Maintaining Woodrow Wilson’s name: Princeton’s notorious love affair

Princeton University is entangled in a love affair with the status quo. Like someone who’s been in a bad relationship for decades, the University consistently pretends that it will leave. But we all know how this story ends, from countless novels and soap operas: nothing will change. Princeton will refuse to let go of this status quo lover, which — despite promises of stability, prestige and privilege — fails to offer real benefits and ultimately harms all those who have warned against this relationship.

Although the status quo is beneficial for many of us, I havearguedthat it ultimately stands on the wrong side of history and progress. Indeed, Princeton has proven again that it has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, even as peers like Harvard are finding ways to dootherwise. On Monday, the Trustees' committee on Woodrow Wilson’s legacy released areportconcerning his legacy at Princeton. Despite the demands of Princeton’s Black Justice League, the Committee “recommends that both the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College should retain their current names and that the University needs to be honest and forthcoming about its history.”

Resembling the maintenance of status quos in years past, the University’s strides toward “progress” manifested themselves in the bureaucratic form of a committee. This committee made the ultimate decision that Woodrow Wilson’s name should be put into “proper and transparent contextualization.” This is a fascinating statement, especially when certain drawn-out bureaucratic procedures such as the Wilson committee are,according to political scientist Terry Moe, already poorly suited for effective action. In short, the very nature of the committee and others like it makes it a perfect function of the status quo. Think again of the person who promises for the millionth time that they will think about leaving their abusive lover. They speak to the lover on the lover’s terms, who then employs long-used tactics to keep them in their grasp. This lover even promises to compromise on certain aspects, to prove that they are actively working for and supporting all parties involved. In this way, Princeton’s committee on Wilson’s legacy, along with a promised subcommittee “to ensure regular and active trustee attention to these issues,” are efforts that use the tactics of the status quo, for the status quo. As both a friend and student of Princeton, I am disappointed — but not surprised.

Again, the status quo is taught to be sustaining for many of us. The committee came to its conclusion seemingly by majority rule. This seems logical enough in our democratic state, but we should also remember that tyranny of the majority is something that usually does not bode well for minorities on this campus or anywhere else around the world. Further, the sentiments of the majority are not — and should not be — the moral compass concerning such decisions. It is pernicious that Princeton’s committee turned to a method that benefits those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, the majority, and to a committee that may merely reflect the majority-minority dynamic that continues to flourish on Princeton’s campus.

Like the hopeless romantic drawn into a bad love affair, Princeton simultaneously abhors and depends upon the status quo. What would Princeton be without this lover, without its relationship to the subjugation of minority and marginalized groups? We are often afraid of what we cannot imagine. History shows us that Princeton does not stray away from its lover without a fight, from its troubled relationship with slavery to itsfailure to divestfrom companies that profited from South African Apartheid until 1985. Princeton’s utilization of its prestige perpetuates the imbalance of power that the status quo is founded upon.

Can Princeton conceptualize itself as a place that truly denounces these pieces of its history and begins marching toward a new future? This future cannot be formed solely by committees or task forces, or even be created on the terms of the University itself. This harmful status quo must be eradicated on the terms of those it harms. Until then, Princeton’s love affair with the status quo is hardly one worth watching.

Imani Thornton is a sophomore fromMatteson, Ill. She can be contacted at it4@princeton.edu.