The Leading Princeton Publication of Conservative Thought

Don’t Judge Historical Figures through a Modern Moral Lens

Woodrow Wilson School. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.

With October’s dedication of “Double Sights,” an installation which recognizes Woodrow Wilson’s complex legacy, placed outside of the school named after him, the national debate over the legacy of historical figures has returned to the center stage of campus. Many students argue that historical figures with a history of racist viewpoints should be judged with the same harshness as racists today. However, when we attempt to erase from history those who adhered to the moral standards of their time, we lose the opportunity to learn from their mistakes while also celebrating any positive achievements they may have had.

Wilson’s legacy was first reexamined in 2015, when the Black Justice League participated in a sit-in located in President Eisgruber’s office. They demanded public acknowledgement of Wilson’s racist legacy and the removal of his name from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy and International Affairs, Wilson Residential College, and all other buildings bearing his name. Further, they demanded “cultural competency” training for faculty and staff; a public conversation on the role of freedom of speech “in a way that does not reinforce anti-Blackness and xenophobia;” a distribution requirement centered on the history of marginalized people; and a cultural space dedicated to black students.

In response to the demands of the Black Justice League, the University commissioned a report to establish a just course of action. The 2016 report articulated commitments to establish a program to encourage more students from underrepresented groups to pursue doctoral degrees, to modify the university’s informal motto from “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and the Service of All Nations” to “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity,” to establish education and transparency initiatives to fuel conversations about Wilson’s complex legacy (which included a recommendation for the new installation), and to diversify campus art and iconography. 

The committee decided to maintain Wilson’s name with the assurance “that the use of his name implies no endorsement of views and actions that conflict with the values and aspirations of our times,” notably his opposition to the admission of African-Americans to the University; support for segregation in the workforce; and his support for the invasion of Latin America and the Caribbean in World War I. Wilson’s racist views should of course be condemned but the complexity of the situation must also be recognized.

A statement released by students in 2015 in response to the Black Justice League’s demands included a particularly salient point: “any steps to purge this campus of its Wilsonian legacy creates a dangerous precedent and slippery slope that will be cited by future students who seek to purge the past of those who fail to live up to modern standards of morality.” In other words, if we are to judge historical figures through a modern lens of morality, we lose an opportunity to learn from thousands of years of humanity’s trials and errors. Unfortunately, morality is often determined by those whose voices are loudest. And the loudest voices in Wilson’s time were not those condemning him. While this does not excuse his racist views, it is not fair to expect that he would have lived by 21st century moral standards.

The 2016 report also asserted that the Woodrow Wilson School was named for Wilson’s many contributions to make the University a more intellectually vibrant community. Wilson established the residential college system and made departmental requirements and specifications central to the curriculum. He also introduced precepts and established senior independent work. Do these things sound familiar?

Princeton students today benefit from these contributions. These are some of the things that make a Princeton education special, and that is something worth recognizing. However, his positive contributions extended far beyond campus. He established the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Trade Commission; passed child labor laws; fought for the Nineteenth Amendment; and appointed the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice. Should we forget these contributions too?

An article condemned the University administration’s decision to build the installation because it failed to explicitly denounce white supremacy. It also criticized the University for portraying Wilson as complex, rather than racist, and claimed that Wilson’s racism cannot be separated from his positive contributions. If we view his legacy as solely defined by his racism, how can we truly acknowledge his legacy in its entirety?

The fact of the matter is that history is complex, people are complex, and history often reflects that complexity. It seems ironic that those who would advocate revisiting history for the sake of acknowledging the unheard stories of the marginalized would advocate for a conversation that lacks complexity and nuance by excluding the entire truth. The history of race, while indeed a large and important part of our story, is not the only history that has played a role in the stories of the University and the country. 

To claim that it is, by disregarding the complexity of historical figures and time periods, is antithetical to the idea of an America constantly striving to further progress towards truth. A singular fixation with negatives only serves to divide us. While shedding light on the negative can aid progress, celebrating positive achievements has the remarkable ability to unite us. Recognizing the complexity of the situation allows us to see how far we have come in promoting equality for all people and how fundamentally our vision of equality has advanced. 

With that being said, recognizing how widespread racism was in our past reinforces the necessity of separating these views from those unrelated to race. While it is essential to condemn racist views themselves, if we allow all other ideas held by those who are considered racist by today’s standards to be disregarded, we lose the opportunity to study history as it should be studied – in its entirety.

We must always remember to contextualize history. Recognizing history is not necessarily glorifying it. Certainly Princeton students and all Americans can acknowledge a history fraught with flawed ideas without allowing it to reinforce outdated standards of morality. For example, the statue of John Witherspoon in front of East Pyne on Princeton’s campus can serve as both an acknowledgment and condemnation of his support of slavery as well as a historical marker of his contributions to the University and to the nation throughout the Revolutionary War. 

The statue was not erected to celebrate his support of slavery. It was to recognize his contributions to the University. By studying his entire legacy, we can better understand the values and ideas that shaped historical events and time periods, and we can apply this insight to the present. If we try to change history into what we wish it were, we will misconstrue it in a way that undermines the University’s commitment to seek truth.

This issue is larger than statues or the names of buildings. It reflects a national effort to erase the legacy of the past. Racism should be acknowledged and condemned. However, positive contributions, unrelated to race, should be studied and celebrated. We can do this and celebrate the contributions of those who were previously marginalized and unrecognized at the same time. Hopefully, these steps will foster an environment that is conducive to holistic and nuanced learning, something that Princeton and higher education in general should promote.

Comments

comments