In the June 19 edition of The Washington Post, university alumnus Dave Ungrady made a powerful argument in his opinion piece “Send Len Bias to the Hall of Fame.” He is not in the Maryland Athletics Hall of Fame, Ungrady wrote, because he died of a cocaine overdose, an action which would seem to violate a clause in the election criteria that states “nominees must have good character and reputation, and not have been a source of embarrassment in any way to the University.”
If this is true, then it speaks poorly of the committee and the university because the criteria are being applied selectively. To prove this, consider one of the first inductees: Harry C. “Curley” Byrd.
Byrd is a giant figure in this university’s history — having served as, among other things, football coach and president. It is arguably true that without him neither the athletics program nor the university would have attained the stature they enjoy today. However, one of his flaws — as documented in his correspondence in the university archives — is that he opposed the integration of the campus and was even willing to go to prison at one point to prevent it. When the university lost a lawsuit to keep the law school in Baltimore segregated in 1935, Byrd opined that he feared for the safety of white female students, a notorious race-baiting technique prevalent in the South. Yet for his time, he was considered a moderate, espousing the belief that the races shouldn’t share the same campus while making half-hearted attempts to follow the principle of “separate but equal” as the laws of the early-mid 20th century required him to. Had his beliefs held, Bias and other black students would never have had the opportunity to attend this university.
To include Byrd in the Hall of Fame and not Bias is a double standard. Byrd’s statements and behavior don’t embarrass this university? If we argue “well, he was a product of his time, and that’s all in the past,” why does that same standard not apply to Bias? If Byrd is in and Bias is out, the criteria as stated have no legitimacy.
Let’s be clear: The embarrassment the university suffered when Bias died was largely embarrassment the university caused itself. Bias’ death brought to light an array of unsavory practices that showed the university was failing to educate its student athletes and monitor its athletics programs. These were painful lessons to learn and ones the university community took to heart. In the intervening 25 years, standards and achievements have risen dramatically, both for athletes and for the general student body. The university and the athletics department should be appropriately lauded for taking some of the lessons of the Bias tragedy and using them positively. But have we learned all that we should have?
I believe both Byrd and Bias should be included in the Maryland Athletics Hall of Fame. After all, another criterion is: “Election shall be based on athletic merit only.” Part of suffering a tragedy is learning from it, and part is learning to let go. If we’re still bent on keeping Bias from being recognized as a Hall of Fame athlete then we still haven’t learned how to process what happened and move forward. That’s not Bias’ problem; it’s ours, and it’s time we took responsibility and dealt with it. We must own our history, and not just the parts that make us comfortable. We must tell our own story, lest we allow someone else to tell it for us. We should honor those who achieved, while consciously recognizing their imperfections. It’s time we gave Bias the credit he’s due and bury the ghosts of 1986 once and for all.
Jason Speck is an assistant university archivist. He can be reached at jgspeck at umd dot edu.
