster: “diversity – an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse. Ex. a diversity of opinion”

        1. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          “It has been disappointing to hear that various alumni have downplayed that racial incidents happened.” They’re talking to you too, Jake. For once, shut up and listen.

      2. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
        Carmen Villani Jr

        From the beginning Michael, I cautioned you not to go down the road you and others did. Take responsibility for your actions rather than attempting to put it upon others.

        1. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          You mean trying to get VMI to address its documented problems with racism, instead of deflecting, denying, and covering up, just like you do? Guilty as charged. Go tell Miyares on me.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            that’s an important question in my mind. When were black alumni (and black would be students) engaged prior to all of this now ongoing? Ever?

            Was there ever an attempt to engage them and deal with the issues that are now ongoing?

            And what is true about Wins Facebook post. Was it an un-provoked attack or a response to attacks on him and the institution?

          2. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Yes, they were. Some of it is detailed in the WP coverage, and there’s a recent University of Chicago master’s thesis detailing some of the steps that African American cadets took to address racism after integration through the early 80s.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            right, but did VMI itself, as an institution, initiate the engagement and/or engage the cadets in response, when they initiated?

            If they did, how did so much continue to be unresolved to this point?

            Is there a timeline?

          4. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            “If they did, how did so much continue to be unresolved to this point?” Good question. I think a lot has been resolved. But these denialists/know-nothings you see on this site are delusional. Racism has been a persistent, longstanding problem at VMI. Don’t take my word for it. Read the letter above and the accounts of cadets over the decades.

          5. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
            Carmen Villani Jr

            Just want to clarify Michael. Do you believe that VMI was structurally racist at the time of the Washington Post articles started to come out and the October 19,2020 letter a numbers of politicians in Virginia government sent to VMI? Do you agree with the statement in the Executive Summary of the Barnes & Thornburg report which stated: “This investigation found that institutional racism and sexism are present, tolerated, and left unaddressed at VMI?”

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “… the importance of every American citizen to freely express their opinion without concern for having to experience hate and/or vitriolic verbal attacks.”

      Well, at least you didn’t say “right”…

  4. owen dunlap Avatar
    owen dunlap

    VMI SAAA- Thanks for your input and for making this statement – as a white 1983 VMI grad , i feel deeply that what you have outlined is correct and reflects your experiences at VMI and with your Brother Rats. VMI is a school and system that effected all of us no matter of race/ ethnicity/or religion and changed the trajectory of our lives . And therein lies the tension – that many alumni feel that the system was already color blind and that we were all treated the same – badly- and we love what that gave us . These alumni feel that the school was a victim of a “perfect storm” of factors that painted VMI in a bad light for the wrong reasons. I think the truth is that both can be true – that the VMI system is great – but not perfect and any attempts to make it better without taking from what makes it great should be embraced.

  5. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    I’ve never understood why so much animus was focused on the persona and legacy of Stonewall Jackson at VMI, especially his statue. He was one of America’s greatest battlefield generals, and he displayed exemplary citizenship by founding and funding a Sunday School for slaves. When threatened with legal action by Lexington residents, Jackson didn’t shirk—he held firm. The school stayed open. This is the kind of personal courage that VMI should respect and foster, right?

    There are plenty of monuments on VMI to Confederates, most of whom are not well-known. Yet, the movement to “de-Confederatize” VMI seems to have focused on only Stonewall—why? Was something uniquely bad about him? OK—what was it? It’s as if all the great things he accomplished mean nothing, because he owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy. Really?

    Does anyone who’s studied Jackson’s legacy and character really think he’d have supported the mistreatment of black cadets? The man was eccentric (to put it mildly), but he was honorable to a fault.

    Perhaps, one day, General Wins or someone at VMI will explain why Jackson’s statue had to be removed completely from VMI and Lexington. To paraphrase Antony at Caesar’s funeral, VMI cadets should be made of sterner stuff, right? Could it really be that some are triggered by a statue—especially a statue of a man with close ties to VMI, and who was a great battlefield commander and exemplary citizen? This is VMI, not Oberlin. If Stonewall Jackson is unworthy of the “new” VMI, then someone should tell us why. I’d love to hear the reasoning.

    If we treat all great Americans the same way Jackson’s legacy was treated by VMI (and the Northam Administration), anyone with blemishes on his legacy risks being banished from public view and discussion. That will leave us with a bland culture and an emotionally and culturally brittle citizenry.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I wholeheartedly agree with Steve Haner’s comments. I especially admire those cadets who were among the first Blacks to attend VMI. That took a lot of guts.

      I do want to address this specific issue of Jackson’s Sunday School, which is often brought up by his apologists. The idea of a Sunday School for slaves was
      not new with Jackson. Many churches during the mid-1800’s were advocating that slaves receive religious instruction. One perspective is that it was important that they be taught that slavery was sanctioned by God.
      The Presbytery of Lexington had noted “among the duties which the master owes to his servant, that of satisfying him with adequate religious instruction
      is superior in importance.”

      There had been previous attempts before Jackson to establish some sort of Sunday School for slaves,, but they had not worked out. The reason was probably because those attempting to do it lost interest. Later,
      it was not Jackson who initially came up with the idea, but the sister of his late first wife, who was a close friend of Jackson. He took her idea and proceeded to implement it.

      Before starting the Sunday School, according to one
      historian, Jackson “visited churches and slave-owners and ‘There was not a single objection made to the plan proposed.’ The slaveowners ‘universally hailed it with pleasure.’” Numerous men and women from the town participated in the school by teaching classes. Jackson personally reported monthly to the owners of the slaves who attended the school and he sent quarterly reports to
      the elders of the church. In summary, there was nothing secret about what was going on.

      Jackson’s interest was not in educating the slaves. According to his second wife, “His interest in that race was simply because they had souls to save.”

      Jackson was confronted one day by two leading Lexington citizens who told him that they felt the Sunday School classes may be a violation of state law. Jackson’s response was, “Sir, if you were, as you should be, a Christian man, you would not think or say so.” That night, Jackson and the one that he had spoken to apologized to each other. In fact, the man had been in the middle of writing a letter of apology when Jackson showed up at his door.

      It is likely that there was a concern that the slaves were being taught to read. It is unclear if that was the case. Based on a later description of the school by Jackson’s wife, it is likely that most of the instruction
      was oral with written material furnished to those older slaves who already knew how to read. There is no record of any official action being taken. About six months after this incident, Jackson resigned from the superintendency of the school due to health reasons. The school continued with a new superintendent.

      In summary, while Jackson is to be commended for his dedication to the school, notwithstanding some recent claims, the school itself was not controversial in the town. Furthermore, leading a Sunday School, one of whose purposes was to teach Blacks that slavery was part of God’s plan (Jackson’s belief), does not offset his being a major figure in leading a bloody rebellion against the United States in a effort to continue the institution of slavery.

      http://www.jacksonbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Major-Jacksons-Sabbath-School-Revised.pdf

      https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-stonewall-jacksons-sunday-school/

  6. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    My thanks to the graduates for sharing their opinion and to Jim for giving them the forum. Their voices are the most important, as far as I’m concerned. They were at VMI when I was at W&M, and those of my high school classmates who went to VMI were in those classes (especially ’75 and ’76). Smith, get over it, the South lost, the South deserved to lose, the generation that fought for slavery faced their Maker and He judged them, but heroes they were not. Human, yes, but not heroes. Like many others Jackson’s reputation was greatly enhanced by an early death and a chorus of sycophants. To be among the first to break that color line? Those were brave young men.

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      “Smith, get over it, the South lost, the South deserved to lose, the generation that fought for slavery faced their Maker and He judged them, but heroes they were not.”

      Haner, that’s shallow “reasoning” on your part, and I’m sure you know better. Many, if not most, Confederates did not fight just to preserve slavery. They fought because their “country,” as they knew it back then (their state), called them to fight. They felt threatened by a Northern invasion. Many of them were heroes, on the battlefield and the homefront.

      One of the reasons I will not “get over it,” is that “it” appears to be a new normal where any American hero risks cancellations if they have blemishes on their past.
      Leaders lead by setting the example, in the way they behave and the actions they take. If VMI’s approach to its history becomes America’s approach, as I said up thread, we’ll be left with a bland culture and emotionally brittle citizenry.

      The Stonewall Jackson statue at VMI is not the same as a similar Jackson statue in Charlottesville and on Monument Avenue in Richmond. Look at the Barnes Thornburgh report—a strong majority of cadets and alumni respondents disapproved of the removal of Jackson’s statue, and the way it was handled. Does that make them ungodly? (“and He judged them.”)

      VMI is supposed to train leaders. The world expects America to lead it; to do that well, we will need good men and women to be leaders. Good leaders understand life’s complexities and take a big-picture view of things. They don’t take advantage of panics, bully people and organizations, and execute cancel culture. Which is what happened at VMI.

      Effective? Yes. Honorable? No.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        “good leaders” don’t fight to preserve slavery, convince the men they lead that it’s to defend against an invasion, and preside over the deaths of thousands of people in that endeavor.

        The idea that they were a “great general” and that alone justifies their veneration is akin to veneration of Santa Anna or similar.

        He fought for the wrong thing, led troops who were mislead as to the purpose and they went to their graves thinking that – as did their descendants decades after.

        We cannot erase “history” but we sure as heck can be truthful about it.

        1. kls Avatar
          kls

          “. . . . led troops who were mislead as to the purpose and they went to their
          graves thinking that – as did their descendants decades after.” — really? My great grandfathers fought for their states, as per their letters and oral history. Neither owned slaves, and neither knew anyone who did.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I wholeheartedly agree with Steve Haner’s comments. I especially admire those cadets who were among
      the first Blacks to attend VMI. That took a lot of guts.

      I do want to address this specific issue of Jackson’s Sunday School, which is often brought up by his apologists. The idea of a Sunday School for slaves was
      not new with Jackson. Many churches during the mid-1800’s were advocating that slaves receive religious instruction. One perspective is that it was important that
      they taught that slavery was sanctioned by God.
      The Presbytery of Lexington had noted “among the duties which the master owes to his servant, that of satisfying him with adequate religious instruction
      is superior in importance.”

      There had been previous attempts before Jackson to establish some sort of Sunday School for slaves,, but they had not worked out. The reason was probably because those attempting to do it lost interest. Later,
      it was not Jackson who initially came up with the idea, but the sister of his late first wife, who was a close friend of Jackson. He took her idea and proceeded to implement it.

      Before starting the Sunday School, according to one
      historian, Jackson “visited churches and slave-owners and ‘There was not a single objection made to the plan proposed.’ The slaveowners ‘universally hailed it with pleasure.’” Numerous men and women from the town participated in the school by teaching classes. Jackson personally reported monthly to the owners of the slaves who attended the school and he sent quarterly reports to
      the elders of the church. In summary, there was nothing secret about what was going on.

      Jackson’s interest was not in educating the slaves. According to his second wife, “His interest in that race was simply because they had souls to save.”

      Jackson was confronted one day by two leading Lexington citizens who told him that they felt the Sunday School classes may be a violation of state law. Jackson’s response was, “Sir, if you were, as you should be, a Christian man, you would not think or say so.” That night, Jackson and the one that he had spoken to apologized to each other. In fact, the man had been in the middle of writing a letter of apology when Jackson showed up at his door.

      It is likely that there was a concern that the slaves were being taught to read. It is unclear if that was the case. Based on a later description of the school by Jackson’s wife, it is likely that most of the instruction was oral with written material furnished to those older slaves who already knew how to read. There is no record of any
      official action being taken. About six months after this incident, Jackson resigned from the superintendency of the school due to health reasons. The school continued with a new superintendent.

      In summary, while Jackson is to be commended for his dedication to the school, notwithstanding some recent claims, the school itself was not controversial in the town. Furthermore, his leading a school in which Blacks were taught that slavery was part of God’s plan (Jackson’s belief) certainly does not offset his being a major figure in leading a bloody rebellion against the United States in an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery.

      http://www.jacksonbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Major-Jacksons-Sabbath-School-Revised.pdf

      https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-stonewall-jacksons-sunday-school/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        re: ” Furthermore, his leading a school in which Blacks were taught that slavery was part of God’s plan (Jackson’s belief) certainly does not offset his being a major figure in leading a bloody rebellion against the United States in an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery.”

        which makes one wonder if the folks who make that claim know their history or not – or if they do and still make that claim………..

      2. Donald Smith Avatar
        Donald Smith

        S.C. Gwynne, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, covered Jackson’s creation and support of the Sunday School class for slaves extensively in his biography of Stonewall, Rebel Yell. Gwynne’s biography is widely accepted with the Civil War history community as an objective take on the general’s life and accomplishments. I.e., it’s not a “Lost Cause” hagiography of him.

        Gwynne writes that Jackson put lots of time and energy into the Sunday School. He also writes that three Lexington citizens approached him one day and threatened legal action. (Teaching slaves to read was against Virginia law at the time).

        At this time, Jackson was an employee of a state-connected institution (VMI), and not one of its star employees. He wasn’t rich, and he didn’t have the type of family connections that made him bulletproof against legal or community actions. He risked losing his job, and having someone throw a brick through his window.

        Nowadays, many of us would have shirked under much less pressure, for fear of being canceled. Jackson didn’t. In so doing, he set a wonderful example of citizenship. And, VMI is supposed to train young men and women to be great citizens, right?

        Jackson’s critics, who’ve worked hard to throw shade on his Sunday-School-for-slaves legacy, usually skip over this important aspect of it.

        “his being a major figure in leading a bloody rebellion against the United States in an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery.”

        Respectfully, that assessment of Jackson doesn’t pass the smell test. Jackson was loyal to his state, and his state left the Union, so Jackson followed it. Jackson did not fight to preserve slavery; he fought to defend his home. Any close, careful reading of Jackson’s history will show this.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1bc01e6af644be09d5a8fa59280e1b28e3b281961853737df9284de29ea6814.jpg

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/16/the-whole-point-of-confederate-monuments-is-to-celebrate-white-supremacy/

    there seems to be disagreement with respect to why there are confederate monuments – at VMI and other places, what the purpose was/is.

    Why are we venerating “generals” who fought to preserve the enslavement of people – at VMI or other places, in the first place especially when we know how black folks including VMI Alumni view those memorials?

    Is it white supremacy/systemic racism to continue to venerate Jim Crow symbols?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      To have a statue of a key general in a battlefield park, no. In a cemetery among the graves of the generation from the war, no. Honoring the citizens of this or that county who served, along with those of other wars, no. The Jackson statue on the VMI campus kind of straddles the line, because he was a prof there, a prominent local citizen, and the school played a role in the war, but in that case I go with whatever the school wants to do. They’ve said no now. Fine. The Lee Statue in the old House Chamber or on Monument Avenue? Certainly that was all about the Lost Cause. The Old House Chamber was a blatant shrine to the Confederacy, probably the most obvious one in the entire South. You see it as a conscious insult to black folks, and I see it as a shameless political ploy to garner white votes. Neither anything to be proud of.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I can agree with the distinctions you make but I’d point out two things:

        1. – Jim Crow memorials – and memorials that are not and whose linage had nothing to do with Jim Crow – there are some

        2. – monuments in public spaces and whether they are revered by black folks or not.

        No I do not see it as a conscious insult to black folks but I very much do believe black folks that say they are as opposed to listening to white folks tell me what black folks think (which is even more egregious IMHO).

  8. Greg Long Avatar
    Greg Long

    This is a long response if you see it, and you’re welcome to post it as a separate piece under my name (above) to facilitate it being savaged by some of your readers who may miss that opportunity in not seeing it lost in this post.

    Good to see all those who were sources for the WaPo articles and started the firestorm at VMI are rallying to put down any who have contrary views. No laundry too dirty to be aired.

    No, I’m not an alumnus, just someone who seeks to look at all sides of an issue. Please not that I refer to “the administration”. It is long past time for those involved in the VMI issues to make personal attacks. This should not be “Black alumni support Maj. Gen. Wins” as, from what I know of VMI via study and interaction with its outstanding alumni of all races and backgrounds, VMI “is the great equalizer” and playing the race, gender or other cards works directly against that. The criticisms herein are not against Maj. Gen. Wins as a person. They especially not against him as an African-American.

    The Majority of criticisms I’ve seen in print from alumni, parents and cadets have not been directed at him personally, but against his policies… “attack the topic, not the person”. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for some of those who respond with personal attacks against critics of VMI’s current administration.

    While this letter is a well written, sincere, and well thought out, it raises some areas for additional thought and consideration.

    These alumni are correct that recent posts are troubling, especially when a sitting Superintendent and his Communications officer take to Facebook in order to attack alumni and parent comments – and do so by personally attacking, and encouraging others to personally attack the authors. Some of those come from an “alternate official” Superintendent Facebook profile vice responding to the letters and emails received at VMI directly.

    A key comment in this letter is “We have known the Institute to be a premier leadership institution and we have also experienced racial incidents. When wholly considered, VMI is an outstanding institution of higher-learning to which many of us owe a debt of gratitude.”

    BRAVO!

    This is something VMI and its BOV should have said “early and often” during the whole B&T investigation vice implementing numerous changes before the investigation was ever complete. Where was the categorical denial that “systemic or institutional racism” exist or existed at VMI other than the first statement by the former VMI BOV President before the investigation started?

    I could not find any instances where SAAA or other groups rallied to counter that narrative.

    During that time and after VMI leadership gave two interviews to the WaPo wherein its was stated the Superintendent’s 45-day assessment validated the B&T results… reminder… the B&T major conclusion was that Institutional Racism exists at VMI and that VMI is an institution “founded by white men for white men” and would remain so.

    Another great point the signatories raise in their letter: “As Senior African American Alumni, each of us has immensely benefited from the VMI experience. In 1968, VMI welcomed five African American young men to become part of the Corps of Cadets and to be the first black students. By all accounts, it was successful because VMI prepared for it to be successful. At the end of the previous academic year, the upcoming First-Class was challenged to lead the way for the integration of these “new” students into the Corps of Cadets. They were told, if these five black cadets failed, the First-Class would have failed to do its job.”

    Again, where was this during the turmoil and why was this not considered before the massive changes at VMI? These writers are entirely correct… but a bit late.

    Additional notes: It was the Corps of Cadets and not the administration that pushed for banning Dixie, the confederate flag at ceremonies and on class rings. It was a white member of the VMI Corps who, in 1956, wrote the first editorial condemning segregation at VMI and in Virginia while calling for the integration of VMI that allowed these first black cadets to matriculate and succeed. It was a white VMI Alumnus (even if he was a Confederate General) who is credited with being the sole reason two HBCUs in Virginia were created.

    These facts were never told and that the current administration (including the BOV) seems to ignore them in favor of making changes FOR the Corps and removing power, authority and responsibility FROM the Corps based on the recent edicts and “decisions” by the VMI administration and BOV.

    I cannot comment on the statement: “It has been disappointing to hear that various alumni have downplayed that racial incidents happened. Even more, it has been disheartening to read how certain alumni have questioned the integrity of MG Wins and members of his administration, something unheard of until he was appointed Superintendent.” No examples are given.

    Kudos to the group for: “As stated by a member of the SAAA, “for every one distasteful and belittling act that took place when I was there, I could count ten uplifting and enriching things. On the whole, VMI was life-enhancing for me and many others.”

    Again it is legitimate to question aloud why these “ten” per African-American Alumni were not in the B&T report… or ANY OF THEM for that matter. More to the point, where was the loud and public outcry from both VMI and SAAA when the biased, one-sided and damning B&T report was published?
    If that the authors say was the case, and I firmly believe them that it was, then why is VMI’s official position that it will implement ALL recommendations in the B&T report EXCEPT withdrawal from Division I sports?

    Previous silence did not help this matter, and bringing this up now to support one-man vice VMI as the institution these alumni obviously love is both disturbing and curious.

    An important point that should not be overlooked: “Throughout our cadetship, racial incidents were handled by the cadet leadership and the administration. During the ensuing years, those incidents did not fester to become a part of the policy or fabric of the school. It was a period of change for the Institute and VMI endured the changes for its betterment. Unfortunately, incidents have crept back into the environment that demand changes to bring us back to our true self.”

    The authors are “spot on” with what they write. Back when VMI first integrated a group a black cadets formed Promaji”. Founded in 1972, the Promaji Club from its origin was created by cadets on the cornerstone of “togetherness”, the meaning of Promaji in Swahili, to be inclusive and increase positive relationships within the Corps of Cadets and the Lexington Community.

    The Club’s mission, that it maintained until the 1980s, was to “act as a communications body, facilitating rapport among the community, Corps of Cadets, and the Institute.” This was accomplished through a rich history of fostering a sense of community through fellowship, education and serving the local community. Not a “separate experience” but the VMI experience. It’s faculty advisor was non other than the Director of Admissions himself!

    They had a committee that identified issues (and if you have access to them, some were VERY serious) then brought those issues through the commandant and Director of Admissions (Col. Buchanan) directly to the Superintendent. VMI was the model other schools emulated. That began to radically change in 1985 when cadets, some of whom are now senior alumni and leaders, changed the charter of Promaji to be “The Promaji Club’ mission and focus began to change significantly in 1985, when it changed from a community service and unity-based organization. As documented in the 1985 VMI Yearbook, “The [Promaji] club has the mission of maintaining an acceptable coexistence with the Corps of Cadets and the Lexington Community.” As the club’s focus changed its relationships and stature with the VMI administration similarly diminished.

    The Club’s mission under an increasing number of non-VMI alumni faculty transformed it to an activist group. As of 2020, according to Professor Keith Klein, Promaji co-faculty advisor, “The mission of the VMI Promaji Club is to support and advocate for students of color.”

    Promaji represents another important example of the complex VMI culture where real, lasting change were and should be driven by the Corps of Cadets and that failures occur when the administration seeks to control these traditional formal and informal communications channels while marginalizing the Cadet and alumni base.

    VMI saw this in instances with Gen. Peay that contributed to the situation the school now finds itself in, but the policies of the current administration in removing power from the Corps and alumni to vest it in outside “investigators”, radical non-alumni faculty, and reducing VMI alumni on its approximately 720 faculty and staff to have less than 25 VMI is significant.

    These current actions are all supported by the administration regardless the person or that person’s color “at the helm”. It may be worth SAAA members to consider this and use their influence to reverse this destructive trend before they endorse it.

    It is laudable for the group to praise Maj. Gen. Wins as “a prime example of the stellar leader that VMI produces.” and I will keep to my promise of not being pulled into “attacking the person”, although some of his previous writings and interviews on this subject are of interest.

    One especially important statement of note in the letter.
    The SAAA sates they fully support the “One VMI plan which focuses on Honor, Diversity and Inclusion.”

    The One VMI plan is NOT about “HONOR, Diversity, and Inclusion”. It is specifically about “EQUITY, Diversity and Inclusions.” As an outside observer, “re-defining the issue” is not helpful to the dialogue. The core of the “fight” seems to be over “EQUITY” and how it is being forced into VMI by the administration and through a Diversity Officer who’s core writings through her career advocate for CRT as a viable means to achieve affirmative action.

    The VMI administration is working directly contrary to Gov. Youngkin’s policy and mandate to replace “equity” with “Opportunity” (DEI vs DOI) and VMI’s rebranding of continuing to move forward with divisive “equity” concepts, as documented in the DEI workbooks for training, BOV training as well as policies, publications and presentations by VMI leadership and the DEI officer, that promote “Equity” but call it “honor” or stating that VMI has a “different” definition of equity do not support that statement.

    Right now VMI is definitely NOT “ONE VMI” in its Corps, Alumni, Faculty or Staff – either individually or collectively. What VMI seems to pride itself in calling “The VMI Family” seems to be a dysfunctional family.

    For example, I’m informed that the Town Hall format for VMI events changed from the traditional format allowing free exchange of information and questions to a current format where questions must be submitted in advance. Those are then coordinated between the Alumni agencies and the administration to select those that will be asked and responses prepared in advance. Unanswered questions are never responded to for the whole group.

    It seems that approach runs contrary to having those “difficult conversations” that DEI exposes must occur. If my information is correct, the result was participation dwindles to so small a group that one has not been held in some time.

    Perhaps a good start for VMI would be to formally reject “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” – both in word and action – in favor of what SAAA seems to think is at VMI in the form of HONOR, Diversity, and Inclusion”.

    Perhaps a next step would be to have the administration sit down with those who voice opposing views in an open and candid conversation, RE-EMPOWER the Corps of Cadets, and make changes to move VMI forward based on true inclusion.

    It just appears that until that occurs VMI is simply changing out one disenfranchised group for another.

    1. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
      Carmen Villani Jr

      Excellent assessment Mr. Long. Thank you sir for taking the time to construct such a well researched response!

    2. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar
      YellowstoneBound1948

      Outstanding commentary, sir. The resident “lefties” here will not reply. They wouldn’t know where to begin. What amuses me is the fact that the lefties here attended schools (William & Mary, Virginia, George Mason, etc.) that are doing absolutely nothing to resolve racial issues on campus. At VMI, all cadets sleep in the barracks, dine at the same time in the same mess hall, wear the same uniform, march to classes, line up together in ranks, etc. At those other schools I mentioned, there is de facto segregation. Walk into the student unions of any of those schools. There is widespread self-segregation. Blacks and whites do not mix at those other schools.

Leave a Reply

Read More