Martin Tweedale: In divorcing itself from the giving
 of these prizes, the philosophy department 
relinquished part of its ability to
 honour its students for academic excellence. 
Such prizes are no doubt important
 in maintaining student morale and showing 
that the faculty takes seriously student
 achievement in the discipline in which 
they teach and write. Nor was there 
any way at that time actually, the prizes 
had been refunded and put under another
 name, of refunding the prizes under 
another name or from another donor. 
Hence the decision to separate itself from 
such awards was not without significant
 deleterious consequences for the 
department's educational mission and
 for some of its students, and thus could 
not be taken lightly and needed to be 
justified in a clear and compelling fashion.
What sort of justification could or 
can now be brought forward? Awarding the 
prizes in McEachran's name certainly 
does not imply that the department now 
condoned or was at the time of the abuse
 in any way complicit in the practices 
of the Eugenics Board when he chaired it.
 I don't think there's anyone who would 
seriously think the department need publicly
 apologize for some role it had in 
the ghastly chapter of the province. 
For, in fact, it had no such role. 
McEachran acted on his own, at the 
request of the government of the province. 
Certainly it would not have been sufficient
 for the department to have simply 
said, it was expressing, by divorcing
 itself from the prize, expressing moral 
outrage at the scandal which had been
 uncovered, for it could have done that in 
many other ways that would have not had
 any negative impacts on its students or 
its efforts to promote the study of 
philosophy among them. Rather, the crucial 
point, at least in my own mind, was that
 by continuing to award the prizes, we 
were honoring, year after year, not just
 worthy students, but a man whose memory 
the department, and the university for
 that matter, should not continue to honor 
in view of the facts recently brought
 to light about the way the Eugenics 
Board proceeded. 
But, this is the point at which matters
 as I see it now get quite complex. For, 
it's not easy to say just when a person's
 memory should no longer be honored by 
institutions to which he was in fact 
a great benefactor. Professor McEachran was 
really one of the founders of the university,
 as I said, and he established both 
the departments of philosophy and psychology.
 No doubt his efforts and 
accomplishments in that area should be 
remembered with appreciation. Nor is 
there any reason to think that he devoted
 himself to his academic duties out of 
a desire for personal gain or did indeed
 benefit in any but the usual ways from 
his career as an academic. The same 
applies to his services on the eugenics 
board. So far as we know, he did this
 as a public service and thought he was 
benefiting the province and Canada thereby.
 In other words, there are certainly
 good reasons to be given in favor of
 honouring this man's memory and in the 
absence of anything countervailing, 
they are sufficient to justify such a 
practice by both the department and
 the university. 
But there is something that countervails,
 of course, and what it is is the 
appalling disregard for the most basic
 of human rights that was shown by the 
committee which he chaired. All the
 evidence points to his having completely 
approved the way the Eugenics Board
 proceeded and the decisions that it 
made. Is 
this not enough in itself to justify
 the department's dissociation from the 
prizes? A case can be made that it
 is not enough. In fact, somebody 
might even 
ask, is it relevant? One honours a 
person's memory, it can be said, 
for the good 
that they have done. That good is not
 undone by their having also wreaked a lot 
of harm in other areas. The lives of
 the best of us are marred by errors of 
judgment, even moral judgment. No one is
 promoting McEachran for sainthood, all 
we are doing is honouring his 
selfless dedication to the good of the 
university and the department. 
That he did some pretty ghastly
 things in another 
context, it may be said, is beside 
the point. On the other hand, nothing
 in the 
announcement of the prizes indicates
 why anyone wants to honour Professor 
McEachran's memory and indeed the 
university is happy to accept such 
bequests in 
anyone's name, as long as nothing comes
 to light which would make that name be 
one the university would be embarrassed
 to be associated with. 
Ahh. Is that then the whole point?
 McEachran had become, or threatened to 
become, someone with whom the university
 and the department feared to be 
associated because of his management
 of the sterilization proceedings,
 for which 
the provincial government was about 
to make an official apology. So then, the 
department divorced itself from the 
prize out of fear for its public reputation, 
was willing to deprive students of
 the benefit of the prize just to 
make sure it 
was on the right side of public opinion!
 In order to take up a moral posture, 
as one of my colleagues said at the time.
 It wanted to be on the right side of 
public opinion, should the matter blow up
 and it certainly threatened to do so, 
so a somewhat cynical opponent of our decision
 might have said and might say today.
