OXFORD, Ga. — City Council members voted April 4 to remove signs around Oxford that have sparked controversy because of the ways they portray the experiences of enslaved people in the city and Oxford College.

The council also voted in favor of initiating mediated dialogues between the community and the council about how to reword the signs to provide a more accurate description of the city’s history.

Council members approved the motion proposed by Oxford Mayor David Eady to take down plaques at the Oxford Historical Cemetery and Kitty’s Cottage, a granite marker on Whatcoat Street, a sign outside City Hall and the Civil War Heritage Trails sign at Wesley and Fletcher streets.

Some students at the college and community members have flagged the language on the signs as misrepresenting the history of enslaved people in Oxford.

“We have statements that perpetuate a false narrative about our history and certain events and do so in a way that is inappropriate and offensive to a large segment of the population,” Eady said.

The plaque at Kitty’s Cottage and the sign on Whatcoat Street both include phrases that imply Catherine “Kitty” Boyd, a Black woman enslaved by Methodist Bishop James Osgood Andrew, had the autonomy to remain with her enslavers rather than be free to go to the African country of Liberia. Boyd resided at the cottage from 1841 until her death in the 1850s.

Additionally, Councilman Jim Windham moved during Monday’s meeting to include the sign at City Hall, which also allegedly perpetuates false narratives about the city’s history and was originally not included in the motion.

At a council work session March 21, Oxford College Dean Douglas Hicks said he heard concerns about the signs from students and other community members through conversations facilitated as part of Emory University’s Twin Memorials project, an initiative to erect two memorials honoring the labor of Black people in building and working at the university.

“I wanted to come and share some of the things that we are doing at the college and ask that we might be partners in this work and invite citizens to stand with you all as leaders to remove signs that are relatively recent but are inaccurate … and then think together with you all in whatever ways you think are appropriate to partner with the college,” Hicks said at the March 21 work session.

Eady said his motion asked that the city take down the signs, place them in safe storage and then begin conversations with the community about how the language on the three plaques can be reworded.

“We’re definitely not talking about destroying them, just really removing them to demonstrate our commitment to change,” Eady said.

However, councilmembers George Holt and Jeff Wearing shared concerns over whether the community conversations should happen before the signage is taken down.

Holt said he believes having the dialogues first might “reduce backlash” from the community.

Wearing said, “I do not know that taking these down at this particular point would actually accomplish what some people may think they would.”

“I don’t think that there’s anybody in this town that I’ve talked to myself that has any hostility about what those signs say or the intent of those signs or anything else,” he said.

In response, Holt said that he “respectfully” disagreed that there weren’t community members who take issue with the signs.

“What we’re talking about here is making sure it accurately represents what our history really was,” Holt said.

Councilmembers Mike Ready and Laura McCanless supported the immediate takedown of the signs.

“I’m fine with taking these down at this point in time so long as we are fairly proactive about moving the dialogue along and not letting this languish forever,” McCanless said.

In an initial vote, Wearing and Holt both chose to abstain from voting on the motion.

“If we decide to take them all down and nothing is said, I’m thinking the community would not accept this as much if they feel like they had some input in it,” Holt said.

“Don’t get me wrong, I’m for taking the signs down and changing them.”

In response, Windham interjected to make a case for taking the signage down, saying that it is the job of the city council to make decisions on behalf of resident to benefit the city, instead of delaying necessary changes.

“History is written by the victor and the powerful,” Windham said. “It puts a slant on it. And, though it may have been acceptable in the day it was written, it’s no longer acceptable … The best thing to do is put the sign down and then move forward as rapidly as possible.”

After the discussion, Holt said he would “reluctantly” join his fellow four council members in accepting the motion, and Wearing stuck by his initial decision to abstain from the vote. Eady also joined the council majority in voting yes on the motion.

The council will discuss how they wish to proceed on taking down the four signs and initiating community dialogue at their next work session meeting on April 18.

This version of the story has been updated from an earlier version.