When renaming isn't enough

This past year, the Princeton Club of New York remodeled its main dining room. The changes were unveiled in March. What was once the Woodrow Wilson Dining Room has now been rechristened as the “Nassau 1756” Dining Room. The reason? According to a recent Daily Caller article, Princeton alumni now consider Woodrow Wilson to be a negative reflection on the University’s legacy as a notable “white supremacist.” Following 2015 student protests over the display of Wilson’s name on University buildings — that involved an occupation of President Christopher Eisgruber ‘83’s office, among other events — it appears as though the Princeton community is still basking in a paradoxical state of indulgent self-hatred mixed with a smug, politically correct, self-satisfaction.

In theory, the desire to rename the room as a way of addressing racism should be regarded as a commendable attempt at unity, especially in a time in which our nation is embroiled in a polarizing stalemate across political and social lines. Yet, the decision to remove Wilson’s name cannot be framed as a meaningful change that adequately corrects a past wrong. Instead, it appears to be an appeasement perceived as necessary to avoid a potential uprising of leftists among the Princeton student body. The change has little to do with actually providing a sense of emotional closure or redress for those negatively affected by Wilson’s legacy. Instead, it’s a token cop-out to prove to the public that the alumni of the University are not racist. It’s a sincere but misguided attempt at conveniently erasing our nation’s past imperfections.

Frankly, the thought that this change is a worthy token of redress is blatantly ignorant. The decision to remove Wilson’s name is wasted on the very people to whom it likely makes no difference. After all, universalizing the name of a swanky restaurant to the innocuous if clichéd Nassau 1756 does not universalize the experience of dining there. Contrary to what may be a myth of the Ivy League, wearing the latest Ralph Lauren duds and shilling out $16 to enjoy a cauliflower “steak” with champagne is most likely still limited to only a small fraction of Princeton alumni.

Furthermore, the act of removing Wilson’s presence has negative consequences on our present dialogue. The apparent eagerness of Princeton’s alumni to expunge even the faintest trace of unsettling truths from the public consciousness only serves to perpetuate the kind of cursory treatment of racism and the lack of awareness today that most people would condemn. For example, we as a society have rightly vilified Sean Spicer for engaging in a Holocaust denial by alleging that Hitler did not use chemical weapons at a recent press conference. So, it seems hypocritical to support the alumni club in denying Wilson’s legacy of racism. Doing so allows for those in power to make the justification that our society has done enough to counterbalance three centuries of racism, when in many cases, that is simply not true. By engendering a phobia of facing reminders of our past, who is to say that in the future, we as a society will be suddenly less prone to lapses in moral judgment?

The crux of the matter is that there will always be more skeletons unveiled from the messy quagmire of our nation’s complicated past. Our objective in addressing them should not be to bury or ignore the reminders of their legacy, but instead to actively consider what lessons we can take away from them.

Hayley Siegel is a freshman from Princeton, N.J. She can be reached at hsiegel@princeton.edu.