Mood-Bridwell, as we have known it for the past few decades, has served Southwestern’s campus as a place for classes to be held, professors’ office spaces to be housed, and campus events to be hosted.

However, professors have not been the only people housed in Mood-Bridwell. Completed in 1908, the building was the third major building on campus (after the Ladies Annex and the Administration Building–now Cullen), and originated as a dormitory called Mood Hall. It housed multiple generations of mostly male Southwestern students before it was decommissioned in 1966 and renovated, repurposed, and renamed Mood-Bridwell in 1975.

This history of the building has not been forgotten in Southwestern’s collective memory. Arguably, until very recently, it’s been a difficult history to forget, as the interior infrastructure of Mood-Bridwell seemed to haunt those who have recently inhabited it. All of this is in limbo right now as the building has been gutted but reconstruction has not yet begun, so if you are new to campus this year, you would not know how the building felt.

Instantly as you stepped foot within the building, you were hit with an old and rustic smell. The ceilings were low as you entered the door, and the pathways diverged into various narrow hallways that were once hallways to men’s dorm rooms on campus. Places that served as professors’ offices were once bedrooms (and even bathrooms), and this was easy to conceptualize when in the space.

The offices were “charmingly” asymmetrical and idiosyncratic, with some huge corner offices and some very narrow, fitting just a desk, a bookshelf, and some chairs, where there once would have been a bed. Some of the classrooms in the building were once likely dining rooms or social spaces, evidenced by their grand double doors and taller ceilings than the rest of the building holds. Others were likely the result of taking out walls between old dorm rooms.

As one walked into the central atrium of the building, one couldn’t help but look up, gazing across the wooden railings, exposing all three floors to one another, where students may have spoken back and forth while in their pajamas.

The infrastructure was built to house community–specifically, the community of male (and for two brief moments in the 1920s and 1940s, female) Southwestern students. Before Ruter Hall was built in the 1950s, almost every male student lived there for at least part of their educational career, creating a distinctive place-bound identity between them and the building. As is apparent in other entries about East Campus, this worked differently than the female social spaces on the other side of campus.

Community and Southwestern are two words that are inextricably linked in today’s campus culture, but the community within Mood has not always been all sunshine and rainbows. An October 1923 edition of The Megaphone testifies to the existence of a Ku Klux Klan chapter on Southwestern’s campus, advertising: “There will be an important meeting of the University Klansmen tonight at seven-thirty in Seldom Inn, Mood Hall. All members are urged to be present, as some important matters are to be discussed.”

Apart from this, the building’s namesake, Francis Asbury Mood, is himself a problematic figure. The building is named for Mood because he is the person credited with bringing together our four Root Colleges into one university located in Georgetown 150 years ago this year.

But as the building name celebrates his role in the founding of the University, we also need to remember that Mood volunteered for the role of Chaplain in the Confederacy, where he served in the early part of the Civil War. He also was deeply connected to other racial injustices in the 19th century South (see F.A. Mood Obelisk entry for more information). All of this was known in 1975, when the University had the opportunity to rename the building after the renovation, but the University chose to ignore it, continuing to selectively emphasize Mood’s role as founder without reckoning with the other legacies right next to it. What will we do this time?

Right now, there are lots of people on campus mourning the loss of the building they knew. But that loss also creates an opening for us to think critically about the building, especially its name. Although the space of Mood-Bridwell has in recent years been neutralized away from a community dormitory and into a general campus space, and naturalized as a place name we all know and use daily, for many of us its name resonates with some harmful white supremicist histories that continue to reverberate today.

It is easier to feel both of those hauntings when you can see that the building is now something it didn’t used to be. But after Mood-Bridwell undergoes intense internal renovations, the haunting that came with its history as a dormitory will no longer be felt. The ceilings will be raised, the carpet replaced, and the smell new. With this transition from old to new, I wonder if a new name for the collective space would be more suited as well.

The stripping and gutting of the embodied space would be even more impactful when paired with the purposeful stripping away of Mood’s name in the building name, thus stripping away the oppressive history that looms there just below many community members’ consciousness.

Especially with Southwestern’s current claimed goals of DIBE and community-building, it is time to reassess whether or not Mood’s name is an appropriate fit for the new space. And it's time to talk about who else’s name would appear on the building if it isn’t the name of Francis Asbury Mood.

For more (including 9 images) view the original article

In the spring of 1886, Henry Clay Risner, a Southwestern University student, was quietly advised by the Regent of the University to withdraw from the institution. Why? Speculations arose that he was of African-American descent.

Risner’s story, largely unknown to most of the community for over a hundred years, resurfaced recently after a fellow student, DeVonte' Rogers ‘24, brought Risner’s case to our attention, referring us to a short passage about Risner they found in the official University history, To Survive and Excel by William B. Jones.

From May to September 2024, we worked to investigate Risner’s story for ourselves. We started with Jones’ account and then followed his cited research to the original faculty and administrative records about the case in the SU Archives. From there, we conducted our own search into archives elsewhere in the country and contacted his family members to see if they could provide any information and context about Risner. What follows weaves together what we now know and don’t know, and what it all means for the history of Southwestern as a diversifying predominantly white institution today.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Henry Clay Risner was born in Kentucky in 1869 and died in 1948 in North Carolina. His parents named him after the famous Kentucky politician Henry Clay, who played a prominent role in seeking compromises between the North and South in the mid-19th Century.

Risner enrolled in Southwestern's preparatory Fitting School in 1884 and enrolled in the University proper in 1885. Though his academic performance and conduct were noted positively, he was asked to leave the following year, and was no longer listed as a student in the fall of 1886.

Risner’s subsequent life appears to have been remarkable. He went on to study at other institutions, eventually becoming a prominent Baptist minister with pastorates across several states, including Texas, Tennessee, Maryland, and California. He also was an author and Chautauqua speaker who achieved some level of national prominence in the early 20th Century.

His travels and reflections are captured in his 1929 memoir, Pinnacles of Personality, where he writes of encounters with world leaders, as well as his regret at not mastering foreign languages—a regret he poignantly connects to advice given by the faculty at Southwestern. Despite being asked to leave Southwestern, Risner seemed to have remained successful in his career, impacting many through his ministry and public speaking.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill Jones includes his account of H. C. Risner’s story in a section called “The Race Question” in an early chapter of To Survive and Excel where he is discussing the racial “pattern of exclusion” in the early decades of the University. Jones writes that while Southwestern did not have any explicit policies against admitting African Americans, “It was just not done.” He points to Risner’s case as an example of how a Black man “slipped through” the University’s de facto segregation practices and was subsequently dismissed after he was “detected.”

Jones cites faculty records from May 17, 1886, where minutes show that two students, M.K. Bateman and S.B. Hawkins, read statements from others who claimed to be familiar with Risner's family and asserted that Risner was “of Negro descent.”

The faculty, led by Regent John Wesley Heidt, the second Regent of the University after F.A. Mood, and a former Confederate soldier, acted swiftly on the information provided by Bateman and Hawkins, asking Risner to withdraw due to "the above suspicion and of the discontent among the students" (Jones 115). There is no record of any investigation into the matter at the time.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like his predecessors in the Southwestern faculty and administration involved in the case in the 1880s, Bill Jones apparently took the events chronicled in the 1886 faculty minutes at face value, assuming that the students had indeed “detected” that Risner was a Black man passing as White so that he would be included in the University. In our own research, we have discovered no evidence confirming or refuting Risner’s African-American descent.

What is painfully clear is that this case points to the deep-seated racial exclusion embedded in Southwestern's history. While Jones is correct in saying that there were no explicit policies barring African-American students for most of our history, it is problematic to describe it as something that was simply “understood”--that Southwestern did not admit anyone who was Black--because that hides the fact that there were people like Regent Heidt actively enforcing what Jones characterizes as a practice of “passive exclusion.”

This practice of de facto “passive exclusion” persisted until 1965, when Southwestern finally decided to actively enroll African-American students, Ernest L. Clark being the first. Risner’s case reminds us that before 1965, individuals suspected to be of African descent who did apply to or enroll at the University would have either been denied admission altogether or actively pushed out, even if no formal investigation or evidence was provided to support such claims.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Placing Memory’s investigation into Risner’s life has been both fascinating and frustrating. After researching through original faculty minutes in the University archives and reaching out to Risner’s descendants, we found ourselves faced with more questions than answers.

Most important, despite our considerable efforts, we could not confirm whether Risner was, in fact, of African-American descent. His great-grandson Bill Taussig was unaware of any such heritage, and no other records mention it either--whether in the books Risner authored, such as Pinnacles of Personality, or in the numerous newspaper articles chronicling his life as a prominent pastor and public speaker.

From our vantage point in the present, it was disturbing enough to think that someone would be pushed out of Southwestern simply for being Black, but even more disturbing to think that someone might have been denied access for no verifiable reason, and what that meant about the way “being Southwestern” has been implicitly White from the beginning.

Regardless of whether the racial accusation was true, the way Southwestern handled the situation with Risner offers a clear example of how racial prejudice was woven into the institution's fabric from our founding. The administration’s actions were driven by speculation and were focused on appeasing a few outspoken students, rather than any objective investigation, underscoring a willingness to enforce racial purity based on little more than hearsay.

It is clear that Risner was a bright and capable student—one whose good conduct was later acknowledged in a certificate issued by the University. Yet, he was still apparently removed from Southwestern because of a rumor that was treated as fact.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The discovery of Risner’s story has prompted strong reactions among current students who know about it today, many of whom are frustrated and angered by the University's past racial discrimination and how it casts a long shadow on the present.

Risner’s story encourages us to reckon with how Southwestern has remembered its history--choosing to forget the more uncomfortable chapters like Risner's. It challenges us to think critically about the institution's legacy and to confront the ways in which racial prejudice was maintained under the guise of passive exclusion not only in the late 19th Century, but through most of the 20th Century.

Learning about Risner has been a reminder that we should remain mindful of how we remember our University's history, ensuring that stories like Risner’s are not forgotten but serve as lessons for building a more inclusive Southwestern today and in the future.

For more (including 9 images) view the original article

When Hans Venable and David Stahl recall a Pirates for Pride-sponsored Drag event they attended last year as both Georgetown locals and queer-identifying SU alumni, their response led me to contemplate its implications hours after our brief meeting had concluded.

The event was sold out and the support from both the Southwestern and the larger Georgetown community was palpable in both attendance and energy, and the couple was blown away by the overwhelming positive reception to the raucous, high-energy event spotlighting both Southwestern University and the local queer community. Their reactions cemented just how meaningful these events can be for LGBTQ+ alums who didn’t have anywhere near this level of public support from the student body and the school itself back when they attended Southwestern.

Stahl and Venable’s memories of the school are intricately intertwined with the campus environment of the 1980s, which gives us in the present day valuable insight into the way earlier generations of queer students at Southwestern created their own safe spaces at Southwestern, despite lacking them officially.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Stahl and Venable are both members of Southwestern’s class of ‘84, but Stahl transferred here in 1983, while Venable attended SU for four years. They met working on productions in the Theatre department, where both were heavily involved and which both continue to support as alumni.

The couple lived off campus, but were on campus often for courses and Theatre obligations, placing them in the gray area off-campus students often experience, of a physical detachment giving way to a partial disconnect with campus life. This was exacerbated in the 1980’s by the politically divided campus population and the widespread heteronormative atmosphere, although exceptions existed in a few spaces, including the Theatre department.

Theatre was not just the link that brought the pair together, but both the Fine Arts Center space and the program acted in tandem as a hub for marginalized, especially queer, students. Queer students often flock to the arts as an informal safe space, and Southwestern University was, and still is, no exception.

This was certainly known unofficially among queer students, but the Theatre department made their stances on current issues clear through the types of plays chosen to be performed and guest playwrights they engaged. For example, in the 1980s, Edward Albee, a prominent gay American playwright, did an Artist-in-Residence at Southwestern in the early 1980s. A decade later, the production The Vagina Monologues, which was performed in the 1990s and expressed loud support for female autonomy and freedom, was received positively by the general public.

While other campus spaces like The Megaphone published op-eds on queer rights, establishing the newspaper as a platform for oft-marginalized groups, this varied according to the internal leadership at the time, and whether they were members of the queer community or allies. However, this attitude didn’t consistently translate to the general student body, who largely employed a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” when interacting with potentially queer-identifying students. Discussing LGBTQ+ rights in a removed manner was one thing, but personally coming out was another, especially to the broader SU community.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

During the summer of 1983, just before their senior year, David and Hans went to Chicago to get married. This was more than 30 years before same-sex marriage was legal. Reflecting on it in the present, Hans says that even he and David knew the deep significance of their nuptials: “it was pretty unheard of in the gay community to want to do that back then.”

Because it was a “don’t ask, don’t tell” world then at SU, only a few students knew what Hans and David were planning ahead of time. But Mouthwestern being Mouthwestern even back then, it seemed like everyone had already heard the news upon their arrival back to campus.

As Hans said recently, “There were a few students in the Theatre department that we knew were gay or lesbian. Before we went to Chicago, David told one of those students that we were getting married in Chicago. When we returned to SU Fall 1983, the entire Theatre department and much of the campus heard about our marriage. I can't say that we were ‘out,’ but it wasn't too hard to tell that we were a gay couple.”

These personal experiences highlight the stark difference between the campus climate queer students experienced prior to official, Southwestern-sponsored, queer organizations, and after. Organizations like GLSA and SOAL were founded in the early ‘90’s, creating institutional spaces for students to embrace personal authenticity and creating a launching pad for activism for queer rights, which resulted in positive change at Southwestern through steadfast publicity and widespread campus support from students, faculty, and staff alike. This helped to create a community that has become more welcoming to queer students, although the work is never truly over.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These days, Pirates for Pride continues that work in the shape of events that showcase queer talent, like the Drag Show Stahl and Venable recently attended, and in more traditional fashion through group meetings and activities throughout the school year that provide a guaranteed safe space for queer students on campus.

After our meeting, I walked away with a clearer sense of the campus environment in the 1980s, a better appreciation of the seismic shift in the 1990s that furthered queer rights on campus, and a significantly greater appreciation for the work done by and experiences of alumni who have paved the way for increased inclusivity at not just Southwestern, but beyond Williamson County lines.

The couple remain incredibly active in the Southwestern community in a variety of ways, including being season ticket holders for the Theatre department, attending the annual Homecoming events, and attending an on-campus prayer vigil for Trans Visibility Day, which was attended by President Trombley, the current Southwestern President.

Both Stahl and Venable have been heavily involved in the University Baptist Church in Austin, as they have personally helped shape an inclusive and welcoming environment for queer people attending church. In the late 1990’s, when they were unexpectedly thrust into the spotlight--first over controversy surrounding Venable’s ordination as a queer-identifying deacon, then when UBC was disunited from the Texas Baptist Convention on those grounds--Stahl and Venable not only continued their involvement, but the entire church gained significant publicity from those events, showing that even in these environments, queer passion and queer joy can lift others and help collective healing over even the most harmful of actions.

This is the same common thread that thrums through the sold-out Drag Show at a campus that had formerly hid and misconstrued their queer community: that this brand of passion is unique to the queer community and yet vital for the collective, whether it be the Southwestern community, the Austin area, or the broader world.

For more (including 2 images) view the original article

Dr. Mariano Diaz y Miranda was a visiting instructor for the History department during the 1984-1985 academic year. He was hired in a temporary sabbatical replacement position to cover the courses usually taught by Dr. Jan C. Dawson in fall 1984 and Dr. Martha Mitten Allen in spring 1985. As the year progressed and students saw the dedication he put into his teaching and research, Diaz y Miranda became an especially respected professor amongst the student body, and many were sad to see him leave when his contract was up. We have located the pin in Mood-Bridwell, the site of Dr. Diaz y Miranda's office.

In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Diaz y Miranda was early on tasked with researching the experiences of people of color on campus by the chair of the History department, Dr. Weldon S. Crowley. Approved by Dean G. Benjamin Oliver, the goal of the study was to develop strategies for recruiting and retaining racial minorities at SU. This entry explores the findings of that research in conjunction with Diaz y Miranda ’s influence on the student body himself to examine what Southwestern’s position towards minority retention suggested about campus culture for people of color in the mid-1980s.

Dr. Diaz y Miranda’s study was first announced to the public through a Megaphone article published on September 28th, 1984, only a month into Diaz y Miranda ’s time on campus. The article introduced the committee of students, staff, and faculty working with him, and the aims of collecting and compiling the research.

This research was meant to evaluate strategies for minority student recruitment and retention at Southwestern by both identifying and assessing the procedures in place at the time and proposing future solutions to attract more students, and staff and faculty of color to SU.

Over the course of the year, not much information was publicly released about the research, but a report written by Diaz y Miranda was completed on April 8, 1985. The title of the report signaled the report’s overall message: “‘White Alright, Brown Stick Around, and Black Get Back’: Institutionally Generated Obstacles to the Recruitment, Admission, and Retention of Ethnic Minorities at Southwestern University.”

The report was organized by the different phases in the college experience of minority students, starting with Recruitment, then Admissions, Financial Aid, Classroom Experience, Student Affairs, and ending with Graduate School and Job Placement. The structure was an important reflection of the report’s thesis, which was expressed directly in the introduction: “The purpose of this report is to call attention to existing conditions at Southwestern that might prevent the university from recruiting and retaining minority members of our society.”

While there had been other efforts at Southwestern to analyze and discuss similar issues before, the approach Diaz y Miranda took was distinctive because he focused on doing extensive interviews with students. He further centered the student experience by concentrating “on the stumbling blocks affecting minority students,” which reflects the unique differences between existing as a minority on campus as a student, staff, or faculty member.

The report made it clear that any problems recruiting and retaining students of color were not the fault of students or even due to the shortcomings of individual faculty, staff, or administrators, but the way institutional racism at Southwestern mirrored the systemic racism of American society as a whole. Diaz y Miranda identified “an all-embracing philosophical outlook that most members of the University hold when it comes to their expectations of minority students,” which lead to both overt racism and what Diaz y Miranda calls the “milder” instances of racism that influence the success of people of color in higher education.

The Classroom Experience section mentions a conversation between Diaz y Miranda and a White colleague, who was voicing his discomfort towards discussing issues faced by marginalized communities with his students. Diaz y Miranda initially disregarded his concern until he came to the realization that he had approached some of his lessons with a similar lack of consideration for the background of his students when describing certain events in American history. This section highlighted the hierarchical difference between student and faculty, as even as a person of color himself Diaz y Miranda did not realize exactly how his lessons were being perceived by his students until he asked them directly.

The impact of this anecdote is heightened by a portion of the previous section that conveys how a large portion of students of color faced this conflict where they felt the needed to conform with the standards set by their White peers, yet they were ostracized from their own identity groups for the act of conforming.

Seeing this conflict addressed here helped provide new, valuable context for my research for Placing Memory on some of the affinity groups and the diversity and inclusion initiatives introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. The Students Affairs section of Diaz y Miranda’s report addresses the social conditions of SU at the time that led students of color to either reject or assimilate into the status quo to effectively “succeed” in their higher education experience. Diaz y Miranda argues that it is the institution's responsibility to help students in marginalized communities define their identity and their role in society, yet the emphasis placed on creating a “comfortable school environment” has inherently promoted this process of conformity.

Some of my other Placing Memory entries acknowledge how different student organizations for marginalized communities often struggled to find a place on campus, both figuratively and literally. I suggest this circumstance reflects whether these organizations decided to accept or reject this process of assimilation.

The report concludes by acknowledging some of the institutional changes undertaken during the writing process, then emphasizes the importance of creating and sustaining diversity work at Southwestern by establishing a permanent position at SU with “the authority and responsibility to keep minority issues alive within the institutional walls of Southwestern.”

Despite multiple Letters to the Editor in the Megaphone lamenting his departure, Diaz y Miranda left SU after his contract ended in May, 1985. Some of his suggestions were eventually put into practice, mainly through the creation of the Director of Multicultural Affairs position and the Office of Multicultural Affairs in 1989, but I was unable to find any mention of Diaz y Miranda’s research as a direct inspiration for the Director of Multicultural Affairs position and other DIBE initiatives started after 1985. The only reason the Placing Memory team knew about it was that we found a copy of Diaz y Miranda’s report in the University Archives as part of the papers of his colleague, history professor Dr. Martha Mitten Allen.

Reading Diaz y Miranda’s report today as a student of color gives me a strong sense of deja vu. My entry on the first person to fill the Director of Multicultural Affairs position, Dr. Gregory Washington, focuses on the unseen labor that faculty members in marginalized communities take to lead diversity education initiatives at predominantly-white institutions (PWIs). For years, people of color like Diaz y Miranda and Washington have been asked to help Southwestern achieve institutional goals for diversity and inclusion. They have evaluated existing programs and proposed new solutions, but often the work they do gets reported up the chain and then it is forgotten.

This entry re-engages Diaz y Miranda’s research to help people at Southwestern today recognize the work of our forebears to solve some of the same issues faculty, students, and staff of color continue to face today and to identify some of the unrecognized steps towards SU including more diversity education initiatives on a social and an institutional level.

For more (including 4 images) view the original article

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as Southwestern University began enrolling its first Black students, the broader campus climate remained challenging. Formalized social avenues such as fraternities, sororities, and other traditional student organizations, had long been defined by white students’ presence and preferences. Black students, who arrived in small numbers and often on the university’s invitation to “integrate” the university without support systems in place, found themselves navigating an environment where integration was more an ideal than a lived reality.

In this setting, several of the earliest Black students sought a space they could shape on their own terms. Recognizing the need for a place where they could gather, talk openly, and share experiences without the overt and subtle cues that they were outsiders, they turned to the closed-off upper floors of Mood Hall. There, they identified an unused decommissioned dorm room that became known among Black students simply as “the Black Room.”

With the approval of Dean of Students Bill Swift, the group transformed this little-known, vacant room into their own communal hub. They furnished it with comfortable seating, personal decorations, and a stereo--items that brought familiarity, warmth, and a sense of home to a campus environment that could feel isolating. In this space, Black students could reconnect with aspects of their cultural identities that campus life often left untouched. They listened to music, tuning in to Taylor, Texas’s Black DJ, Tony Von, and they laughed over inside jokes and exchanged perspectives without the need to self-censor or code-switch. In an institution where belonging often seemed elusive, the Black Room offered a sheltered moment of authenticity. It was indeed just a moment, because in 1975, a few years after the Black Room was created, Mood Hall was significantly renovated and the name was changed to Mood-Bridwell Hall, forever changing it from a student space to a more general academic space for classrooms, labs, and faculty offices.

The Black Room’s significance went beyond decor or convenience. It represented a tactical response to racial exclusion. While other (White) students congregated in fraternity houses, sorority rooms, or other institutionally-designated belonging spaces, the Black Room stood as a testament to initiative and self-determination. It was a place where younger and older students could meet, share academic advice, and encourage one another to persist despite visible and invisible barriers. Another significant fact about the Black Room was that it was a co-ed space, where Mood Hall had always been gender-segregated as a dorm. Eventually, the sense of purpose that defined this space helped give rise to BOSS (Black Organization for Social Survival), a student-led group formed to address the social challenges that could not be solved by a single room alone.

Though short-lived, the Black Room symbolized a critical step in creating community and establishing a collective voice. It provided relief from isolation, nurtured friendships, and helped early Black students at Southwestern claim a corner of the university’s landscape in one of the oldest buildings on campus as their own. In doing so, the Black Room became more than four walls--it became part of a legacy, one that reflected the resilience, resourcefulness, and unity of a group determined to be more than guests at the institution they called home.

For more view the original article

For several generations, the Smith Library Center has served as a central study spot for students. Across its three floors, the library offers a variety of spaces for collaboration, research, creation, and reflection, making it one of the most popular buildings on campus and useful spaces for academic help and success.

Among the many study spots are the library’s five themed alcoves: two on the first floor and three on the third. Tucked away on the edge of the third floor is the Women’s Studies Alcove. With its patterned red rug, three armchairs and a wooden desk stacked with old books and magazines, it looks similar to any of the others.

Throughout my past two years at Southwestern, this particular alcove has become one of my favorite spots to go for a cozy night of studying. However, it took me a while to realize that the Women’s Studies Alcove is more than just a quiet place to work.

After first learning about the Black feminist author and activist bell hooks and her connection to Southwestern in my Feminist Studies class with Dr. Robyn Adams, I recognized the small sign in the Alcove with bell hooks’ name next to a picture of her at a book signing here on campus in the early 2000s.

It quickly dawned on me that the rest of the Alcove was actually a space dedicated to honor various influential feminist thinkers as well as to tell the story of the brave women who built and shaped the Feminist Studies Program at Southwestern.

When I joined the Placing Memory Project in the summer of 2026, I decided to do my first entry for the project on the Women’s Studies Alcove to learn more about how it came to be and how it works as a memory place now.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Women’s Studies Alcove was founded in 1999 with support from the Susan Vaughan Foundation and was upgraded in 2005 after the retirement of Dr. Jan Dawson, a history professor at Southwestern and a key founder of the Women’s Studies Program, which by that point had been renamed the Feminist Studies Program.

Upon entering the Women’s Studies Alcove, you find a bookcase on the left filled with works that once belonged to faculty members who worked to include feminist scholarship and teaching praxis into the culture of Southwestern. The collection spans a wide range of genres and titles, from literary works such as Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye and Anne Moody’s Coming of Age in Mississippi to curriculum guides for history teachers on how to incorporate women’s experiences into history classes.

Additionally, two displays on top of the bookcase introduce the development of women’s history as its own interdisciplinary academic field of study and identify significant chronological events in women’s history specifically at Southwestern.

On the opposite wall, there is a pile of old historical materials stacked on the desk that further represent the experience of women from the university’s past, including an exhibition catalog for the library’s Jessie Daniel Ames Collection and a catalog from the Ladies’ Annex from the academic year 1896-97.

Together, these books, documents and artifacts transform the Alcove from simply being another study spot to a small, publicly-accessible archive devoted to remembering the experience of women at Southwestern, especially the people and ideas at the heart of the Feminist Studies Program and other related classes at Southwestern.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Despite the care that went into creating this space a generation ago, the Alcove today may feel different than what the founders originally imagined.

Many of the books show signs of age and are missing pages, while the informational displays about women at Southwestern are stained, faded, and in need of replacement. Moreover, during my time here, I have rarely seen students stop to look at the displays or browse the collection. Instead, the space more often serves as a quiet escape from the busier parts of the library, the perfect spot to finish a paper or cram for an important exam.

This is further demonstrated inside the wooden desk, where layers of student graffiti form a very different archive. References to opinions about professors, rivalries among Greek organizations, and several inside jokes represent campus life not from the perspective of the founders of the Feminist Studies Program or the designers of the Alcove itself, but by generations of students who have occupied the space in their own ways and used it to communicate to other students.

Indeed, there is a collection of documents in the SU archives that suggest that this practice of students leaving messages to each other in the Women’s Studies Alcove started just a few years after the Alcove was established, in 2003-2004, when students wrote graffiti on scrap paper they found in the drawer.

The file for this in the University Archives does not provide any context for these documents, but their content suggests that long before students began writing graffiti on the desk drawer itself, they wrote graffiti on available resources in the Alcove.

While these messages from 2003-2004, with their references to gender and sexuality and references to bell hooks, seem to recognize and engage the specific theme of the Alcove more than the more recent graffiti inside the desk, these communications seem very different in form and content from the more institutional voice and purpose of the displays in the Alcove.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflecting on the complex interplay of different memory practices evident in the Alcove today points me to a question: do these various student markings represent a challenge to the Alcove’s intended purpose, or are they evidence of how students have made the space their own in ways that might actually reinforce the Alcove's intended purpose in suprising ways?

A similar tension appears on the walls. Three portraits of bell hooks hang on the right side of the alcove, alongside a small piece of paper attached to the wall stating her name and position as a Brown Visiting Scholar at the school.

On the top back wall, there are six more portraits of influential feminist thinkers. However, their identities are easy to overlook; the single label stating their names does not clearly indicate which name belongs to each portrait and is not even obviously connected to the portraits given its location on the wall far below them.

Additionally, the picture of Toni Morrison is missing entirely, with the rest of the images being faded from years of exposure to sun damage from the facing window. Lastly, a single portrait of Jessie Daniel Ames rests on the middle of the back wall, yet the portrait lacks any label.

The condition of these displays raises similar questions about how the Alcove serves as a place of memory today. How does a community remember people it has decided to honor? What responsibility do we have in relation to these memory places? Is preserving their images enough, or do we have to actively engage with and upkeep the display as we pass through the space each day?

When I first began studying in the Alcove as a naive first-year, I saw it only as a comfortable corner of the library. Now, after spending hours researching the history of the Feminist Studies in Distinctive Collections in between repeated visits to the Women’s Studies Alcove, I find myself looking at the room differently.

The books, displays and artifacts reveal stories that some students may never notice. However, that is what makes the Alcove such an interesting site to me. It doesn’t need to be viewed as a museum frozen in time and separated from everyday life. Instead, it is a living campus space that has been continuously shaped by the students who use it for multiple purposes, creating new memories in a place dedicated to preserving older ones.

For more (including 12 images) view the original article

On-campus activism focused on global and local issues has been of longstanding importance to students at Southwestern University. This activism has taken many forms over the years and has covered a wide variety of topics, changing depending on what students felt was important at the time.

However, while many of these organizations made changes to campus policies and practices that have had a long-lasting impact on the community and campus culture, many past organizations responsible for enacting these changes are not currently remembered by current students at Southwestern.

One reason for that is that not only have the focus of the organizations changed over time, but oftentimes the names of organizations focused on specific issues have changed as well. All of this makes tracing the history of student activism at Southwestern difficult to trace, much less feel.

The purpose of this entry is to trace the history of one of the more influential groups from the late 1980s, the Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort, or S.C.O.P.E., to show how the group was formed, what it accomplished, and how it built the foundation for activist groups that followed it, including many social justice advocacy groups associated with the JEDI Center today.

S.C.O.P.E. was an important precursor to contemporary social justice student organizations that especially should be remembered by current student activists.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort (S.C.O.P.E.) was a non-profit, non-partisan, educational student organization on Southwestern University’s campus from Fall 1985 to Fall 1990. They were a faction of Voice, an umbrella student organization that aimed to stimulate the discussions of controversial issues. S.C.O.P.E. was originally created to raise awareness for the need for nuclear disarmament and to speak about the United States’ military involvement in Central America.

S.C.O.P.E.’s first meeting place was in the meeting rooms attached to the old Round Commons behind the Chapel, which is the pin location for this entry. As the organization grew and began changing leadership, they started meeting in the Faculty Lounge and eventually in different locations around Smith Library Center. Throughout the five years they operated, they met at 6 pm or 8 pm every Thursday, depending on which location they were at during that period.

Their aim was to educate students, staff, and faculty about nuclear disarmament and how to participate in political advocacy. They wrote to legislators and circulated petitions, including one sent to President Reagan in 1985 with 170 SU signatures. They sponsored speakers from the United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War (UCAM), and went to local and national anti-war demonstrations.

S.C.O.P.E. held lots of events on and off campus throughout the ten semesters they existed. The most notable being Peace Week, hosted twice during their time. The first Peace Week was hosted from March 24-27, 1986. At the center of the event was a three day long art show full of anti-war art created by SU students and Georgetown community members in the Union. The show was titled Artists for Peace.

They also hosted a segment titled Performers for Peace, which featured short skits, poems, book/story readings, and musical performances. S.C.O.P.E. furthered its relationship with UCAM by inviting them to speak on campus, as well. They hosted other speakers and lecturers about peace-related issues. Finally, they got permission to play peace-oriented music March 24-26 during dinner in the Commons.

In the fall semester of 1986, S.C.O.P.E. began their official affiliation with UCAM. They hosted a membership drive September 11-12 and 15-17 in the Commons during lunch and dinner. UCAM had a $10 membership fee that gave members a UCAM newsletter, UCAM Network News, and eligibility to participate in the US-Soviet exchange program.

This is also the first time the organization established leadership positions. In the September 12, 1986 Megaphone, S.C.O.P.E. congratulated their newly elected officers for the upcoming school year. Jennie Jones served as President with Cami Cunningham as her Vice President. Wendy Hoefke served as the Treasurer, Tasha Clark as the Corresponding Secretary, and Debbie Volker as the Recording Secretary.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Within just the first two semesters of existing, S.C.O.P.E. found itself in the middle of public political debates on campus. The most prominent of these was with Mike Flaniken, a staff member on the Megaphone at the time. This was in the middle of the Reagan presidency, and Mike frequently wrote under a column titled “The Right View,” where he represented himself as a spokesperson for conservative students on campus.

This public debate reveals a lot about student politics at the time, but also reveals how students then used the platforms available to them at the time--Megaphone columns, Megaphone Letters to the Editor, public spaces, and even Campus Mail--to communicate to each other in a ways very different than students do today.

The first opinion piece Mike published about S.C.O.P.E. was titled “The Choice Between Peace and Freedom” and came out on September 26, 1986. In this issue, Mike claimed that the peace movement posed a threat to the American way of life, and singled out S.C.O.P.E. He also claimed that the Soviet Union did not have an equivalent peace movement to what was happening in the United States. He felt that anything stating otherwise was propaganda.

S.C.O.P.E. President Jennie Jones and member Tasha Clark both wrote letters to the editor in the issue published the following Friday, October 3, 1986. The two corrected the misinformation spread by Mike about the organization and peace activists in general. Additionally, they both invited him to attend a S.C.O.P.E. meeting to get a better understanding of the group, what they discuss, and what they stand for. Jennie specifically mentioned how the organization is welcoming to anyone and that they invite people with differing opinions to attend to aid in a mutual discussion and understanding of one another.

In response to these letters, Mike wrote a full page rebuttal in the following Megaphone issue, published October 17, 1986. In this rebuttal, he claims that S.C.O.P.E. does not actually educate their members as they state, but rather shows only one side of a story- the “radical” left side. He reiterates his belief that S.C.O.P.E.’s claims that the USSR peace movement even exists is propaganda. Finally, Mike explains how he is not interested in attending a S.C.O.P.E. meeting because he already knows the ideals they hold. He ends the article asking for any further commentary to be sent to his campus mail box directly instead of in the form of a public letter to the editor.

Despite his attempt to shut down this discussion and remove it from the Megaphone, on October 31, 1986 the newspaper published the final closing statements of this argument. Jennie, once again, tries to correct Mike on his statements and educate him about his spread of misinformation. She also mentions how he wanted this discussion to continue occurring outside of the Megaphone, countering that she believed that by allowing this to play out in the newspaper, students would spark thought and discussion about the arms race.

The final comment on this debate was actually made by another student, non-S.C.O.P.E. member, Jay Richards. He explains how week after week he, along with other students, read something Mike has written and understand that he only presents his one-sided version of reality. Jay calls out Mike’s hypocrisy stating that S.C.O.P.E. needed to present arguments from both sides, yet he refuses to attend one of their meetings. Jay explains how he, too, has never attended a S.C.O.P.E. meeting but that is exactly why he does not aim to explain to the group what they do or do not believe. He ends his critique against Mike by mentioning how he does not know if his arguments are right or wrong, but he does know that they are inherently flawed because he globally discounts the ideas and perspectives of his opponents.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In January of 1987, UCAM selected Southwestern University S.C.O.P.E. to represent the state of Texas for the 1987 Lobby Day/ Leadership training hosted in Washington D.C. It was held April 9th and 10th of that year. This was UCAM’s fourth annual national lobby effort to try and stop the arms race, with the main goal of the event to encourage individuals to express their concern directly to Congressional offices in D.C.

S.C.O.P.E. was selected due to their dedication to the cause, their continued education on the Southwestern campus, and because of how young many of the individuals in the organization were. UCAM wanted to show that the talk about the youth not caring about the arms race was merely a myth by allowing a large, active student-led organization to hold such an important role in the event.

After the trip to DC, UCAM also proved helpful in educating S.C.O.P.E. and asking them to do the same to the general public at Southwestern University. UCAM sent a timeline explaining President Reagan’s decision to nullify the 1972 Arms Control Treaty. Once S.C.O.P.E. received this timeline, they ensured that it was added into the Megaphone in order to reach the student population.

On February 4th and 5th of 1987, four S.C.O.P.E. members travelled to the Nevada Nuclear Testing Site to participate in an organized non-violent protest. The goal of the protest was to draw attention towards peace and anti-nuclear movements across the country. It was hosted by the American Peace Test and Peace Caucus of the American Public Health Association.

The protestors were divided into two groups, those who decided to participate in civil disobedience and those who did not. Protestors were not allowed to cross into the government’s property during the rally, but 438 individuals intentionally did so. They peacefully accepted arrest and used it as a means to show how dedicated they were to the cause.

Only one S.C.O.P.E. member was arrested at this protest, Tasha Clark. Tasha explained afterward in a Megaphone article published February 20, 1987, how she preferred to get arrested than just have to pay a fine. She explained how willingly serving the six days proved her devotion to the cause.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Due to how successful the first Peace Week was the year prior, S.C.O.P.E. planned a second one from February 9-12, 1987. This second annual Peace Week also included a peace-themed art show, this one for the entire week instead of just three days.

In part to counter Mike Flaniken’s claims that S.C.O.P.E did not accurately educate their members on both sides of a problem the previous semester, they invited more prominent speakers with credentials to this Peace Week. A professor of Latin American History from the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Jenny Barnett, presented a slideshow about Central America along with a discussion on ways to gain peace for the region. They also hosted Jerry Locke, a veteran of the Vietnam war and representative of the Central American Peace Initiatives, alongside two other veterans and representatives. The three of them spoke about the United States’ continued involvement in Central American affairs.

Peace Week also had speakers from the Peace Project come to talk about becoming a more peace-minded individual. S.C.O.P.E. managed to secure a videotape of Carl Sagan from the Peace Project that was played in the Faculty Lounge in the SUB.

The second Peace Week was incredibly successful. S.C.O.P.E. was able to host much larger events and invite more speakers to the campus. Its success made it seem like Peace Week would be an annual event every February at SU. Unfortunately, the 1987 Peace Week was the last ever one hosted at this University. Today, among students and most faculty and staff, there is no collective memory of it having occurred and nothing commemorating what S.C.O.P.E. and Peace Week did for the campus.

In the fall semester, S.C.O.P.E. hosted a speaker from the American Peace Test in the library AV room. The individual showed a presentation about an upcoming action at the Nevada Nuclear Testing Site. The advertisement for this event was published in the Megaphone in an issue that was released on September 18, 1987, three days before the speaker would be on campus. Alongside this advertisement, S.C.O.P.E. mentioned how they are welcoming anyone to come attend the one hour lecture. This was one of their final events focusing solely on disarmament before they began opening up the organization towards other peace issues.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fall of 1988 brought a large change in how S.C.O.P.E. operated and what they valued. Roxanne Simpkin, member of S.C.O.P.E. and writer on the Megaphone at the time, explained in a newspaper issue published September 15, 1988, how the organization was founded with the goal of educating and growing hope for a better world. She states how every member in the organization is equal and that they have a right to stand up for what they believe in. Additionally, no one is forced to do anything they do not wish to do.

Roxanne goes on to mention how S.C.O.P.E. will begin focusing on multiple issues, not just disarmament. They announce how they will be involved with Amnesty International and SANE Freeze, along with homelessness and community outreach in Georgetown. They will not entirely give up on discussing nuclear issues and the United States involvement in Central America, however, they aim to do things in Georgetown to directly promote peace and happiness here.

Sticking with their plan, in February of 1989, S.C.O.P.E. hosted Alison Brause of United Farm Workers (UFW). She began their meeting by offering donuts to anyone who attended. Before she handed them over, she sprayed Raid on each donut. When no one decided to take the donuts anymore, Alison explained how the same type of pest-killers are sprayed onto our food. She stated how it is a danger to anyone who consumes this food but the risk is much larger for those who work on these farms.

Brause talked about how beyond the rashes and sickness these workers experience, the long-term exposure can cause birth defects or even cancer to the children of these workers. This is why the UFW supported legislation to stop the use of these pesticides and to find alternative, safer farming methods. She calls for the students to boycott grapes and other fruits and vegetables, in combination with the boycott started in California by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta.

Beyond just the boycott, SU students heard about the 37 day fast completed by Cesar Chavez along with his urge to continue the fast chain around the country. The fast on SU campus began with S.C.O.P.E. member, Tasha, who fasted for three days before passing it along to James Rodriguez. He planned to fast for three days, as well, and pass it along to Rebecca Cheney. Additionally, students also gathered signatures around campus for a petition on behalf of UFW.

Along with adding the workers movement to their list of concerns, S.C.O.P.E. began focusing on recycling and environmental issues. In a Megaphone article published September 14, 1989, S.C.O.P.E. explained how they are planning a recycling campaign on campus for paper and aluminum cans starting that fall semester.

Additionally, they aimed to educate students about these environmental problems. Their first method of education was showing The Lorax written by Dr. Seuss on the Student Union Building Veranda the upcoming Saturday night. Afterwards, they sponsored an event titled Give Peace a Dance/Give Earth a Chance, also located on the Veranda.

The following month, S.C.O.P.E also hosted a meeting in the Smith Library Center to speak about a plethora of new issues. This included speaking about reproductive rights along with the housing crisis and Housing Now! march that had recently taken place in Washington D.C. They also used the time to continue their discussion on recycling and certain environmental initiatives on campus. This meeting, and its announcement in the October 12, 1989 edition of the Megaphone, marks the first mention of S.C.O.P.E. working with other organizations at SU. For instance, they sponsored the Coffee House with the English Society.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

While S.C.O.P.E. was initially only involved in disarmament, the organization grew to care for a multitude of issues as it expanded. They hosted lots of events throughout the five years they ran. However, the 1989 S.C.O.P.E. projects were what really pushed the organization in a new direction. This includes Earth Day, recycling initiatives, Rape Education Week, the Mobalize for Women’s Lives March, and fasting for OXFAM. Additionally, they made large changes in the structure of the organization.

In 1989, the group decided to get rid of hierarchical officer positions by creating a steering committee. The steering committee would lead the group by consensus. The committee was made up of Laura Cordes, Laura Wilson, Kim Crowder, Jill Ford, Heather Miller, Jeff Iezzi, and their faculty advisor from the Philosophy Department, Tom Blackburn.

All of this change caused the steering committee to believe that a name change was in order, as well. They collectively decided the Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort will be renamed to the Progressive Student Alliance (P.S.A.).

The committee believed that P.S.A. is a more accurate title for what they would continue to do. They spoke about how P.S.A. is now no longer a coalition of peace-based concerns, but rather is open to the education of all social, political, and environmental issues. They also changed their meetings to every other Tuesday beginning September 11, 1990, at 8:30 pm in the Smith Library Center. Their first planned event was a coastal clean up in Galveston on September 22, 1990.

The Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort brought a large amount of change and education during its ten-semester run. They helped educate students not only about the arms race and disarmament, but also about different environmental and social problems. Beyond all that they did to serve the community, they also allowed friendship and distinctive collaborative leadership roles to flourish.

Despite its role in establishing a student culture of activism around a broad base of social justice issues, S.C.O.P.E. is not currently being actively commemorated on Southwestern University’s campus. It is up to current and future students to remember this organization and everything they did for our campus community.

S.C.O.P.E. held the incredibly successful Peace Week, an event that is pertinent now more than ever and could be started up again by current student groups in honor of the work the previous organization did. Additionally, S.C.O.P.E. was the first student organization to get the University to establish recycling efforts at SU.

For several decades now, environmental sustainability concerns have been important to many students on this campus, especially with groups such as SU Environmentalists (formerly SEAK, Students for Environmental Activism and Knowledge), but few of us know that these groups today are building on the foundation created by S.C.O.P.E.

These organizations are able to do what they do currently because of how S.C.O.P.E. helped SU through 1985 and 1990. S.C.O.P.E. also could serve as an inspiration for current student organizations trying to develop more collective forms of collaborative leadership.

S.C.O.P.E. and its members should be remembered for their long-lasting impact on this campus and our community. While their original meeting place no longer exists on this campus, the changes they implemented and their model of student leadership and advocacy do.

The work of the Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort did not end when the organization did. Rather, it lives on every time a student identifies an injustice and not only says “That should change,” but also, “I will work with other students to make sure it does.”

For more (including 3 images) view the original article

This June, 2026, marks 27 years of Pride Month. This is the month where queer people celebrate their identity, as well as thank those that came before them. We thank those who put their lives on the line for people today to live authentically. While pride has always been a protest, it has not always been as accessible as it is now.

I had the absolute honor of chatting with different generations of Southwestern University’s queer students, where I asked the question of what pride means to them.

Jim Croxford (Zalles) ‘82: Jim shares that during his time at SU, “pride” wasn’t a term used like it is today. Being proud and authentic wasn’t something that was celebrated in the way we celebrate it now. However, to Jim, pride means being a person that is 100% authentic. Whether that be your sexuality, gender, race, class, or anything in between, Jim understands pride as an all encompassing concept that shapes a person’s life.

Jason Ragsdale: ‘96: When thinking about Pride, Jason recognizes his privilege of growing older. He has lived through a time where no one was out, and now he sees how quickly representation has changed. However, he is glad the cause is persisting, and calls pride a representation of “collective unity.”

Ame Barrier ‘97: To Ame, pride means something different that it does to others. She believes pride is looking back at history and those that came before us. It’s about creating safe spaces throughout history, and across different spaces. Pride is showing that as a community, we can survive anything, and we won’t be erased. We are here to stay.

Hector Ruiz ‘10: Hector highlights that while many people think of pride as being out and loud, he sees it as something that is as simple as just showing up. He recognizes that not everyone has the privilege to be out, so to him, pride is showing up for those people for everyone regardless of where they are in their journey with their sexuality.

Kayla Ingram ‘20: To fully understand how Kayla sees pride, she shares a story from her time at SU. She faced a lot of pushback while planning the 2018 Transgender Day of Remembrance Vigil. She was feeling worn down, and almost defeated from planning this event. This is when a member suggested a “yarn bombing”. Members of Pirates 4 Pride sat outside of McCombs Campus Center, and wrapped yarn around two of the flagpoles. Random students then joined them, and suddenly they crocheted hearts to weave in, they made art to hang up, they brought their own ribbon and yarn and shiny things. In that moment of being silly and childlike, they were a community. They were bonded not only by holding the vigil in the face of backlash, but also by sharing a time of joy. To Kayla Ingram, pride is finding joy as a community despite all of the negatives.

Anonymous ‘20: As a transgender person, this person sees pride as better getting to know oneself. They recognize that the unknown can provoke a lot of fear, but pride brings acceptance with it. However, it is a process, so it is important to be kind to yourself while you go on this journey of self discovery.

Anonymous ‘25: When asking this person what pride means to them, they provided me with some of the most moving words I’ve heard since asking this question. To them, pride ranges from gender affirming haircuts, getting called sir, their HRT shot waiting in a drawer, and experiencing life with their fem. But it’s about more than that too. It’s about supporting and protecting their trans siblings, leaving flowers on their graves, and generally being there for your community. As they said, “Pride is how we continue to survive and fight.”

When starting this project, I had my answer of what pride meant to me, but as I connected with more LGBTQ+ people who have inhabited this place before me, my perspective shifted. While pride is still the people I love, the family I have chosen, and the life I live, it is also more than that. It’s about being in love with someone not despite, but regardless of what people may say. It’s about holding hands in public, wearing the clothes I feel the most myself in, and standing on my tiptoes to kiss my girlfriend’s cheek.

While the phrase “love is love” is cheesy and overused, so many people fought for us to even have this phrase to use. I have felt a great sense of pride from getting to connect with my ancestors in the struggle. I quite simply would not be here without them and the work that they have done.

Pride is sharing these stories. Pride is memory.

For more (including 3 images) view the original article

Established in 1927 as a local chapter of the National Collegiate Players, the Mask and Wig Club at Southwestern University grew from a creative writing class where students crafted their own stories and scripts. These student-led productions were eventually integrated into the speech and drama department, starting the beginning of an endless relationship between Mask and Wig as a student organization and academic departments focused on Drama, Expression, and Theatre.

The club began gaining traction among Southwestern students as early as 1918, though it took nearly a decade to reach its official status. Once established, members would not only provide quality technical productions but also talented actors. According to a history of Mask and Wig written in the 1950s, many of these early performers were also deeply involved in campus media. For instance, Elizabeth Ann Little, a member of the club, served as the first female editor of the Southwestern Magazine. She was one of many editors of the Southwestern Magazine from Mask and Wig.

From the beginning, the club has been progressive in a lot of their performances. Their scripts often have functioned as social commentaries, promoting open discussions about campus life, academics, and residential culture, and providing commentary on social norms and injustice. They have presented these ideals in both performances and events all organized by the students. For example, one showing of “Harvey” in 1963 (Figure 1), highlighted several themes of family and American life. These themes did well in portraying the state of healthcare and the injustice associated with it at the time.

Beyond its commitments to stimulating conversations about social issues, Mask and Wig’s primary mission has always been to elevate the standard of dramatic art at Southwestern. Known particularly for their Shakespearean stagings and one-act plays, membership became one of the most prestigious achievements for theatre students. While open to the entire student body, joining required participation in at least two productions, This made sure all members were actively participating and contributing.

Professional guidance from various professors, played a crucial role in the formation and longevity of the club. The club’s first staff advisor, Mr. William Dwight Wentz, brought significant expertise from the National College of Oratory and the Chicago Drama League. Under his guidance, the group frequently performed in the Auditorium in the Administration Building (the building now called the Cullen Building, which used to have an auditorium spanning the 2nd and 3rd floors). However, their experimental one-act plays required a different kind of staging, so the troupe often had to gather in Wentz’s own backyard to perform for the community.

According to the current student presidents, Mask and Wig has always been a student run organization, where advisors such as Wentz provide more of a supportive role. With the help of these advisors behind the scenes, the club's student officers can manage and organize their own events. Student teams of writers, props, makeup, costume designers and actors help to make productions and events happen.

In 1930, Ernest R. Hardin took the helm as staff advisor, supported by Dean of Women Laura Kuykendall, who also was the Director of the Expression Department at the time. This era was defined by increased mobility and recognition; the club traveled over 3,000 miles to perform various one-act plays. A notable milestone occurred in 1937 when their production of James M. Barrie’s "The Twelve Pound Look" competed in the Intercollegiate One-act Play tournament in El Paso. By the early 1940s, leadership transitioned again, with Thomas Marsh and Jane Frazer guiding the group.

According to a Mask and Wig handbook from 1968, in the year 1943 they became the "Mask and Wig Players" just as Angus Springer became the new staff advisor. Springer discovered the old Administration Building Auditorium stage in terrible shape, due to the original contractor tearing up all the lumber to use for other repairs. Since this was during the war, lumber was scarce.

The Auditorium’s “lighting system” was made up of six porcelain sockets and a single open knife switch. Springer decided to fix it up a little to make a place for the players to perform. It was mainly renovated by sailors who were a part of the Navy V-12 training unit on campus. A set featuring scenery eight feet tall was built with drapes in the foreground and background. Springer himself built the first dimmer board.

While Springer was in charge of the Drama and Speech Department, the Players staged 75 major productions. Their reputation grew such that audiences would trek even through heavy snow to attend performances. The group continued to excel in competition. According to a University of Houston 1944 article, they qualified for one of their tournaments in April.

This same year the Goosetree-Morgan award was founded by two Southwestern students, Anna Beth Goosetree and John Morgan. The award was an old tractor axle found at a local junk yard. This quickly became a tradition for the performers. After each major production, the previous winners would decide on the next recipient. The chosen actor will be honored as one who has done the best job in the role of a supporting actor. No member of faculty played any part in the award, it was entirely brought about by students.

The post-war era in 1946 brought a surge of male student actors back to campus, leading to some of the club’s most acclaimed work. Their production of "Antigone" earned a two-page color spread in a Houston newspaper and was the first amateur showing of the Jean Anouilh play in the United States. According to a 1946 issue of Southwestern Magazine, prominent student actors such as Joe Jefferson emerged during this time, leading productions such as "Winterset" and "I Remember Mama" before moving the production to the Pasadena Playhouse. To reach these far audiences, the players traveled in an iconic bus they nicknamed the "Yellow Peril."

The landscape for Mask and Wig changed forever in 1955 with the construction of the Alma Thomas Theatre. This new home allowed the program to flourish, with attendance often reaching 75% of the entire university population in its heyday. In 1965, a production of "A Midsummer Night’s Dream" epitomized this success, playing to capacity crowds and receiving rave reviews for its "Excellent" performances.

Today, the Mask and Wig Players remains the second-longest-standing student organization in Southwestern’s history (after the Megaphone). They still maintain their progressive outlook on society and campus life portrayed with their productions and hosted events. For instance, in April 2025 they performed productions of both “Men on Boats” and “BKLYN,” which are two stories that are known for challenging social norms.

They continue to be a central part of the Theatre Department and the wider campus community, hosting collaborative events and performances like these, maintaining the high standards of dramatic art established a century ago.

For more (including 11 images) view the original article

The Southwestern Lacrosse team was the first in Texas to become an official NCAA team and as of today, Southwestern has the only NCAA-affiliated varsity team in Texas for both men’s and women’s lacrosse.

At a school that has played such an integral role in the expansion of lacrosse in Texas and the American South and Southwest, you would think that this would be something everyone knows, but there seems to be a general lack of knowledge about how the team began and just how far it has come since its inaugural season. Additionally, it is important to look at this history to have a better understanding of how having a lacrosse team relates to Southwestern’s identity as a national liberal arts university.

The story of SU Lacrosse begins in the 1983-84 school year when the team first came together as a club. The club met at different times throughout the week for practices. The twenty-four person roster was recognized in the 1984 yearbook, but the team had yet to gain much traction across campus. The first couple of seasons were difficult and the charter members had a hard time putting together a team that remained consistent due to injuries, illness, and other priorities.

It wasn’t until the third season that the team was able to pull off a win. Finally in the 1988 season, the team experienced their first winning season with a record of 7-6. This was a huge milestone for the club and it provided hope to team members at the time that the future of the program could be a lasting one.

Through documentation in yearbooks and The Megaphone, we see the progression of the team throughout these first couple of years. Then, in 1989, we are given the story of an incredible season where the club lost only one game and won the league championship versus The University of Texas. Part of the reason the team was so successful this semester is because of the support from the Southwestern community who would consistently show up for the members of the team.

Following the monumental season for the 1989 lacrosse team, there are a few years worth of coverage in The Megaphone about notable games and/or players, but as the years go on the information seems to dwindle.

A common problem that the team seemed to have until about 2000 was a lack of players. Additionally, the team struggled for a few years starting in 1995 because their original coach, Monty Curtis, left and finding a replacement proved to be a difficult feat. This had a huge impact on how well the team was able to do and whether or not they could even play in certain games. Throughout this time, though, the Southwestern community continued to support the team and encouraged them to continue fighting to keep the team alive.

Despite their hardships, they continued on and started picking up more players. Lacrosse eventually started to gain more interest on campus, and in the 2001 yearbook the creation of a women’s club team is documented. Up to that point, women who wanted to play lacrosse had played on the men’s team.

There are a few articles over the next six years that mention men’s and women’s lacrosse club teams and how both teams continue to grow and improve. After 2007 though, there is little to no documentation of the lacrosse teams on campus until they’re made NCAA sports in 2010 (men’s) and 2013 (women’s).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The current men’s lacrosse coach, Bill Bowman, is entering his 28th season as a coach, with 12 of those seasons being during the club days of the sport. That means that he has experienced the years that we have little documentation about. Bowman was also involved with the team during his time as a student at Southwestern and played in the 1989 and 1990 seasons.

When I sat down to talk with Coach Bowman, he stated that he had never played lacrosse before he came to Southwestern, but once he joined the team, he immediately fell in love with the sport. I also learned from Bowman that the team has a rich history, much of which he would document through writing and online documentation. However, all of this documentation seems to have disappeared despite his efforts to keep the history of the program alive.

Bowman said that years worth of game scores, player statistics, team statistics, and other little facts were digitized and that the digitized file is gone. This means that much of the history of lacrosse before 2010 relies on the people who were a part of the history to tell the stories. So, that is what Bowman did for me, and now I can now share it with you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In 2000, the club team consisted of both men and women, but with a growing number of women interested in the sport, they wanted to start their own team. One of these women in particular was so excited to start that when she went to the league meeting to get more information, she signed Southwestern up to compete with a women’s team (despite not having a coach or enough players for a team).

So starting in 2001, the women began practicing and Bowman would conduct the practices for the men and women at the same time. The following year, the women would play their first game against Trinity University in San Antonio, which they won 6-5. They would only play four games for the season but they proved themselves as a force to be reckoned with.

The main problem that arose for the women’s team was that they could not hold the numbers that they needed to field a team, much like the men when they first started. The men’s team, on the other hand, was thriving under the guidance of Coach Bowman. They were climbing up the ranks, getting as high as #9 in the entire nation in their final season as a club.

The women would go on to get a coach and win many more games before also converting to an NCAA sport in the 2013-14 school year. This was the same year that the football program was reinstated so adding the women’s lacrosse team was a way for the school to stay within the requirements of Title IX. This law requires the university to provide equitable opportunities for men and women to participate in sports on campus. By adding the women’s team the university could stay within these requirements while simultaneously expanding opportunities for participation in lacrosse in the South.

Both club teams were extremely successful, sending many players to All-American games and racking up recognitions for All–Conference selections. And with the start of their NCAA DIII status, the sports began documenting their games and important season information on the Southwestern Pirates website where that history still lives today.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, what difference does it make whether or not we know this information? For many of the people that were a part of the team in the past as well as those that still play today, lacrosse is a huge part of their lives. They have poured their hearts into the team and made an effort to leave a lasting impression that paved the way for what the team is able to become today.

Because of the determination of many of these athletes to keep the program going through hardships, Southwestern is able to continue making an outsized impact and making memories in the lacrosse world.

While the campus takes time to try and remember its history through buildings, names, stories and much more, we should also remember that specific athletic communities leave just as much of a lasting mark on campus life. The experiences shared by members of the lacrosse team deserve recognition because they represent decades of dedication, friendship, and the continuing evolution of Southwestern University.

Furthermore, looking at the history of lacrosse prompts us to question what it is about the school’s identity that allows a sport popular for decades in midwestern and East Coast states to thrive here in Texas, despite a lack of exposure to the sport in most Texas high schools. More specifically: what accounts for the success of lacrosse at Southwestern when other Texas schools with more resources and students, such as Rice, The University of Texas (UT), and Texas A&M, are not able to support varsity NCAA lacrosse programs for either gender, much less both?

Researching the history of the lacrosse programs at Southwestern has made me wonder if it is related to President Roy B. Shilling Jr.’s goal of “National Maturity” in the early 1980s, the exact moment that the story of lacrosse became intertwined with the story of Southwestern.

Shilling’s goal for Southwestern in the 1980s was to create a distinctive liberal arts institutional identity for the school that positioned Southwestern as a national liberal arts college instead of a Texas-focused, Methodist liberal arts college, which had been its identity for years.

Especially in the “preppy” 1980s, that meant projecting an image of Southwestern that resonated with the public image of East Coast liberal arts colleges, and their ties to East Coast college prep schools. And although lacrosse had origins in Native American culture and has since grown more inclusive nationally as well as at Southwestern, in the early 1980s, lacrosse was thoroughly associated with the culture of East Coast elite private prep schools and colleges that provided the model for Southwestern’s aspirations toward National Maturity.

Either way, though there have been some struggles since becoming a DIII program for both the men and women, the teams have become a part of the identity of Southwestern, even as that identity itself continues to evolve. Ultimately, this intertwining of lacrosse and Southwestern’s identity is what allows the team to persevere through hardships and what sets them apart from other programs.

For more (including 7 images) view the original article

On September 21, 1976, Alma Thomas, the namesake of the Alma Thomas Fine Arts Center, donated a collection of eight Royal Doulton “Great Lady” figurines to Southwestern University.

The “Great Ladies” were created especially for the coronation of England’s Queen Elizabeth II, in 1952. Mrs. Thomas was present for the coronation, where she purchased these objects that celebrated Elizabeth’s rise to power by honoring powerful women from England’s past.

The collection comes from the Royal Doulton manufacturer in London. Founded in 1815, Royal Doulton specialize in ceramics, stoneware, and China. According to their website, they collaborate with artists and designers to create pieces that celebrate and empower women.

This particular collection of eight “period figures” was designed by Peggy Davies just after World War II to honor women who played a significant role in the events that shaped England. Thanks to Alma Thomas, Southwestern University is the “permanent residence for these Great Ladies.”

These figurines represented the ideal of exemplary womanhood as it was understood in the 1950s, when Thomas purchased them. Most of these women were seen as leaders working behind the scenes of their male counterparts. They also faced adversity in many forms, whether it be denial of a right to power or even mortal combat.

As such, these Great Lady figurines represent a form of first-wave feminism, which focused on advocacy for women's rights and challenging power structures, while generally still conforming to traditional femininity.

According to the pamphlet produced to celebrate the gift by Alma Thomas, Philippa of Hainault and Maria Fitzherbert were chosen for their kindhearted approach and supportive nature to their husbands. These women were also very popular among city folk and would serve regents while their husbands were away. They would garner massive support for their husbands and contribute substantially to their reign. By representing England through elegance and kindness, these ladies were able to symbolize strong forms of feminism that worked within patriarchal systems, giving them the ability to be liked by all while still maintaining a position of control.

Two other "Great Ladies," Florence Nightingale and Eleanor of Provence, challenged traditional gender roles that placed men in positions of power and leadership. They each maintained a strong period of power in which they improved the lives of others. Eleanor was in total control of her husband during his reign and would accommodate family members in need. Florence Nightingale established a nursing practice that transformed healthcare across England. Both these ladies challenged the roles women played in English society and broke the chains holding back women's careers and political influence.

Each of these women challenged how women were thought of as purely domestic. It is for this reason these great ladies not only signify the powerful women they are depicting, but how exemplary women were viewed during the time of Elizabeth II’s coronation.

This is also how Alma Thomas saw them as well, as more than just “great ladies,” but as a reflection of exemplary femininity she hoped would inspire the Southwestern students who encountered them. This collection therefore carries with it the memories of not only these ladies but of Alma Thomas herself.

In this context, it is important to remember that the Fine Arts have always been intertwined with gender relations in the history of Southwestern as an institution. Fine Arts used to be housed in the Ladies Annex, and later the Women’s Building, which was later renamed Laura Kuykendall Hall.

After World War II, some additional art studio spaces were located in adapted military barracks right next to LK Hall, and theater productions were often staged in the auditorium of the Administration Building, but before the Fine Arts Building was built in 1955, Fine Arts classes were mainly taught to female students and were located in female-centric spaces.

The Fine Arts Building itself arose thanks to the generosity and vision of a very successful woman, Alma Thomas, whose initial financial gifts to the University made the building possible and who was the only female member of the Board of Trustees for years. That is why the “Great Ladies” seem to represent not only Alma Thomas herself, but the history of Fine Arts at Southwestern.

=========================================================

The acceptance ceremony for the “Great Ladies” was held in the Fine Arts Building, which itself owes a lot to the generosity of Alma Thomas and to this day is a place that remembers her in multiple ways.

The ceremony took place in the gallery, with comfortable seating for Mrs. Thomas, who by then was in a wheelchair, and her guests. Afterward guests were also invited to a luncheon, hosted in the University Commons. Her presence alone was said to have “lighted the place up!”

When Mrs. Thomas was describing the figurines in her speech, she placed herself as someone that stood among them as a fellow "great lady." In phrasing that could just as easily be applied to her, Thomas said that a great lady is “a wonderful, compassionate woman who stepped outside her magic circle to help people not so fortunate, creating an atmosphere of love and kindness.”

After her speech, the acceptance ceremony began. Durwood Fleming accepted the artifacts with a heartfelt speech of gratitude to Mrs. Thomas. Claude Kennard (Southwestern’s Art Historian at the time) then explained the priceless value and history of the figurines.

Finally, the Dean of Fine Arts at the time, Dr. Theodore Lucas, gave his thanks and described their condition and how they would be held in the Alma Thomas Gallery with all of her other “examples of Mrs. Thomas’ generosity.” The display was located adjacent to the Alma Thomas Theatre, in a display case designed by Jessen Associates, Inc. of Austin.

After the ceremony, guests were invited on a brief tour of the campus. During this, President Fleming and his wife invited Mrs. Thomas to the Turner-Fleming House for a brief interlude to take some well-needed rest. Then, they would all gather in the University Commons for a buffet and “good time of eating and fellowship together.”

During the luncheon, Alma Thomas recited an excerpt from one of her favorite poems, “It is later than you think” author unknown (figure 4). Durwood Fleming later referred to it as the “get up and go” poem.

In the specific section of the poem that Mrs. Thomas recited, the author reflects on the different stages of a woman’s life, and talks about passing the torch on to future generations once your “get up and go has got up and went.”

Reciting these words at this event, alongside the Great Ladies, solidified the message that Mrs. Thomas had lived a fulfilled life and wanted to empower future generations to do the same. Within the context of the ceremony, we can infer that these figurines themselves were meant to be long-lasting symbols of empowerment specifically towards future SU students, particularly female students.

=========================================================

Seeing her last gift to future students established in a prominent place in a building named after her that day in 1976, just a few years before she died, Alma Thomas probably imagined that they would serve that purpose for many generations to come, but that is not what happened.

Currently, these figurines are being stored away in a box in the University Archives. In my own experience, I only learned about them because I was researching the history of the Fine Arts Building and stumbled upon a mention of them in Bill Jones’ The Survive and Excel. From there, I had to do a lot of digging to find where they are now and why.

According to archival records, in 2015 they were first transferred to the University Archives from the Business office vault, which for many years had become a kind of safe deposit box for artifacts and records owned by the University. In my research, I was never able to determine when exactly the display was removed from the Fine Arts Building or how they got from the Fine Arts Building to the vault in the first place.

Records do show that 2015 was the first time when it was mentioned, between April Hampton Perez and Ted Lucas (the former Dean of Fine Arts who had so graciously accepted the Mrs. Thomas's gift originally and pledged to care for them), that SU no longer wanted to retain the figurines. That’s when the SU Archives agreed to take them, and that is where they have been ever since except for a brief moment in 2019 when they were displayed publicly in the Library.

Nothing in those communications in 2015 indicates why campus leaders did not consider the figurines worth displaying any more, much less holding onto.

Approaching this from the vantage point of 2026, when the School of Fine Arts and the building that houses it are clearly suffering, the long journey of the figurines from a place of prominence to a place of neglect starts to take on even more symbolism.

That is why I believe we should all take another look at these “Great Ladies.” By storing these artifacts in a box in the Archives instead of within the Fine Arts Building, we are not only losing access to the memory of what they represented in a previous time but also missing an opportunity to learn from them as we try to re-establish the Fine Arts School as a place of innovation and inspiration for students.

Returning these “Great Ladies” and their symbolic meaning to a prominent public place within the Alma Thomas Fine Arts Building can not only help educate and empower a new generation of young female students but hopefully rekindle a remembrance of the enduring spirit of Alma Thomas herself.

For more (including 7 images) view the original article