New names a start, not a solution

More must be done in reconciling Serra’s sainthood with his legacy

Eric Boose / Opinion Editor / The USD Vista

Earlier this semester, I wrote that this country is still home to a multitude of monuments that contribute to the oppression of Native Americans and that allowing those monuments to go un-confronted is to partake in that oppression. One such monument resides on our campus – Serra Hall. Since I wrote that editorial, Serra Hall has been renamed Saints Tekakwitha and Serra Hall, adding the name of Saint Kateri Tekakwitha – the first Native American to be granted sainthood. The addition of Tekakwitha’s name is a welcome first step, but is little more than that. Confronting Serra’s legacy is as complex a task as is the saint’s legacy itself.

It would be easy to point to Stanford University’s decision to remove Serra’s name and likeness from their campus in the fall and ask why USD will not simply do the same, but Stanford does not share USD’s Catholic identity. To Stanford, Serra was an important part of the Bay Area and California’s history, but nothing more. To USD, Serra is not only part of our city and our state’s history, but also a key figure in our identity as a Catholic university. As a Catholic institution in a city built from a mission he founded, Serra is undeniably a person of great importance to USD. Perhaps that importance is the reason President James Harris III committed to preserving Serra’s presence on campus.

To some extent, there is also an argument that Serra is not the monster that he has been made out to be. At Serra’s canonization in 2015, Pope Francis praised Serra, saying he “sought to defend the dignity of the native community, to protect it from those who had mistreated and abused it.” However, there is little consensus in the historical community regarding Serra’s role in the missionaries’ abuse of Native Americans. While some historians would support Pope Francis’ portrayal of the saint, others would argue that Serra was fully complicit in the oppression of native people in California. Regardless of Serra’s true involvement, his legacy is now tied to that of the California missions, for all of the good and all of the bad the missions brought. Herein lies the crux of the problem with Serra. Whether deserved or not, Serra’s name and likeness embody the atrocities committed by all Catholic missionaries throughout California. Thus, the dilemma USD faces is striking a balance. While the university has every right to preserve a key piece of San Diego’s history and USD’s Catholic identity, it must also recognize the struggle faced by Native Americans, who inhabited this land long before we did. 

The addition of Saint Tekakwitha’s name alongside Serra’s represents that balance, but does not fully achieve it. At this point in time, the only impact of renaming Serra Hall and Missions Crossroads – renamed Mata’yuum Crossroads – is symbolic. As President Harris said when the name change was announced, the addition of Tekakwitha’s name is “a symbol that we were honoring those who were here first, and also those who came later, so that they would be on equal footing.” While symbolic change is important, if that symbolism is not supported by action, it becomes nothing more than a facade. That action has to be education. If Serra’s name is going to remain on campus, his legacy must be addressed with the utmost respect. That is to say, there should a public, in-depth examination of Serra, his importance to Catholicism, and the impact he had on the native people of California. Students should be given as much information as possible and be allowed to make their own decisions about what kind of man he was. 

Here, USD can and should look to Stanford as an example. There is one instance of Serra’s name which remains on Stanford’s campus – Serra Street. In choosing to leave Serra Street unchanged, Stanford decided to use the street as an opportunity to inform its campus community. According to The Washington Post, the university’s intention is to add a plaque to Serra Street, explaining who Serra was, as well as the controversy surrounding him. If USD is to address the controversy surrounding Serra fully and appropriately, a similar plaque in Saints Tekakwitha and Serra Hall would go a long way toward achieving that goal. When the name change was announced, President Harris stated his belief that having two names on the building would foster an important dialogue on campus. No matter what, that dialogue will be the most impactful if everyone has the chance to form an informed opinion. In that way, if there is no follow-up step besides adding Tekakwitha’s name alongside Serra’s, it becomes an empty gesture.