An Open Letter: Opposing the Renaming of Wilson College and the Woodrow Wilson School | Opinion

Dear Princetonians,

In the spirit of open debate and expression which both this Nation and University were founded upon, I come to you to express my indignation towards the reckless and irresponsible decision reached by the Board of Trustees at the recommendation of President Eisgruber. It is my opinion that the decision to remove former President Woodrow Wilson’s name from both Wilson College and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, while certainly made in good faith, indicates Princeton’s willingness to capitulate to the whims of ephemeral social trends in order to garner a more favorable public opinion. Furthermore, I would argue, it is this willingness to acquiesce and to ignore our history that this week has placed the University not among the leaders of higher institutions of education in this country and abroad, but among the followers. Although I have great respect and love for both the University and its hard-working faculty, today I cannot say that I am proud to be a Princetonian.

Wilson’s contributions to the University were immeasurable, but even so, no one can or will deny that former President Woodrow Wilson was a profound racist; as President Eisgruber’s message to the community on Saturday noted, “Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time.” Clearly something can be gleaned of Wilson’s character based on the fact that he was considered radical at a time when the Ku Klux Klan surged to its highest levels of membership in history. I am not here to deny the past nor to justify the actions of a man who treated his equals as lessers and did so with impunity, and in fact I will thoroughly and wholeheartedly condemn them. What I am here to do, however, is assert the futility and hypocrisy of revisionism.

The argument of the Board for the removal of Wilson’s namesake largely rests on the prevalence of the man’s racist beliefs, but any survey of prominent historical figures will reveal uncomfortable truths incompatible with modern sensibilities. Recently released FBI documents allege that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in addition to being a noted womanizer and adulterer, once witnessed – and laughed at – a rape. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence and the fledgling United States’s third president, owned and abused hundreds of slaves throughout his life (although paradoxically he decried the institution in public). King William III, Prince of Orange from the House of Nassau, namesake of the town of Princeton, Nassau Hall, and later the University, was for a period of time the governor of and a major stockholder in the Royal African Company, which “exported more enslaved African men, women, and children to the Americas than any other single institution during the entire period of the transatlantic slave trade.” Perhaps, in light of these revelations, the University ought to cancel its annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. celebration, ought to withdraw its support for The Papers of Thomas Jefferson project, and ought to rename both Nassau Hall and the University as a whole. But this is absurdity of the highest order. Ultimately, applying modern perspectives retroactively leads to precious little worthwhile discussion because the standards that guide our progressive, modern society are exactly that — a modern invention. In ten, twenty, a hundred years from now, what actions of ours will be deemed unconscionable or unchaste, such that will erase our names from the world we will have worked our entire lives to create for our posterity? Living on the forefront of history means recognizing and correcting the flaws of our past while simultaneously respecting and honoring the thousands of generations that have brought us to this point, flawed though they might have been. Although the past can often be difficult to grapple with, it is my opinion that this decision has painted the University as an institution too cowardly to face its own uncomfortable past with earnest sincerity and a hopeful determination for honesty and inclusivity moving forward.

Moreover, I take great offense to the hasty manner in which this decision was reached, especially after the University’s prior confrontations with this question. As President Eisgruber’s message stated, “The board previously considered whether to remove Wilson’s name after a group of student activists occupied my office in November 2015. The Wilson Legacy Review Committee conducted a thorough, deliberative process. In April 2016, it recommended a number of reforms to make this University more inclusive and more honest about its history. The committee and the board, however, left Wilson’s name on the School and the College.” This seems to me an appropriate and calculated response to an impassioned plea by the community, with the decision reached after a prolonged period of careful contemplation being representative of the timeless values and commitments of the University to both its past and its future. This past week, however, has proven that the University will not deign to entertain such notions any longer, and have unequivocally decided with little deliberation to reverse course entirely from the Committee’s previous recommendation. Why is this? President Eisgruber says that “the board reconsidered [the Wilson Legacy Review Committee’s reforms] this month as the tragic killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Rayshard Brooks drew renewed attention to the long and damaging history of racism in America.” Yet, it seems bizarre that the University, with its famed history department, would somehow remain blissfully unaware of this country’s long and damaging history of racism. The University took active part in the perpetuation of that racism, after all, for almost 200 years of its history. The fact that the University has chosen to act, here and now, with wanton disregard for the sanctity of deliberation and at the behest of political and social leaders seeking accolades and applause for “wokeness”, demonstrates their readiness to bend to the outrage of the week and discard their dignity in exchange for the approval of the masses.

This is not to say that the University should never address its past or never seek to improve (nor to suggest that the recent killings brought to light should be ignored or otherwise taken lightly), but rather it is to say that the manner in which they have chosen to do so is not befitting of an institution of higher learning, especially not one as prestigious and influential as Princeton. Universities are political places by nature. The collection of ideas, new and old, into an environment which actively encourages the discussion and, more importantly, the challenging of these ideas is an important facet of any society. But nevertheless, the universities themselves exist only as a vessel for this debate, and, in my opinion, ought not to take direct part in it. The University, by surrendering its virtue and honor at the summons of the court of popular opinion, has tarnished its own informal motto: “In the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity” (partially derived, by the way, from a Woodrow Wilson speech). If our University can be intimidated by the transient impulses of the mob mentality to disregard their own esteemed standards, what guarantee is there that the University will stand firm against those who would seek to undermine the Nation, or indeed, Humanity itself? The issues plaguing the world, this country, and even our community are pervasive and prodigious, but let us not fool ourselves into believing that wiping a man’s name from a college or a woman’s face from a syrup bottle does anything to solve these problems. It is my belief that the University should focus its time, efforts, and resources into more worthwhile and effective projects which remain above the muck of lower political discourse and focus on higher Service to the Nation and to Humanity.

I beseech our Board, our President, and our Administration to reconsider the matter at hand and entreat my fellow Princetonians to stand against this gross violation of our University’s core beliefs. Nowadays more than ever I believe it is important for us to continue to think critically and fight for what we believe is right, even if popular opinion or the media dictate otherwise. Is this the example we truly wish to set for our peers and the history we want to tell our grandchildren? The world is watching, Princeton. Set the right example.