On Tuesday, November 29, 2022, the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) Committee on Naming held a “listening session” for undergraduate students to discuss a petition advocating for the removal of the statue of John Witherspoon.
Witherspoon served as President of the University from 1768 to 1794, and he was the sole clergyman among the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Placed on campus in 2001, his statue currently stands in front of East Pyne Hall.
The petition calls for the removal of his statute and its replacement with “an informational plaque which details both the positive and negative aspects of Witherspoon’s legacy.” It argues that the statue “pays great honor to Witherspoon, and encourages members of the University community to honor Witherspoon,” a figure whose actions – principally slave ownership – do not deserve such honor.
The petition points to the statue’s size and “prominent location” on campus as evidence of it as a mode of honor. To grant him that, the petition asserts, “is today a distraction from the University’s mission.” The document received approximately 300 signatures.
The November 29 meeting, facilitated by Princeton Professor Angela Creager and attended by a handful of members of the CPUC Committee, was guided by the following questions borne out of “principles about naming, renaming, and changing campus iconography” outlined in an April 2021 report approved by the Board of Trustees:
1) Is a central part of the legacy of the namesake fundamentally at odds with the mission of the University?
2) Was the relevant central part of the legacy significantly contested in the time and place in which the namesake lived, or significantly out of step with the standards of the namesake’s time?
3) Did the University, at the time of a naming, honor a namesake for reasons that are fundamentally at odds with the mission of the University?
4) Does a building or program whose namesake has a central legacy fundamentally at odds with the University’s mission play a substantial role in forming community at the University?
The 2021 report articulates that naming decisions need to align with “the University’s mission and core values” and “complement and supplement other initiatives to achieve equity and inclusivity.” In addition, decisions should be part of an attempt at “recounting all dimensions of its history, diversifying its institutional narratives.”
That being said, the principles make clear that “renaming should occur only under exceptional circumstances” guided by the above four questions and that the process must be “clear, inclusive, and rigorous.”
In regards to the first question of fulfilling the University’s mission, one student expressed how his role as the only Declaration of Independence signer to be a university president or a clergyman fits well with the University’s informal motto, “Princeton in the nation’s service and the service of humanity,” particularly the portion “in the nation’s service.” Another student disagreed, pointing to the inhumanity of owning slaves.
Another participant in the discussion expressed that it would be “Orwellian to wipe history” by tearing down the statute, while someone else took issue with cherrypicking which names to debate and which to put aside. He pointed to other individuals whose names adorn buildings at Princeton who committed morally questionable actions.
In one example, he asked if Firestone Tires profiting off the Belgian Congo is a reason to change the name of Firestone Library. “We have to remove all names, or we have to understand that everyone has flaws,” the student said.
A few students expressed the importance of viewing Witherspoon as a figure of his time in which slave ownership – though abominable and recognized as such by modern standards – was common. Because he was not out of step with the norms of the time, they argued, his statue should not be taken down.
One student discussed her personal experience with the statue and claimed that “for a lot of black people, one of the first things they think when they see that statue is slavery.”
“Witherspoon was not a perfect individual,” another student voiced to the group, “but he had the courage to sign a Declaration of Independence declaring that all men are created equal.” Other voices argued that his sin of slavery was too great to outweigh, with one student contending that “a violation of human rights is not specific to any time.”
A different participant told the group that a middle school just removed the Witherspoon name and asked why Princeton has not had the courage to follow suit. In response, another student countered that “just because someone else did it doesn’t mean it’s a morally right decision.”
One student proposed a compromise of sorts, making the case that the University should “make acknowledgments” of the wrongs of Witherspoon but not tear down his statute in its entirety. Another echoed this, arguing that tearing it down would “eliminate conversations,” so another plaque should be added in acknowledgment of his slave ownership.
“Who is to say that we are right,” another student asked, going on to argue that “taking down a statute is just as much of an act as putting one up. “Making moral judgments in our moment is perilous,” he told listeners.Listening sessions for alumni and faculty are set to take place in the coming weeks. The CPUC Committee also has a feedback form on its website to cultivate further input from the campus community.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.