Dixon Public Schools settles on naming rights policy

DIXON – What’s in a name?

And what about a new name for something that already has a name?

Dixon Public Schools has been considering those questions at length since the fall, when it received a request by a person yet to be revealed to name a building, room or facility within the district.

After consulting with its lawyer and hashing it out among themselves for several weeks, the school board finally settled on a naming rights policy.

[ In December, naming rights question comes before board of education. ]

Superintendent Margo Empen said she didn’t wish to reveal the identity of the individual making the request until the policy was finalized, which took place at the Feb. 16 regular meeting.

“We will see next month,” Empen said. “I will reach out to this member of our community.”

ExpandAutoplay

Image 1 of 11

Lancaster gymnasium was named after 1920's principal, math teacher and superintendent for Dixon Public Schools. (Alex T. Paschal — apaschal@shawmedia.com/credit)

The initial recommendation was to change the name of something that already had a name, Empen said, but there was a follow-up discussion about looking for something that doesn’t already honor someone else.

Under the new policy, names will be considered if the individual played a critical role or contributed to society in a positive way in the city, county, state or nation. The individual’s “principal legacy” must align with or reflect the district’s mission, vision, core values and beliefs, according to the policy.

Names based on geographical locations or places of historical significance will be considered, especially if they are places that comprise the district, the city or the state.

School or facility names may articulate aspirations of the educational outcomes for Dixon students and reflect the instructional focus or legacy of the building. They also should be representative of the diverse community and, when possible, not duplicate names of other schools in the region to prevent confusion.

Board members discussed at length the validity of naming things for people living or dead, or whether to adopt a policy that puts a time frame or sunset clause on a given name.

The initial recommendation was that a person should be dead for at least five years before they should be considered. However, the board felt that was too restrictive a requirement.

Under the new policy, names will be considered if the individual played a critical role or contributed to society in a positive way, in the city, county, state or nation. The individual’s “principal legacy” must align with or reflect the district’s mission, vision, core values and beliefs, the policy says.

It also debated the method for removing names, such as those instances where a person’s reputation no longer aligns with the district’s values.

Or, as board member Brandon Rogers asked at one point in the discussion, wAhat’s an appropriate amount of time to have passed before perhaps another name should be considered for something that already has a name?

Although the discussion did not include tying naming rights with an endowment, it is now considered customary by museums and private universities to negotiate a time frame for that name to stay in place.

Rather than a name be in place for perpetuity, some argue that a donor is doing the institution it wishes to help a favor by allowing it to offer naming rights again and again for those prized locations.

In Dixon’s case, it was pointed out that if the board adopted a policy only to consider people who are no longer alive, it would not have named the auditorium after James A. Wiltz while he was still alive. Many spoke about how that ceremony honoring Wiltz was quite moving because he could be there for it. Also, the track is named after Rich Lawton, who is still alive.

Allen Lancaster Gymnasium was named after the 1920s principal, math teacher and superintendent for Dixon Public Schools.

Rather than have definitive rules of that nature, the board decided that it always retains the authority to appoint a committee to review any request to name or change a name. The superintendent would serve on this committee, which also would have representation from the community and district employees.

The board then would approve, deny or modify the committee’s recommendations.

It also retains the right to circumvent the committee process if the school board as a whole initiates the naming process. Yet, even then, the matter will be placed on two school board meeting agendas, and public comment will be solicited.

In the end, the district seems to have adopted a policy that gives this and future boards the freedom to deal with naming requests on a case-by-case basis, free of any precedent. The procedure is set, but the criteria of the proposal can be evaluated any number of ways.

Depending on how you look at it, the high school is either named for the city’s founder, John Dixon, or stands simply for the city itself.

The middle school and elementary schools are named for former presidents: Reagan, Jefferson, Madison and Washington.

At no point in the process were the names of the schools discussed, but it is true that presidential names have sometimes caused controversy in other locales.

San Francisco schools, for instance, entertained a proposal in 2020-21 to rename Washington and Jefferson schools because they “engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings,” and a school named after Lincoln was being reconsidered because of his role in the 1862 execution of 38 members of the Dakoka tribe. In the end, those school names were not changed, as the board wished to avoid litigation on the issue.

Last March, Peoria Public Schools changed the names of five schools, including those named for Washington, Calvin Coolidge, William Henry Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt and aviator Charles Lindbergh, replacing them with names of people from Peoria history.