On June 17, 2015 during a weekly Bible study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, nine black civilians were massacred by a gunman whose intentions were to begin a race war. In images that surfaced after the shooting, it became apparent that the gunman was markedly influenced by the flags of the Confederacy and the South African apartheid state. This subsequently sparked a national debate on the legacy and symbolism of the Confederate flag, ultimately leading to its removal from the South Carolina State Legislation grounds.
In a letter to a Princeton administrator, I inquired about the nature of our deep adulation for U.S. President and former president of Princeton, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, class of 1879. At the University, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy and International Affairs (a graduate school and academic department), Wilson Residential College and the Woodrow Wilson Café all bear the former president’s name. It is impossible to be a student at Princeton without being constantly confronted with Wilson’s legacy, or at least a counterfeit reproduction meticulously engineered by our University. Despite his extensive presence on campus, Wilson’s legacy —one distinctly rooted in racism and bigotry —is rarely discussed. However, just as our nation reevaluated its bizarre attachment to the confederate flag, it is time for our University to reevaluate its blind veneration to its deeply racist demigod.
In my letter, I questioned our dedicated admiration of Wilson on campus, despite his overtly racist policies, actions and beliefs. I was told that Princeton honors Woodrow Wilson because of the contributions he made to higher education, America and the world. I was also reminded that Wilson did more to improve Princeton than anyone else through his creation of the precept system, improvements to the academic quality of faculty and students, the launch of the graduate school and the architectural design of Princeton’s campus.
The topic of morality is a difficult one because people aren’t altogether good, nor are they all together bad.However, Wilson’s legacy should not be treated as a zero-sum game. This response assumes that Wilson’s racist actions were minuscule despite the fact that he actively worked to destroy, hinder and thwart the communities of black and brown peoples in America. Additionally, for whom did he work to make Princeton a better place? As president of Princeton, Wilson certainly did not intend for black students to ever enroll at Princeton. Wilson said, “The whole temper and tradition of the place [Princeton] are such that no Negro has ever applied for admission, and it seems unlikely that the question will ever assume practical form.”
I told the administrator that Wilson is arguably the most racist U.S. and Princeton president, and the administrator agreed that Wilson was indeed racist. They argued that he may have not been the most racist president in history because he had a plethora of competition, including George Washington who they mentioned has multiple institutions, a state and our capital that bear his name.
But should we continue to validate the honoring of Woodrow Wilson because other racist, slavery-endorsing presidents are still being honored? Shall we continue to subjugate, oppress and ignore the existence of our students of color because the world does the same to them?
The administration concluded their response to me saying that an understanding of our past reveals that we owe a great deal to people who are deeply flawed and not many people can transcend the prejudices of the times they lived in. That we should assess ourselves with great humility because we, too, are flawed and it’s likely that we will also be guilty of sins or prejudices that to future generations who look back on our own legacies will be very obvious.
To be very clear, we owe nothing to people who are “deeply flawed.” In fact, these people still owe us. It was his “flaws” that allowed for the continuation of black subjugation, oppression and servitude, whether mental or physical, to persist. Referring to Woodrow Wilson’s racist character as a “flaw” belittles his oppressive nature. As if racism wasn’t the catalyst that sparked the four century long genocide waged against black people that endures to this day. And as for our own actions and our own immoral doings —despite our great accomplishments and contributions, we must remain accountable for what we do, say, and the people we choose to be.Administrators at Princeton University have consciously swept Wilson’s racist legacy under a burgeoning rug.
The Triangle play, performed during frosh week, which included a 6 minute scene revering Wilson, is indicative of how our university only shares a one-sided narrative with its students when it comes to the racists they honor on campus. Students are taught about Wilson’s great accomplishments, but they are not taught that he was overtly racist. Princeton actively lies to students of color when they claim to work towards a more inclusive campus, yet they build, reinforce, sustain and renovate barriers that contradict their so-called push for diversity and inclusiveness.
In our University’s active attempt to reverse our nation’s and University’s wrongdoings, to be emblematic of our nation’s diversity, to produce students who are to be “In the Nation’s Service and in the Service of All Nations” we are failing if we don’t consider the aspects of our institution that contradicts our goals and beliefs.
When our university fails to stand up against or acknowledge the wrongdoings of a man who proudly branded himself a racist and segregationist, we all become complicit in the crimes committed against the humanity of black and brown peoples then and the manifestation of racism that continues today. There is no in between.
So what does it mean to honor individuals and how do we show our appreciation while ensuring that we do not continue to exclude, hinder, pain and oppress our black and brown students?
We must first come to acknowledge that our past was white-centered, white-focused and plagued with white supremacist ideology. That Princeton was built for wealthy, white, cisgender, Christian males. That everyone who does not fit that definition was not meant to be here. That our campus culture still tells people who don’t align with that demographic that they still are not meant to be here.
We can’t continue to do the same old things, and expect new changes. We are not where we claim to be, we are not where we need to be, but getting there is certainly possible.
Wilglory Tanjong '18 wrote this op-ed on behalf of Black Justice League and can be reached atwtanjong@princeton.edu. Edited by Destiny Crockett '17, Olamide Akin-Olugbade '16, Asanni York '17.
Read More
Reform first-year orientation: Less structure, stronger connections
Cathleen Balid“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
We must dispel the myth of Princeton’s economic diversity
Raf Basas“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
Pathologizing men is unproductive. We should invest in better men-focused spaces
Nicholas Manetas“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
