I don’t think Koganzon supports naming the college after Calhoun, but she certainly criticizes activists at Yale calling for broad public agitation to change the name. I think it’s an example of how she minimizes the importance of some issues and does not give radical protest its due. Of actions like the Calhoun protest, she says:
Some individuals always benefit from these scuffles, but institutions always suffer.
At no point does Koganzon acknowledge that direct action and intensely public protest can be useful and are sometimes necessary. She criticizes: “The urgency of the now that animates movement politics has colonized higher education.” She says Gray was correct to tolerate injustice in the present to ensure change in the future. Yet, she does not acknowledge the dangers and difficulties of the “go slow” approach—it has historically been used to deflect change and it asks those who are suffering to bear the pain in civil silence to not offend their oppressors. Koganzon may be right that doing so may be the best tactical approach, but, if one is going to argue that, one must also admit one is asking people to do something incredibly hard. Such civility is demanded by pragmatism not ethics.
I just read about “A Protest Pee-In On The Harvard Yard” and it’s a wonderful contrast. In comparison to Gray’s quiet action, Flo Kennedy led a crowd to dump fake urine on the steps of Lowell Hall to protest women having to leave the building if they wanted to use the restroom during exams. That sounds like something Koganzon would deplore (or at least criticize), yet it did lead to real change and let women express their valid anger.