In an unprecedented and landmark decision, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced on April 20 plans to remove Andrew Jackson from the 20 dollar bill. Instead, the likeness of “Old Hickory” will be replaced with that of Harriet Tubman, a move cited as a testament to “her incredible story of courage and commitment to equality.” The former president has been moved to the back of the bill. In a rare moment in American society, a true plurality of viewpoints on diversity was condensed into a remarkable compromise, one whose effects span well beyond the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
All too frequently, diversity in society is portrayed as one group against the other. Many pundits, for instance, assail affirmative action as a slight against the white majority, while ultra-conservatives view the recent decision to legalize gay marriage as a personal attack against their core religious beliefs. States like Indiana even went so far as to allow shopkeepers to deny their services to homosexuals in order to protect their “religious freedom.” Recently, Princeton University went through a similar diversity dilemma, with the Woodrow Wilson namesake for the School of Public and International Affairs coming under fire. Likewise, this “contest” of diversity was underway only months after the Black Justice League’s sit-in, with one side fully deriding Wilson’s racist legacy and demanding that his name be removed from the school and the other side hailing the challenges against Wilson’s name as ludicrous.
I believe the Treasury handled the inclusion of varying viewpoints and respect for diversity very well. When viewed on the spectrum of prominent American historical figures, Jackson may not readily come to mind, and it was perhaps even odd to give him the honor of fronting currency in the first place — a privilege only five other men have received. Jackson can very much be credited with laying important foundations that comprise our democracy today, notably in the realm of federalism, but his legacy is also marred by the mistreatment of Native Americans and the Trail of Tears. Taking Jackson off the bill, like Wilson’s name off the school, however, is an unnecessary move of historical redaction, one that ignores questionable parts of our history by pushing them under the table. The Treasury, instead, created a bill that honors two legacies, perhaps in conflict, but still very much a part of the nation’s history. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander commented, “United States history is not Andrew Jackson versus Harriet Tubman,” intending, ironically, to bash the Treasury’s decision, but his statement is exactly right nonetheless. History should not be a battle between two sides, but instead an inclusion of both sides. When deciding to keep Woodrow Wilson’s name, Princeton acknowledged not only his racist legacy but also the advances he made for both the University and the United States. Such an acknowledgement is perhaps the best catalyst for self-reflective dialogue that is necessary to acknowledge flaws in society and fix them. To fail to recognize the gains of either Jackson or Wilson is a gross oversight fueled by concerns of being racist, while fully removing their legacies stifles dialogue by pushing the issue under the table and out of the spotlight of society. In a somewhat unlikely pairing between slave owner and slave, Jackson and Tubman will now be co-honored, a move that helps us to not only remember and acknowledge our past, but also to move forward.
Read More
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
Princetonians want political change. Why don’t more of us take action?
Frances Brogan“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
