Letters to the Editor: In response to the protests

To the Editor:

In my cinema course, I teach how Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879, premiered the film “Birth of a Nation” in the White House and approved its racist view of Reconstruction. But in my modern art history course, I also teach how Mao Zedong had paintings repainted and Joseph Stalin had photographs retouched to erase the images of political rivals from the historical record.

When I was a student at Stanford, whose founder made a fortune using Chinese laborers to build a railroad and then became a U.S. Senator who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act that kicked Chinese people out of the country, I wrote papers that explored Abraham Lincoln’s racism and a thesis on Joseph McCarthy’s efforts to purge academia. If we were to purge history of all that offends us about it, to eliminate Wilson, Mao, Stalin, Stanford, Lincoln and McCarthy and to acknowledge only what we like about the past, how would we ever learn from it?

As a Jew whose family mostly went up in crematorium smoke during the Nazi era, should I be so offended by Bach’s anti-Semitism as to insist that we eliminate his music from the University Chapel, or that we no longer display the paintings of the anti-Semitic Renoir, Degas and Cézanne in the University Art Museum, eliminate Shakespeare and Proust from our classrooms? Good things come from imperfect people.

We don’t celebrate Wilson at the University because of his racism but because of his contribution to an institution where we can learn from such things and perhaps shape a better future. It is not like the celebration of Confederate generals and flags precisely because of their pro-slavery significance. The past is what it was. We cannot make it comfortable, and in trying to do so we do not learn from it. There is much good that can come from this arousal of anti-racist energy and awareness, but there is also much to be avoided. The administration, faculty and students must dig deep to make this thing work.

Jerome Silbergeld, Professor, Art & Archaeology

To the Editor:

The ongoing attempt by a few University students to remove the name and erase the legacy of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879, is severely misguided. Should the University acquiesce to this demand, it would send an extraordinarily bad message — one that would diminish the role and significance of higher education and tarnish the legacy of the University for years to come.

It is a dangerous exercise when we judge historical figures through a modern-day prism without simultaneously attempting to understand the contexts in which these historical figures lived. Indeed, we might not be comfortable with what we find or uncover. But such an exercise is vital and helps us to think critically about who we are and where we came from. It is essential to understanding our past.

Born in 1856 — nearly 160 years ago — in Staunton, Va., Wilson lived in a time in which policies and beliefs were no doubt at odds with contemporary values. The vast majority of Wilson’s white, Southern, male peers probably held racist opinions throughout their lives. Though this does not excuse Wilson’s beliefs, it reminds us that historical context must be considered, particularly in seeking truth and assessing the life and works of an individual. This involves the ability to think critically, a skill and art which is rapidly disappearing at elite academic institutions whose very purpose is the fostering of non-stifling discourse and critical intellectual thought.

We know that racism did not end with Wilson. In the wake of the Pearl Harbor attacks, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized Executive Order 9066, authorizing the internment of more than 50,000 Japanese Americans. Though this decision was prejudiced and despicable, even within its historical context, the overarching theme of Roosevelt’s life — as person and as president — is not one of racism. Rather, the dominant tenor of his life speaks of leadership, of courage and of determination in shepherding the United States through the unfathomably dark years of World War II. It is not only possible, but proper to honor a figure’s legacy while simultaneously denouncing that particular figure’s attributes and decisions. But to do this properly requires the ability to think critically.

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

Whether or not the University ultimately decides to remove the memory of Wilson from the school will not impact him personally. But it will undoubtedly impact generations of current and future students across the United States. Sadly, American universities are rapidly sacrificing educational prowess in the name of comfort. These decisions come at a great cost. Removing Wilson’s name from the University will reinforce the notion that is acceptable to bury our past, rather than to wrestle with and understand our national heritage.

Keeping Wilson’s legacy alive at the University, on the other hand, need not be synonymous with approval of all aspects of his life. But it will pay tribute to the ideals of an imperfect person who, in spite of his human flaws, looked at the present day and desired something better for the good of mankind. This is the Wilson that the University is proud of and should continue to remember. Surely the University can find the nuance of thought to build off his legacy toward a brighter future, while acknowledging his many mistakes.

I recently picked up a book in the campus library entitled “Woodrow Wilson As I Know Him,” penned in 1921 by Joseph Tumulty, Wilson’s personal secretary. The author makes a couple of stunning observations about Wilson, and reveals a president whose attributes are obviously lacking across educational institutions today. Tumulty wants readers to know that Wilson “welcomed suggestions and criticism” and that it “was a habit of Mr. Wilson’s to meditate before taking action, to listen to advice without comment.” He closes the preface of the book by saying the following: “I am convinced that he who reads this book will feel that he has met a man whose public career was governed not merely by a great brain, but also by a great heart. I did not invent this character. I observed him for 11 years.”

I cannot help but think that this aspect of Wilson’s character — the ability to listen to a variety of opinions, and to even welcome criticism, is exactly what is missing from Princeton and other universities today. To that end, I welcome the ongoing dialogue and even criticism of Wilson. But let’s not try to erase our own history in the process. My hope is that recent events and discussions across colleges and universities will inspire each student, educator and administrator to pursue an educational purpose designed to foster greater brains, improved critical thinking skills and even greater hearts.

Pete Erickson GS ’16

To the Editor:

I wonder how many of the students who wish to indulge in some sort of Stalinist purge of Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879, have taken the time to read their fellow Princetonian (and now University Trustee) A. Scott Berg’s (class of ’71) excellent presidential biography “Wilson.” Far from a whitewash, Berg shines a light on Wilson’s prejudices and opinions, many of which are unacceptable to us today. However he takes a mature and nuanced look at the man and his towering achievements despite him being in some ways trapped in the mindset of his time and class. Berg asserts that Wilson is arguably the most important figure of the 20th Century and makes a strong case to support his thesis. So perhaps it would be wise to actually read the book and consider all points of view (just like we’re taught in preceptorials, right?) before pursuing what otherwise become the words and demands of a vexatious litigant.

Nicholas Hammond ’71

To the Editor:

In 1964, as University freshmen, we were told that Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879, had been a leading Progressive, a proponent of “Democracy” and a champion of self-determination abroad. It is good to see students today challenging that picture (“Updated: Students ‘walkout and speakout,’ occupy Nassau Hall until demands of Black Justice League are met,” Nov. 18, 2015).

Wilson’s record was deplorable on the “race question.” He cut back federal appointments of African Americans; supported showings of the white-supremacist film “The Birth of a Nation” for himself, his Cabinet, Congress and the Supreme Court; stood by silently as segregation was formalized in the Post Office, Treasury, Interior, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and Navy; did nothing as almost two dozen segregation-supporting legislative attempts including exclusion of Black immigrants, segregation of streetcars and a ban on inter-racial marriages in the District of Columbia were introduced in the House and Senate; and declined to use any significant power of office to address lynching, segregation and disfranchisement (which marred the land) and the vicious white supremacist attacks on 26 African American communities including Washington, D.C., Chicago and East St. Louis that occurred during his administration.

Under Wilson, the United States not only implemented the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Palmer Raids of 1919-1920, it also occupied Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Nicaragua and intervened in Panama, Honduras and Mexico. Nevertheless, Wilson ran for U.S. President in 1916 on a campaign slogan “he kept us out of war,” posed before the world as a champion of democracy and prated of “the rights of small nationalities,” of “self-determination” and of “the right of all who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government.” In addition to the awful horrors let loose on small countries prewar, in the postwar period he also helped to pave the way for partition, occupation and conquest in the Middle East and Africa and for future wars.

There were contemporaries of Wilson, people like the intellectual/activist Hubert Harrison, the founder of the first organization (the Liberty League) and first newspaper (“The Voice”) of the militant “New Negro Movement,” who saw through the misleading portrait of Wilson so often found in the media and history books. Harrison understood that while lynching, segregation and disfranchisement marred this land, and while the United States brazenly attacked smaller countries, “Wilson’s protestations of democracy were lying protestations, consciously, and deliberately designed to deceive.” At the founding meeting of the Liberty League in June 1917, Harrison posed a direct challenge to Wilson who had claimed the United States was entering World War I in order to “Make the World Safe for Democracy.” Harrison’s mass meeting was called, as its organizational flyer headlined, to “Stop Lynching and Disfranchisement in the Land Which We Love and Make the South ‘Safe For Democracy.’” A month later Harrison led a second major Harlem rally to protest the white supremacist “pogrom” (his word) in East St. Louis, Ill. (15 miles from Ferguson, Mo.).

We are glad that the Black Justice League is raising some of these issues, opening the eyes of many and helping to point the way forward in the 21st century.

Jeffrey B. Perry ‘68

Gene Bruskin ‘68

Correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this compilation of letters misattributed to Brandon Bark '13 letter. It was written byJeffrey B. Perry ‘68 andGene Bruskin ‘68. The 'Prince' regrets the error.