College students across the country have recently erupted in protests over the racial injustice and prejudice which is inherent in campus culture. In particular, the sit-ins at the President’s Office of the prestigious Princeton College have garnered much media attention for their focus on the legacy of the 28th president of the United States. Woodrow Wilson served as president of the college before his election to the presidency, and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs bears his name. His image is also painted in the college’s dining hall.
Wilson is venerated at the university for his progressive views, especially his stress on diplomacy in foreign affairs, and for his legacy of modernizing and improving the academic standards of Princeton during his tenure as president. However, students of Princeton’s Black Justice League have chosen to speak out against Wilson and the less savory aspects of his history—namely his segregationist policies as president and his White Supremacist bent.
The Black Justice League and its supporters held an overnight sit-in of the President’s office, calling for mandatory cultural competency training for faculty and staff, the addition of a class on marginalized peoples as a requirement for all students, the creation of space for black students and cultural groups on campus and the removal of Woodrow Wilson, in name and image, from the campus. The last condition has proved the most controversial, as it strikes a nerve with Princeton’s and general society’s tendency to hero worship and whitewash past leaders.
So should Princeton start to save up for some new dining hall murals and signs?
Leaders of the Black Justice League and their supporters insist that Wilson’s history of oppression and White Supremacism warrant his wholesale removal from the hallowed halls of Princeton. Many feel that the culture of the school continues to reflect Wilson’s racial legacy, with a continued devaluing of the experiences of students of color and continuous microaggressions that re-emphasize their status as unwelcome interlopers in the buildings meant for white Christian men. Some justify Wilson’s major presence on campus by contextualizing Wilson’s racism and pointing out that since those evil policies and views have now been put to end, we can focus instead on the positive impact of Wilson on the college and society.
But supporters of his removal point to clear documentation of police violence towards people of color in the news as just one proof that the issue of discrimination is still very much alive in today’s world. Many feel that Wilson’s continued presence only justifies the belief that we have crossed the final frontier in racial equality when, clearly, we still have a long way to go. His removal would validate the students of color who continue to feel the weight of oppression and discrimination throughout their experience at Princeton.
On a simpler level, some claim that a man who took steps to re-segregate federal agencies and screened The Birth of Nation in the White House—a film that depicts Black men as unintelligent and sexually aggressive, and paints the Klu Klux Klan as a heroic and noble force—has no place in Princeton, a stronghold of academic inquiry and honesty. A few supporters of the protests questioned the need to remove Wilson from the campus completely, but happily endorsed questioning the legacy of man who they feel has been largely whitewashed by their campus community.
The efforts of the Black Justice League have not been supported by all students. A counter-petition that aims for “increased dialogue and the creation of a process that properly considers the voices of all students and faculty, not merely those who are the loudest,” was submitted to the President and garnered more than 500 student signatures. Students against Wilson’s removal welcome a tough examination and condemnation of Wilson’s racial views, but also stress that historical figures are, like all humans, complex. It is overly simplistic to look for perfect heroes who stand for all the right things all the time. Rather, a mature understanding of history points to the inescapable fact that the same person can do a great deal of good and also a great deal of bad.
For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., an undisputed hero of the civil rights movement, was also a domestic abuser and philanderer. This revelation of Dr. King’s personal history does not mean that his profoundly positive impact upon the civil right movement never took place. Nor do his great achievements on that front lessen in any way his horrid personal misdeeds. These two facets of his life exist simultaneously and one does not discredit the other.
Similarly, Wilson’s great improvements to Princeton and his profound impact on American society and foreign policy do not suddenly disappear with the revelation of his racist views. Those who oppose Wilson’s removal emphasize that, although it is critical to examine the full gambit of our heroes’ legacies, an honest and sophisticated academic culture cannot be maintained by simply tossing out all figures that show the slightest signs of inconsistency.
Removing Wilson and his despicable legacy of racism from Princeton would, according to supporters, prove a profound step in acknowledging and working towards ameliorating the racial injustice still prevalent in their campus culture. Many students who oppose the measure agree that there is still much work to be done on the front of racial inequality. The Princeton administration has recognized this need and responded positively to many of the demands of the Black Justice League.
But the issue of Wilson was left to further debate. The president announced the creation of a subcommittee to re-examine Wilson’s legacy, but made no indication on whether these finding would lead to a purge of Wilson from the college. For now, Princeton students have plenty of time to debate how they plan to deal with Woodrow Wilson, their imperfect hero of the past.