Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

We can do better

I sat with the Black Justice League for over six hours during Wednesday’s sit-in protest in the office of University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83. I listened. I applaud the group’s unapologetic passion. I defend the group’s ability to fight to shape their educational experience. I, too, want their education at Princeton to be filled with inclusivity and equality.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet after the administration acquiesced to a watered-down version of the protesters’ demands, all I can feel is disappointment. I am disappointed by the community’s insularity and reactive suppression of contrary views. I am disappointed that there have been threats to students’ safety as a result of their opinions. How have we reached a point where students at an intellectually thriving university are afraid to express their thoughts? Without academic discourse and diversity of opinion there is no reaching truth.

While there are many supporters of the Black Justice League on campus, many other students have signed a counter-petition to “Protect Plurality, Historical Perspective, and Academic Speech at Princeton.” Some students have expressed their personal reluctance to sign that petition because those who oppose the demands or methodology of the BJL movement on this campus are stigmatized. It is no surprise that students who have an unpopular viewpoint at Princeton are tempted to stifle it; Tal Fortgang ’18 has been harassed on social media and even received death threats in response to his past articles that criticized race-based privilege.

It’s a shame that in a movement focused on diversity and freedom, all races other than the one protesting are barred from entering the dialogue especially if they disagree. Yes, support for the movement is encouraged from all races, as white students also participated in the occupation of the President’s office. However, outspoken white students who disagree are specifically discredited from participating in the conversation and often labeled as racists or told that they cannot possibly understand. As a fundamental principle of equality, the weight of a person’s opinions should not be a function of their skin color but rather the quality of their arguments. If the BJL movement is truly about diversity, then they should invite everyone into the conversation.

Sadly, many persons of color who also voiced objections to the BJL movement have both implicitly and explicitly been called traitors and white-sympathizers. Josh Freeman ’18 posted a Facebook status questioning the BJL’s request for affinity housing for blacks and was told by a fellow person of color to instead stand in solidarity with the movement, to which he responded, “That does not mean I’m obligated to agree with you all.”

During the sit-in, protesters read comments aloud from an anonymous app called Yik Yak in an effort to screenshot tangible examples of racism. In response to a negative post by a self-proclaimed person of color, one BJL leader said, “You ain’t black. There’s like six of us [at Princeton] and we all here.” This implies that a black person holding any opinion other than the BJL’s was too shocking to believe, and either the author wasn’t really black or they were a traitorous black.

Aside from student testimony being selectively dismissed, suppression of criticism went so far as to claim the identity of a professor and usurp his freedom of expression. This disappoints me the most. Professor Robert George’s name was fraudulently signed to a faculty support letter that he claimed never to have signed or even seen. His fraudulent online signature was accompanied by a comment that sounded like professor George because it directly took language from an article he had written about abortion. Professor George, a politics professor who teaches courses on civil liberties, expressed via email his frustration that as a result of the fraud, people are now “misinformed about where I stand on a matter implicating academic values I cherish — and fear are being placed in peril by events at Princeton and around the country.” This “underhanded tactic” that uses fraud to feign support is an embarrassment for Princeton and an example of blatant hostility towards honorable discourse.

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite the fact that several BJL members told me during the sit-in, “everyone here [at Princeton] is racist,” I believe that the majority of students and faculty on this campus would support their valid plight for equality and agree that racism is a very real problem. Thus I would never invalidate their pain, but I do think we need to address their concerns in a more productive manner. It would have helped if the BJL had provided a list of grievances in addition to their list of demands, but on Wednesday my suggestion was met with, "It's not our responsibility to educate others" and "I'm sick of telling our story." I implore the BJL, however, to share their experiences with the campus so that everyone can understand what they’re going through and offer support. If they want change, then they should specify what behavior must be targeted for change.

Also, it would have helped if they explained the positive effects that their demands would bring. For example I have yet to hear a compelling argument that explains how removing Woodrow Wilson’s name from school buildings would help their situation. Yes, by now everyone at Princeton is aware that Woodrow Wilson was indeed a racist. But that does not mean we should succumb to historical revisionism and neglect to honor him in remembrance of his other achievements as a President of Princeton and of this great nation. Nobody is perfect, but without men like Washington, Jefferson and Madison who unfortunately owned slaves, everyone in the world would be much worse off. If a moral shortcoming disqualifies a person from post-mortem veneration, then by that logic we should also remove all tributes to Martin Luther King, Jr. since he was a homophobic adulterer who often described gayness as a “problem.” We can acknowledge that these people had personal shortcomings, but it is clear that they are being honored for their achievements instead. We should refrain from judging historical figures by today’s moral standards; revisionism is a slippery slope and I see no tangible benefits to the BJL movement by engaging in it.

A more productive movement would have sought to foster open dialogue on campus and engage not only the administration but the viewpoints of other students as well. If the goal is to end injustice and increase awareness, why didn't the Black Justice League let President Eisgruber, who patiently waited at the front of the protest Wednesday morning, respond publicly? Why, instead of engaging with students who disagree with them, do they shut down dialogue and shame those who stand up for a cause as they had? Intellectual bullying and marginalization on this campus needs to be replaced by respectful disagreement.

Lastly, I'm not upset that the BJL encouraged the idea that “revolution is bloody” when a leader read Malcom X aloud during the sit-in.

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

I’m also not holding it against the BJL that, in the aftermath of horrific attacks in Paris and around the world, their chanting on Wednesday night interrupted a beautiful candlelight vigil for the victims of terrorism that most students on campus knew was occurring.

The BJL made fun of my race the entire day I spent with them, which in any other context would be perceived as inexcusably bigoted. They joked about white culture: "The cultural center for white people is Firestone [library]." They also mocked white characteristics after reading a Yik Yak post in an imitating tone by explaining, "They talk all high up in their nose. There's no bass."

I'm not even upset that protesters received no disciplinary action as they trespassed after hours and made me feel unsafe, saying, "As far as I'm concerned they're lucky we're not burning this b**** down," in reference to Nassau Hall.

I am not mad about any of that. I just think we should start inspiring more productive dialogue and open mindedness that isn’t a one-way street. The only thing I demand is civility. That’s why I’m joining the Princeton Open Campus Coalition. This is Princeton. We can all do better.

Devon Naftzger is a politics major from Lincolnshare, Il. She can be reached at naftzger@princeton.edu.