The Conversation Around Fagg Field Needs to Become Action. Now.
Originally published in The Davidsonian on November 2, 2022
Last Wednesday, October 26th, I published an article titled ‘Listening + Talking ≠ Action: We Must Rename Fagg Field!’ As a reminder, on March 28th, 2022, Davidson College announced the next step of its ‘Athletics Done Right – The Next Step project: Coach Dave Fagg Field, named for Coach David J. Fagg ’58. There has been resistance to embracing the new name among some on campus because of the similarity between Coach Fagg’s last name and the slur that is used to degrade queer people.
Last Thursday, the day after the publishing of the previous article on this topic, Athletic Director Chris Clunie ’06 (he/him) emailed the scholar-athlete community asking for their input on this issue. He briefly summarized the panel event that was held in the 900 Room during common hour on Thursday, October 20th, 2022, talked about the lack of scholar-athlete attendance at the event, and put out a yes or no single-question survey: ‘Should Coach Dave Fagg Field be renamed?’
In an interview with The Davidsonian, Clunie accentuated how busy scholar-athletes are. For example, he said that the lacrosse team had planned to attend but couldn’t because they had a required lifting session during common hour. Further, he understands that Davidson is not perfect, but simultaneously believes that the athletic community is one that is inclusive and does the right thing. He is confident that the Davidson community can separate the name ‘Fagg’ from the slur while simultaneously honoring the legacy of Coach Fagg.
After hearing about Director Clunie’s communication to students, some students expressed feelings of hope. Josie Hovis ’23 (she/any) said, “I was pleasantly surprised to read what he was saying, because the impression I got at the discussion last week was that this was a done deal.” Bryce Anthony ’23 (he/him) shared similar sentiments: “I genuinely do think Chris cares… he is there and will happily listen if students have concerns.”
Meanwhile, other students were frustrated by Director Clunie’s email: Grant Hearne ’23 (he/him) noted that Clunie made excuses for poor athlete attendance at the panel and found it disheartening that the athletes who were not at the conversation were being asked for their input rather than the non-athletes who had voiced their discomfort. Vee Mellberg ’25 (they/them) was also upset that the survey was only administered to scholar-athletes; “Davidson cares more about their scholar-athletes and pays more attention to them than the rest of the student body,” they said. When asked for comment about why the survey was only sent to scholar-athletes, Clunie said that the survey was meant for him to get a general idea about how the athletic community is feeling about this issue.
Dr. Melissa González, Acting Assistant Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, noted that she has not seen any evidence among faculty or senior leadership of putting scholar-athlete needs above those of other students, though she does see an enduring cultural divide at the college, which she said should be addressed, between scholar-athletes and non-athletes. “More than renaming the field, I would like to see this controversy lead to a concrete plan for how to honor LGBTQ+ scholar-athletes with a prominent visual sign on the same field: one that brooks no debate about Davidson’s and Athletics’ respect for sexual and gender diversity, and one that co-exists with Honoring Coach Dave Fagg while making clear that the entire Davidson community condemns any use of slurs against queer and trans people. Every single student should feel that this slur is something every other single student would speak out against; clearly, we are not there, and we need to understand why and plan for change,” said González.
Moreover, many members of the queer community have noted that engaging in conversations is emotionally exhausting. When asked to describe the gravity of the f-slur, Bryce Anthony ’23 (he/him) said that “it’s one of the worst things that can be said towards a queer person.” Vee Mellberg ’25 (they/them) reflected on how exhausting it’s been, having had to help non-LGBTQ+ people understand gender and sexual diversity their entire life. Hannah Kershner ’23 (she/her) expressed similar sentiments: “It’s exhausting. This doesn’t seem like a conversation that we should have to have in 2022.”
When asked for her first reaction to the naming of the field, Noelle Baer ’25 (she/her) said, “I am disappointed that Davidson College would care so much more about a donor and about money than its current students. And that they would ignore the fact that there’s a prominent LGBTQ+ population here.” Another student agreed with Baer: “It’s just so clear that [the administration] doesn’t care about the student body… they care about money,” said Vee Mellberg ’25 (they/them).
Bryce Anthony ’23 (he/him) agrees that money is a crucial factor in this conversation: “I feel like if [the field] was named something else, a lot of potential harm could be avoided. But as an athlete, I understand how crucial fundraising is for teams. I think the $5 million gift makes it kind of hard. I’m very in between about it.”
Many students support choosing an alternative name for the field. “Why don’t they just change the name to Coach Dave F. Field?” said Vee Mellberg ’25 (they/them). “It’s the same level of respect, it still uses his name, and it’s still in his honor.” When asked for comment on the matter, George Hunter ’23 (he/him) said, “I feel like there could have been an easy alternative… a last name that sounds like a slur as the name of the new field is offensive.”
If the field is going to keep its current name, “athletes need to be involved in critical conversation about why this name is harmful,” said Grant Hearne ’23 (he/him). “I understand that this is someone's last name, that we should respect that person and that we should honor their legacy because they were such an important figure at Davidson…. But what's necessary is that athletes are involved in critical conversation about why that word is harmful in the first place, and why students are offended by that word.”
Going forward, in Josie Hovis ’23 (she/any)’s opinion, there must be coach-led conversations “about the seriousness of the issue and also team culture around queer identity in general, which would include encouragement and leading through example by showing up to discussions like the one that was held last week.” Dr. Melissa González summed up her view of a way forward: “We need to better understand both the existing cultural divides as well as areas of strong consensus and commitment, and to have more productive conversations with all stakeholders. I know AD Clunie very much wants to do right by everybody involved and has been talking with queer student groups since last year. I also see that the absence of scholar-athletes at the panel event last week was disheartening to a group of queer and trans students who went ready to have a conversation. I personally would advocate for making concrete plans to make LGBTQ+ students, especially including those who are also scholar-athletes and will play on this field, the center of future planning with Athletics on this matter and communicating a timeline for the decision-making about the name of the field, with a clear and explicit mechanism for gathering broad student, alum, and employee feedback and acting on it. We have all we need to find a solution by working together.” Well said, Melissa and Josie!