I liked the diversity articles I saw on the Horse Nation website. I think they would be the same on as on the sister site, Eventing Nation, right? Anyway, I have Black family members who are young and tentatively interested in horses. If they ever feel uncomfortable, there are people out there that look more like them. I think they would enjoy perusing the website and I’m glad the word “plantation” isn’t in the headlines.
There is a fancy housing development nearby that uses the name “plantation”. Huge sign for all to see. Yes, it hurts feelings, especially since it was named after a notorious plantation that actually existed at that site. Why were the developers proud of that name? Who were they appealing to? Was this an effort to keep Black people from buying houses there? Absolutely shameless.
Is it really a big deal to change the name of a school named after a Confederate general? Or, a name associated with enslavement? Does your affection for the name really compared to the level of anger and hurt that the name causes others?
So, regarding the diversity essays (which was a great idea, BTW). When was it announced? Did any of the writers mention the Plantation Field event specifically? If the essays were then used as ‘proof’ that the BOD of PFEE and/or Mr. Walker and his family were racists and presented as such to USEA, USEF & PFEE, I can imagine it being one of the final pieces of straw. Apparently USEA changing how they would refer to that venue only was ome insult too many. If USEA & USEF had made a blanket decision to only use the town name for all venues (a la FEI), I doubt it would have ended like this.
Maybe if they do make that decision and announce it, it may be an opening for negotiations in the future.
If I were the landowner and if I were to change my position in the slightest, I would be writing a far different contract to host an USEA event on my land. Or offer it to them to purchase at a steep cost and walk away.
I don’t understand why Ms. Leslie Wylie wrote so many or such nasty emails in her capacity within EN and sent them to the BOD of PFEE. She knew the LO was on that board, right? I mean, his name is listed as a board member up until now. That is NOT how you bring up this issue to a private landowner. I doubt Mr. Walker received payment for leasing or using it that was anywhere near the value or the hassle factor.
Darn shame now and for all the future non-users of the land.
Maybe PFEE will disband. Or maybe they simply won’t have anything to do with the 2 organizations that were linked to EN. I hope at least the latter so 4H, the dog groups, hot air balloon festival, etc. will be welcome.
How could EN possibly have come to the conclusion that they could demand a name change of any sort on the part of a privately owned piece of property and an organization that doesn’t take state or federal funds? Did they give any thought to long-term consequences? As for the other two groups who had had dealings with PFEE & Mr. G in particular - you KNEW better and you did it anyway. Time for you to buy, build, maintain and pay taxes on your own venues if you wish to dictate to or single out any particular venue.
At least be consistent. It is no longer Morven Park, it is Leesburg, for example.
Soooo… a little more background information that I learned when I took all of 30 seconds to look up who was actually on the Board of Directors for Plantation Field Equestrian Events…
PFEE is a registered 501c3. It was incorporated in 1985 however…
The 501c3 was originally tied to Fair Hill when Glaccum was the organizer for that event. Others probably know the history involved with that event better than I… but essentially… 20 yrs ago… they renamed the underlying incorporated 501c3 to Plantation Field Equestrian Event when Mr. Glaccum first approached Me. Walker about utilizing the current property for the purpose of developing a top notch eventing venue in the Unionville, PA area.
So for all those who contend a name change at THIS point is a simple technical matter… yes it is… and no it isn’t.
PFEE is a non profit corporation. A name change would mean changing the underlying documents pertaining to the incorporated organization itself. Which involves a bit of a legal bill… but that’s truly pennies when it comes to the broader financial picture.
Another part of the broader financial picture that some people seem to not quite understand, is the issue of sponsors, and the concept of “branding.” This whole situation ISN’T only about various people’s feelings and opinions… on one side or another. Nope. It’s about business, marketing and branding and sponsorships, and the way a 501c3 corporation tied to an event like this functions.
The event grew and flourished over a number of years, and funds were raised that allowed for the venue to be further developed… a better course, better arenas, etc etc. The money involved came from entry fees associated with the competition, private donations from individuals with enough money and interest in the sport of eventing and keeping a venue like this going for local participants in the Unionville, PA area, as well as significant donations from both publicly held and privately held businesses who decided to be official sponsors with respect to the event. Sometimes, companies will donate something… hypothetically like a beautiful run in shed structure… and then the event organizers will hold a festive silent auction for it… and funds can be raised that way. Other times, a company will choose to tie their business name to the competition in all publicity pertaining to the competition etc, and that will mean significant advertising for their business name on social media and the grounds of the competition all weekend. The 501c3 (which in this case is Plantation Field Equestrian Events) does this in exchange for the donation of money to the 501c3 corporation. The general idea behind this is that it is a “win win” relationship for both the business and the 501c3. Good publicity (which hopefully will yield a good financial result for the business) tied to a good non profit cause, that does indeed need donated funds from generous sponsors.
Soooo… how do we all think longtime sponsors of this event… both private individuals and businesses… might feel about this whole racially charged name controversy? Especially businesses who had donated substantial funds to it in the past or present, thus literally tying their BRAND NAME to the name “Plantation Field International Event?”
It’s safe to say many would prefer to avoid it.
That’s a significant consideration, folks. We all can have any opinion we want on the issue of the appropriateness/offensiveness of the name. As can the landowner. But what about the sponsors? For many… it wouldn’t be as much a matter of feelings, as a matter of what was best for their business. Generally speaking, highly contentious racially charged controversies are NOT good for business.
Bottom line, actions have consequences. Changing the name of this venue would have had consequences with respect to ongoing sponsorships, and finding willing sponsors going forward. Just like the landowner preferred to avoid ugly publicity and controversy and just stay far away from it… so might sponsors.
Finding sponsors and convincing them to donate to venues like this… it’s real work. Some people are quite good at. Apparently Mr. Glaccum is pretty good at it… given that he’s been involved in building a really successful venue over the last 20 yrs. Obtaining sponsorships is all about networking, and having great personal relationships with the right sort of people in the surrounding community, etc. I can certainly understand if the folks who had actually been directly involved in convincing wealthy individuals and businesses to sponsor this event in this community over a period of YEARS had some personal insight regarding how those key stakeholders might have responded to this name change controversy. Did EN or anyone with the USEA sit down with members of the PFEE board and talk through THAT challenge in detail? If not… why not? It’s a pretty relevant consideration.
High caliber competition venues like this rely on SIGNIFICANT support from private and corporate sponsors… in addition to land owners. Changing the name of this venue (entirely or in part) with only a few months or weeks to go until the scheduled competition date was NOT a small issue when it comes to the marketing concept of branding, and building a good brand name via sponsorship activities.
Just like many have pointed out that other landowners in the future will hesitate to open up their property to USEA competition in the future if this is how things are handled… sponsors also need to be considered.
So back to the beginning of the quoted content of your I singled out, and the question posed about whether or not PFEE would possibly disband at this point? I would guess they will. Mr. Glaccum is 79. He spent YEARS developing these sponsorships, and venue, and he has deep connections within this local community. If this event is done, my guess is he is done as well and will spend his time on his family and grandkids instead.
Sooo… the only other way it can continue is if someone else takes over as the organizer associated with this 501c3, finds a new venue in that area, develops it sufficiently to host this level of competition, and puts together enough wealthy private sponsors in the Chester County, PA area to keep it running. And gets some businesses to support the whole thing too.
That’s going to be challenging, I think. To put it mildly.
The other possibility is that if key folks at the USEA and USEF reach out privately to Mr. Walker and PROFUSELY apologize for the offense… he MIGHT reconsider his decision to terminate the lease. And if that happens, there is a prayer that this ship can be turned around. My guess is it is better at this point NOT to have anyone associated with EN contact Mr. Walker though… as it seems as though they aren’t interested in apologizing for this whole thing. And an apology is what is required of any of you want to have a shot at stepping foot on HIS property.
So there you have it. Many are commenting that they do not feel it’s fair to label this campaign that EN spearheaded an example of “cancel culture”… because EN didn’t intend to get this event canceled.
But the thing is, at the end of the summer, they were informed clearly by no less than Boyd Martin that the IMPACT of their campaign was very likely to be the cancellation of the event. Not a name change. And John Thier apparently decided that even if this ended in full blown scorched earth, this was a righteous fight, and would be a more positive outcome for the sport, than having participants continue to compete at a place named “Plantation Field.”
Everyone has an opinion… one way or another at this point. But I am willing to bet that folks who live in and around Unionville, PA do NOT think this was a good outcome.
Soooo… do we think harming and disenfranchising the eventing community is Unionville, PA is the “hard change” needed to GROW the sport? I’m dubious of the wisdom of that. I think this whole series of events is the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face… and I think that Rob Burk and Jenni Autry in particular need to sit down and put together a letter at this point to reassure folks that THEY will manage matters better in the future so that participants don’t continue to lose venues like this over poor handling of controversies like this. EN may have started this whole thing… but the folks in leadership with the governing bodies seemed to have allowed them to behave like a proverbial bull in a china shop… and that’s a problem for the sport going forward.
That takes an astounding degree of hubris. As long as EN still has their readers, sponsors & support from USEA, etc. then I guess there is no reason for EN to change anything.
Even for those who think the word “plantation” is (or should be) heading to the dustbin of the English language, EN lacked 2 things: (1) patience and (2) a sense of proportionality. They decided to push forward with a demand for immediate change even knowing it meant risking loss of the site.
We can imagine race-related issues where we would probably all agree the so called “nuclear option” would be entirely appropriate. Say, for example, it was discovered that when he wasn’t hosting equestrian events, the landowner was hosting white nationalist rallies. Or that the landowner had made comments that he didn’t want equestrians of color on his property. In those situations, I don’t think any of us would blame EN/USEA for concluding that the eventing community must take a stand even if it meant giving up the use of a beautiful property.
This isn’t that kind of issue. As noted throughout this thread, it is only very recently that the word “plantation” has come under scrutiny. Plimoth Plantation (in the liberal state of Massachusetts!) has not changed its name yet, though it plans to do so next year. Rhode Island voters will consider eliminating “Plantation” from the state’s name in November. There are still hundreds if not thousands of “plantation” place names and farms in Hawaii and many other places. As social justice concerns go, this is an embryonic issue. A consensus around getting rid of these names may grow, but it will take time.
In that situation, EN and USEA should have planned a diplomatic and gradual strategy to foster discussion, with the guiding principle of growing the sport of eventing for the 21st century. I bet some marketing whizzes could make it a positive and exciting change. Instead, they thought they could bully the landowner into instant compliance, with insinuations they would portray him as racist, which was way over the top given the innocuous history of the name for this property.
Even for those who think the word “plantation” is (or should be) heading to the dustbin of the English language, EN lacked 2 things: (1) patience and (2) a sense of proportionality. They decided to push forward with a demand for immediate change even knowing it meant risking loss of the site.
We can imagine race-related issues where we would probably all agree the so called “nuclear option” would be entirely appropriate. Say, for example, it was discovered that when he wasn’t hosting equestrian events, the landowner was hosting white nationalist rallies. Or that the landowner had made comments that he didn’t want equestrians of color on his property. In those situations, I don’t think any of us would blame EN/USEA for concluding that the eventing community must take a stand even if it meant giving up the use of a beautiful property.
This isn’t that kind of issue. As noted throughout this thread, it is only very recently that the word “plantation” has come under scrutiny. Plimoth Plantation (in the liberal state of Massachusetts!) has not changed its name yet, though it plans to do so next year. Rhode Island voters will consider eliminating “Plantation” from the state’s name in November. There are still hundreds if not thousands of “plantation” place names and farms in Hawaii and many other places. As social justice concerns go, this is an embryonic issue. A consensus around getting rid of these names may grow, but it will take time.
In that situation, EN and USEA should have planned a diplomatic and gradual strategy to foster discussion, with the guiding principle of growing the sport of eventing for the 21st century. I bet some marketing whizzes could make it a positive and exciting change. Instead, they thought they could bully the landowner into instant compliance, with insinuations they would portray him as racist, which was way over the top given the innocuous history of the name for this property.
I think you make a very good point about the sponsorships. EN compared their campaign with that aimed at The Football Team Formerly Known As The ‘R’ Name by various media sources, based on years of objections to that name.
But what finally forced the football team name change was that the team’s principal advertisers were dropping out. One refused to print more of the t-shirts sold at the stadium.
The media was not able to force the football team name change. They did this dance every year - they danced, the owner did nothing. Had the advertisers in particular not spoken, it is hard to image that the intransigent owner would ever have agreed to the name change.
Maybe EN misunderstood how the change actually came about? Did EN talk to any sponsors? They didn’t mention it in their lengthy explanations.
Hypothetically, it could be that over time (months? years?) the sponsors would have begun to worry about the name ‘Plantation’. And then started the conversation about a name change. That would have been a different path, and likely a much more sophisticated communications strategy than what actually happened.
How do you know that EN made such threats? Many people are claiming that, but we do not know exactly how they said whatever was said.
Some of the board members seem to have heard it that way. But it could be their interpretation of something they were resisting. It could be that EN thought they were passing along the information that the outside media was sniffing the wind re rich horse people riding on a ‘Plantation’, just the kind of topic that gets eyeballs these days. Possibly what EN said, was heard in a way that they did not intend. No idea, but it’s possible, and either guess is just that - a guess.
Several published internet news articles about this situation were been linked earlier in the thread. One was from the Philadelphia Inquirer. So EN’s awareness of outside exposure would be natural. We do not know how the Inquirer knew about this situation. Until it is known otherwise, I’ll give EN the benefit of the doubt on that. The event and publicity would be ramping up about that time, so it is possible that anyone at the Inquirer looking for in-state news items would come across some rich white people riding their horses on a ‘Plantation’ (the spin that gets eyeballs), and contact EN, based on their articles about it.
Going forward, there is a really good chance that this situation will get broader attention from non-horsey media sources. It is a classic head-butting situation between Traditional-Thinking and New-Thinking. That’s a very current topic right now.
We are actually rather lucky that this situation is occurring during this disaster year 2020. There are so many other more urgent topics for the news media to cover, they are likely not to expend many resources on this one.
EN has stated they “went through the proper channels” – but what specifically were those channels? Has anyone teased that out? What I’m getting at – is did they go to PFEE in some way first, or no?
Not that I’m AT ALL suggesting they should have showed up at the figurative door and demanded a name change – just, did they include PFEE board/event organizers etc. FIRST before lodging a concern with any governing bodies or other authorities, and/or implying they would take things to the media? That’s what I’m missing – understanding if they tried to open a dialogue and express a concern and ask questions – or if they bypassed any attempt to dialogue with PFEE and went right to expressing their issue to outside groups from the get-go? I have read the correspondence copied in this thread, and every post, I’m just not certain what was the very first broaching of the issue by EN.
Regardless, though, I have to say, that, given the issue was first raised in June of this year, as I understand it – that’s not nearly enough time for a name change imo, even if this had all been handled in a much more allied/work together over a concern/joining forces rather than sowing conflict sort of way. I mean, event announcements are out, advertising’s out, sponsorships are in the can, etc. etc. Maybe it could have happened, but it seems a short time frame, to me.
Re: the name itself – I am aware of the use of the term as large plantings of a single crop, a monoculture. But of course I am very familiar with the Old South meaning, and I recognize that that use of the word is likely much more familiar to more people in general than the use of the word as it describes the history of this property, the pine tree planting. Personally, because of the negative associations, even if they don’t accurately apply to the history of this property, I think a different name would be more inclusive and much less problematic and I would have wholeheartedly wanted a name change. But the way this was approached by EN, and conflict was stoked by them, and that the event will likely end after this year because of it all – ay yi yi. Since the factual matter is that the name of this property does NOT and never did pertain to a slaveholding enterprise – couldn’t this have been handled a whole lot differently?
eta: ok, while I was typing, others already said all this much more clearly than I did. I just don’t think the nuclear option was called for here, at all, and an important issue could have been broached in ways that would have been much more likely to have had acceptable outcomes for all the stakeholders.
One major question that I still have at this point after looking at this train wreck is…
Was EN the only party lacking when it came to number 2 (the sense of proportionality)?
Maybe. Or maybe they are being scapegoated to a certain extent by other parties involved. I don’t know…
Another thing I would add… however… that others might be better at fleshing out and coherently and concisely defining… is that the USEA and USEF did indeed have a fiduciary duty to their dues paying members with respect to this situation.
That should have been at the forefront of their thought process and decision making.
I bring this up because I have seen some information that indicates that USEA did indeed conduct some sort of review at some point during the summer to ascertain the number of participants in the sport who were actually considered members of a protected group of people, and had expressed a personal negative feeling with respect to the name of this venue.
According to what I heard… the number was less than 5 people with objections. And none of them were based in area II. Maybe EN has information that many more dues paying members who are part of a protected class objected to the venue name… but I have certainly not seen that’s mentioned anywhere. But I will admit… I might have missed it.
Furthermore… the USEA chair of area II has made a public post stating she has never received a feedback form ANY participant in a USEA recognized competition at the Plantation Field venue indicating they had a negative experience there because of an issue pertaining to race and discrimination, or even just a discomfort with the name of the event.
I will admit that this is 100% second hand information, and could quite possibly be wholly inaccurate… but that is the information I have seen.
The other information that I have seen is that hundreds of dues paying USEA members in and around area II have been participating in recognized competitions there, year in and year out, and clearly love the venue.
let’s add one more puzzle piece to this…
USEA and EN were informed by a PFEE board member that there was a very real risk that this venue would no longer be available to USEA dues paying members for use and competition purposes (*** the whole quote related to the worst case scenario where the landowner got so upset with this issue that he told them all he wanted to stop allowing eventing on his property) if they persisted with this name change issue in the manner they had chosen to thus far… folks were apparently informed of this at the end of August.
Soooo… given that information… some of which is admittedly 2nd hand and not confirmed… but still worth considering…
Why did the USEA send a letter out on September 13 (which was signed by Rob Burk) informing PFEE that they would be referring to the venue as P Field going forward? They had already been informed that persisting with the issue of referring to this venue by anything other than the name the actual property owner preferred this very well might result in the loss of access to this venue for all dues paying USEA members in area II.
Maybe others can explain to me why I am stretching it way too far. I probably am. I’ll admit it. But it is something to think about.
Add to it that Jenni Autry used to work for EN… and that EN likely got lots of clicks out of this situation and clicks are key to their revenue model…
and the whole thing is quite messy.
Just my opinion. And I likely am taking it too far. But I think leadership failed membership on this one. And that’s actually not ok, and membership should ask why this happened and what due diligence was done, and why a clear warning was ignored by USEA leadership. Quite likely there are significant legitimate reasons for the actions of everyone involved that I am not privy to.
“But I think leadership failed membership on this one. And that’s actually not ok, and membership should ask why this happened and what due diligence was done, and why a clear warning was ignored by USEA leadership. Quite likely there are significant legitimate reasons for the actions of everyone involved that I am not privy to.”
I am not a member, but is there an annual meeting where members can speak, or elect delegates? Is there a way to get this general topic, if not this particular instance, on the agenda?
I would guess it will be discussed at the Region II meetings.
I am so sorry that this incident has spoilt it for others.
Thank you everyone for your kind posts and messages. I did hear from Leslie at EN over the weekend. I won’t provide a play-by-play of the conversation but everyone should know that a lot of people tried to do the right thing with a result that no one wanted. There are no villians here but there are a lot of lessons learned. I don’t know how this will all wind up but I sincerely wish that the horse trials will return with a forward thinking solution for the Plantation Fields name. I hope to meet a few of you out eventing in 2021
