>It was referred to as a derogatory name in a Wisconsin State Journal story in the 1920s<p>>In a statement released Thursday, the university explained, “[r]emoving the rock as a monument in a prominent location prevents further harm to our community<p>>Chamberlin Rock, which is believed to be over two billion years old, was described by the university as a large pre-Cambrian-era glacial erratic. It was named for Thomas Chamberlin, a geologist who served as university president from 1887 to 1892<p>So, a 2 billion year old glacial erratic was removed because some time 100 years ago someone referred to it using a racial slur...and its existence was causing harm.<p>I can see why people get upset about things like Confederate statues and such...but this, I mean really...come on...it's not like it was officially named after a racial slur, the article doesn't seem to imply there was problems with people today referring to the rock by the racial slur. This just seems so ridiculous at this point.<p>They are claiming a giant rock causes harm because someone 100 years ago used a terrible word to describe it in a journal article.<p>If you choose to be offended and upset because someone used a word 100 years ago to describe a rock, that's probably on you at that point.