Take It Down!

(Added 07/01/2020)

Q

Last week Princeton University's board of trustees voted to remove the name of Woodrow Wilson from its School of Public and International affairs. I can see why, as it's come out that Wilson, despite his accomplishments, was a racist. Unfortunately, we have a similar issue at our college to address: a racist in our past who was, at the time, honored for his civic mindedness. He's not as well-known as Wilson and not as much in the news as the statues of Confederate generals, but I still think we need to remove his name from one of our dormitories. Some say no, that we need to preserve history while others say we should just not make a big deal about it. Some agree with me, but not as many as I'd like. What can I do?

A

Engage in honest, robust discussion.

Many organizations are struggling with this issue anew. Georgetown and Brown are two examples of universities that have been public in the past about exploring their historical role in — and contribution to — racism and slavery, but only in these last several weeks are we seeing questions like yours emerging so frequently.

Many institutions, divisions and buildings are named after those who today seem not so deserving. Princeton wanted to honor Woodrow Wilson at its school that teaches what he promoted so vigorously as president — international relations. In 1948, when the school was named, everyone thought it was a good idea. Today, not so much.

Last week's decision was actually the culmination of years of protest. In 2015 the Black Justice League, an African American civil rights group at Princeton, led a walkout by approximately 200 students, and there was a crescendo of rumblings for years before that. The difference in 2020 is that more than Black students are behind the effort. All across America large and diverse groups of people are protesting racial injustice, ignited by George Floyd's gruesome death.

One of the components of decision-making is timing. Certainly, a response is warranted and a discussion of racism in the United States is far overdue.

In applying an ethics mindset to this issue, however, we must ask if we are going too far, unfairly discounting the contributions of past leaders just because they had views about race that don't comport to those of our times. Historians will say, when evaluating decisions of the past, it is essential to understand the norms of the past and to take care not to impose today's morality on yesterday's.

The decisions the nation has been confronting lately are not easy, even those relating to removing the names of those once associated, by today's standards, with unenlightened views on race. Our Founders, as well as many leaders we've admired since, were flawed. Thomas Jefferson is today being harshly critiqued in light of his hypocrisy: his ownership of slaves tells us he actually did not believe that all men are created equal. In an absolute world, even our most venerated president, Abraham Lincoln cannot escape scrutiny for the following sentiment, put forth in one of his debates with Stephen Douglas: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the Black races." Six years later, he wrote, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." In a world where anger — as righteous as it may be — leads the charge, it might be a degree of nuance too far to accept that Lincoln could house both sentiments — consider African Americans inferior and oppose slavery — at the same time. He grew in his understanding of race relations, but some say not enough.

So, are we left to cut a wide swath? Fine, but if we do we might have no one left to look up to. While uniquely pernicious, racism is hardly humankind's only flaw. Martin Luther King, Jr. — whose name is regularly invoked in today's searing examination of race relations — might also be excised from history's spotlight because, according to Boston University, he plagiarized his Ph.D. thesis. Plagiarism and racism are hardly the same, but should we be honoring someone so intellectually dishonest? Or did King's life-long good works offset that deceit? The judges of today favor King's good work and discount Wilson's. What will the judges of today say about Jefferson and Lincoln … and so many others?

What must be crystal clear to everyone is that, when we make such judgments, we are weighing values — which is what ethical decision-making is really all about — and values are weighed differently by different people, especially different people in different periods of history.

Princeton might have made this linear calculation of values: Wilson's racism is a more bad thing than being a promoter of international relations is a good thing. The board clearly determined that the baggage of racism was a load too heavy to carry any further into the 21st century. Perhaps in one hundred years society may feel differently, but Princeton's decision is a healthy one for our times.

Why that is so is instructive for your situation. Much deliberation went into Princeton's decision, and, in my view, it is essential that a robust discussion precede any decision to remove a statue or a name from a building. Even in the Declaration of Independence — when, at least by our understanding today, it was obvious that the colonies had to separate from England — Jefferson laid out a point-by-point apologia. You don't want to unthinkingly remove a name that means a lot to your college, but you also don't want to shirk the 21st century logic that asks how a person can simultaneously be civic-minded and a racist: a collision of thoughts that requires serious examination.

While you can't expect everyone to agree with the final decision, you should expect, and promote, an honest evaluation of values and a respect among everyone involved.

Send us a Comment