Citizens advisory committee recommends renaming Conrad E. Elvehjem Primary School, proposes museum-quality exhibit

A citizens advisory facilities naming committee recommended that the McFarland School Board change the name of the school long associated with Conrad E. Elvehjem and establish a prominent, museum-quality exhibit presenting both his scientific achievements and the more contested parts of his record.

The committee presented its recommendation to the board in open session and asked that the district form a follow-up committee to select an alternative school name and to raise funds, concurrently, to support both the renaming and the proposed exhibit. The board did not take a vote; the recommendation is scheduled for formal consideration at the board’s April 7 meeting.

Why it matters: committee members said the recommendation balances Elvehjem’s scientific accomplishments — including work on nutrition and niacin that the committee noted saved lives — with documentary evidence that he signed a 1931 Nakoma neighborhood petition that added a racial covenant restricting ownership and occupancy by people of African descent. The panel concluded the school name should “reflect our present day commitment to belonging and inclusivity,” while the proposed exhibit would acknowledge both Elvehjem’s contributions and the historical harms associated with segregation.

The committee’s process and findings: the committee met multiple times and heard presentations from local historians and scholars, including Ron Larson, Gail Martinson and Dr. Christie Clark-Pujara, to review archival records and contextual research. Membership initially numbered 13; one member later resigned and 12 members completed the deliberations, which the facilitator said included six regular meetings plus an optional public session at the Monona Public Library on racial covenants.

Yanni McCray, a parent and committee member who summarized the research, said the group “committed to relying on factual information” and sought primary sources and historiography rather than public opinion alone. McCray noted the committee found three events of relevance in Elvehjem’s record: the 1931 covenant signing; university-era decisions in 1962 around release of a housing-discrimination film; and statements he made in 1960 about student protest tactics. Historians who worked with the committee told members the latter two episodes were complex and typically understood in the context of his administrative role at the University of Wisconsin.

Committee recommendation: Matt Behel, reading the committee’s final recommendation, framed the proposal as neither a condemnation nor an erasure of history. He recommended that the board change the school’s name and at the same time “create a museum quality prominent display that represents him not as a perfect figure, but as a man who demonstrated the value of continuous improvement.” The recommendation asks the district to form a community committee to identify alternative names and to pursue fundraising to pay for the renaming and the exhibit.

Questions and context raised by the board: board members pressed the committee on evidence and timing. Committee members said the recorded Nakoma petition was notarized and entered into neighborhood records on July 3, 1931, and that the petition contained roughly 106 signatures; historians told the committee that obtaining that number of signatures raised questions about how the petition was circulated. Committee members also said there is no documentary evidence explaining Elvehjem’s personal motive for signing the petition.

Committee members emphasized the difference between consensus and unanimity: the panel used a 60% threshold to define consensus for its recommendation and reported the final outcome exceeded that threshold but was not unanimous.

Next steps: the board will accept public comment and consider the recommendation at its April 7 meeting. The committee asked the board to consider forming a new naming committee to solicit alternative names, to manage a transparent process for community input, and to pursue concurrent fundraising to cover renaming costs and the proposed exhibit so the district would not delay presenting Elvehjem’s full record to the public.

Evidence and sources: the committee’s packet and supporting files include historians’ notes, reproductions of the Nakoma covenant petition, references to legal changes that rendered covenants unenforceable, and a link to archival footage and transcripts discussed by historians. Committee members said they relied on primary documents and historian reports in drafting their recommendation.

Public and procedural note: the presentation was informational; the board did not vote on renaming at the meeting where the committee report was delivered. The board chair told the public the board would take action on the recommendation at the April 7 meeting and welcomed written comment and public testimony at that future meeting.