Glad they put aside this issue, but even on the face of it's seems insane to me.
People already do it for colleges.
Is it to glorify the named in question? Or to give the students a hero to aspire towards?
Then suddenly you understand why SF has one of the highest city+county budgets per capita yet horrible services, decaying infrastructure and rampant corruption.
No serious person debates whether Washington was relevant to national history.
We're debating whether good people today can praise the achievements of a person who held Washington's immoral views in the 1700s, without harming others.
And why should USA be held to a different, more extreme standard than, say, India, China, Russia, Italy, Peru, Ecuador, Belize, etc?
One could certainly say that he does not represent current social mores, or even past ones.
However argument against Lincoln is that he signed various acts like the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 which took land away from the tribes that previously held it. Obviously the tribes which are now mere protectorates of the US would rather be independent nations... but unlike with slavery, this course of history isn’t one that people generally support reversing.
We could generally give back land to the Native American nations. They continue to exist in the present day. However if we won’t do that, then changing a name of a school is just paying lip service to their views. If what Lincoln did is an injustice then it is one that is ongoing and perpetrated by the existing US Government, and all the politicians we elect.