Building Name Review Process

Once the committee receives a proposal through its submission process, it will initiate a review. The proposal must make a strong, stand-alone case for why a building name should be removed. That is, the case must be adequately documented and reasoned such that, in the absence of any evidence or reasoning to the contrary, a majority of the committee is willing to remove the name.  If a proposal fails to establish a stand-alone case or is otherwise incomplete, the committee will inform the proposer what additional information or reasoning is necessary to meet the necessary criteria for the case to go forward.

  1. Dissemination: An accepted proposal will be posted on the Building Name Review Committee website. Departments, administrators, faculty, staff, and students whose departments are located in the building will be contacted by e-mail, when possible. Alumni, parents, friends, and donors will be notified through Berkeley Online, a monthly e-newsletter. If possible, the family of the individual will be informed. The committee will also contact Legal Affairs, Administration, Finance, the Vice Provost for Academic and Space Planning, and University Development and Alumni Relations (UDAR).

  2. Comments: The committee will ask members of the campus community to comment on the proposal for 2-5 weeks from the date it is posted (proposals that do not receive many comments may have shorter review periods).  Short comments are welcome. However, members of the campus community will have the opportunity to submit a position paper with the same level of detail and scholarship as that of the proposal. People who submit comments may indicate whether their comments are confidential, that is, for the committee alone, or whether they are willing to have their comments posted on our website.

  3. Post Proposal and Responses: The committee will curate and post responses adjacent to the proposal on its website. Any party may revise its case at any time prior to the committee’s final report.

  4. Additional Research: If needed (for example, if the cases submitted by the initiator and the commenters differ on basic facts), the committee may commission an independent analysis of the historical record concerning the naming of the building and the history of the relevant person(s) by a non-involved historian, lawyer, research librarian, or other competent party.

  5. Additional Comments: Once the cases are posted, the committee will again welcome comments from the community for 2-4 additional weeks. If the committee sees fit, it will hold one or more open meeting(s) so that all members of the campus can express their views. It may also hold a meeting with just the proposer and commentators who provide a well-documented position paper (see 2 above).

  6. Report: The committee will prepare an analysis and a recommendation for the chancellor. If the committee does not come to a consensus they will write separate recommendations to the chancellor. The committee may also suggest posting plaques, exhibits, murals, or taking other actions that recognize the concerns of the various parties.