Wait for evidence before rushing to rename Hastings COL

In a previous Daily Journal column, I cited California Supreme Court precedents -- People ex rel. Hastings v. Kewen, 69 Cal. 215 (1886), and Foltz v. Hoge, 54 Cal. 28 (1879) -- for the proposition that changing the name of UC Hastings College of the Law would require voter approval. I concede that those decisions do not specifically address a situation where the school's board of directors request the regents of the University of California to then request the California Legislature to change Hastings' name.

Yet Article IX, Section 9 of the California Constitution gives the college autonomy from legislative interference: "The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influences and kept free thereform in the appointment of its regents and the administration of its affairs."

It is not a stretch to say that the way efforts to rename the college -- named after founder Serranus Clinton Hastings, who participated in the genocide visited on California's native inhabitants in the 19th century -- are being rushed through is decidedly political, as demonstrated by the public officials. And I believe that the regents are also bound by the California Constitution.

I recently acquired access to the complete white paper about Serranus Clinton Hastings that was commissioned by the college. The report by the college which recommended that its name not be changed -- a recommendation which has now been reversed -- contained only an executive summary of the white paper but made no mention of the fact that Serranus Hastings was deposed under penalty of perjury as part of the state's inquiry. The paper contains excerpts from that deposition, and Hastings testified that: He resided in Solano County (approximately 170 miles away from where the atrocities occurred), had no knowledge of those atrocities until after they happened, and when he learned of them, he fired his employee who had committed them. Thereafter, he appears to have followed the law of the time in getting the governor to authorize setting up what is now in the 21st century being compared to a vigilantly group, to protect property and "settlers." I found no mention of this sworn testimony in the text of either the white paper or its executive summary. Thus, the decision to change the college's name was apparently made without some of the most relevant evidence being emphasized for those making the decision.

Hastings College of the Law teaches that due process of law and a presumption of innocence are foundations of our legal system, but Serranus Hastings and his family are apparently not to be provided those very things in this rush to what the name change proponents are calling "justice."

Governor Gavin Newsom has described what happened to Native Americans at California's inception as "genocide," and in 2019 formed the Truth and Healing Council which is to produce its final report "regarding the historical relationship between the state of California and California Native Americans on or before January 1, 2025.

We need to know the truth and we certainly need healing, so wouldn't it be more prudent to wait until all the evidence is presented and reviewed before publicly pronouncing Serranus Hastings (and by association, his family) guilty? 