Should Mason District be renamed?
The Redistricting Advisory Committee has agreed to consider whether five of the nine Fairfax County supervisory districts should be renamed.
That list includes Mason District, as well as Lee, Mount Vernon, Springfield, and Sully.
The committee will make a recommendation by March 1 on whether any of those districts should be renamed but will not propose any new names. The Board of Supervisors will decide whether any districts should be renamed and will determine the public process for choosing new names.
The committee is using seven criteria to determine whether a name warrants evaluation and discussion:
• Does the name violate the spirit or explicit meaning of the One Fairfax policy?
• Is the name offensive to the community?
• Is the name related to the Confederate past?
• Is the name associated with segregation, Jim Crow, racism, discrimination, or slave ownership?
• Is the name confusing to residents or is it geographically representative of the district?
• Is the name of historical significance or is the name no longer reflective of life in that part of the county?
• Does it help residents aspire to the best possible quality of life in the future?
The six original magisterial districts were established in 1874: Dranesville, Falls Church, Lee, Mount Vernon, Providence, and Centreville.
In 1953, the board added a seventh district to prevent a tie vote among the supervisors. The new district was named Mason in honor of George Mason, the author of the Bill of Rights.
In 1967, the board created two new districts: Annandale and Springfield. The board also abolished the Falls Church District and divided it among Mason, Annandale, and Providence.
The results of the 1990 Census required the creation of a ninth district. In 1991, the Sully District was added, and the Annandale District was renamed Braddock District, after Braddock Road.
The Redistricting Advisory Committee also recommends a discussion on whether 10 precinct names should be changed. That list includes the Ravensworth Precinct (#115) in Braddock District. None of the 10 precincts are in Mason District.
Residents, civic groups, and businesses are encouraged to provide feedback on districts they think should or shouldn’t be renamed, express their agreement or disagreement, or explain any community or economic impacts resulting from renaming.
Comments can be submitted on an online form. Members of the public can also offer feedback during one of the committee’s virtual meetings.
15 responses to “Should Mason District be renamed?”
Leave a reply
The Redistricting Advisory Committee has got to be joking. Of all the issues facing our country, state, and county, renaming supervisory districts isn’t even in the top 10,000. This is an example of why so many Americans have lost faith in government. People want better management of the covid pandemic, they want jobs, they want good schools, they want better transportation, less crime, more green spaces, sidewalks, and economic growth.
However, if we’re going to play this game, why stop at supervisory districts? After all, Virginia is named in part for a ruthless monarch who persecuted people for their religious beliefs, countenanced slavery, violence against native Americans, and even had people executed for flimsy reasons. The name may have sexual connotations that might be offensive to some and it is in Latin form, a language one speaks today. Why not rename the entire state?
Agreed.
Identity politics are important and I am glad we are making strides to represent our troubled past (and present) in a more honest way.
That being said I can’t help but think the intense focus on these issues is a distraction from the real issues that need to be solved: growing inequality, crumbling infrastructure, an uncertain future for our economy. Focusing on renaming anything remotely offensive is an easy way to say “look I am doing something” for politicians and institutions. It requires practically no work in a totally gridlocked government. It’s a way for politicians to continue making money for themselves while pretending they are doing something for the benefit of those they represent.
What utter garbage. Lets rename his university as well?
What really baffles me is that, according to the published (and presumably adopted) meeting minutes, Mason is under consideration due to criteria #3, which is “Is the name related to the Confederate past?” George Mason had NOTHING to do with the confederacy.
The only category that Mason could conceivably be considered under is criteria #4 regarding slave ownership, as George Mason was a slave owner. There are no excuses for that however I am of the opinion that while FIGHTING for the institution of slavery is disqualifying for current naming rights (and Lee district should be therefore renamed), being a slave owner in revolutionary america should not be inof itself disqualifying due to the prevalence of the practice. Rather the person’s contributions as a whole should be considered, and if the name is preserved, their legacy should be contextualized with the fact that their achievements and contributions to our society were accomplished via the enslavement of others.
The president of GMU I think had a good take on it two years back. Worth a read.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/george-mason-university-named-slave-owning-founding-father-let-s-ncna1236054
The sixth criteria seems to imply that any name of historical significance will be evaluated.
So it may be that George Mason’s status as a slaveowner hasn’t even been considered yet.
The minutes specifically call out the 3rd criteria for Mason, which is contribution to the confederacy… which makes no sense.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/redistricting/sites/redistricting/files/assets/documents/redistricting-committee-meeting-minutes-jan-18.pdf
This is as embarassing as the va house republicans bill citing the debates between “abraham lincoln and frederick douglas”. (Lincoln never debated FREDERICK douglas).
Please update all suspect names. Why not? The so-called founders’ intent was to form a more perfect Union, right? What is wrong with positive change? After all, isn’t this all part of a grand experiment? Those resisting, will adjust.
Speaking as a generally left-leaning person: no, it should not be renamed.
I don’t know if I agree with you Jeffery.
An excellent argument can be made the owning of slaves is an abhorrent practice, and anyone who owned slaves, regardless of their time and place in history, is not deserving of having places named in their honor.
Yes, this includes “Founding Fathers” such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason.
While the achievements of these men can and should be taught in elementary schools to current and future generations of Americans; and studied in America’s universities; a strong case can be made these men should not be honored in Modern-Day America.
To be specific, this includes, but is not limited to: renaming Washington D.C.; renaming the State of Washington; and renaming the Washington Monument.
What is the lesson being taught to current and future generations of Americans by continuing to honor long deceased Americans who engaged in the repugnant practice of slavery?
What is the message to those Americans who continue to live and experience the systemic ramifications of America’s history of slavery?
The lesson is Americans will honor individuals who committed disgusting and loathsome acts as long as these individuals were involved in leading a war which America won.
Again. I’m not totally convinced of this point of view, but I am convinced a significant and growing number of Americans (especially those who reside in Northern Virginia in general, and Fairfax especially; and especially the younger generations) have this view, and I’m not inclined to dismiss their point of view.
I’d love to see it called JEB Stewart District 😀
Please just stop! If we continue along this path the Board of Supervisors will need to add Fairfax County to the renaming list, since Lord Fairfax, after whom this county was named, owned not only land but slaves.
I believe that we can all agree that segregation, Jim Crow, racism, discrimination, and slave ownership are all wrong. However I agree with Jeffery’s well stated position that distinguishes between fighting to retain the institution of slavery and being a slave owner in revolutionary times, when this was the prevalent practice at that time in history, and not just in the United States. This should not negate the significance of the role our founding fathers played in establishing America. This is our country’s history and we should not disregard their positive contributions and judge individuals such as George Washington, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson solely on the basis of their ownership of slaves during revolutionary times. Continuing to recognize their contributions does not equate to condoning slavery. Instead, when we teach current and future generations we should teach the entire history of the United States, including the significant role our Founding Fathers played, and that “their contributions as a whole should be considered … and their legacy should be contextualized with the fact that their achievements and contributions to our society were accomplished via the enslavement of others.”
We cannot and should not rewrite our history; it is how we learn and grow and change to make a difference today and in our future.
I wholeheartedly agree with Publius and Jennifer for the reasons stated. There are much bigger fish to fry.
A lot of people have way too much time on their hands!
I believe in future years we will look back at pro-abortionists much like slave owners. We will one day value human life to an extend that war and abortion will equally reviled. And then we will take down the names of our politicians from this age.
I wrote to the committee and they said they decided not to rename Mason.