Well, there is nothing like adding a bit of pomposity and arrogance to a controversy. Who died and made the Washington Post a standard with which people or colleges are supposed to comply? 

Let's focus on one of the Post's biggest complaints — VMI's relationship to the Civil War, something that clearly rankles the woke members of the newspaper's editorial board. 

The Post's editorial praises VMI for removing from campus a "previously revered statue of Gen. Stonewall Jackson, who owned six enslaved people."

Now, if VMI was revering Stonewall Jackson for owning six enslaved people, I could understand the Post's point. But I don't know of anyone at VMI who has ever revered Jackson for owning slaves. Jackson was revered and honored for being a Civil War hero, a military genius, and a military instructor at VMI — and for fighting for his homeland, the state of Virginia, after President Lincoln's troops invaded the South.

What's wrong with honoring a man for those things? After all, correct me if I'm wrong but Thomas Jefferson owned a lot more slaves than Jackson did. I don't see the Post calling for the removal of the Jefferson Memorial. What's up with that? Does that mean that the Post favors honoring Jefferson for owning hundreds of slaves? 

Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, George Washington, who is sometimes referred to as "the father of our country," also owned more slaves than Jackson. I don't see the Post calling for the removal of the Washington Monument from Washington, D.C. Indeed, I don't even see it calling for a name change for our nation's capital. What's up with that? Surely, the Post doesn't favor honoring George Washington for owning those slaves.