The Audubon Name: Members Speak
By Ilana DeBare
As part of considering whether to keep the “Audubon” part of our name, Golden Gate Bird Alliance (GGBA) conducted an online survey of our current members earlier this month. Of about 2000 dues-paying members, 354 responded—18 percent. That’s a very high turnout, considering that many surveys garner responses of only two or three percent. It’s a sign of how much GGBA members care about the organization and its future.

The results were:
221 (63 percent) in favor of removing the “Audubon” name.
89 (25 percent) against removing the “Audubon” name.
44 (12 percent) undecided about whether to remove the name.
The responses were uniformly thoughtful and heartfelt, regardless of which position they took. The GGBA Board of Directors is deeply appreciative of everyone who shared their views. The following is a sample of people’s comments, in proportion to the number of pro/con/undecided responses. (Each paragraph is from a different respondent.)
In Favor of Removing the Name
I don’t want to honor someone who enslaved and sold other human beings. I also want to respect the feelings of African Americans who have suffered from the legacy of slavery and act in solidarity with them.
As someone who is mixed race (African American and Caucasian), having one of my favorite organizations have loose ties to the imprisonment of my people has always made me feel icky. A small name change to remove the word Audubon would open up the doors to more minorities across San Francisco.
Emphasize the mission, not the man.
He was a product of his time, but there were people in his time who were anti-slavery, and he certainly wasn’t. Names are symbols. We need a racist-free name now… We can rebrand ourselves and still be a forceful presence for birds.
Aside from the character of Audubon, younger people have no idea what/who “Audubon” is. It’s opaque that Golden Gate Bird Alliance is a bird conservation organization.
Let’s keep naming free from individual personages, living or dead, righteous or not. For example, National Airport in DC was a perfectly good name and should have been kept in my view but instead was renamed for a political figure [Ronald Reagan] of dubious distinction.
Audubon was a man of his time—owning people and slaughtering birds were common. We need to move beyond those times. A name change might help us move past the stereotype of a group of white, wealthy, and older people.…