Recently students have initiated an important reexamination of the legacy of President Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879, as a white supremacist and questioned his place in the names of several of the University’s organizations, including Wilson College. The discussion of public figures and their flaws led me to think specifically about the other famous namesakes for residential colleges — Meg Whitman ’77 and John D. Rockefeller III ’29. Who are these individuals honored by the University, and what does this mean for our views on how to contribute to society?
One doesn’t have to look hard for Whitman’s flaws. In 2002, during her tenure as CEO of eBay, she resigned from her other role on the Goldman Sachs board after a report revealed that Goldman had allocated pre-IPO shares (good for $1.8 million in profits) as a result of the investment bank’s business involvement with eBay. Many were concerned about Whitman’s actions again in 2011, when then-Hewlett-Packard board chairman Ray Lane helped her circumvent the conventional nomination process to join the board of that company, and she was named CEO a few months later. In 2014, the company was caught bribing government officials in Poland, Russia and Mexico in order to win and retain hugely profitable public contracts.
In comparison, Rockefeller looks pretty innocent; all he did was shuffle around his family’s money, although it’s basically common knowledge that this fortune was built through the wildly unethical monopolistic practices of Standard Oil.
It should come as no surprise to anyone who followed the separate campaigns last year to divest from fossil fuels and from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank that the University’s wealth comes from some pretty scummy places. The reason I single out these two names is to draw attention to the fundamental contradiction of Princeton’s culture of philanthropy: the individual may claim credit for that which she considers a contribution to society, but may disassociate herself from the societal injustice to which she owes her wealth. We are conditioned to aspire to change the world through wealth and individualism rather than sacrifice and community, promoting a value system dangerously informed by market logic that has profound implications for the way that we live in the present and envision the future.
I’m not interested in exploring the flawed humanity of Whitman or discussing the idea of removing her name from something inextricably linked to her wealth. What is important is that she is another corporate elite who acts without regard for the law or, more importantly, ethics. Just as Wilson may be deemed personally responsible for precepts but not for white supremacy, Whitman can be honored for a shiny new residential college but personally unaccountable for corruption and cronyism.
Whitman can attach her name to a building (rather than the architects and workers who designed and built it), but has never once taken personal responsibility for the unambiguous violations of basic ethics that are simply the way of business in the corporate and high finance world. Meanwhile, we as students are asked to thank donors who attend social functions and write checks rather than the workers who put their bodies into maintaining the University (sometimes sacrificing their health).
Perhaps more troubling than Whitman or Rockefeller are the cases of individuals like Matt Wage ’12. Wage took Peter Singer’s ethics class and decided to work on Wall Street after graduation in order to make large amounts of money that he could then donate to life-saving causes. In his book, Singer argues that Wage exemplifies the model of effective altruism, a concept that enshrines individual charity as the most effective force for good while ignoring entirely the power of collective action against structural injustice.
Wage joined a toxic system of finance dominated by rent seekers that helps maintain an environmentally unsustainable global economy. This economy is already taking lives and bringing suffering for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. While Wage can take credit for the lives that he has supposedly saved with his Wall Street earnings, he can also conveniently ignore his complicity in a system of finance inextricable from climate injustice as well as other forms of oppression like private prisons, sweatshops, the domestic and global exchange of weapons and practices like insider trading, cronyism and corruption.
For me, the tricky part of being a Princeton student involves acknowledging the immensely problematic tenets behind the individualistic culture of philanthropy while simultaneously realizing how much I have benefitted and continue to benefit from this system. There are two responses to this dilemma.
First, we would do well to express a certain amount of gratitude for the opportunities that donors have helped create for us, but without holding their financial contributions above the more admirable work of staff, faculty and workers. Secondly, we need to question the wealthy, altruistic and individualistic role models promoted by people like Singer and realize that the Princeton graduates most worthy of our respect — whether they be teachers, public defenders or others — have made sacrifices (both in terms of material and public recognition) in order to become a part of the community-driven work against injustice that our world really needs. Perhaps when we go out into the world we too can reject altruistic ego and embrace collective action.
Max Grear is a sophomore from Wakefield, R.I. He can be reached at mgrear@princeton.edu.
Read More
Bring back the course packet
Abigail Rabieh“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
Community is built on empathy; stop politicizing it
Ava Johnson“The idea of creating “safe spaces” has been politicized and weaponized as part of a culture war when in reality it is merely a precursor to being in community with others.”
“The idea of creating “safe spaces” has been politicized and weaponized as part of a culture war when in reality it is merely a precursor to being in community with others.”
Princeton must center more Black stories through expanding Black theater
Jewel Justice“Why don’t shows like this happen more often? There is so much communal and cultural importance in centering Black voices through Black theater — and Princeton’s theater department must do more to create spaces to center Black voices, beyond stereotypical archetypes and traditional modes of theater-making it has adhered to.”
“Why don’t shows like this happen more often? There is so much communal and cultural importance in centering Black voices through Black theater — and Princeton’s theater department must do more to create spaces to center Black voices, beyond stereotypical archetypes and traditional modes of theater-making it has adhered to.”
