Princeton University to keep Wilson's name despite his racist views

[webfact]

Princeton to keep Wilson's name despite his racist views
ERRIN HAINES WHACK, Associated Press

PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) — Woodrow Wilson's name will remain on Princeton University's public policy school, despite calls to remove it because the former U.S. president was a segregationist, the Ivy League university announced Monday.

Princeton was challenged to take a deeper look into Wilson's life in the fall, when a group of students raised questions about his racist views. The Black Justice League held a 32-hour sit-in inside Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber's office, demanding Wilson's name be removed from programs and buildings, including the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy and International Affairs, and for other changes to make the university more diverse and inclusive.

Eisgruber said the process helped him learn more about one of Princeton's most celebrated alumni and presidents.

"The students should recognize they have really changed the way people will talk about and remember Wilson," said Eisgruber, a 1983 Princeton alumnus. "All the people whom we honor in history are going to be people with flaws and deficiencies. If we made that argument for not honoring people, we would honor nobody. The right attitude is to honor people, but be honest about their failings."

University leaders concluded that Wilson's accomplishments merited commemoration, so long as his faults also are candidly recognized. Princeton also pledged to adopt other changes, including establishing a pipeline program to encourage more minority students to pursue doctoral degrees and diversifying campus symbols and art.

Wilson was president of Princeton from 1902 to 1910, and the country's 28th president from 1913 until 1921. The Democrat is credited with creating the Federal Reserve system, led the U.S. into World War I and tried to preserve a lasting peace afterward. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for being the architect of the League of Nations.

But he also supported segregation — including in the federal government — rolling back progress for the emerging black middle class in the nation's capital at the turn of the 20th century. As president of Princeton, he also prevented the enrollment of black students.

The debate over Wilson's name was part of a wave of racially motivated activism on college campuses across the country this school year that began with protests at the University of Missouri. There, black students — including members of the school's football team — successfully protested for the ouster of Missouri's president.

In recent months, college leaders have moved to change mascots, building names, mottos and other symbols some have deemed offensive or outdated.

At Princeton, a 10-member committee looked at Wilson's legacy and the state of race relations on campus. It gathered input from Wilson scholars and more than 600 submissions from alumni, faculty and the public.

In the end, the committee concluded Wilson's accomplishments were among "the reason's Wilson's name was associated with the school and the college," but added that some of his views "clearly contradict with the values we hold today."

Using his name "implies no endorsement of views and actions that conflict with the values and aspirations of our times," the committee report read. "We have said that in this report, and the university must say it in the settings that bear his name."

Eisgruber, the university's president, said Princeton has an obligation to highlight not only Wilson's "towering achievements," but also his "severe deficiencies."

"We have to be cognizant about the kinds of harms people even of great achievement caused," Eisgruber said. "Princeton was an exclusive place for a very long time. We need to be honest about those exclusions ... and make sure we create symbols on campus that make people feel that this is a place they can call home."

Eric Yellin, a University of Richmond history professor who submitted a letter to the committee mentioning Wilson's racist policies as U.S. president, told The Associated Press that the debate about Wilson has sparked deeper questions.

"It's really important not to take Wilson's racism and put it in the category of 'everybody was a racist,'" Yellin said. "Not everybody was president, or as articulate about why segregation was important. Not everybody had the same number of opportunities to change the world."

The board of trustees' decision came on the same day that the school opened an interactive exhibit putting Wilson in context for his era while emphasizing that he was a man apart from it — for better and worse. "In the Nation's Service? Wilson Revisited" will run through Oct. 28.

His faults are laid bare from the beginning of the exhibit. One panel quotes him: "Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."

Daniel Linke, archivist at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library at Princeton and curator of the exhibit, said: "What we were trying to do here is take the line that separates 'Wilson good' and 'Wilson bad' and expand it."
___

Online:

"In the Nation's Service? Wilson Revisited": http://www.puww.us

Wilson Legacy Review Committee: https://wilsonlegacy.princeton.edu/


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-05

[chilli42]

Sanity prevails. Next thing they would be taking poor old Ben Franklin to task and removing his name and image from everything.

[allanos]

The Princeton President has led a reasoned and pragmatic conclusion to this debate. These kinds of issues are now bound to crop up more and more, especially in the United States. It serves no one if attempts are made to expunge history, however dark it may have been at times when viewed through modern eyes. It is to be hoped that, in future, interested parties and stakeholders will be guided by the decisions made at Princeton.

[helpisgood]

I can see how people can view Wilson in a positive light regarding his work at Princeton. I wouldn't be surprised if he had done things to promote higher education. However, that seems to me to be greatly tarnished by the affect he had on civil rights. Princeton is no doubt a great institution, but I would be embarrassed to be associated with Wilson's name.

It wasn't like Wilson just went with the flow or carefully evaded the issue of civil rights for political reasons. He took proactive steps to promote and ensure segregation. He resegregated federal govt. offices in Wash., DC that had been previously integrated. Wilson was also a big fan and promoter of the film Birth of a Nation, known for its very demeaning and disgusting portrayal of African-Americans, and its portrayal of the KKK as great heroes. Wilson shares responsibility for the increased wave of bigotry that had occurred at that time.

Maybe Princeton should look around for a better role model.

[GinBoy2]

Wilson was flawed, as were a majority of his class and ilk, when viewed through the prism of history. But that should not detract the the fact that he was a great President.

If we were the apply similar critical parameters, Churchill, Nehru, Jinner, even Gandhi don't look so good in a modern light.

In a more contemporary view, Aung San Suu Kyi, hasn't exactly excelled, given her rather overt anti Muslim views with regard to the Rohinga in her country, which many would equate to genocide.

So, Wilson was flawed, but given the context of his time, there were worse, and worse to come

[allanos]

We need to be careful how we pigeon-hole historical figures who perhaps made errors of judgement in their careers.

Abraham Lincoln said, in 1858, " . . . I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about, in any way, the social and

political equality of the white and black races . . . I, as much as any other man, am in favour of having the superior position

assigned to the white race.

In 1862 (halfway through the Civil War) . . . if I could save the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it . . .

Before signing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln dithered for 6 months. It was probably touch and go whether he'

would ever issue the Proclamation, and his historical "fate" could have been sealed there and then.

Abraham Lincoln has gone down in history as a great man, which he undoubtedly was, and, yet, was also prone to

judgemental errors. History could have taken an entirely different view of him . . .

[sanukjim]

He was also an isolationist that wanted The US to stay out of The First World War and not to commit troupes and equipment in aid to The Allies..Good thing that he was over voted on that idea.

[Emster23]

Start down this slippery slope and who knows where it would end? Founding fathers owned slaves.... which I assume would be racist.... need to teach those who would take his name off the term zeitgeist.... just 20 years ago being against gay marriage was the norm... people, deal with the injustice now, don't go digging thru the past. I recall Liverpool was considering changing name of Penny Lane, as Captain Penny was a slavetrader I believe

[jesimps]

Jeez do I hate political correctness. Why do people pander to these idiots? I'd make the promoting of pc a jailable offence.

[rgs2001uk]

Jeez do I hate political correctness. Why do people pander to these idiots? I'd make the promoting of pc a jailable offence.

Its called the re writing of historty to suit their needs and agendas.

[helpisgood]

Wilson was flawed, as were a majority of his class and ilk, when viewed through the prism of history. But that should not detract the the fact that he was a great President.

If we were the apply similar critical parameters, Churchill, Nehru, Jinner, even Gandhi don't look so good in a modern light.

In a more contemporary view, Aung San Suu Kyi, hasn't exactly excelled, given her rather overt anti Muslim views with regard to the Rohinga in her country, which many would equate to genocide.

So, Wilson was flawed, but given the context of his time, there were worse, and worse to come

Not such a great president for the African-American people.

And, there were better and better people to come. Thank, God!

Edited April 6, 2016 by helpisgood

[helpisgood]

We need to be careful how we pigeon-hole historical figures who perhaps made errors of judgement in their careers.

Abraham Lincoln said, in 1858, " . . . I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about, in any way, the social and

political equality of the white and black races . . . I, as much as any other man, am in favour of having the superior position

assigned to the white race.

In 1862 (halfway through the Civil War) . . . if I could save the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it . . .

Before signing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln dithered for 6 months. It was probably touch and go whether he'

would ever issue the Proclamation, and his historical "fate" could have been sealed there and then.

Abraham Lincoln has gone down in history as a great man, which he undoubtedly was, and, yet, was also prone to

judgemental errors. History could have taken an entirely different view of him . . .

Your described "error of judgement" by Lincoln is not the same as what Wilson did. From what you have described, Lincoln was deciding when, and maybe if ever, he should act against slavery. Lincoln was obviously compromising his principles, or putting them on hold, because politics required it and, in the long run, gave him the opportunity to act against slavery.

Wilson, on the other hand, actively promoted segregation, bigotry and Jim Crow. He was part of the problem, not the solution. There's a difference.

[helpisgood]

Jeez do I hate political correctness. Why do people pander to these idiots? I'd make the promoting of pc a jailable offence.

Its called the re writing of historty to suit their needs and agendas.

As for any rewriting of history, that applies to the hagiographers of Wilson, and not to those who correctly point out his bigotry and how he acted on it.

Edited April 6, 2016 by helpisgood

[helpisgood]

Jeez do I hate political correctness. Why do people pander to these idiots? I'd make the promoting of pc a jailable offence.

Not politically correct, historically correct.