Before Princeton bonfire, a debate over effigies and political correctness

An online student petition asking the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students to include the football team’s captains in decisions regarding Sunday’s bonfire has received 430 signatures as of Sunday afternoon. The petition came in response to the decision not to burn an effigy of John Harvard or a Yale bulldog in the celebration.

The petition asks ODUS to “bring the football captains into the decision-making conversation about upholding the bonfire traditions,” with the goal of giving members of the football team a say in the event and to “repay them for their hard work,” according to Taylor Dunstan '15, who created and circulated the document on Thursday evening.

“The football players aren’t really in a position to voice their opinions. They have a game this weekend to focus on,” Dunstan said. “I felt someone needed to step in and stand up for the guys who work hard on and off the field for their accomplishments, especially if they can’t really voice their opinions.”

The Department of Athletics and a representative from the football team were included in planning the bonfire, according to USG communications director Richard Lu '16.

Lu added that the fire will be lit by the captains of the football team and that no other members of the athletic program will be passing the torch.

Due to a forecast of high winds throughout the day, the bonfire's coordination team may postpone the event until Monday. A final determination as to the day of the bonfire will be made at 5 p.m. on Sunday, Deputy Dean of Undergraduate Students Thomas Dunne announced in an e-mail to the student body today.

The bonfire is being organized through a collaboration between the class governments, USG, ODUS and the Princeton Fire Department, according to Carla Javier '15, USG social chair.

Javier is also a senior writer for The Daily Princetonian.

The debate has raised a central question about the role of tradition on a campus as old as Princeton: If traditions, taken out of context, appear inappropriate, at what point do they deserve or not deserve to persist based on tradition alone?

The decision to remove the mascot figures from the Cannon Green celebration was made after repeated conversations between various student representatives and members of the student body, according to Class of 2014 president Luchi Mmegwa.

“Among the common refrains that we heard from people was that the burning of an effigy is a very loaded activity and image in the context of American history and world history,” Mmegwa said. “And some people thought it was inappropriate — some people even used the word ‘barbaric’ — for us to be conducting such activities on campus as part of a campus-wide celebration.”

Dunstan — a member of the women’s water polo team — clarified that the petition is fundamentally about including the opinions of the football team leadership in the decision-making process.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“I’m not making any sort of point about whether or not there should be effigies,” she said. “My petition is more directed at bringing the football players and their values about tradition into [the discussion]."

Dunstan said she had not been in contact with members of the football team prior to writing the petition. Leaders of the football team either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

In explaining the importance of various aspects of the bonfire, Dunstan highlighted the role of tradition.

“Princeton is a school that is based on very rich and deep traditions,” she said, “especially when it comes to the University’s place in the history of American football. If it’s concerning an effigy-scarecrow and a stuffed dog, I think the tradition is more about what those things represent than the effigies themselves.”

The bonfire is “one of the most memorable — and sporadic — of all traditional Princeton activities,”Princetoniana, a section of the University website dedicated to chronicling University traditions, reads. The site explains, “Once a tall pyre was built on the center of Cannon Green, the final adornments usually included an outhouse and an effigy of John Harvard or a Yale Bulldog, or both.”

Describing how bonfire tradition “has evolved through time,” Mmegwa said some past bonfires have not included effigies at all, while others have gone so far as to include effigies of individual Crimson and Bulldog football players.

In 1957, the bonfire included "an upside-down effigy of a Yalie with its head in a toilet bowl."

Some students, while advocates of the bonfire, raised objections to John Harvard and Handsome Dan’s inclusion in the inferno.

Olivia Adechi ’16, a self-described fan who attended most of the home games last year but hasn't made it to as many this year, said the bonfire has the potential to create school spirit and solidarity but that burning effigies is not appropriate.

“It’s a great place to get all the students involved,” she noted, adding that the bonfire is a good way to involve students in school tradition even if they are not avid football fans. “But at the same time, you think about the negative ritualistic connotations of destruction. As one of the most respected institutions in the country, it’s a bizarre thought to be burning representations of something, especially if it’s a human body. Obviously, John Harvard’s not alive, and we’re not trying to kill Harvard students. But if you think about it, there’s a dark aspect to it … you can’t find an intellectual or justifiable explanation behind it.”

Mmegwa said that while no football player from the Class of 2014 has reached out to him yet about the decision, he has heard some arguments in favor of maintaining tradition, though he said the "vast majority" of people who had reached out to him were more concerned about than supportive of the practice of burning effigies.

Mmegwa maintained that this year’s decision not to include the effigies was thoughtfully considered and based on inclusive discussion.

“It seems there’s some sort of perception that this decision was made in a vacuum, that it was just class officers coming together or USG members coming together and making a decision without consulting a whole host of stakeholders,” he said. “And that was not the case. Moving forward, we’re more than happy to talk to any stakeholder who wants to reach out to us, as we have been doing on this issue.”