Wrong to remove George Mitchell’s name without evidence or proof | Douglas Rooks

Douglas Rooks is the author of “Statesman: George Mitchell and the Art of the Possible” (Down East Books, 2016.) He welcomes comment at [email protected].

The University of Maine System Board of Trustees voted 9-5 on Sept. 28 to remove former Sen. George Mitchell’s name from university programs and scholarships — the latest in a series of such moves following release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The removal of Mitchell’s name from scholarships and institutes began back in February in Ireland, which had recognized Mitchell’s central role in the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, a deal that has brought lasting peace to Northern Ireland.

They never knew Mitchell as well as we do here in Maine.

One of the dissenting UMS trustees, Donna Loring, explained her position in a Bangor Daily News op-ed, writing, “My vote was not a declaration that every allegation concerning Mitchell is false. I do not know that. But neither has there been a finding that he committed wrongdoing. The university’s own task force acknowledged that fact.”

Loring’s point is inarguable. Before we remove names, portraits and statues from the public square, there must be an effort to establish the facts, and discern the truth as far as it can be known. Judging from its report, the task force did not attempt this, instead citing “serious allegations” and potential “reputational harm” to the university as deciding factors.

Advertisement

“I worry about a standard in which reputational harm can outweigh the absence of a finding of wrongdoing,” Loring wrote. We should all be worried.

Although the chaotic release of the Epstein files in 2025 by order of Congress was widely assumed to be in the public interest, there are serious doubts. Unedited investigative files and reports — such as those just inadvertently released by the Maine Attorney General’s Office — can be profoundly and unfairly damaging to lives and reputations. If such releases became routine, there would be few reputations left worth having.

Suspicions and allegations that would not normally be public are spread worldwide, with instantaneous reactions and conclusions that then drive policymakers to treat accusations, however serious, as facts, and suspicions as warranted.

News accounts focused on 300 “mentions” of Mitchell’s name among 2.5 million pages of documents; Donald Trump’s name appears more than 30,000 times. By itself, these numbers mean nothing. To this day, no one has been charged with any criminal offenses (except Epstein and his enabler, Ghislaine Maxwell).

If we use suspicion and allegation as the standard, we’re on a slippery slope. It’s a short distance from here to the 1950s McCarthyite “Red Scare,” where guilt by association among “fellow travelers” ruined lives, careers and reputations.

At least the UMS trustees made some attempt to balance the accusations against Mitchell’s lifetime of service. In his hometown, Waterville’s school board swiftly voted 5-2 to remove his name from an elementary school after a handful of complaints. The Legislature’s presiding officers, with no process at all, removed Mitchell’s portrait from the State House, where it had been installed to bipartisan acclaim in 2014.

Advertisement

There are public places in Maine and recognitions in Washington to which Mitchell’s name is still attached. This is far from unanimous.

We should also balance the accusations with an accounting of Mitchell’s achievements. Along with his unique contributions to world peace — among dozens of wars and rebellions in our times, there is hardly another example like it — Mitchell represented Maine with distinction in the U.S. Senate for 15 years. As majority leader, he shepherded dozens of important bills to passage — landmarks in protecting the environment, creating affordable housing and providing better lives for persons with disabilities. Surely this should count.

I am of course not privy to the UMS trustees’ deliberations. As Mitchell’s biographer, however, I can offer testimony from years of research, interviews and discussions involving his family, his staff, political supporters and opponents, those who knew him best in his personal and public life.

In all that time, I never heard of any lapses in personal integrity lending credence to the anonymous, unsourced Epstein allegations. Rather the reverse — in campaigning, in fundraising, in the sometime regrettable business of politics, Mitchell was a stickler for following the rules.

It may be impossible ever to lay to rest the suspicions created by the Epstein files. As so often in the digital age, we are drowning in data of variable quality, with understanding nowhere to be seen.

In the absence of proof, I suggest no further “de-namings” of Mitchell, with its implied public censure, until some reliable standards can be established. Ultimately, history will assess his virtues and flaws, like those of any other human being. The trustees’ majority judgment should not be the last word.

Copy the Story Link

Tagged: Douglas Rooks