Eventing Nation booted from covering Event in Unionville, PA

[MorganSercu]

@FitzE

I suspect it would have satisfied EN. Wasn’t their initial discomfort related to having the word PLANTATION emblazoned across their front page for the coverage? This is why I am honestly confused about why they didn’t simply call it UNIONVILLE and, if asked, say, “We are using the FEI name of the event as we are not comfortable with the other name.” Done.

Apparently not.

"To that end, one thing that we have become aware of is the troubling associations inherent in the name Plantation Field. Specifically, the word “plantation.”

“EN reached out to USEA and USEF in June to express our concerns about the Plantation Field name. But change is often a slow moving train, especially with organizations where there are multiple channels of bureaucracy to move through. As the event drew nearer it became clear that a name change would not materialize. We had to make a decision as a media outlet about our own path forward, and we agreed that we were no longer comfortable using the word “plantation” on our website. After engaging the event to explore alternative ways we might reference the event, such as the FEI nomenclature of ‘Unionville,’ we were informed by Plantation Field founder Denis Glaccum that EN was not welcome to attend nor cover the event. With regret we will be honoring that directive.”

I have a feeling their tone was quite different behind the scenes, starting in June and up to earlier this week. If some screenshots I’ve seen elsewhere are real, at least one of the main writers wasn’t circumspect in the slightest.
And yet they also wrote,

“We also believe that we do not have the right to determine what others are offended by.”

Well, apparently Cuyler Walker is offended. Very offended. And no longer wants to take on any legal or financial responsibilities to host events there. Let us all hope that USEA and PFEE members can persuade him to change his mind over the winter and permit equestrian use. Maybe even change the name to Logan’s Field, or name it after one of his deceased relatives who were active in the horse community in the area.

Meanwhile - EN got things changed all right. Another venue lost. That amount of open land is not easy to find and courses don’t spring up overnight and are maintained for free.

[pluvinel]

@OverandOnward

Or maybe, when the ‘spoiled rich white people’ are kicking others in the teeth with a horrid name they want to push on everyone, don’t be surprised that the others don’t get in line and say ‘ok we understand’.

Keep going…it is attitude like this that justify not opening this field ever again.

[MorganSercu]

@OverandOnward

They would ask where, about the horses, about the event.

Why would I evade or lie? THINK ABOUT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THINK !!!

These are friends. I see some more than I see most of my immediate family. Is that how you do people you trust and like, and who trust and like you?

How is it an evasion or lie? You are riding in Unionville, PA - on Route 82. If you are uncomfortable with the name despite knowing it was chosen with the other definition (tree plantings) - tell them so. After all, there were no slaves used to work that land. Ever.

Morven Park is on land where slavery occurred. If you said you were riding at Morven Park, would you have known that? Would you bring that fact up with your friends if they asked about your event? If not, why not?

The article said that her age had not been authenticated but that she was supposed to have been “the oldest person in Virginia.” It said “she belonged to Governor Swann, who owned the Morven Park place . . . was sold to the Brown family, of Waterford, but never left the near neighborhood of Leesburg, in which she was born.”

[AffirmedHope]

@OverandOnward

Or maybe, when the ‘spoiled rich white people’ are kicking others in the teeth with a horrid name they want to push on everyone, don’t be surprised that the others don’t get in line and say ‘ok we understand’.

And when you bring up your concerns with all of the grace of a barreling freight train, don’t be surprised when they kick you back in the teeth even harder.

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

Apparently not.

"To that end, one thing that we have become aware of is the troubling associations inherent in the name Plantation Field. Specifically, the word “plantation.”

“EN reached out to USEA and USEF in June to express our concerns about the Plantation Field name. But change is often a slow moving train, especially with organizations where there are multiple channels of bureaucracy to move through. As the event drew nearer it became clear that a name change would not materialize. We had to make a decision as a media outlet about our own path forward, and we agreed that we were no longer comfortable using the word “plantation” on our website. After engaging the event to explore alternative ways we might reference the event, such as the FEI nomenclature of ‘Unionville,’ we were informed by Plantation Field founder Denis Glaccum that EN was not welcome to attend nor cover the event. With regret we will be honoring that directive.”

I have a feeling their tone was quite different behind the scenes, starting in June and up to earlier this week. If some screenshots I’ve seen elsewhere are real, at least one of the main writers wasn’t circumspect in the slightest.
And yet they also wrote,

“We also believe that we do not have the right to determine what others are offended by.”

Well, apparently Cuyler Walker is offended. Very offended. And no longer wants to take on any legal or financial responsibilities to host events there. Let us all hope that USEA and PFEE members can persuade him to change his mind over the winter and permit equestrian use. Maybe even change the name to Logan’s Field, or name it after one of his deceased relatives who were active in the horse community in the area.

Meanwhile - EN got things changed all right. Another venue lost. It’s not that amount of open land is easy to find and courses spring up overnight and are maintained for free.

You may be right that they wouldn’t have been satisfied, but I see nothing in the quoted materials that supports that. I see nothing there that says they wanted the property name changed. I do see (bolding mine):

“After engaging the event to explore alternative ways we might reference the event, such as the FEI nomenclature of ‘Unionville,’ we were informed by Plantation Field founder Denis Glaccum that EN was not welcome to attend nor cover the event.”

I’m still not seeing any evidence that they asked for a place name change. I’m seeing they asked for an alternative way to reference the event. Which is why I’m legit confused about the reason they didn’t simply use the FEI name without having to engage anyone at all. Even getting past that by concluding they actually did want an event name change, not just an alternative reference, I still see zero evidence of them asking for a place name change.

NB: I’m not defending EN/their approach, nor am I speculating on what might have been their motives or true goals.

My ideal outcome would have been to follow Dolly’s lead: change the name of the place, change the name of the event, use the name change to shine a super flattering light on the property, the LO, his family’s legacy, and the righteous local history of the area. It just seems like a win-win-win-win to me all around.

[MorganSercu]

Which is why I’m legit confused about the reason they didn’t simply use the FEI name without having to engage anyone at all.

https://eventingnation.com/the-problem-with-plantation/

From within the article,

“This is not the first instance of a sport coming to terms with its questionable naming history.”

“EN reached out to USEA and USEF in June to express our concerns about the Plantation Field name. But change is often a slow moving train, especially with organizations where there are multiple channels of bureaucracy to move through. As the event drew nearer it became clear that a name change would not materialize. We had to make a decision as a media outlet about our own path forward, and we agreed that we were no longer comfortable using the word “plantation” on our website.”

“If changing the name creates a more welcoming sport for all, then we should make these changes.”

Why bring up renaming anything at all if it isn’t what you want to see happen? It seems they didn’t want to use the FEI nomenclature “Unionville” at all, because they rumbled to it as an option later.

He indicated he and his family were being targeted as racists. I have no idea if that is true (being targeted) or if they are racists. But he didn’t want any part of it anymore. Maybe EN was being more obnoxious behind the scenes in writing or in person? Demanding a name change rather than asking for it and coming forward with an effective pitch for why changing it would be better than letting it stand. Which is a shame and a loss for the larger equestrian community.

Anyway, I really hope he can be persuaded to let it continue to be used for all sorts of events - including equestrian. Fingers crossed he is even willing to change the event name to honor a family member or something.

[MorganSercu]

It may be a big load of codswallop or not. I’m confused as to why the first amendment is brought up when it was an online journal that was in play, not the government. Unless it had to do with libel and if EN was sliding towards it, then it applies. Although he is no longer in politics. I don’t know - presumably the attorneys on that board and this one may generously explain it to us. In the end, it doesn’t really matter if the intentions of EN were pure or noble or not. Mr. Walker has decided it is more trouble than it is worth to him.

https://assets.eventingnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/16145608/17498458169.pdf

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

https://eventingnation.com/the-problem-with-plantation/

From within the article,

“This is not the first instance of a sport coming to terms with its questionable naming history.”

“EN reached out to USEA and USEF in June to express our concerns about the Plantation Field name. But change is often a slow moving train, especially with organizations where there are multiple channels of bureaucracy to move through. As the event drew nearer it became clear that a name change would not materialize. We had to make a decision as a media outlet about our own path forward, and we agreed that we were no longer comfortable using the word “plantation” on our website.”

“If changing the name creates a more welcoming sport for all, then we should make these changes.”

Why bring up renaming anything at all if it isn’t what you want to see happen? It seems they didn’t want to use the FEI nomenclature “Unionville” at all, because they rumbled to it as an option later.

He indicated he and his family were being targeted as racists. I have no idea if that is true (being targeted) or if they are racists. But he didn’t want any part of it anymore. Maybe EN was being more obnoxious behind the scenes in writing or in person? Demanding a name change rather than asking for it and coming forward with an effective pitch for why changing it would be better than letting it stand. Which is a shame and a loss for the larger equestrian community.

Anyway, I really hope he can be persuaded to let it continue to be used for all sorts of events - including equestrian. Fingers crossed he is even willing to change the event name to honor a family member or something.

But where does it say name change of the place, as opposed to the event? I agree that ultimately they wanted a name change despite the fact that they say their first approach was to discuss an alternative reference. What I’m not seeing is any support for them wanting a place name change, only an event name change.

I, too, hope that someone wiser than the LO and EN can exert their influence and bring about a resolution that is more mature, level-headed, and positive than this emotional flounce out. Maybe they should bring Dolly in as a consultant!!

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

It may be a big load of codswallop or not. I’m confused as to why the first amendment is brought up when it was an online journal that was in play, not the government. Unless it had to do with libel and if EN was sliding towards it, then it applies. Although he is no longer in politics. I don’t know - presumably the attorneys on that board and this one may generously explain it to us. In the end, it doesn’t really matter if the intentions of EN were pure or noble or not. Mr. Walker has decided it is more trouble than it is worth to him.

https://assets.eventingnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/16145608/17498458169.pdf

Because the VAST majority of people don’t understand that in order to have a 1st A issue, you need a “state actor”. Without a state actor, all you have is people who disagree with what you are saying and there is no law against that or any consequences that flow from it.

[MorganSercu]

@FitzE

But where does it say name change of the place, as opposed to the event? I agree that ultimately they wanted a name change despite the fact that they say their first approach was to discuss an alternative reference. What I’m not seeing is any support for them wanting a place name change, only an event name change.

I, too, hope that someone wiser than the LO and EN can exert their influence and bring about a resolution that is more mature, level-headed, and positive than this emotional flounce out. Maybe they should bring Dolly in as a consultant!!

What would be the point to changing the name of the event if you drive up and there is the sign that says, “Plantation Field” which he would be within his rights to put up or keep up? How could EN then deem it a success?

Culyer Walker has been a licensed attorney for 32 years. I don’t know if he said it was a 1st amendment issue despite knowing better, the PFEE, or an individual on the board misused the term.

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

What would be the point to changing the name of the event if you drive up and there is the sign that says, “Plantation Field” which he would be within his rights to put up or keep up? How could EN then deem it a success?

Culyer Walker has been a licensed attorney for 32 years. I don’t know if he said it was a 1st amendment issue despite knowing better, the PFEE, or an individual on the board misused the term.

Not disagreeing with you on that point (I didn’t know there was a sign there, I keep hearing it’s just a field). Just saying I still see no evidence that they had the face to push a place name change, only an event name change. That is all.

[pluvinel]

When I say “My Barn – My Rules” this actually a general rule that applies in many scenarios. What does this mean?

Everyone has a “barn.” This “barn” is a rhetorical and/or physical place where a person has the power to make their own “rules.”

The question is to know whose barn are you playing in.

Let’s do a stakeholder analysis. Who’s who in this zoo?

The landowner. His “barn” is his property. He makes the rules as to what happens on his land. He can call his property whatever he wants and he calls the shots as to who to allow on his land. This stakeholder has ultimate control as to what happens on his barn…er, land.

The Event Manager - His “barn” is the business of running the equestrian events he organizes. He can make the rules and has control what to call his business entity, PFEE. He has to negotiate with the landowner on the contractual terms for use of the land. So his (allegorical) “barn” is that he can make the rules regarding how this event is run…but there is a limit to his kingdom that is defined by his land use contract.

Eventing Nation - An internet publication - Their “barn” is their publication. They make their rules and establish policies about how to run their house. This publication is their barn where they are free to opine about the world of eventing. They can write about this event…They can pontificate about the event’s name…but they have absolutely NO authority outside of their barn…er, publication…to enforce rules or change on anyone outside of their own shop or operation.

The Riders. Their “barn” where they can make “rules” and have some control is where they chose to participate in events they consider to be aligned with their beliefs. They can vote with their wallet. That is the mechanism they have to influence change.

USEF/USEA/FEI…these are secondary parties at this stage, so I’m not including them.

My analysis is that EN got lost as to whose barn they were playing in.

EN got confused thinking that the rules they used in their “barn” could be applied to the landowner and event organizer’s barns. And they quickly found out the error of their ways.

Moral of the story…If you want to be invited back, know whose barn you’re in and whose rules apply to you.

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

What would be the point to changing the name of the event if you drive up and there is the sign that says, “Plantation Field” which he would be within his rights to put up or keep up? How could EN then deem it a success?

Culyer Walker has been a licensed attorney for 32 years. I don’t know if he said it was a 1st amendment issue despite knowing better, the PFEE, or an individual on the board misused the term.

Lord, I do hope an attorney wouldn’t make that mistake.

[trubandloki]

I am confused by something. The last few pages have been “the land owner should have” done this or that (regarding the name change).

The way I read what went on, the question, or better said demand about the event name change was not addressed to the land owner, it was asked of the event organizer.

The land owner has not kicked them off the land because he says ‘you must name this event what I want it named’ he has kicked them off his land because he did not want to be in the middle of the mess created in today’s world when everyone decides someone is bad when they did nothing wrong. Too bad for him that happened anyway. He (land owner) is stuck in the situation often called - no good dead goes unpunished.

The disagreement is between EN and the event. Not EN and the land owner. The land owner said ‘so sorry, do not want to be part of this, so get off my land’.

[MorganSercu]

@trubandloki

I am confused by something. The last few pages have been “the land owner should have” done this or that (regarding the name change).

The way I read what went on, the question, or better said demand about the event name change was not addressed to the land owner, it was asked of the event organizer.

The land owner has not kicked them off the land because he says ‘you must name this event what I want it named’ he has kicked them off his land because he did not want to be in the middle of the mess created in today’s world when everyone decides someone is bad when they did nothing wrong. Too bad for him that happened anyway. He (land owner) is stuck in the situation often called - no good dead goes unpunished.

The disagreement is between EN and the event. Not EN and the land owner. The land owner said ‘so sorry, do not want to be part of this, so get off my land’.

The land owner is on the board of PFEE too. And if USEA and USEF weren’t going to use the name of the venue in any media articles or publications, one that chosen by the landowner years ago to honor his family’s history in the area, then after this year, they wouldn’t have to use of it at all. FEI always Unionville, so it wasn’t a change.

Sadly, it appears that EN was so obnoxious about the whole thing, Mr. Walker has decided no one is welcome to use it at all.

My guess.

I found this comment in the string of comments to “The Problem with ‘Plantation’” article:

Amy Ruth Borun
Tori Kager I am one of the ‘they’ you keep referring to as part of the organizing committee. You were not in any of our meetings nor have you seen the very ugly unprofessional letters Lesley- the editor wrote. You do not know any of the conversations which occurred. Karen Rubin is correct. I wish you would try to get information from all sources

[MorganSercu]

From further down the comment string:

Amy Ruth Borun
After all the letters you wrote Lesley and this article you actually say you were just trying to start a discussion?!! That was not part of your letters to the USEA to the USEF or to Denis. You were very clear you wanted something and it wasn’t a discussion
Like · Reply · 25 · 2d

(redacted)
Please publish the letters. I think that’s a fair response to this situation as EN are clearly trying to paint themselves as the good guys here.
Like · Reply · 2 · 2d

Amy Ruth Borun
(redacted) can’t not allowed sadly
Like · Reply · 2d

[MorganSercu]

Trying again.

From further down the comment string:

Amy Ruth Borun
After all the letters you wrote Lesley and this article you actually say you were just trying to start a discussion?!! That was not part of your letters to the USEA to the USEF or to Denis. You were very clear you wanted something and it wasn’t a discussion

(redacted)
Please publish the letters. I think that’s a fair response to this situation as EN are clearly trying to paint themselves as the good guys here.

Amy Ruth Borun
(redacted) can’t not allowed sadly

Nancy Toby

[Gardenhorse]

@MorganSercu

What would be the point to changing the name of the event if you drive up and there is the sign that says, “Plantation Field” which he would be within his rights to put up or keep up? How could EN then deem it a success?

Culyer Walker has been a licensed attorney for 32 years. I don’t know if he said it was a 1st amendment issue despite knowing better, the PFEE, or an individual on the board misused the term.

It is the event organizer, Denis Glaccum, who referred to the first amendment in refusing to change the name of his nonprofit corporation, Plantation Field Equestrian Events, Inc.

[MsRidiculous]

@MorganSercu

Trying again.

From further down the comment string:

Amy Ruth Borun
After all the letters you wrote Lesley and this article you actually say you were just trying to start a discussion?!! That was not part of your letters to the USEA to the USEF or to Denis. You were very clear you wanted something and it wasn’t a discussion

(redacted)
Please publish the letters. I think that’s a fair response to this situation as EN are clearly trying to paint themselves as the good guys here.

Amy Ruth Borun
(redacted) can’t not allowed sadly

Nancy Toby

]

Since Denis is the one that leaked the original email, maybe this person should instead be asking Denis for the rest of the emails. I would think that if they do in fact say the kinds of things that he’s told everyone they say, he’d be quick and willing to prove it.

[mvp]

@Gardenhorse

This is an interesting quote from the USEA A-Z article on the event (https://useventing.com/news-media/ne…horse-trials):

“The field was known as Logan’s Field and it also had a woods known as Plantation Woods. So, we changed our name to Plantation Field Equestrian Events, Inc. (PFEE).“ So they chose a name that incorporated both for the event. Too bad they didn’t choose Logan’s Woods instead.

The link doesn’t work. When did they choose that name?

Not for nuthin’ but there was a resurgence of racism in the 1920s that might have stretched into the 1930s. Lots of those pro-Dixie monuments were built in the 1920s. So a particular view of the past was being created by some whites then. I don’t know if any of that touched Walker family. (If not, why not establish their not being part of that and move on?) But I will tell you this: It’s an expression of white privilege to get so offended at any suggestion of racism is a reason to cancel the lease. How many black people in the 1930s could buy 100+ acres in Eastern Pennsylvania? We’d be having a really different conversation if that historical event had been possible.

I think wealthy white today people need to google up the concept of Noblesse Oblige and try to live by it.