That Wilson was a racist I think has very long been known, although what the editorial and related articles reveal goes well beyond what I had known. His handling of matters in World War I may remain subject to debate. But the record seems clear that his disgusting racist actions at home on becoming president are simply despicable. It does indeed seem right that Princeton and any number of places adjust any honors they have given to him to take these terrible things into account.
28
What all of this really shows is our ignorance about the past. Many of our great leaders felt ambivalence about black people, including Lincoln and Jefferson. Both believed that all people should have equal rights but had some ambivalence about coming out against slavery. Jefferson was especially weak in the period after the War of 1812 when the US was expanding westward and there were many discussions and disagreements about whether slavery should be allowed into the new territories and states. Yet anyone who has read much about Woodrow Wilson knows that his mother was from the South and that he grew up in the South during reconstruction. They also know that he was savagely racist, with absolutely no ambivalence, and that segregation got immensely worse during his administration. The Wilson administration set back the advancement of black people in the United States by 50 years. Frankly, he was also a mediocre president, who would not have been elected if Teddy Roosevelt's candidacy in 1912 had not split the Republican vote, and his very poor performance at the peace talks in Versailles (he did not stand up to the French or the British) was an important cause of World War II. Time to debunk the myth of Woodrow Wilson as a great president and depict him has he was.
27
I think your editorial might be a little more convincing if you conceded that there was a case for Wilson.
26
It's worth noting that a counter-group has formed in Princeton precisely so that people understand that the views of the protesters are far from universal on the campus. These students are not racists -- it includes several black students -- but it objects to what they believe is the protesters' attempts to stifle dissent, and to raise objections to the wholesale whitewashing (right word, terrible contextually) of the university's history.
26
I always knew the Times was liberal but now I know it is insane. To condone the petulant whining of privileged children by expunging history that hurts their feelings does not merit serious comment.
52
I agree. Your comment can't possibly be serious.
33
Hitler did some impressive things too. I think a lot of these comments are naive, self righteous and inconsiderate. African Americans were American citizens and he actively oppressed them. Honor should be given to whom it is due, but consider the time in which this honor was bestowed. What was the real reason? Just think about it.
14
How could such a brilliant, brilliant man (Wilson) have been such a horrible, immoral human being. Pathetic. It's long, long past time to expunge the tributes to this odious little fellow.
13
Also, he's was a liberal or progressive, who believed the Constitution should not prevent the federal government from doing whatever it wanted, and began the ballooning of the size and power of the federal government. Should have his name removed for that as well.
5
What about Princeton's toxic legacy of sexism? Women were not even allowed in as students until 1969 - it has many buildings named after men who were no doubt sexist as well as racist. Is someone going to do a research and renaming of all the buildings on campus then?
35
And how are we to think of chemist Fritz Haber, who won a Nobel prize for development of the process for synthesizing ammonia, necessary to make fertilizers. The food production for half the world depends on the Haber synthesis, named after him in his honor. It is taught to all chemistry students. Unfortunately he is also known as the "father of chemical warfare" for his work in that area. Should we strike his name from future chemistry books on account of the evil he did? I don't think so. We have to live with the sad fact that a single man can do good and evil.
28
For many years I've been aware for of Wilson's racist history and how he transformed our nation's capital into a segregated city. It was his administration that also violated constitutional free speech guarantees by rounding up and even deporting or imprisoning people who opposed U.S. involvement in World War I. I could never understand how such a man could be held in such high esteem by Princeton University and by historians. As others have said, many of our heroes are "sinners." And, yes we may find it in our hearts to forgive them. But before we honor them we should weigh their "sins" against whatever, if any, "mitzvahs" they performed. I believe, Wilson's legacy of racism and disrespect for basic American fundamental rights and the damage our nation experienced as a result, far outweighs any of his supposed diplomatic achievements.
19
The Times editorial of Feb 4, 1924, the day Wilson died, is instructive. It's on page 18 of the newspaper, which can be found at the paper's invaluable TimesMachine website.
"A great light has gone out... Whatever may be the final verdict of history upon his two Administrations, his place among the outstanding Presidents of the United States is beyond challenge....[etc., etc., etc.]"
The editorial is not a hagiography and does not flinch from saying a few unflattering things about the late president, but there is not a single word about what today's editors and no-nothing students are whining about. Woodrow Wilson was a great man of his times and should be judged as such. It is grossly unfair to judge him by the mores du jour. Very few historic figures can withstand that.
"A great light has gone out... Whatever may be the final verdict of history upon his two Administrations, his place among the outstanding Presidents of the United States is beyond challenge....[etc., etc., etc.]"
The editorial is not a hagiography and does not flinch from saying a few unflattering things about the late president, but there is not a single word about what today's editors and no-nothing students are whining about. Woodrow Wilson was a great man of his times and should be judged as such. It is grossly unfair to judge him by the mores du jour. Very few historic figures can withstand that.
49
Ok. But where do we stop? Indeed, do we stop at all? Our history is fairly laced with racists and racism of various stripes. Is it a mistake bring some historical perspective to the table?
18
Wilson was born in that most Southern of places, Virginia, five years before the Civil War broke out, and lived part of his early life in South Carolina. He was trained to those convictions. When he argued after WW I that all cultures had an equal right to exist, the one he had in mind was plantation life. For him, as for many of our contemporaries, the Civil War was not over and will not be over until the South wins. Leave his name in place for the good he did, but note publicly what was done to him as a child that he never outgrew. We learn much from bad examples identified as such.
7
It would be good to hear from WW's descendants on the question of what Princeton should do. A careful look at their reasoning might be instructive, or not.
4
According to the editorial, the protesters' "top goal" is to rename the Woodrow Wilson School; for some reason, the NYT does not discuss one of the protesters' "subsidiary goals," extinguishing free speech for others. I would suggest that the subsidiary goal is the real issue in this dispute.
32
The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.
William Shakespeare
William Shakespeare
13
Whenever I hear these stories the first thing I ask myself is "why didnt I know this?" I have come to understand that we need serious rewriting of our history books so students learning in schools today get this information. We are bereft of this knowledge because it has been left out of our history books. An African American friend of mine was the head of the school library where my children went to school. She hated February for special emphasis on black history month. It is clear why. We have to bring the nation up to speed on all our history so we all become more knowledgeable and show that indeed, black lives matter!
19
Wilson was a racist, no question about it, and to paraphrase, you can take the boy out of Virginia but you can't take Virginia....There is a story that as a youth Wilson witnessed the site of a captured Jeff Davis being paraded through the streets and humiliated. Maybe this made an impression on the young man that stayed with him. Maybe he blamed black people for the humiliation of his beloved South. If this is true, he got his racism with mother's milk, so to speak, unlike, say, Ronald Reagan who grew up in central Illinois where there were virtually no black people around but then adopted his racist pose to advance his political career, opening his campaign with a states rights speech down the road from where the three young men had been murdered for the horrible crime of helping black citizens register to vote, and then went on with that canard about the Cadillac-driving "welfare queen" for years. Tell me, which is more despicable. And today, a century after Wilson left Princeton we have the dominant national political party playing their Southern Strategy race card day in and day out. I used to believe that USA was a racist country; now I've come to realize that's really ALL it is. As Chomsky says, this country was founded on two great crimes: slavery and genocide of the native peoples. You can erase that from the text books in TX ("immigrant workers from Africa") but you can't change the facts. Happy Thanksgiving, Pete McGuire, Atlanta
23
Our country's whole history is tainted by racism and slavery. We probably would not be as wealthy and influential a nation as we are if our predecessors had not had other people to exploit. So, maybe we should just rename our country and erase the names of most of our prominent citizens from our histories...
8
American history is not my long suit, but I had always admired Wilson--and knew nothing about his stance on race. However, the aggressive pursuit of systematically racist policies is a far cry from the kind of private prejudices than might be overlooked as having been "part of an era." Bravo to the Princeton students who have brought these deeds into public view! It happened then and it could happen again tomorrow.
12
A good reason for changing the name now is that Mr. Wilson is still remembered with partial knowledge of how he helped Ku Klux Klan grow. It is best the name is removed now and forgotten rather than wait after his reputation is totally shredded as KKK is viewed for the murderous terrorists that they were and Wilson's activities aiding the Ku Klux Klan's growth is more widely understood.
It will do less damage to Wilson's reputation and less damage to Princeton if the name change is not postponed.
It will do less damage to Wilson's reputation and less damage to Princeton if the name change is not postponed.
5
Yes we know, racism was rife among US historical giants. But critics here miss the point:
1. This is about whether a university should rescind a rare, high honor by renaming a particular school of government. It is not about erasing Wilson from American history.
2. Wilson did NOT simply reflect the mores of his time. He went far beyond that, by using his presidential powers to aggressively reverse progress, imposing his KKK-identified personal views on the federal government and impoverishing thousands as a direct result. He set back US racial justice many decades as a result.
Incredibly, Wilson's extreme racism and ultra-retrograde policies are so absent from U.S. history teaching that one could graduate from a top high school and then Princeton itself as an American History major and know nothing of it. That is an extreme circumstance, and critics on this comment page and elsewhere shouldn't whine about the well-deserved backlash that has now, finally arisen. We should all be more concerned instead with the immense damage that 100 years of whitewashing has done to our country.
1. This is about whether a university should rescind a rare, high honor by renaming a particular school of government. It is not about erasing Wilson from American history.
2. Wilson did NOT simply reflect the mores of his time. He went far beyond that, by using his presidential powers to aggressively reverse progress, imposing his KKK-identified personal views on the federal government and impoverishing thousands as a direct result. He set back US racial justice many decades as a result.
Incredibly, Wilson's extreme racism and ultra-retrograde policies are so absent from U.S. history teaching that one could graduate from a top high school and then Princeton itself as an American History major and know nothing of it. That is an extreme circumstance, and critics on this comment page and elsewhere shouldn't whine about the well-deserved backlash that has now, finally arisen. We should all be more concerned instead with the immense damage that 100 years of whitewashing has done to our country.
40
Let's get the pictures of slaveholders off our money.
10
Rename it after Lyndon Johnson.
12
I assume the NYT will next go after the University of Virginia because of Jefferson's missteps, then Washington & Lee - obviously two unworthy Southerners.
Is there no end to the witch hunts for bad behaviors in pat generations. I think Wilson was a poor president, but did not know about his racism. Knowing about it, I think even less of him, but believe there are many more important issues to be concerned about.
Look forward, not backward. Create success in your future, rather than spending precious resource on past mistakes.
Is there no end to the witch hunts for bad behaviors in pat generations. I think Wilson was a poor president, but did not know about his racism. Knowing about it, I think even less of him, but believe there are many more important issues to be concerned about.
Look forward, not backward. Create success in your future, rather than spending precious resource on past mistakes.
18
Maybe it is important to remember that the newspaper that endorsed Barack Obama in each of his two runs for the White House also endorsed "Thomas" Woodrow Wilson for each of his two runs as well. If the Times believes what it says it believes, then it has some serious soul searching of it's own to do. Personally, I see no difference between Mao's cultural revolution of the 1960's and the work the Times and others are trying to do today.
31
Kudos to NYT for outing Woodrow Wilson as an evil racist against African-Americans. Americans won't want to hear this truth because they can't handle the truth. But remember this, the truth will set you free.
6
Strange, isn’t it, that as we go back in history, century by century, human beings seem to be more and more evil, judging by the cruelty of their actions and their scorn for anyone different from themselves.
Does it really follow that the overwhelming majority of people who lived a hundred, five hundred, or two thousand years ago deserve our moral contempt and should be thrown into the dustbin of history?
Are we so much wiser and more moral than our ancestors?
There but for the grace of God and the accident of later birth go you and I and everyone alive today. The human race seems to have gone through a gradual process of enlightenment to which millions have contributed over thousands of years. We’re all caught up in that process, and we should
hope that it continues. That realization should temper our judgment of those who died before we were born and make us hope that future generations realize that we too have been partly blinded by the era that has produced us.
Does it really follow that the overwhelming majority of people who lived a hundred, five hundred, or two thousand years ago deserve our moral contempt and should be thrown into the dustbin of history?
Are we so much wiser and more moral than our ancestors?
There but for the grace of God and the accident of later birth go you and I and everyone alive today. The human race seems to have gone through a gradual process of enlightenment to which millions have contributed over thousands of years. We’re all caught up in that process, and we should
hope that it continues. That realization should temper our judgment of those who died before we were born and make us hope that future generations realize that we too have been partly blinded by the era that has produced us.
17
Tell that to ISIS. It's more remarkable to realize that Wilson and ISIS had a common trait of racism/prejudgment and that the recycling of evil is...evil.
1
Such a reasonable statement will surely be met with disdain....
1
This isn't so difficult, folks. Imagine for a moment that instead of Woodrow Wilson's name on the building, it was Bill Cosby's. Now compare the sheer scale and scope of Wilson's misdeeds to Cosby's. Huh! Now wasn't that easy?
6
Those of you who wish to keep his name intact...what are you thinking? It appears that Wilson's racism was deep-rooted. His actions are despicable in his day and our day. We can't erase history by taking erasing his name, but we can dishonor him. It should not matter if he was the President of the United States. In fact, because he was President his dishonor is worse!!
5
This logic would erase all of the accomplishments of Americas founders and deem them immoral racists. That can't be a reasonable outcome either- do we take Washington and Jefferson off of everything? They had slaves- did Woodrow? So if we remove Woodrow, we have to remove Goerge Washington.
11
As we remove Woodrow Wilson from public life, let us also remember our terrible history of racial eugenics, in full flower during Wilson's time, and swear that it never happen again.
2
"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones"
The Billy Shakespeare dude
The Billy Shakespeare dude
7
I didn't know these things about Wilson until recently.
But I depend on The New York Times to keep me informed. Not to flatter you but in fact, you are the nation's newspaper of record.
What else have you been hiding since 1915?
But I depend on The New York Times to keep me informed. Not to flatter you but in fact, you are the nation's newspaper of record.
What else have you been hiding since 1915?
7
Wilson was a terrible President who forced the USA to join in WWI, and who supported the Treaty of Versailles, and who advocated breaking up the Central Powers into small, unsustainable countries. This resulted in WWII and in most of our current problems in the Middle East.
General John 'Blackjack' Pershing was comfortable with Black soldiers, and would have integrated the US Army fighting during WWI. Wilson wanted a segregated Army, so the Army remained segregated.
Pershing arranged for America's Black soldiers to fight beside the French Army, which was integrated.
I've long wondered why the Democratic Party considers Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson to be its heroes. Both Presidents are a stain on American history, and the truth should be taught in Middle and High Schools.
General John 'Blackjack' Pershing was comfortable with Black soldiers, and would have integrated the US Army fighting during WWI. Wilson wanted a segregated Army, so the Army remained segregated.
Pershing arranged for America's Black soldiers to fight beside the French Army, which was integrated.
I've long wondered why the Democratic Party considers Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson to be its heroes. Both Presidents are a stain on American history, and the truth should be taught in Middle and High Schools.
17
You judge and call for extirpating the legacy of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton. This dismisses the staircase of ever expanded rights which American democracy has built. Wilson is flawed like every other character in our history but he built part of that ladder of freedoms. The Times might better inveigh against the new aircraft carrier USS John Stennis (nickname 'Johnny Reb'). Named for an avowed racist Senator who worked against the expansion of civil rights even into the post-Vietnam era. That we in 2007 honored such a man is more offensive than the bigotry of long-past generations view of Wilson. I suspect the black sailors on the 'Stennis' don't get to express their views on 'their' ship's name.
9
I am struck by the fact that even the African American graduates weighing in with their opinions, let alone the closet racists who try to justify Wilson's views miss the fact that Princeton University under the legacy of Wilson's racism did not accept it's first African American students until after WWII under the pressure of the GI bill. October 5, 1942, four black students entered the University through the United States Navy’s V-12 program, with the first three earning undergraduate degrees. John Leroy Howard was the first to receive a Princeton degree on February 5, 1947.
Princeton was known in the Ivy League as a "Plantation School." And the "Southern Ivy." William Taylor was the last in a series of African American vendors who sold refreshments from a cart on campus. His business continued well into the 1940s. Somewhat derisively dubbed the “jiggerman,” and was featured in an ad for Coca-Cola in 1930. "Poler's Recess" was the title of that ad, "the pause that refreshes."
It's high time that Princeton take material steps to redress and correct its history of institutionalized racism, and renaming one of their schools for international understanding and scholarship after American ambassador to the world, Paul Robeson, who was wrongly slandered by racist paranoid J. Edgar Hoover as a communist agent, would be a wonderful start.
Princeton was known in the Ivy League as a "Plantation School." And the "Southern Ivy." William Taylor was the last in a series of African American vendors who sold refreshments from a cart on campus. His business continued well into the 1940s. Somewhat derisively dubbed the “jiggerman,” and was featured in an ad for Coca-Cola in 1930. "Poler's Recess" was the title of that ad, "the pause that refreshes."
It's high time that Princeton take material steps to redress and correct its history of institutionalized racism, and renaming one of their schools for international understanding and scholarship after American ambassador to the world, Paul Robeson, who was wrongly slandered by racist paranoid J. Edgar Hoover as a communist agent, would be a wonderful start.
10
So when do we change the name of our nation's capital? When does George Washington University change its name? When do we stop reading the Declaration of Independence because it was written by slave owner. And I guess we had better get rid of the Constitution since it was co-authored and ratified by slave owners. And while we bashing Wilson lets not forget that he did the horrible thing of facing down the anti-Semites and appointing the first Jew to the Supreme Court.
17
Ironic is it not? The intellectual and humanitarian
Woodrow Wilson who laid the foundation for our current United Nations is also the learning disabled
segregationist who reflected the attitudes of the south following the Civil War. Goes to the validation
Of the psychiatric dictum, "The more you get to know some people the more they make you cry."
Woodrow Wilson who laid the foundation for our current United Nations is also the learning disabled
segregationist who reflected the attitudes of the south following the Civil War. Goes to the validation
Of the psychiatric dictum, "The more you get to know some people the more they make you cry."
4
I think it's as fair to judge a man by his enemies as by his friends. That being so, my admiration for the man increases day-by-day.
11
Utter and total claptrap. Judge historical figures in totality and relative to the moral benchmarks of their day, not ours. Did the NYT condemn his racism during his Presidency? If not, could that be because it was not seen as very remarkable?
21
A University is for its students. If the heavy presence of Woodrow Wilson offends and disturbs a significant part of its student body, then the name should be changed. It sounds like Wilson went beyond maintaining the status quo. He sought to reverse progress, and did. That was wrong, even by standards of the early 20th century.
If we are going to do this, lets do it sparingly. I would hate to see the George Washington Bridge become the "Fort Lee terminus bridge".
If we are going to do this, lets do it sparingly. I would hate to see the George Washington Bridge become the "Fort Lee terminus bridge".
3
When do you stop tearing down monuments, Wilson was a terrible Racist, and Washington & Jefferson were Slave owners.The one thing they had in common besides being racists, was they all came out the South,The South during Washington's era needed slaves to pick cotton, which was back breaking work ,the average American wouldn't do that work, for whatever you paid him, during this Time British outlawed Slavery, & intercepted Slave Ships & set the slaves free. John Adams was an abolitionist long before Lincoln, so the South knew better, so you just can't justify it as the culture of the Times & we have evolved, but have we ? Mexicans come here illegally to pick Fruit & Vegetables, below Minimum wages, Americans again, will not take these Jobs,, Products come into the United States which are produced by Child Labor at minimal wages. Americans of all races & religions are jumping over one another to get the products produced by low cost foreign labor, while American workers lose their jobs, because the products they used to manufacture, are made overseas.This cheap labor would be considered Slave labor in America.Slavery isn't defined by the money you get or don't get it's defined by taking advantage of Human beings for benefit of a few. So all you self-righteous indignant college Students, lets not be hypocrites & boycott products made by Child Labor for wages next to nothing. This is happening now,lets march against this injustice, & bring back American Jobs.
6
ISIL engages in a form of rewriting history by demolishing archaeological sites and artifacts to obliterate the memory of anything that they feel goes against their beliefs. The Stalinists in the Soviet Union rewrote history by eliminating from photographs those who were purged. The Times - and the ignorant loudmouth neo-Jacobins running roughshod on college campuses - now proposes to do the same with Woodrow Wilson. Which of our Founding Fathers and great men and women are now safe from this zealotry? And what now makes the Times and the college twits any better than ISIL or the Stalinists?
17
What's going to be done with all the justices, governors and presidents that helped to wipe out the native americans from the U. S.?
12
Wilson may have been more racist than his immediate predecessors, but he was less racist than most Democrats of his time.
9
Many people have commented that they were unaware of Woodrow Wilson's racism and the radiating effect that his racist views had in government and on African-American workers. If Princeton changes the name of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and Wilson disappears further from the public sphere, will we even pause to remember this history that so many people were unaware of until now? I just don't see how rescinding honors bestowed upon leaders – from naming rights to honorary doctorates, monuments, and more – works to fill these gaps in our history books and collective memory. Why don't we invest in doing a better job at telling the whole story? I am hesitant to bring up the entertainer Bill Cosby, who is right now having honors stripped away left and right, but I can't stop thinking about one such example that will be our loss. Cosby was recently cut from a documentary about black stuntmen in Hollywood – not because he wasn't instrumental in opening the door for black stuntmen, stopping the practice of painting white stuntman brown so they could double for African-American actors (he was) but because of the controversy swirling around the criminal acts he is accused and likely guilty of). The director's could have chosen to tell the whole story, but instead they're going to erase Cosby from their telling so he won't cloud the story they want to tell. Will we be better off? Princeton should choose to tell Woodrow Wilson's whole story.
13
Just withdraw all the honors bestowed on this prominent racist man, and only make sure to list all his accomplishments and his horrible racist actions. There is nothing difficult about doing this.
1
I wish I had known about this and I wish this was mentioned in school. Never knew about Wilson's racism until this week. This information certainly diminishes his stature.
I suspect there are other shameful things that we have never heard of. It is important that this sort of information in US history be placed in the public domain.
I suspect there are other shameful things that we have never heard of. It is important that this sort of information in US history be placed in the public domain.
2
A truly ahistorical, one-sided and simple-minded editorial. Wilson was one of the most important and complex figures of the twentieth century. His racism was unforgiveable, but he cannt be reduced to his racism.
20
Really, NY Times Editorial Board? Really? So where are your calls for erasing FDR's name from all of our landmarks since he was a proponent of eugenics, or shaming Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood, for espousing similar beliefs. All of these figures were products of their time, who were ahead of their time in many ways, but not every way. Instead of celebrating these people for their momentous achievements, we choose to erase these names from history because they weren't perfect. I challenge the Board to provide a list of "approved" figures in American history who meet the ridiculous precedent outline in this piece.
15
I can totally understand people being disgusted with a guy like Woodrow Wilson, but one thing to consider, a large portion of the American population thought just like he did during his day. I would think that some, or even many of the students protesting have had ancestors who would have applauded Wilson's actions. If any of them inherited money or property from a grandparent or uncle, would they return it if they found out that person had freely used the "N" word or performed some other racist transgression?
9
It seems to me a rather one sided and stupid response to a person's failure in one regard to damn him in all the others. Wilson was, in spite of his racism, which is indeed to be deplored, a great man and a good leader in a very difficult time. To damn him just over his racism seems to me to be the usual knee-jerk response of those who see him only with one-sided totally colored glasses that block all other views. For my money, it would be best to add to his record a clear statement of the wrongness of h is racism, but certainly NOT to remove all or any references to him or his great work that exist on the Princeton Campus. He was a human being like the rest of us, and no one is perfect, not even those who decry him. No sense in besmirching the whole man for one aspect of his character. That smacks of horrid and foul extremism.
12
This leads to a ridiculous conclusion "Let's tear down the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial, expunge Hamilton and Hancock from the record. Don't forget all of those white men from New England who built the Ivy Leagues - and also tormented, hated, and slaughtered native Americans. We need to pillage every Northeast state house. Don't forget all those leaders who thought that women should stay in the home, or that English should be the national language, or that gay people should never marry." All of this will make history books very short, our students ignorant, and our nation shallow.
14
There is much to admire about Wilson, but he appears to have done for Democrats what Nixon and other Southern Strategy Republicans did 4 years later. I doubt the comments would so strongly favor a generous view if Reagan's racism were being considered. If Wilson was really an admirer of the Klan he should not be held in high esteem. This was a backwards point of view in 1920.
1
Then why was Birth of a Nation such a gargantuan box-office triumph?
4
A lot of white people were unapologetic racists 100 years ago. Today, a small minority still are, while most recognize that attitude as bigoted and even shamefully ignorant. Most people of all races back then were also appalling homophobic and misogynistic.
The fact that Wilson's actions and views are so out of step today but didn't even raise an eyebrow 100 years ago shows nothing more than the fact we've made some progress on this front. It is simply absurd to judge historical figures from the distant past by contemporary mores.
Everyone would like their heroes to be perfect, but just like all of us, they lived human lives, replete with flaws and contradictions. MLK, JWF and FDR all cheated on their wives repeatedly. That does not make their contributions to our history any less important, it just shows that the world is more complex and nuanced than we might sometimes wish it would be.
The fact that Wilson's actions and views are so out of step today but didn't even raise an eyebrow 100 years ago shows nothing more than the fact we've made some progress on this front. It is simply absurd to judge historical figures from the distant past by contemporary mores.
Everyone would like their heroes to be perfect, but just like all of us, they lived human lives, replete with flaws and contradictions. MLK, JWF and FDR all cheated on their wives repeatedly. That does not make their contributions to our history any less important, it just shows that the world is more complex and nuanced than we might sometimes wish it would be.
11
As President of the United States Woodrow Wilson make troop movements in spite of efforts of doctors at John Hopkins and other medical schools to delay the troops because of the flu which was spreading in a frightening way. Wilson knew better and the result of his ignorance was to spread the flu worldwide ending in 30 to 50 million deaths far more than died in the war. This is documented in a great book, The Great Influenza.
3
Like it or not, historical figures will be judged and re-judged according to evolving standards. I believe that, at least to the extent that it might have a salutary impact on current leaders, reexamining our heroes benefits us.
Each of us will have to make our own judgment, but once a consensus is reached, renaming is likely to occur. Jefferson and Washington, it's true, owned slaves, but neither is generally considered a champion of that institution.
Jackson, on the other hand, was a champion of genocide. To my thinking, nothing he did, nor anything he might have done, expiates that sin.
Do Bill Cosby's sexual assaults make him deserving of our revulsion? Yes. Does JFK's philandering? In my judgment, no. Does George Bush's concern for sexual slavery and third world disease atone for the war crimes committed by his agents? No.
And so, Woodrow Wilson has been removed from my personal pantheon of heroes. YMMV.
No one has a right to be regard well by history; it's an honor they must earn. And image matters: we don't want to celebrate someone anyone, no matter how good, that is known primarily for the harm they have done. We don't want to condone that evil.
As a free and democratic people, we should keep hero worship in its proper place.
Each of us will have to make our own judgment, but once a consensus is reached, renaming is likely to occur. Jefferson and Washington, it's true, owned slaves, but neither is generally considered a champion of that institution.
Jackson, on the other hand, was a champion of genocide. To my thinking, nothing he did, nor anything he might have done, expiates that sin.
Do Bill Cosby's sexual assaults make him deserving of our revulsion? Yes. Does JFK's philandering? In my judgment, no. Does George Bush's concern for sexual slavery and third world disease atone for the war crimes committed by his agents? No.
And so, Woodrow Wilson has been removed from my personal pantheon of heroes. YMMV.
No one has a right to be regard well by history; it's an honor they must earn. And image matters: we don't want to celebrate someone anyone, no matter how good, that is known primarily for the harm they have done. We don't want to condone that evil.
As a free and democratic people, we should keep hero worship in its proper place.
While opposing racism in all it forms (at least since about 1955), I nonetheless agree that the current trend -- seemingly a virtual panic -- goes way too far. In human history racism is a near ubiquitous practice at every place and time, and within most groups. Anyone who thinks it worthwhile to cleanse history of its racial aspects simply doesn't understand the nature, scope, and complexity of the task or, for that matter, much about history (e.g. Wilson had a history of racism).
4
Recounting historic events should be done continually. It makes sense to judge those events with our current knowledge, views, and morals, when we decide what we want to DO today.
In today's world, most educated people do not value racism or find it moral. SO, change the name.
Those against the name change may
(1) be in denial about historic events, or
(2) they may acknowledge the events and support them, or
(3) value maintaining historical narratives, regardless of their veracity.
For some, it's very hard to adapt their views when new information comes in.
In today's world, most educated people do not value racism or find it moral. SO, change the name.
Those against the name change may
(1) be in denial about historic events, or
(2) they may acknowledge the events and support them, or
(3) value maintaining historical narratives, regardless of their veracity.
For some, it's very hard to adapt their views when new information comes in.
I despise racism as much as anyone. Perhaps more than most, since I grew up in the segregated south. I agree that Wilson's racism, even more than was typical for his day, is to be heartily condemned. But to deny his established legacy in international affairs and world peace would be an injustice. Wilson, flawed as he was, fought relentlessly and valiantly to establish the League of Nations (which of course later reemerged as the UN). In fact, he essentially gave his life to that cause, having died on a national speaking tour to bolster public support while in failing health and against the vehement opposition of his physicians. In addition, though apparently anti-Semitic himself, he nonetheless appointed the first Jew to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Brandeis, against powerful opposition. The reality is that, despite his reprehensible attitude and actions on race, if anyone deserves to have his or her name on a school of international affairs, it is Woodrow Wilson.
6
As many readers have pointed out, our history is rife with slaveholders and racists. Should we remove all of them from our commemorative places? Should we remove Washington from the dollar bill?
The ground is shaking in our time. Driven by technology, all our established values, mores and power relationships are upending at dizzying speed. No one feels secure; everyone feels vulnerable. There is no longer any safe, common ground of values and traditions on which we humans can huddle and help each other. http://tinyurl.com/pgkbwkt
To create "safe spaces" on campus by chiseling out reminders of a hateful past – which is what I think the students in part want to do – is a form of censorship at odds with a liberal education. And it is a slippery slope; where does it stop?
Yes, that name carved into stone is a symbol of institutional indifference to racism and sexism on campus. But removing the name will not solve the problem. If anything, it will remove an important reminder of it. What's needed is a recognition by all concerned – students and administration, alike – that we are dealing with deeply imbedded human instincts that may have conferred survival benefits in the distant past, but that are now at odds with modern society.
Male dominance and fear/hatred of others evolved over millions of years; we cannot carve them away. We can only channel them and limit the harm they do, by constantly reminding ourselves of their primeval force. Not by censorship or denial.
The ground is shaking in our time. Driven by technology, all our established values, mores and power relationships are upending at dizzying speed. No one feels secure; everyone feels vulnerable. There is no longer any safe, common ground of values and traditions on which we humans can huddle and help each other. http://tinyurl.com/pgkbwkt
To create "safe spaces" on campus by chiseling out reminders of a hateful past – which is what I think the students in part want to do – is a form of censorship at odds with a liberal education. And it is a slippery slope; where does it stop?
Yes, that name carved into stone is a symbol of institutional indifference to racism and sexism on campus. But removing the name will not solve the problem. If anything, it will remove an important reminder of it. What's needed is a recognition by all concerned – students and administration, alike – that we are dealing with deeply imbedded human instincts that may have conferred survival benefits in the distant past, but that are now at odds with modern society.
Male dominance and fear/hatred of others evolved over millions of years; we cannot carve them away. We can only channel them and limit the harm they do, by constantly reminding ourselves of their primeval force. Not by censorship or denial.
6
Let's also not forget that President Wilson also violently opposed the women's suffragette movement as well that despite his efforts led to their right to vote. If South Carolina can finally furl its Confederate battle flag, Princeton can stop honoring its racist and misogynist heritage and remove the reminders that offend many of its students and have no place in 21st century America. And, as a Yale alum, they, too, should rename (John C.) Calhoun College named for an equally rabid racist and slave advocate who also served in high political offices. It is imperative that such elite universities set an example of tolerance by acknowledging there is no tradition worthy of a modern educational institution that honors who fought for bigotry.
2
You can't assuage the real impact that Wilson, and those of his ilk, has had on racial attitudes and perspectives of today. This clearly represents the legacy of privilege he imbued in others e.g., it allowed for Yale frats to sing about exclusion or for Harvard frats cueing "only blond girls", to be allowed into their parties. It allows for the subjugation and oppression of a rich cultural heritage of the African-American, their struggle and contribution in the making of the country with little to show for it other than that of third class citizenry.
When I see that this country fully embraces and teaches the true history of its oppressed people, then I can rejoice in its "exceptionalism". Until then, remove all vestiges, placards, emblems, flags, etc., that celebrate and honor the hate monger.
When I see that this country fully embraces and teaches the true history of its oppressed people, then I can rejoice in its "exceptionalism". Until then, remove all vestiges, placards, emblems, flags, etc., that celebrate and honor the hate monger.
1
There is merit to the "every hero has feet of clay" argument. However, the recognition today of the virulent racism of Wilson and unfortunately many other Southerners of his day is important. Theodore Roosevelt continued the legacy of Lincoln. The Democratic Party of the day was basically a racist institution. One of its Presidential candidates in the 1920s John W. Davis was of a like mind with Wilson and in the S.CT. was on the other side of Thurgood Marshall in Brown v. Board. FDR was also a frequent user of the N word as was Harry Truman. The test: Did they improve our country even in areas in which viewing them in the rear view mirror, they had feet of clay. FDR passed the test largely because on Civil Rights Eleanor was allowed free reign to be a standard bearer, even though her husband was intolerant. His social programs helped blacks and whites. Truman, enraged at the treatment of black soldiers in the South when they returned from WWII, championed the Civil Rights Commission. Wilson does not pass that test. Under his Presidency black Americans regressed from where they had been in the Roosevelt and Taft administrations. The ultimate test of every American President should be: Did our nation become a more perfect or a less perfect union during his watch? Woodrow Wilson made it less perfect. He never left behind the boy who had idolized the man who rode by his boyhood home on an old grey horse, Robert E. Lee.
Woodrow Wilson clearly had some horrific views. He also left a legacy of progressive domestic and international policy - the 8 hr work day, anti-trust legislation, the league of nations. None of this should inform the University's decision. Rather, the University should remove Wilson's name because it further alienates many students who already sit on the margins of University life. If the University must tarnish the reputation of a long dead president in order to create a more inclusive present-day community, so be it.
2
I appreciate the Times' coverage of this subject, and this editorial. This is an important issue, and was I was not familiar with, despite my major in American history. As the recipient of the many advantages of white privilege, I recognize that the benefits of that privilege have spanned many generations, including my New Jersey ancestors. We all need to do our part to undo the harms to past generations of African-Americans. Princeton needs to make this important gesture to demonstrate that its current African-American students that they truly belong. As Princeton alum Michelle Obama wrote in her Princeton senior thesis: "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/michelle-obama-thesis-was-on-racia...
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/michelle-obama-thesis-was-on-racia...
Wilson was not just a man of his times, but an overt racist, who epitomizes the southern racist culture that still holds an out-sized sway over our nation. But here is my idea: change the name of the residential complex to reflect on some other prominent grad. But keep the WW School name intact, and use it as a teachable moment for all time. This could be made into a wonderful piece of history, if the stories and legacy of those his racism harmed were codified and hung in the building. A great project for some fine arts scholars. Let it be said that we are all flawed, but let it be understood that the harm one person causes can be greater than that of another, and it is our duty to remember a man of influence-- for both good and for in Wilson's case, true evil and destruction.
1
The question here is not whether great men and women have flaws - they do, of course. The issue is whether we should embellish a place of modern learning with a man who used his role of leadership, and the power of his office, to alter the lives and destinies of so many, for no reason but racism.
It is the scale of that betrayal that warrants attention today, and distinguishes the crime from other lapses of character. It is irrelevant that Wilson was a son of his times - in fact, his public repudiation is long overdue.
America has a quaint history of white-washing or ignoring the bigotry of many of its heroes and leaders, which is why so many of their names adorn public buildings. If the rights of blacks had been protected in 1776, Jefferson would either have divested his slaves, or been blocked from high office.
Since that was not the case, perhaps its time to face the issue head on. In South Africa, and colonies like India, great men of the times created great states and economies, and laid the groundwork for the modern era. But we do not celebrate those defenders of apartheid or oppression.
So either put an asterisk next to Wilson's name (e.g, * Former President and notorious racist), or finally end the practice of naming important buildings for people who perpetuated such harm, regardless of whatever other good they may have done.
It is the scale of that betrayal that warrants attention today, and distinguishes the crime from other lapses of character. It is irrelevant that Wilson was a son of his times - in fact, his public repudiation is long overdue.
America has a quaint history of white-washing or ignoring the bigotry of many of its heroes and leaders, which is why so many of their names adorn public buildings. If the rights of blacks had been protected in 1776, Jefferson would either have divested his slaves, or been blocked from high office.
Since that was not the case, perhaps its time to face the issue head on. In South Africa, and colonies like India, great men of the times created great states and economies, and laid the groundwork for the modern era. But we do not celebrate those defenders of apartheid or oppression.
So either put an asterisk next to Wilson's name (e.g, * Former President and notorious racist), or finally end the practice of naming important buildings for people who perpetuated such harm, regardless of whatever other good they may have done.
1
I am graduate student at Princeton University, and I am saddened and unnerved by the opinions voiced and promoted in this comments section. I will address two of the arguments I find most troubling, and most untrue. The first is that re-naming the Wilson school is unnecessary because an uncountable buildings are named for slave owners, imperialists etc. This is true, and it means that all of those buildings should be re-named. Maybe this would push us to honor figures who were not male, who were not powerful and who were not white. The second unnerving point suggests that student activist try to "scrub" history of its injustices. This is the exact opposite of what they have done. In their activism they have dredged-up history's dirt, forcing us to consider deeply our legacy of honoring racist leaders. Demanding that certain narratives be re-written is historical work in its highest order. As a white student, I walk about my campus feeling included and at home. Buildings with named for racists (Wilson was a racist, even by the standards of his time) deny students of color the invaluable feeling of inclusion. As intellectuals (I refer to both PUers and NYT readers) we should welcome the provocation to re-consider symbols that have too-long been taken-for-granted. White interests have dominated campuses for centuries. It is our role now to listen with respect and stand in solidarity.
4
Bravo to your comment. Most including myself would do well to defer to the opinions of those who are informed, have a dog in the fight and actually attend PU..
1
Shouldn't Wilson's corpse be removed from the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., where it obstructs one of the aisles? While the National Cathedral is not a government owned facility, the Episcopal Church of the United States, which does own and operate it, should remove Wilson from its building in support of the African-American Community. Many African-Americans, who are members of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, founded by Denmark Vesey, among others in 1818, would welcome the purge of Wilson from the National Cathedral!
3
We are too ready to attach peopl'e's names and images to our monuments and institutions, both public and private. It would be good to reverse this trend by removing the faces of historical figures from our coins and currency with the possible exception of Lincoln. Replace them all with representations of Lady Liberty to remind ourselves that we have a tradition of harboring oppressed peoples.
Apparently you don't know very much about Lincoln.
3
Removing Wilson's name from the Princeton School of Public Policy will not achieve an iota of meaningful progress for these aggrieved petitioners. Who's the next target, what's the next calling out? This is beginning to feel like an inquisition.
Perhaps these demands have served to set straight some important historical facts, and that can't be a bad thing. But, has Wilson's history really impacted the Princeton students of today, except in the long, long view that all human actions have import.
As a woman I can't help but feel if we drew constant attention to all the sexist policies, behavior, attitudes, laws, of the past, I would be consumed with that entirely. The legal work achieving equality has been done. Discrimination has no legal protection in our lives any longer. Persuading minds is an ongoing mission and that should continue. Do the "black justice" movements succeed here? I wonder.
Be proud of your progress and your voices, but this is beginning to feel like tribalism. And no, I'm not harking back to Africa by using that term. Look to the Middle East.
Perhaps these demands have served to set straight some important historical facts, and that can't be a bad thing. But, has Wilson's history really impacted the Princeton students of today, except in the long, long view that all human actions have import.
As a woman I can't help but feel if we drew constant attention to all the sexist policies, behavior, attitudes, laws, of the past, I would be consumed with that entirely. The legal work achieving equality has been done. Discrimination has no legal protection in our lives any longer. Persuading minds is an ongoing mission and that should continue. Do the "black justice" movements succeed here? I wonder.
Be proud of your progress and your voices, but this is beginning to feel like tribalism. And no, I'm not harking back to Africa by using that term. Look to the Middle East.
8
There is a tendency to view anything and everything associated with racism to be horrible and unacceptable to the point that I often see many progressives accuse all republicans of being racist. This is one the cases where I would actually see Woodrow Wilson's imperfections as a positive. I can't imagine a better person to name the school of international affairs after than the man who was the leader of the progressive movement, put forward a policy that might have stopped WW2 and brought the US into many International conflicts. On the subject of his alleged racism, international policy and law is almost inherently flawed. Let the imperfections be part of the name and part of the school, enough yelling about how racist people from a century ago hurts cultural diversity on college campuses.
5
While we are at it, lets get rid of the Fulbright scholarship name since J.William Fulbright was an ardent segregationist from Arkansas. A the same time, we should remove Robert Byrd's name from all those bridges and buildings in WVA since he was a segregationist and KKK member at one time. Also no self respecting college should nominate students for a Rhodes scholarship until they change the name. No Nobel prizes since the guy invented dynamite and modern explosives which caused untold millions to die in wars. For that matter FDR was a racist for putting the Japanese in internment camps based simply on their ethnicity. Its easy to be PC at first but pretty soon there will be nothing left. I'm surprised
16
I didn't learn any of this in school, but I also didn't learn the names of Louis Freeland Post, George Edmund Haynes, or William B. Wilson. Maybe they should be remembered instead their president.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/shfgpr00.htm
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/wilson.htm
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/btt/celebratingfreedom/pdfs/181...
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/shfgpr00.htm
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/wilson.htm
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/btt/celebratingfreedom/pdfs/181...
1
This is one of the greatest pieces of poppycock that I've ever read in the Times. Shame on the Editorial Board for blowing this out of proportion and making an issue of something that should be acknowledged, discussed and from which lessons should be learned but not much more. However, the Times and certainly these young idealists at Princeton need to recognize that cherry-picking issues about which to be outraged is silly and sophomoric and feeds right into the prejudices of the far right-wing. The world outside of Princeton and the editorial room of the NYT is bitterly divided as well as dealing with real-life divisions threatening our republic. Both groups have just driven another wedge into those divisions.
19
I think it's more powerful to leave the name then to remove it. Once removed totally forgotten in 18 months. Think about it.
5
And as we all know, the voting South of that time favored integration, were not racist and had nothing to do with the election of only the second Democratic president since Buchanan. Wilson, of course, did not appoint the first Jew to the United States Supreme Court, which in itself could not have led to openings in the area of civil rights, albeit in decades to come. Moreover he did not appoint FDR to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy, so he had nothing to do with historical evolution of American society to include blacks. Jeez, Louise!
3
perhaps the good news is that our poor coddled students can't find anything current that truly oppresses them, so they have to dig back into the past to find monsters.
oh, and anyone know the academic credentials of these freedom fighters?
oh, and anyone know the academic credentials of these freedom fighters?
8
How would you feel if the President fired you from your job or demoted you, simply on the basis of your race? What if that happened to everyone who had a government job, because of their race? That would be monstrous.
He used the power of the presidency to hurt an entire group of people. That is why his name should be removed from the school of government.
He used the power of the presidency to hurt an entire group of people. That is why his name should be removed from the school of government.
3
I am a graduate of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, and believe we can appreciate his contributions to the university and the nation without denying or overlooking that he used his Presidency to advance extremely racist views. We will all evaluate him differently based on the relative weight we place on his accomplishments and transgressions. And, we might all prioritize different measures to purge our universities and our society of racism. What matters, though, is that his name contributes to a hostile environment for students of color. In so doing, it undermines the aspirations that the university has for itself and its future contributions to the nation.
7
Well said. It's highly inappropriate that a prestigious school of government should be named after someone who used the office of the presidency to harm a group of Americans, who's only "fault" was that they happened to be born black. To keep the name would be a mockery of the concept of equal rights for all.
3
Are we going to rename the nation's capital because Washington was a slaveholder? Will we remove the Jefferson Memorial because Jefferson was a slaveholder? There are so many places in America that are named after people who were flawed, and who held views that we abhor today, but those people also made great contributions to our country. Our nation is permanently scarred by slavery, by our treatment of the native Americans, and of other groups as well. But if we are going to remove the names of everyone involved in these portions of our history, we will need to number and letter our cities, towns, streets, monuments, public institutions, etc., because few people will pass muster.
9
How about FDR who incarcerated Japanese American citizens because of their race? If you're going to start purging our monuments of politically incorrect behavior, that's a pretty good name to start with.
7
Get over it. Happened 100+ years ago. NYT not acting like NYT on this one.
13
Perhaps Princeton should atone by adding a plaque to its School of Public and International Affairs and a bold note in the School's website describing the racist personal beliefs, actions and legacy of Woodrow Wilson. The idea that our founding fathers in many cases owned slaves can hardly excuse Wilson, whose actions took place decades after the Civil War.
It's impossible to know how much damage was done to the nation by Wilson's actions in his appointed and elected offices. Certainly the reverberations were felt through generations of Blacks. But it appears that at least some of the immediate personal stories can be known and told, like that of John Abraham Davis. They should be listed as victims on the Wilson plaque and their stories told.
It's impossible to know how much damage was done to the nation by Wilson's actions in his appointed and elected offices. Certainly the reverberations were felt through generations of Blacks. But it appears that at least some of the immediate personal stories can be known and told, like that of John Abraham Davis. They should be listed as victims on the Wilson plaque and their stories told.
4
And the stories of George Edmund Haynes, Emmett Jay Scott, William Henry Davis; and maybe also Louis Freeland Post, and William B. Wilson.
Isn't this just another feel-good moment -- confirming our ability to erase reminders of more distant events -- that does nothing to combat the evil still alive and well in this nation?
Ronald Reagan was at least as bad as Wilson, and he still has an airport, and who knows what else, named after him.
It seems like college campuses are wellsprings of protest once again, but the purpose of that protest too often seems to be self-esteem.
Ronald Reagan was at least as bad as Wilson, and he still has an airport, and who knows what else, named after him.
It seems like college campuses are wellsprings of protest once again, but the purpose of that protest too often seems to be self-esteem.
4
Will following generations have to re-write current leaders for "sins" that are currently acceptable? Who knows what will be the politically correct modus operandi in 2055? This issue is ridiculous, and when college students have nothing better to do than raise flags from history, they apparently aren't being challenged enough academically. Or are being led by weak-headed faculty. Let's deal with the real problems of the present - and there are several that this kind of faux-cause distracts us from.
10
Let this discussion be a lesson to today's candidates on the debate stage. Think of posterity before you do what seems expedient today. The people may well disown you.
1
The 'Princeton Open Campus Coalition' said it best:
"Moreover, if we [Princeton] cease honoring flawed individuals, there will be no names adorning our buildings, no statues decorating our courtyards, and no biographies capable of inspiring future generations."
"Moreover, if we [Princeton] cease honoring flawed individuals, there will be no names adorning our buildings, no statues decorating our courtyards, and no biographies capable of inspiring future generations."
13
To be clear, there is no American quite so racist as one who owned slaves.
Wilson's racism is, to put it outrageously, cute and furry, compared to the racism of our nation's founding dignitaries that we celebrate with naming rights all over this country.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for protecting Wilson's legacy at Princeton. I'm suggesting this is just a modest and important opening gambit.
Wilson's racism is, to put it outrageously, cute and furry, compared to the racism of our nation's founding dignitaries that we celebrate with naming rights all over this country.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for protecting Wilson's legacy at Princeton. I'm suggesting this is just a modest and important opening gambit.
5
Woodrow Wilson was a flaming racist. That is a very serious character flaw, and made worse by the actions he took against black people because of it. However, he not only was president of the university but he was also president of the United States of America. It's pretty much standard for universities that produce presidents to honor them in some way. You can't erase history, and someone not being a good person doesn't mean they weren't important. In this case Wilson had a very terrible side to him, but he was also a very important man both to the university and America. I don't think reminders of the bad side of the past need to be scrubbed away- in fact, they need to remain. If there is no recognition of the evil that was once prevalent in America then there will be no warnings to prevent people from going down the same path. Wilson's name doesn't necessarily have to be so prominent- in fact changing it to a woman or poc of equal historical importance would be nice- but there is no need for Yale to hide the fact that an American president held a position on the campus.
Like so many historical figures, Woodrow Wilson was a very complicated man, a man who believed in the political self-determination for all peoples while at the same time screening "Birth of the Nation" in the White House.
Does Wilson deserve to be honored at Princeton for his foreign policy ideals or deserve to be shamed for segregating the Federal Government?
I do not blame today's college students for protesting every single act of racism that occurs in this country. That is their right, and all of us Americans should be proud of their courage to speak out. But any attempt to erase the past should be approached with great care. Perhaps President Wilson's segregationist views do not entitle him to be honored at one of our nation's most prestigious universities. But how far do we go from there? Do we completely erase all of Wilson's past historical accomplishments because he - like a majority of white Americans at that time - held racist beliefs?
Andrew Jackson forced thousands of Cherokee to march across the Mississippi in the Trail of Tears, yet we continue to honor him on the twenty dollar bill.
America is embarking on a very slippery slope when it choose to erase its uncomfortable historical past. Erasing the past does not redress the injustices that occurred because of that past.
Does Wilson deserve to be honored at Princeton for his foreign policy ideals or deserve to be shamed for segregating the Federal Government?
I do not blame today's college students for protesting every single act of racism that occurs in this country. That is their right, and all of us Americans should be proud of their courage to speak out. But any attempt to erase the past should be approached with great care. Perhaps President Wilson's segregationist views do not entitle him to be honored at one of our nation's most prestigious universities. But how far do we go from there? Do we completely erase all of Wilson's past historical accomplishments because he - like a majority of white Americans at that time - held racist beliefs?
Andrew Jackson forced thousands of Cherokee to march across the Mississippi in the Trail of Tears, yet we continue to honor him on the twenty dollar bill.
America is embarking on a very slippery slope when it choose to erase its uncomfortable historical past. Erasing the past does not redress the injustices that occurred because of that past.
7
The commentary on the issue of Woodrow Wilson moves from the frank discourse of the editorial board to the students at Princeton (millenials no doubt) who wonder aloud why an abject racist is/has been honored at their university. Wilson has been honored because it often takes the wheels of history to slowly grind themselves into the light of current scrutiny. Fact, Wilson was a frank racist who used his office to carry out his racist ideas. There is no insitutional racism with an abject racist. Wilson joins the ranks of the other ilk mentioned above and below.
Here we go - another great purge. This time it's so people can feel good about themselves. Mao, Stalin, Robespierre - take a number. Let's expand this to any historical figure who was "bad". The $1 bill and dynamite for Mount Rushmore are next. With all of the other problems we have, you would think the bed wetters could focus on something else - at least for a short while.
11
I've never heard any of this. Not in school or since. It does matter. If true, there are better people to honor. We need to judge with some context, but still, we do need to judge.
1
My goodness. Just wait for a hundred years from now. Whatever the standards of that day, most folks will look back at us and trash us, as they will be trashed by the folks a hundred years after that. Let the dead rest.
5
I wonder how many portraits of important people hang in the halls of Congress, various State Houses, Corporate offices, etc. who had less than complimentary outlooks on race, women's rights, religious diversity, etc. If we start expunging all mention of historical figures who who not meet today's standards, we probably are going to have a pretty short list. People need to use these opinions as a teaching tool. Many important historical figures also had troubling opinions on a variety of issues, and denigrated most everyone but the dominate figures of the day - that being white, Protestant males. Woodrow Wilson's principals on race are indeed very troubling and disturbing. However, I am much more troubled by the remarks that border on being fascist being made by a serious candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination than I am worrying about the name on a building at Princeton.
6
Shame on anyone who claims to be educated in US history for not knowing about Wilson. Double shame if you go/went to Princeton.
The kerfuffle about renaming the school seems juvenile. Now if the school was named Wilson School of Racial Equality you would have a valid argument. Just like if there was a FDR school of Japanese Relations, or a MLK School of Marital Fidelity....but there is not.
The kerfuffle about renaming the school seems juvenile. Now if the school was named Wilson School of Racial Equality you would have a valid argument. Just like if there was a FDR school of Japanese Relations, or a MLK School of Marital Fidelity....but there is not.
11
When will Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. will get around to disinterring Wilson's remains and that of his wife, Edith, and moving them somewhere off-site to some public cemetery that isn't associated with the Episcopal Church or any Christian denomination? Surely, they knew plenty about this man's racism when he died in 1924. To entomb him in a place of honor inside a church is disgusting.
2
Here in honor of Woodrow Wilson - a man who augured to establish world peace in order to appease the demons that were consuming his soul!
3
Most people recognize that those who lived before us, even our heroes, were imperfect human beings, influenced by the times they lived in. That doesn't mean we can't try to learn from their mistakes and do better in future. I learned about Woodrow Wilson's work with the League of Nations in school, but was completely unaware of his segregationist views. Those actions were not just unjust to the victims and morally repugnant - they were illegal and a violation of his duties as president. If we're not informed about our leaders' failings, how can we change things for the better? If we can't face the truth, how will we survive?
1
It's nice to see all the progressives can be so forgiving of such a racists when it's one of their own. Wonder how'd they feel if he were conservative. This individual did more to destroy the constitution and the struggles of Lincoln then any other individual in the last 200 years. Here's hoping his movement is being exposed for the hypocritical ideology that it has always been.
1
Thank you NYT Editorial Board.
I have not read all the comments but I am sure it has been said "Let the one without sin cast the first stone."
10
Consider Mt. Rushmore: two racist slaveholders, a bigot who freed slaves as an act of war and a jingoist. Shall we now, ISIS-like, blast their faces from that mountainside? Or just the slaveholders? And what shall we call our nation's capital from now on? Young people rightfully own the future (and good luck with that) but the past actually happened and trying to erase it will not change it - not even a little.
11
People who are dead -- long dead in the case of Wilson -- have no chance to meet contemporary moral standards. They can only be good or not in the context of their own times. Surely the editorial board has noticed it is usually not entirely clear what is good or not good for us today. Otherwise there would be no need for an editorial board. To judge Wilson or any other historic figure by our standards is "presentism." It blocks reasoned understanding of him and his times. It also lets us off the hook for our own actions in our own world. When we prove we can do demonstrably better, we can presume to judge the past.
10
This situation is the result of our country's unwillingness to face up to our racist demons and cleanse our society. We need to have it out as a society once and for all. When will we learn to try on the other guy's shoes and imagine how that must feel? Grow up America, at last.
7
Whenever I hear someone arguing in defense of Woodrow Wilson I have a strong urge to demote or fire him or her, slash his or her wages in half, and generally have his or her life fall to pieces before his or her very eyes all because someone in a position of power used that power to push an agenda that discriminates against that person for being who he or she is. It's easy to argue that things have gone too far when you, your family, and ancestors have never struggled with the consequences of institutionalized racism. But imagine you are still struggling from the suffering your family went through under slavery and Jim Crow and then see how you feel about venerating Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or Woodrow Wilson.
6
So I take it you are in favor of renaming the Washington DC?
4
Many of the people arguing in defense of Wilson aren't defending his racism or the actions he took because of it. In fact, from what I've read here and elsewhere, they condemn his racist views with a fervor equal to Wilson's detractors. For the most part, any defense of Wilson relates to his role in international diplomacy and his place in a critical period in history. Many people see great value in that role, others, less so. The issue here is whether we think the bad (in this case pretty bad) should completely nullify the good. Your sad comment makes it clear you have zero capacity for a slightly differing viewpoint on this matter. Furthermore, your stated fantasies about completely destroying the life of anybody who doesn't 100% agree with your viewpoint is likely borderline psychotic and quite worrisome. You are part of the problem. Not the solution.
2
What an utterly absurd editorial. The pc wimps on the Editorial Board have outdone themselves. Washington, Jefferson (among many other respected luminaries) were slave owners. The English colonialists committed many barbarities - should we change the name of our language.
And the pc armies march on. Nauseating.
And the pc armies march on. Nauseating.
12
Totally ridiculous that Princeton should even be tolerating this nonsense. It's part of our history like it or not. Far worse than Wilson have buildings named in their honor. Use your imagination and you'll come up with all those that are considered to be the darlings of humanity. Don't back down Old Nassau! You don't have to.
10
At the time, it probably enhanced Princeton's reputation, since it reminded people that the President of Princeton became the President of the United States. But, despite Wilson's great contributions, with the current information, it may no longer help the school's reputation.
The school will have to decide if the name now attracts or repels more students. And whether or not the name continues to support its goals and reflect the quality of its programs. (And what affect a name change would have on previous graduates of a potentially non-existent school.)
The school will have to decide if the name now attracts or repels more students. And whether or not the name continues to support its goals and reflect the quality of its programs. (And what affect a name change would have on previous graduates of a potentially non-existent school.)
2
To read the comments objecting to this editorial, one might think there is a new move afoot to sanitize history, but comments by the many people who studied American History but never learned about Wilson's ugly views demonstrate that our history was sanitized decades ago.
It's an embarrassment that we honor a President who held such ignorant and regressive views, even by the standards of many who lived during his time. He was no hero to the country when he harmed millions of our fellow Americans, supported a movement responsible for the torture, murder and terrorism of thousands, and set the country's racial progress back 100 years.
Recall who was and was not allowed to vote in 1912: most adult Americans (and as a practical matter almost all Blacks) were unable to vote against him. He lacks the legitimacy that might shield him from retrospective scrutiny by being considered "elected by the people of the time."
It's an embarrassment that we honor a President who held such ignorant and regressive views, even by the standards of many who lived during his time. He was no hero to the country when he harmed millions of our fellow Americans, supported a movement responsible for the torture, murder and terrorism of thousands, and set the country's racial progress back 100 years.
Recall who was and was not allowed to vote in 1912: most adult Americans (and as a practical matter almost all Blacks) were unable to vote against him. He lacks the legitimacy that might shield him from retrospective scrutiny by being considered "elected by the people of the time."
2
Wasn't Woodrow Wilson in favor of Women's suffrage?
2
Changing or removing a name from a building or a statue may ease some hearts and minds but won't change hearts and minds. The complexity of the American character has yet to be fully revealed just like the flaws of some of its major figures. For every Wilson, there is a Sharpton. For every Klansman, there is a Louis Farrakhan. Current board members at Cornell once interrupted meetings at that same institution at gunpoint. Nothing is effectively black or white. America has always been a structure built on a flawed foundation and simply painting over the cracks does not remove them.
6
I'm not convinced about this. Wilson's legacy is a matter of history and hardly unique. If we have to hide his name we may have to grind flat half the gravestones of the early twentieth century. Is Yale using the memory of Woodrow Wilson to advance the cause of white supremacy now? I hardly think so. Compare the naming of uncountable monuments after men whose opinions we no longer countenance, to the parading of the Confederate flag at State Houses and political rallies, where it is actively used to perpetuate today's racism and resuscitate lapsed forms of extremism, under camouflage of mostly imaginary "states rights". The latter is clearly a menace to freedom, the former part of a legacy we should not be hiding.
4
Thanks to students such as those at Princeton, for delivering us with the perfect moment to begin an open and nuanced conversation about race and the legacy of slavery.
Imagine the sophisticated citizenry we would produce if details of the lives and achievements of prominent figures we've chosen to honor were taught in our nation's schools and discussed right now in public spaces.
Not one of us is perfect, neither our parents, nor our heroes. The good they do or have done is not necessarily obliterated by their stumbling and stupidity.
If the clarity that such lessons, in which the connection between the actions of our "heroes" and the plight of too many citizens became plain, we just might reach a new level, one in which we are no longer debating whose name should be removed from which buildings, programs, etc., but how to rescue those among us who are living examples of the wounds inflicted upon all of us by the behavior of those "heroes" and our nation's blindness to the policies spawned by that behavior.
Imagine the sophisticated citizenry we would produce if details of the lives and achievements of prominent figures we've chosen to honor were taught in our nation's schools and discussed right now in public spaces.
Not one of us is perfect, neither our parents, nor our heroes. The good they do or have done is not necessarily obliterated by their stumbling and stupidity.
If the clarity that such lessons, in which the connection between the actions of our "heroes" and the plight of too many citizens became plain, we just might reach a new level, one in which we are no longer debating whose name should be removed from which buildings, programs, etc., but how to rescue those among us who are living examples of the wounds inflicted upon all of us by the behavior of those "heroes" and our nation's blindness to the policies spawned by that behavior.
What the Princeton African American students are demanding is not akin to the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Not ERASE history; rather, making many of us (not only whites) understand that in this 2015, in this democratic society, notwithstanding Citizens United v. FEC, a different group of people than the one in dominance since the 1600's will take it no more. The victorious wrote history, its interpretation of it will no longer follow the traditional (white) thought and emphasis. Nuances have shifted. Discussion should follow and either you continue ignoring significant minorities (in population) and follow the French model or rethink the traditional model.
3
While one might view the racism that was common at the turn of the 20th century as unfortunate but not the only thing someone should be remembered for, Woodrow Wilson used his power to destroy people's lives based on their race. He was an active participant in the persecution of African Americans who's only fault was that they were born black. So, it follows that the idea of a school of government being named after him, is a travesty and Princeton should make the necessary changes to reflect the American ideal of equality for all.
3
The difference between Wilson and Washington was that Wilson worked to take rights that had already been given to Americans away from them. Washington was not undoing rights already possessed by Americans. It is when politicians take away rights that people possess that the line is crossed. This is something that today's GOP candidates need to think about.
4
That was then. This is now. Changes need to be made. A shameful history, but we need to make changes now.
1
They can eliminate Wilson from Princeton's institutional memory after they remove Lowell's from Harvard's. That includes renaming Lowell House.
Lowell was a loud-mouthed pioneer in discriminating against Jews in admission--whereas Harvard now soft-pedals its discrimination against Asians as "holistic admissions." Besides, Lowell burned Sacco and Vanzetti, the intellectual ancestors of today's student anarchists.
But, it's always best to at least feign even-handedness. So, while trashing all those dead Whites, let's also agree to expel and remove from the campus any student who starts a hunger strike, no matter what he says his reason is and without any racial bias.
Lowell was a loud-mouthed pioneer in discriminating against Jews in admission--whereas Harvard now soft-pedals its discrimination against Asians as "holistic admissions." Besides, Lowell burned Sacco and Vanzetti, the intellectual ancestors of today's student anarchists.
But, it's always best to at least feign even-handedness. So, while trashing all those dead Whites, let's also agree to expel and remove from the campus any student who starts a hunger strike, no matter what he says his reason is and without any racial bias.
3
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs is named that for the extraordinary contributions Woodrow Wilson made in that field. The fact that he also made horrendous contributions should be used as a teaching element in the school. It does tarnish the name, and I disagree with some commenters that all people have that degree of tarnish on their name.
Wilson was otherwise a positive force in public and international affairs, and he is generally regarded as an effective president. I understand the dilemma, and either decision has its merits, but I lean toward letting students emulate what was great and take the rest as a cautionary tale--unless it now makes fewer students want to enroll in the school, which is possible. Assuming the school itself is doing a good job, I am also open to other names.
Wilson was otherwise a positive force in public and international affairs, and he is generally regarded as an effective president. I understand the dilemma, and either decision has its merits, but I lean toward letting students emulate what was great and take the rest as a cautionary tale--unless it now makes fewer students want to enroll in the school, which is possible. Assuming the school itself is doing a good job, I am also open to other names.
3
Excellent editorial. There are times when righteous indignation is called for, and this is one of those times. Princeton should do the right thing.
3
Thats exactly the problem and the argument, we don't have a president for deciding when something merits righteous indignation. Every one of us wants the right thing to be done on either side of the argument.
3
What did JFK or Abraham Lincoln think about gay marriage? What was MLK's position on transgender rights? I don't mean "what would they think now?", I mean what was their position in 1960 if they had one? What if we should find out that their beliefs and actions a half century ago don't align with current thought? Should we remove their names from public buildings in 2015 because times and attitudes have changed? Or should we realize that times indeed do change, and maybe no one is all saint or all sinner, and maybe we should hope that coming generations have a little sympathy for our own shortcomings.
9
The reason why it makes sense to remove Wilson's name from the school of government, is that he was not merely a passive racist who had unfortunate attitudes that were common during the day but an active persecutor of African Americans who had been enslaved, were freed and just beginning to take their rightful place in society. What Wilson did was to abuse the power of the presidency to set AAs back by taking away their federal jobs or demoting them for no other reason than that they were black.
2
As a Princeton alumn and a Times reader for 40-odd years, I am angered by this editorial and embarrassed for Princeton for considering removing Wilson's name from its world-famous School of International Relations. No human being is flawless, especially when viewed through the prism of a hundred years of history. Their flaws must be balanced against their achievements. Once we start erasing figures from history because they don't measure up to present-day moral standards in every way, where do we stop? Princeton did not admit black undergraduates until 1942; should we presume every president and trustee up to that point was a racist and expunge their names from college records? John Witherspoon, the second president of Princeton and a signer of the Declaration, owned slaves -- as did, by some accounts, 40 of his fellow signers, including Franklin and Jefferson. Washington also owned slaves; Theodore Roosevelt was a militarist and imperialist; JFK was a misgoynist and notorious womanizer; even the Great Emancipator himself didn't support full racial equality. Perhaps more important, what purpose is served by this erasing process? Some Princeton students say they want Wilson's name removed because it will help make Princeton a "safe space." Being blind to historical facts -- or being willing to view them only through their own ideological filter -- does not make people "safe." It only makes them ignorant.
23
Wilson was not only a racist - he was anti-union as well - using the army to help break strikes and using the red scare to round up union leaders - the unions never recovered from the purge of left wing leaders - this is all documented in my on-line thesis.
5
The feelings these students have are understandable. I cringe when I see Reagan's name attached to anything, since he began the decimation of the middle class, causing suffering to everyone in my circle. I wince when I see admiring comments of Henry Ford, because he spread hate through his anti-Semitic publication. The same hatred that lead to the death of millions and continues to result in murders around the world.
My response is to try to educate, not to gouge out the Ford logo on my car, because I know the Ford symbol does not represent anti-Semitism…nor does the Woodrow Wilson sign represent hatred towards blacks.
The pink elephant in the room is believing the removal of the sign, at the most exclusive university in America, will help the black community. Distractions like this only serve to hold back progress, because it prevents what should be the prime focus: the courage of introspection and self-improvement in a community. A talented community that deserves a better path.
It would be impressive if these students protested, instead, on the pervasive abandonment of children in their community. Yes, it's an ugly discussion, but it's a truth. An abandoned child receives a life sentence of depression, anger, low-self worth, low income, drug abuse, bad health care and early death…regardless of race. Haven't we all witnessed this disastrous affect in our society?
My response is to try to educate, not to gouge out the Ford logo on my car, because I know the Ford symbol does not represent anti-Semitism…nor does the Woodrow Wilson sign represent hatred towards blacks.
The pink elephant in the room is believing the removal of the sign, at the most exclusive university in America, will help the black community. Distractions like this only serve to hold back progress, because it prevents what should be the prime focus: the courage of introspection and self-improvement in a community. A talented community that deserves a better path.
It would be impressive if these students protested, instead, on the pervasive abandonment of children in their community. Yes, it's an ugly discussion, but it's a truth. An abandoned child receives a life sentence of depression, anger, low-self worth, low income, drug abuse, bad health care and early death…regardless of race. Haven't we all witnessed this disastrous affect in our society?
5
The Times might try looking into the racist histories of Cecil Rhodes (founder of the scholarship program bearing his name) and Winston Churchill, one of the most widely admired figures of the twentieth century, both contemporaries of Wilson and both far more racist in their expressed views than Wilson ever was. To get a flavor of the views prevalent among world leaders of that era , here is a quote from Rhodes:
"I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence."
and a few choice bits from Churchill: "[T]he Aryan stock is bound to triumph." "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror" "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
It's crucial that people today be made aware of how deeply steeped in racism society was in the recent past, and how that poisonous legacy affects us today. Black Lives Matter and its fellow student activists are to be commended for helping to bring this to light. Hopefully, it will lead to a more nuanced understanding of why racial relations are in the state they are today. To me. that's much more important than whose name was put on what and whether or not it should stay there.
"I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence."
and a few choice bits from Churchill: "[T]he Aryan stock is bound to triumph." "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror" "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
It's crucial that people today be made aware of how deeply steeped in racism society was in the recent past, and how that poisonous legacy affects us today. Black Lives Matter and its fellow student activists are to be commended for helping to bring this to light. Hopefully, it will lead to a more nuanced understanding of why racial relations are in the state they are today. To me. that's much more important than whose name was put on what and whether or not it should stay there.
2
I think this is really something that needs to be looked at in the broader context of what is happening to the young people in this country (and here in Canada). It would seem that many simply lack the capacity to confront an image or idea that might make them feel uncomfortable or uneasy, and process the experience in a way that allows them to get on with their lives without requiring the world around them to adjust itself to their specific viewpoint. This is completely unreasonable, and a bit frightening.
While I am Jewish, my physical appearance would not give anyone a reason to think I might be. Because of this, I have been in many situations where someone has made a crude joke or remark about Jews or Jewish tendencies, and naturally I would cringe on the inside. However, I also had the sense to know when someone is merely being insensitive, and when someone is being sinister. There is a big difference. Fortunately, I've never judged anyone to be sinister. And on occasion I would inform the person of my background and/or tell them their comment was best kept to themselves. I didn't go on social media and demand that they lose their job, or insist they attend 'sensitivity training', or otherwise expect them to adjust their mindset in a way that was more conducive to mine. I never felt "unsafe". I moved on. While there may be some merit to this whole Woodrow Wilson protest, there's a bigger issue at play, and it find it a bit worrying.
While I am Jewish, my physical appearance would not give anyone a reason to think I might be. Because of this, I have been in many situations where someone has made a crude joke or remark about Jews or Jewish tendencies, and naturally I would cringe on the inside. However, I also had the sense to know when someone is merely being insensitive, and when someone is being sinister. There is a big difference. Fortunately, I've never judged anyone to be sinister. And on occasion I would inform the person of my background and/or tell them their comment was best kept to themselves. I didn't go on social media and demand that they lose their job, or insist they attend 'sensitivity training', or otherwise expect them to adjust their mindset in a way that was more conducive to mine. I never felt "unsafe". I moved on. While there may be some merit to this whole Woodrow Wilson protest, there's a bigger issue at play, and it find it a bit worrying.
14
I don't think this is about sanitizing history or holding historical figures we would wish to honor today to a higher standard than was prevalent at the time they were leaders in public life. As the editorial makes clear, Woodrow Wilson fails that test. He didn't simply conform to, and preserve, the racial discriminations of his time; he went out of his way to ROLL BACK substantial gains that African-Americans had made. That's the valid basis for removing his name -- not from history or a balanced reckoning with his legacy, but from buildings.
6
How many dozens of Federal edifices in West Virginia bear the name of Robert Byrd, former Kleegle in the KKK? How often do the names of FDR, JFK and MLK - serial women abusers all - adorn the names of public works and institutions? How many liberal politicians to this day proudly accept awards bearing the name of Margaret Sanger, whose racist philosophy of eugenics inspired Adolph Hitler himself? And finally, if and when these wrecking balls of American culture and history succeed in purging this nation of its past, what will they erect in its place?
10
While it is important to acknowledge Wilson's racist past as he was clearly no angel, we need to stop trying to clean up these things. The same thing is happening with Rhodes in England. We seem to believe all our "heroes" should be perfect. The problem is that "perfect" has different meanings in different times and different societies. Un-naming a Jefferson Davis building I understand as racism/slavery was a reprehensible belief even in his own era and does not warrant privilege. However, Wilson did many good things just as Rhodes did good things. We are not honoring his racism, but rather his attempt at the League of Nations, etc.
Also, be careful what you start - people in the future may not think highly about who these same people would substitute for a Wilson or a Rhodes. Going down this path would cause us to kick out nearly every founding father and most people born before 1950. Absurd response!
Also, be careful what you start - people in the future may not think highly about who these same people would substitute for a Wilson or a Rhodes. Going down this path would cause us to kick out nearly every founding father and most people born before 1950. Absurd response!
5
It has long been accepted that people are judged based on what was accepted to be appropriate at the time, not based on what society currently holds. If not were not the case then slave owners, as many of the founding fathers were, should have their names banished from all public places. This would entail renaming cites and states.
And this is because people till this day base their views on the public consensus and not on what they have arrived at independently. Only 15 years ago a very sizable portion of Americans held that the idea that gay marriage should be allowed, let alone that it is a right, was outrageous as a gay relationship had nothing in common with love in between a man and women. If we were to ostracize those of the past for being homophobic just about every last person would be branded a bigot.
And in Wilson's day the country as a whole was still very racist and the notion that blacks were inferior was an accepted "fact". The issue was only how racist one should be. And on that question there were still two camps and there was no accepted public consensus. So Wilson's only sin was not evolving fast enough and not his actual views.
One thing is certain. And that is that if this issue was raised in an objective manner and not by a group of people who made up their mind about it and were demanding their they get their way we would not be having this discussion in the first place.
And this is because people till this day base their views on the public consensus and not on what they have arrived at independently. Only 15 years ago a very sizable portion of Americans held that the idea that gay marriage should be allowed, let alone that it is a right, was outrageous as a gay relationship had nothing in common with love in between a man and women. If we were to ostracize those of the past for being homophobic just about every last person would be branded a bigot.
And in Wilson's day the country as a whole was still very racist and the notion that blacks were inferior was an accepted "fact". The issue was only how racist one should be. And on that question there were still two camps and there was no accepted public consensus. So Wilson's only sin was not evolving fast enough and not his actual views.
One thing is certain. And that is that if this issue was raised in an objective manner and not by a group of people who made up their mind about it and were demanding their they get their way we would not be having this discussion in the first place.
2
Please rename the School of Public and International Affairs for Paul Robeson.
Honoring WW in his lifetime (when our racial sensitivities were unevolved by today's standards) is one thing. Continuing to honor him today when we know better is something entirely different. The Princeton trustees should do what institutions in America always do. That is, rename the Woodrow Wilson school to the highest bidder.
2
Perhaps another important story here is the nature of the comments by Times readers. New York Times readers, along with the paper, have long been perceived as liberal-- or, perhaps more aptly, accused of being liberal. The preponderance of support for keeping Woodrow Wilson's name on the School of Public and International Affairs building reveals, instead, a conservative bias regarding this issue among at least this group of Times readers.
What's up with that?
What's up with that?
2
Keep the name, but stop playing blind man's buff with the truth?
Could it be that reality has a conservative bias?
1
All major private universities have contrasting, competing, and even antagonistic viewpoints, institutes, and schools. Intellectual freedom requires a strong measure of tolerance within such institutions.
Naming a school of international thought for a person who helped advance international understanding and co-operation, irrespective of his racism, was at least arguably reasonable in the 1940s. And, today, it is arguably reasonable to keep it.
That said, living under the name of a blatant, avowed racist is intolerable to many, and should be intolerable to all. Revoking that honor is surely required.
Naming a school of international thought for a person who helped advance international understanding and co-operation, irrespective of his racism, was at least arguably reasonable in the 1940s. And, today, it is arguably reasonable to keep it.
That said, living under the name of a blatant, avowed racist is intolerable to many, and should be intolerable to all. Revoking that honor is surely required.
1
History goes in cycles. In perhaps 25 or 50 years, those who run the world, the Kumars, Patels and Chens, will deem caucasians of inferior intellect and work ethic (how else did they lose their world domination), and relegate them to menial jobs, just as Mr. Wilson did 100 years ago
1
This is a fascinating phenomenon, to examine everybody's historical value by current standards. Might we expect that no more history shall be written until we can prove that the historical figure is indeed without sin? Or perhaps all history books will be published only in draft mode, always subject to the latest revisions based on the prevailing ethos?
3
Hello uncomfortable white people. Nice to hear your opinions. You know, as a white person myself, I really try, before telling people of color how they should feel and react to system oppression, to listen to how they feel and react to said system.
Can you imagine going to an institution that heralds the memory of someone who was openly anti-semetic? And enacted many policies to keep Jewish people down? It isn't "political correctness" to try to contextualize these men. It isn't erasing them from history to strip them of their honors, bestowed by other racists. And to hide behind the disgrace that many of their fellows at the time were equally racist is faulty logic. There were enlightened people in 1913 and there are ignorant people now.
These were real crimes. Done by and to real people. In an enlightened society, the benefactors of the spoils should not be dictating the legacy of men like this.
Can you imagine going to an institution that heralds the memory of someone who was openly anti-semetic? And enacted many policies to keep Jewish people down? It isn't "political correctness" to try to contextualize these men. It isn't erasing them from history to strip them of their honors, bestowed by other racists. And to hide behind the disgrace that many of their fellows at the time were equally racist is faulty logic. There were enlightened people in 1913 and there are ignorant people now.
These were real crimes. Done by and to real people. In an enlightened society, the benefactors of the spoils should not be dictating the legacy of men like this.
8
Yes, I can imagine an institution that still heralds the memory of someone who was anti-Semitic... every time I get my oil changed at a Ford dealership. Henry Ford required the dealerships to keep stacks of anti-Semitic newsletters for their patrons, because Ford and Hitler were friends and on the same page of hatred. A country club I drive by also prevented Jews from being members and the college I went to as well. No names have been changed on any of them.
The key question is this: Do those institutions still espouse those views? No, they do not.
The key question is this: Do those institutions still espouse those views? No, they do not.
6
I didn't know all this and I am grateful for being able to learn about it... for sure I am going to try to verify a little.
BUT... any public figure has to be judged in context, in his times being racist was the rule, not the exception. Even people that were considered radicals at the time would be considered racists nowadays.
It is a pity that being so smart in some ways he couldn't figure out that racism was bad for America, but he was not the only one.
I don't think renaming the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the residential complex would do any good.
If it had been a School on race relations or something like that I would gladly agree.
BUT... any public figure has to be judged in context, in his times being racist was the rule, not the exception. Even people that were considered radicals at the time would be considered racists nowadays.
It is a pity that being so smart in some ways he couldn't figure out that racism was bad for America, but he was not the only one.
I don't think renaming the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the residential complex would do any good.
If it had been a School on race relations or something like that I would gladly agree.
2
Five decades ago, I went to a high school where the sports teams were "Redskins." Years later the administration came under pressure to change the name, and they asked the students to vote on it. The majority voted to keep the name; the administration changed it anyway. A social anthropologist could probably write a book on all the nuances of that.
I have no problem with various interests exercising their right to promote removing certain symbols of the past. I also have no problem with other interests exerting their right to say: "Sorry, we're not going there," in most cases. I'm happy to live in a country where Brittany Newsome is cheered when she climbs the flapole in South Carolina and removes the Confederate flag, but also where people are practical enough (hopefully) to make case by case decisions, so that we don't have to excise slaveholder presidents from memory and reprint all our money.
Am I equivocating, not taking a stand? Perhaps. But what are our priorities - do we want to expend our energies, like Belgium possibly, mired in cultural differences from the past, or do we prefer to focus on the future? If you're parading in a mall somewhere, demanding some inscription be chiseled off a stone, consider the possible value of your time vs. trying to influence who we elect to public office, say, or how much we want to pay in taxes to remain in a continual star of war.
I have no problem with various interests exercising their right to promote removing certain symbols of the past. I also have no problem with other interests exerting their right to say: "Sorry, we're not going there," in most cases. I'm happy to live in a country where Brittany Newsome is cheered when she climbs the flapole in South Carolina and removes the Confederate flag, but also where people are practical enough (hopefully) to make case by case decisions, so that we don't have to excise slaveholder presidents from memory and reprint all our money.
Am I equivocating, not taking a stand? Perhaps. But what are our priorities - do we want to expend our energies, like Belgium possibly, mired in cultural differences from the past, or do we prefer to focus on the future? If you're parading in a mall somewhere, demanding some inscription be chiseled off a stone, consider the possible value of your time vs. trying to influence who we elect to public office, say, or how much we want to pay in taxes to remain in a continual star of war.
Certainly an excellent eye-opening editorial which casts light on the dark side of a progressive in world affairs and introduces a debate that we should have about how we honor him or if we should honor him. After all, he did do many things to promote world peace after a disastrous war, made the US a recognized world power, and was the granddaddy of the UN.
So, now do we consider chiseling Teddy Roosevelt off Mt Rushmore for his genocidal action in the Philippines, which today would be considered war crimes and his pro-racist policy toward Japan, which he felt were Eastern Aryans and were encouraged by him to militarize and take over Korea, an ally of ours at the time, actions which helped foster WWII?
If fair is fair, then more than just Black Lives matter.
As a general philosophical question is it fair, or wise, to judge our ancestors or heroes of the past in the light of today's ethical concerns?
FDR was anti-Semitic; JFK was an adulterer; MLK was a womanizer - do we rename the highway, stop the adulation and withdraw the holiday for these men? And, of course, Andrew Jackson is having his day in the pillory. He was in his age, very popular. Do we shame our past for its prejudices and not honor anyone?
We should be wary about castigating our leaders for sharing the ethos of their times lest future Americans do the same to us, feeling that we did not live up to the higher standards of some future generation and shame us because we succumbed to the prejudices of our times.
So, now do we consider chiseling Teddy Roosevelt off Mt Rushmore for his genocidal action in the Philippines, which today would be considered war crimes and his pro-racist policy toward Japan, which he felt were Eastern Aryans and were encouraged by him to militarize and take over Korea, an ally of ours at the time, actions which helped foster WWII?
If fair is fair, then more than just Black Lives matter.
As a general philosophical question is it fair, or wise, to judge our ancestors or heroes of the past in the light of today's ethical concerns?
FDR was anti-Semitic; JFK was an adulterer; MLK was a womanizer - do we rename the highway, stop the adulation and withdraw the holiday for these men? And, of course, Andrew Jackson is having his day in the pillory. He was in his age, very popular. Do we shame our past for its prejudices and not honor anyone?
We should be wary about castigating our leaders for sharing the ethos of their times lest future Americans do the same to us, feeling that we did not live up to the higher standards of some future generation and shame us because we succumbed to the prejudices of our times.
3
Skip the controversy. For a few hundred million maybe a big donor can have the Woodrow Wilson School renamed. Now there's a contemporary solution.
I think you share the Princeton protesters' myopia by focusing on one bad dimension of the man. My image of Mr. Wilson is of a gaunt President, soon to die from stroke, literally spending his last energies to maintain world peace. He was loved at Princeton (although I suspect not by the black staff) and hired Jews when Harvard would not. I think whatever sins the man committed were expiated by the good he did and tried to do. I can understand the angst of the student protesters, but they and the NYT Editorial Board ask too much. I understand Princeton will decide this matter through an open conversation, which is very good. The protesters concerns need to be given weight, but so does the legacy of this man who loved Princeton very much and to whom the World owes a great debt for trying to prevent war.
8
Well, getting rid of the poor old guy will of course free up space to sell more naming rights. I just walked around my home institution, where every building and school is named after a donor, whose high standards of ethics are of course proven by their willingness to give so generously.
6
The people claiming that we shouldn't apply the standards of today to the past seem to be to missing something. The Wilson school was named in 1948, not in 1855, not even in 1920. What were the standards of 1948? Surely after the African American contribution to WWII, it was wrong to name the school after Wilson at that time. A mistake was made. Time to correct it.
2
Maybe in 1948 they focused on the totality of the man and his tenure as the head of Princeton and as President of the United States. How unenlightened that they weren't as smart as we are today and know that one blemish wipes out everything else.
4
This NYT Editorial doesn't do a good job of explaining "Why Wilson?" and not other racists in American history? Answer: Wilson gets singled out because he is unlike any other post-Civil War President.
While most-Civil War presidents engaged in benign neglect with respect to racial discrimination, Wilson actively worked to further his racist beliefs; to institutionalize racism by, among others, excluding African-Americans from government positions. He was unique among post-Civil War presidents.
The Editorial gets it right. This is not a case of runaway political correctness. The history books will still record Wilson's (arguable) accomplishments, but I don't think he's worthy of recognition by an institution like Princeton.
While most-Civil War presidents engaged in benign neglect with respect to racial discrimination, Wilson actively worked to further his racist beliefs; to institutionalize racism by, among others, excluding African-Americans from government positions. He was unique among post-Civil War presidents.
The Editorial gets it right. This is not a case of runaway political correctness. The history books will still record Wilson's (arguable) accomplishments, but I don't think he's worthy of recognition by an institution like Princeton.
5
The Times endorsed Wilson for President. Twice.
7
I was educated and disappointed to learn that Wilson was such a racist. I am even more disappointed to read the response of our readers. Lawrence writes, "It was a time of no Jews allowed.... Get some perspective." Regarding the name of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Dudie Katani writes, "IF you don't like the name don't go to that school." Joe writes, "Applying today's internet-driven mob standards to people from the long ago past is imbecilic."
Even by the standards of the time, Wilson stands condemned. Not everyone was a racist, and those who chose to uphold those opinions--even if they were the majority--made a choice by which they are to be judged. That said, the issue is not just Wilson's private opinions. He put in place policies that unjustly hurt many, many good people. Moreover, as a university president, state governor, and U.S. president, he must answer to a higher standard. Based on what I have read in this editorial, he failed this standard.
We are not talking about internet-driven mob standards. We are talking about basic human decency. And while I do understand that we cannot judge a person in toto using standards from another historical period, at the same time, neither do we relinquish our own standards to historical relativism. What can it possibly mean in our own day that Princeton tout's Wilson as, literally, the standard bearer of its school of public affairs?
Even by the standards of the time, Wilson stands condemned. Not everyone was a racist, and those who chose to uphold those opinions--even if they were the majority--made a choice by which they are to be judged. That said, the issue is not just Wilson's private opinions. He put in place policies that unjustly hurt many, many good people. Moreover, as a university president, state governor, and U.S. president, he must answer to a higher standard. Based on what I have read in this editorial, he failed this standard.
We are not talking about internet-driven mob standards. We are talking about basic human decency. And while I do understand that we cannot judge a person in toto using standards from another historical period, at the same time, neither do we relinquish our own standards to historical relativism. What can it possibly mean in our own day that Princeton tout's Wilson as, literally, the standard bearer of its school of public affairs?
3
Let's get on with the wholesale racial cleansing of the sordid history of the country that should reject the title of "America" because of the racist overtones in that moniker.
What should we call Washington, D.C. or Washington State in the future? Who or what will appear on the faces of our coins and bills? Not Washington, Jefferson or any other miscreant of our past, that's for sure. Raze the hideous monuments in the former Washington D.C. that mis-honor and condone slavery.
Let's invalidate the Constitution and the Declaration. Those insidious documents were penned by treasonous white supremacist racists. Those documents were the institutional bedrock that have suppressed millions for centuries.
Yes, let's get busy cleansing this morally corrupt country of the remnants of its sins. Then we can begin to build the progressive utopia to which humanity is entitled.
What should we call Washington, D.C. or Washington State in the future? Who or what will appear on the faces of our coins and bills? Not Washington, Jefferson or any other miscreant of our past, that's for sure. Raze the hideous monuments in the former Washington D.C. that mis-honor and condone slavery.
Let's invalidate the Constitution and the Declaration. Those insidious documents were penned by treasonous white supremacist racists. Those documents were the institutional bedrock that have suppressed millions for centuries.
Yes, let's get busy cleansing this morally corrupt country of the remnants of its sins. Then we can begin to build the progressive utopia to which humanity is entitled.
3
Should we dishonor all of our fathers and mothers who discriminated against blacks, women, the poor, gays, Indians, etc? Must we see the politically correct view without historical context? The NY Times Editorial Board drags an "unrepentant racist” through the mud of the Editorial Pages and the slave owner, Thomas Jefferson, might be next if the same standard is used.
Junipero Serra, a Spanish missionary, was honored as a saint by Pope Francis just a few months ago. There was much controversy because of the methods and means Serra used 300 years ago to persuade the natives to abandon their culture were in line with routinely cruel Spanish military tactics.
Historians will say what they will about the life and times of Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and Junipero Serra. The NY Times Editorial Board would be better off using the modest respect it has left to point out the continued evil of current policies and let God judge the dead. The honors bestowed should be judged and understood in historical context.
Junipero Serra, a Spanish missionary, was honored as a saint by Pope Francis just a few months ago. There was much controversy because of the methods and means Serra used 300 years ago to persuade the natives to abandon their culture were in line with routinely cruel Spanish military tactics.
Historians will say what they will about the life and times of Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and Junipero Serra. The NY Times Editorial Board would be better off using the modest respect it has left to point out the continued evil of current policies and let God judge the dead. The honors bestowed should be judged and understood in historical context.
4
Making a historical comparison between Woodrow Wilson and founding fathers like Jefferson, Washington, and others is not accurate. Firstly, Wilson doesn't compare in terms of his achievement. But most importantly, the law of the land at the time of our founding permitted slavery- ugly but true. However, the law of the land during Wilson's tenure did not permit discrimination for any citizen- in fact, we had a bloody civil war to end slavery and incorporate the 14th amendment to the constitution. So the founding fathers were ahead of their time in many ways, whereas Wilson pushed things backwards, against the constitution and in regression, in contrast to many of his contemporaries, in both the North and South, who used power to help dismantle institutional racism. Wilson used the power of office for overtly racist ends in contravention to the law of the land. His name should go from the building.
5
Woodrow Wilson was 10-years-old when Abraham Lincoln became president, and grew up sharing Lincoln's prejudices against African Americans. In his debate with Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Addressing the Dred Scott Decision, Lincoln said, “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races. He added, “A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. As president, Lincoln told black ministers invited to the White House that, “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.” Should we remove Lincoln’s name from the Lincoln Memorial?
3
Having now been enlightened concerning President Wilson’s program to purge blacks from positions of responsibility in government and to promote racism and segregation across the nation, I have to agree with Princeton students who want his name removed from institutions within Princeton University. To my mind, the frame of reference for Mr. Wilson is qualitatively different from that of Washington, Jefferson and other founders. They lived at a time when cultural attitudes toward slavery and racial equality were nothing like they had become by 1913. I would be loathe to judge anyone by standards that had not yet evolved. But Mr. Wilson cannot claim such cover. His was not a sin of omission. He, apparently, set out deliberately to deprive black Americans of rights, privileges, and positions they had already earned, and for which America had already fought a civil war. I’m sure there were plenty of racists around in the early 1900’s, but I don’t see how anyone, even at that time, could legitimately claim moral or cultural sanction for depriving black citizens of their jobs and livelihoods—for rolling back hard-won advances they had already made. I would not remove him from the history books, or deny him credit for his worthy achievements. But I would remove his name from institutions where it has now become a symbol of offense.
6
This is the clearest example of the Editorial Board's tunnel vision I've seen yet. It is so dark in this particular tunnel that the Board has wandered onto the fatal third rail of factual error, incompetent interpretation and prejudicial pandering.
While there is no doubt that Wilson generally reflected the racist culture with which his roots in the Jim Crow south indoctrinated him, there are numerous examples where he rose above that indoctrination and acted on behalf of African Americans. One of the most salient was his response to the request that the small delegation of ministers from the New York branch of the NAACP, led by civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson, made when Wilson conferred with them in February 1918. They asked Wilson to make a public presidential statement against the lynching of African Americans. In response, Wilson agreed to issue such a statement when an opportunity for high impact presented itself and on July 26, 1918 he released the following:
"There have been many lynchings and every one of them has been a blow at the heart of ordered law and humane justice... Every American who takes part in the action of a mob or gives it any sort of countenance is no true son of this great Democracy, but its betrayer...." He demanded that every citizen, law enforcement officer and Governor oppose lynching "not passively merely, but actively and watchfully -- to make an end of this disgraceful evil."
That doesn't sound like "an unapologetic racist."
While there is no doubt that Wilson generally reflected the racist culture with which his roots in the Jim Crow south indoctrinated him, there are numerous examples where he rose above that indoctrination and acted on behalf of African Americans. One of the most salient was his response to the request that the small delegation of ministers from the New York branch of the NAACP, led by civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson, made when Wilson conferred with them in February 1918. They asked Wilson to make a public presidential statement against the lynching of African Americans. In response, Wilson agreed to issue such a statement when an opportunity for high impact presented itself and on July 26, 1918 he released the following:
"There have been many lynchings and every one of them has been a blow at the heart of ordered law and humane justice... Every American who takes part in the action of a mob or gives it any sort of countenance is no true son of this great Democracy, but its betrayer...." He demanded that every citizen, law enforcement officer and Governor oppose lynching "not passively merely, but actively and watchfully -- to make an end of this disgraceful evil."
That doesn't sound like "an unapologetic racist."
4
Did the lynchings stop? My best guess is that the lynchers thought of the statement as a hilarious joke, considering what WW was, and what he stood for.
If Princeton decides to remove Wilson’s name from the school, we have to be prepared for similar contestations at other educational institutions across the country. Anyone who knows higher-ed knows that schools, institutes, and museums are named for the one-percenters who paid for them—many white men whose politics may not be palatable to all.
Students having a say on the name of the places where they study is a good idea but grossly inconsistent with how things work within the academic industrial complex. This could be a Pandora’s box for the Ivy League.
Students having a say on the name of the places where they study is a good idea but grossly inconsistent with how things work within the academic industrial complex. This could be a Pandora’s box for the Ivy League.
1
Should we rename the Kennedy School and remove the Martin Luther King memorial because they were serial philanderers or only remove people who liberals find objectionable. I guess because I don't want to remove Woodrow Wilson's name from Princeton I am a racist. Does that mean that the men and women who don't want to remove Kennedy's name are cheating on their spouses? The Times want to slide down the slippery slope to crazyland.
4
Wilson was a terrible racist, but we still have U.S. Army posts named after CONFEDERATE generals who fired on our flag and fought for slavery. That should end yesterday.
4
Change and grow. Sorry, Woodrow. The gig is up. Maybe we could use your name on a style of glasses frames, just not on an institution built to increase understanding and communication between human beings.
2
If they follow through on this, boycott Princeton as a bunch of hypocrites!
1
Whether we (in 2015) like it or not, President Woodrow Wilson was a Man of his Era. Other posters have indicated other great American Heroes who were (as we all are) less than perfect.
The reality is that history has shown that while racism apparently will never be eliminated from American Society (writ large), it (thankfully) is less of a factor than it had been. We need to strive toward a more Perfect Union. [The young people on our campuses ought to be reminded about how far the USA has come in the past six decades.]
As an example, when Clemson play football at Syracuse a few weeks ago, the Clemson Coach asked his young charges if they knew who Jim Brown is. Those of us "north of a certain age" know that he is arguably the finest running back in football history.
Jim Brown played at Syracuse when opportunities for great black athletes were limited. The young men at Clemson were largely unaware of what Jim Brown had accomplished and the opportunities extant today were in fact based on the accomplishments/achievements of pioneers like Jim Brown.
The reality is that history has shown that while racism apparently will never be eliminated from American Society (writ large), it (thankfully) is less of a factor than it had been. We need to strive toward a more Perfect Union. [The young people on our campuses ought to be reminded about how far the USA has come in the past six decades.]
As an example, when Clemson play football at Syracuse a few weeks ago, the Clemson Coach asked his young charges if they knew who Jim Brown is. Those of us "north of a certain age" know that he is arguably the finest running back in football history.
Jim Brown played at Syracuse when opportunities for great black athletes were limited. The young men at Clemson were largely unaware of what Jim Brown had accomplished and the opportunities extant today were in fact based on the accomplishments/achievements of pioneers like Jim Brown.
There is a danger in our country that we retroactively judge individuals by today's standards. Every generation has its filters and disguised as political correctness, I fear a dimunition of free speech and polite discourse. These are all teachable moments, not revisionist history.
3
This is the clearest example of the Editorial Board's tunnel vision I've seen yet. It is so dark in this particular tunnel, that the Board has wandered onto the fatal third rail of factual error, incompetent interpretation and prejudicial pandering.
While there is no doubt that Wilson generally reflected the racist culture with which his roots in the Jim Crow south indoctrinated him, there are numerous examples where he rose above that indoctrination and acted on behalf of African Americans. One of the most salient was his response to the request that the small delegation of ministers from the New York branch of the NAACP, led by civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson, made when Wilson conferred with them in February 1918. They asked Wilson to make a public presidential statement against the lynching of African Americans. In response, Wilson agreed to issue such a statement when an opportunity for high impactpresented itself and on July 26, 1918 he released the following:
"There have been many lynchings and every one of them has been a blow at the heart of ordered law and humane justice. .. Every American who takes part in the actio of a mob or gives it any sort of countenance is no true son of this great Democracy, but its betrayer...." He demanded that every citizen, law enforcement officer and Governor oppose lynchings "not passively merely, but actively and watchfully -- to make an end of this disgraceful evil."
That doesn't sound like "an unapologetic racist."
While there is no doubt that Wilson generally reflected the racist culture with which his roots in the Jim Crow south indoctrinated him, there are numerous examples where he rose above that indoctrination and acted on behalf of African Americans. One of the most salient was his response to the request that the small delegation of ministers from the New York branch of the NAACP, led by civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson, made when Wilson conferred with them in February 1918. They asked Wilson to make a public presidential statement against the lynching of African Americans. In response, Wilson agreed to issue such a statement when an opportunity for high impactpresented itself and on July 26, 1918 he released the following:
"There have been many lynchings and every one of them has been a blow at the heart of ordered law and humane justice. .. Every American who takes part in the actio of a mob or gives it any sort of countenance is no true son of this great Democracy, but its betrayer...." He demanded that every citizen, law enforcement officer and Governor oppose lynchings "not passively merely, but actively and watchfully -- to make an end of this disgraceful evil."
That doesn't sound like "an unapologetic racist."
4
The New York Times really doing a " Hatchet Job " on President Wilson. I have wonder why they don't do the same to President John F. Kennedy, the adulterous womanizer and phony Catholic. How does one move to the top of the New York Times hatchet job list ? An atheist paper like the 'times' has an easy time doing this, as do the, 'ahem', students at Princeton U, a school in serious decline, because they can't hear Jesus Christ warning them, 'Let he who is Without Sin, Cast the First Stone ' No shortage of stones and hatchets at the New York Times these days.
2
I object to the NYT adding this intellectual veneer to the narcissistic, power-hungry, sex-and-identity obsessed children rampaging through college campuses today. US universities--especially at places like Princeton and Yale--are the most progressive institutions in human history, so "progressive," in fact, that many thoughtful LIBERAL commentators have come to wonder if the pendulum has swung too far to the left. The truth that there is nothing that would satisfy the cry bullies who claim to speak for all "people of color"--never mind that African American students who dissent from this destructive radicalism often complain of being harassed by the crybullies and targeted as "traitors." What they seek is not "equality," or this or that policy, or taking down this or that statue of this or that racist. What they seek--as the modern-day Malcom X-heir Ta-Nehisi Coates so aptly shows us-- is rather eternal white self-flagellation for the original sin of slavery. There is no point rationalizing the demands of these radicals, as if they could be put to rest with a series of building renaming and curriculum adjustment. It is in the interest of the black community that liberal elites not let black children (who are more concerned with symbols and with delighting in their power of forcing university presidents to resign) overpower the voices of responsible black adults and community leaders. The latter's own voices will no doubt be severely delegitimized by editorials like this.
10
Wilson's racism went with the territory and whereas it is not excusable it is understandable. A lot of otherwise good people felt the way he did, including my Virginian great-grandfather who fought for the Confederacy and was not a slave owner. For all I know my Pennsylvanian great-grandfather who fought for the Union was of the same mind. The decision whether to de-frock Wilson is entirely up to Princeton University. Readers of the New York Times are going to tire of these kinds of statements pretty soon and the history will be less meaningful.
3
They can call it the Woody Woodpecker School of Public and International Hoohaw for all I care.
When are going to dial down the political correctness and do something that will materially give our African American citizens a level playing field?
The answer is never, because that would involve investing money in education and the social safety net. Money that is now spent on mansions and mega yachts for the uberwealthy.
Much easier to simply re-name buildings and split intellectual hairs, a favorite academic pastime.
When are going to dial down the political correctness and do something that will materially give our African American citizens a level playing field?
The answer is never, because that would involve investing money in education and the social safety net. Money that is now spent on mansions and mega yachts for the uberwealthy.
Much easier to simply re-name buildings and split intellectual hairs, a favorite academic pastime.
5
Mr. Natural- The problem is that they already have a "level playing field" under the law. In fact it even slants a bit in their favor. It isn't the government's job to provide level results- only level rules. It is up to the African American community to change their culture, to actually be interested in education and providing a social safety net. That's what the Black Justice League should be working on, not creating a more congenial cafeteria wall.
3
Here's an idea. Why not name the school "The Martin Luther King, Jr./ (woodrow wilson) School"; with Wilson's name in small letters and in parenthesis. Then, after 5 years just drop Wilson's name altogether.
The old view, ignoring Wilson's racism. was wrong. The new view, judging him on his treatment of those in federal service, is also wrong. Blacks in federal service were the elite of the elite, numbering about 5,000. They were pretty much the 1% of the black people. What matters, when judging the racism of the President, is what he did for the 99%. If his policies were racist toward the elite but benefited the masses, that should be taken into account. The Wilson years coincided with the Great Migration and the service of large numbers of blacks in the war. The treatment of the hundreds of thousands who came north is what tells us if black lives mattered. The treatment of the 1% is a footnote to history.
2
Martin Luther King was a womanizer of white women. Is it too early, or too late, to do something about that?
4
From an outsider's perspective, U.S. presidents are judged by their impact on global affairs, not domestic policies. Wilson was a towering giant at the outcome of WW1. He basically put the U.S. on the map as the British Empire waned. His failed League of Nations was also the first serious attempt to prevent future wars and an opening to dialogue among nations in an increasingly post-colonial world. To erase his legacy at a university sends a signal to the rest of the planet that Americans are mired in an era of ideology which we will call political correctness. It also coincides with the rise of radical Republicans who like war, but hate facts and science. With Wilson, Americans are trying to erase the facts that they hate. For the rest of the world, we are witnessing self-delusion from Britain's successor.
Where does it all end, Zack? "It" being a clear-eyed assessment American history? If you find it excruciating to examine the character of one historical figure, imagine how it feels to live the life to which racism and white supremacy condem black people, even now, in 2015. It is a life lived without benefit of the doubt and with no margin of error. It is a life that ends, all too often, with state-sanctioned violent death. As a result, America is exceptional because it is wasteland of unfulfilled potential. With a ruling caste that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the unearned privileges that keep it on top. So in answer to your question, "it" ends when we look our history, and our heroes squarely in the face, acknowledge what was wrong, stamp it out where it still exists, and do better going forward.
4
What many readers and commenters that are stating that President Wilson was "a man of his times" or "where does it stop" forget that the people hurt by his deliberate racism are still affected to this day!!! Black people who had worked their way up, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to positions in government were irreparably harmed by his blatant racists actions. How many black people could have gone on to greater advancement? How many families would have been intact? How many families are still suffering Today because their grandfather was demoted, shamed, and fired by President WIlsons policies and actions. All the while calling hard working black people lazy, when they have been working there for decades. No wonder African-Americans are still a minority when President Wilson only allowed immigration from select European countries. Even worse how many black people were murdered due to President Wilsons open support for racist organizations like the KKK and C of CC. No his name should come down, even if it is a just a "empty gesture" because people knew better then, and they know better now, they just happen to share President Wilsons views and if given the chance would and are repeating them.
2
Wilson's virulent racism was exposed years ago by historian James W. Loewen in his bestselling 1995 book, Lies My Teacher Told Me. But most of the commenters here have apparently never read the book and were unaware of Wilson's dark side until now. And that's the problem. We all know about Washington and Jefferson being slaveowners. We all know that Truman authorized the atomic bombing of civilians. We all know that St. Paul persecuted Christians, that MLK and JFK were womanizers, etc. Why is it that we DON'T all know about Wilson's flaws?
During my four years at Princeton, I never heard about this side of Wilson. As a recipient of the university's weekly alumni magazine for the past 50 years, I've never read about it, either. Despite Loewen's expose, it's been such a well-kept secret that even most of the commenters here, all clearly well educated, were unaware of it.
It's not a matter of "political correctness," as so many here assert (and bemoan). It's a matter of simple truth. As we've done with so many other national heroes, we should acknowledge both their strengths and their weaknesses. For some reason Wilson has generally escaped such scrutiny, and I salute the Times for this long-overdue expose.
During my four years at Princeton, I never heard about this side of Wilson. As a recipient of the university's weekly alumni magazine for the past 50 years, I've never read about it, either. Despite Loewen's expose, it's been such a well-kept secret that even most of the commenters here, all clearly well educated, were unaware of it.
It's not a matter of "political correctness," as so many here assert (and bemoan). It's a matter of simple truth. As we've done with so many other national heroes, we should acknowledge both their strengths and their weaknesses. For some reason Wilson has generally escaped such scrutiny, and I salute the Times for this long-overdue expose.
2
The decision the Princeton Board of Trustees faces is both simple and complex.
The simple decision: should Woodrow Wilson be thrown under the bus?
Yes. The case against having a building, academic center, school, whatever named after somebody with his racist credentials is a slam dunk. Of course not.
Should Calhoun College at Yale be renamed for the same sorts of reasons?
Yes, of course.
That’s the simple part.
And you know why it’s simple?
Because they aren’t donors.
So ….
Should Princeton turn down a barrel full of money for a school of Arabic studies from some Saudi prince who’s into oppressing women big time, funds ISIS on the side, and attends public beheadings of political dissidents in the town square?
Should Princeton or Yale or Harvard of the University of Siwash turn down money from the Koch Brothers who, to make it even more fun, want to fund a George W. Bush School of International Affairs with an accompanying pile of money for minority scholarships and fellowships each year?
Tougher calls.
I’d be very interested to read what Paul Krugman, who taught at the WW Center at Princeton for quite a few years, and has a judicious temperament, has to say.
The simple decision: should Woodrow Wilson be thrown under the bus?
Yes. The case against having a building, academic center, school, whatever named after somebody with his racist credentials is a slam dunk. Of course not.
Should Calhoun College at Yale be renamed for the same sorts of reasons?
Yes, of course.
That’s the simple part.
And you know why it’s simple?
Because they aren’t donors.
So ….
Should Princeton turn down a barrel full of money for a school of Arabic studies from some Saudi prince who’s into oppressing women big time, funds ISIS on the side, and attends public beheadings of political dissidents in the town square?
Should Princeton or Yale or Harvard of the University of Siwash turn down money from the Koch Brothers who, to make it even more fun, want to fund a George W. Bush School of International Affairs with an accompanying pile of money for minority scholarships and fellowships each year?
Tougher calls.
I’d be very interested to read what Paul Krugman, who taught at the WW Center at Princeton for quite a few years, and has a judicious temperament, has to say.
3
You Americans are commiting national suicide. The people behind these protests will not stop until all trace of American culture has been removed. If you don't stand up to them you are doomed.
8
The New York Times endorsed Woodrow Wilson for president in both 1912 and 1916. Might we expect a front page apology at some point? Surely you do not wish to be hypocritical.
8
Princeton's Black Justice League is attempting to combat anti-black racism by opposing the right of other's free speech, demanding and practicing segregation, and generally behaving like a bunch of "Red Guards." Talk about the "well-earned theory of prejudice." George W. Bush's "heckuva job" quote has never seemed so apt.
1
Yale was a slavetrader of Indian children from Madras, India, what will we do about that? Will our WASP and Jewish administratirs allow Asians to have a voice?
2
Wilson's attitude seems mild compared to ISIS or the gun thugs who terrorize Chicago, Harlem, and many other places.
1
More self-righteous politically correct claptrap from the Times Editorial Board...?
Where does it end?
Pretty much anyone alive before 1950 harbored racist ideas! Are you proposing airbrushing them ALL out of the record? (What's left of 'history' then?)
And what about all the nouveau-robber barons whose names are plastered all over most campus buildings, endowed chairs, and awards? Why give THEM a free pass?
Not to mention that Wilson's name is preserved at Princeton, not because he was a racist, but because he was a major factor in the history of the University and in international affairs (Wilson School). Somehow, this is different from naming things after someone primary known as a KKK racist, war criminal, or criminal
Where does it end?
Pretty much anyone alive before 1950 harbored racist ideas! Are you proposing airbrushing them ALL out of the record? (What's left of 'history' then?)
And what about all the nouveau-robber barons whose names are plastered all over most campus buildings, endowed chairs, and awards? Why give THEM a free pass?
Not to mention that Wilson's name is preserved at Princeton, not because he was a racist, but because he was a major factor in the history of the University and in international affairs (Wilson School). Somehow, this is different from naming things after someone primary known as a KKK racist, war criminal, or criminal
5
To excuse Wilson's barbaric opinions and policies by saying he was a product of his time is a weak argument and does disservice to many people who were Wilson's contemporaries, people who might not be enlightened by our standards but who were far more humane than Wilson. Wilson was not merely guilty of failure to see the future, he was also at war with the recent past. His aim was to roll back gains already in place for African-Americans and in condemning him now we are recognizing that he was fully aware of the counter-arguments to his racist policies and chose to pursue them nevertheless. Wilson's legacy doesn't need to be erased but it does need to be revised, and that revision will certainly result in our being unwilling to celebrate him. Naming prestigious institutions after him is celebrating him.
4
This is an absolutely necessary discussion to have because, until recently, Americans have not dealt with these issues. Some of our heroes are not heroes to all Americans. Put it all on the table so we can accept our past as it was, not as we would like it to be.
1
I've heard too many people say: "Well, he was not a slaveholder." That's the new standard for calling out historical racism? He was a staunch and unapologetic racist against black people. He hated black people. He considered us to be second-class citizens. He was adamantly against the progress of black America. The society for which he strove to better was a society that he sincerely wished did not include black people as full citizens. It's unacceptable to ask the victims of his racism to consider the good things he did when he never intended for those victims to enjoy the better society he wished to create. Of course, he is not the only historical hero who was tainted by racism. As such, we should not stop with him to remove the whitewash over racism. But that is not a reason to fail to do so with him.
2
What's going to happen at Brown U., now, named for a slave trader? Wilson was also famous for his anti-immigration rhetoric. As the grandchild of immigrants I see this as part of history. That African-Americans and children of immigrant families attend these schools today means these men didn't get the last word. Let's focus on the present and future. The arc of history is long but...
1
When Wilson wrote his five volume ''History of the American People,'' it was with the dual purpose and goal of preaching reconciliation (allowing the South Jim Crow laws) over reform from racism that the post-American-Civil-War Union Army and Abolitionists had implemented. Wilson preached ''reconciliation'' and ''healing'' over a ''North imposed Reconstruction.'' He coated his poison in the sugar that only by accepting our Southern 'traditions' could America truly 'reunify' as one nation. His real purpose and objective was to win the war for the South in the way its history would be taught, and institutionalize and justify racial segregation in the U.S. civil service and armed forces. The evil this caused was considerable. He was a major influence in the resurgence of the KKK, which had been all but eradicated. He cynically split the black vote by courting the conservative Booker T. Washington the same way as the GOP of today pretends it recognized African American Rights by backing Justice Thomas or giving political visibility to the disturbed ramblings of Ben Carson.
Kudos to the Times editorial board for finally coming around to recognize that Wilson was far from 'one of our best presidents.' A clear eyed reassessment will conclude that his administration had many destructive and poorly thought through policies that set the stage for the failures and Great Depression to come, as well as the Second World War.
Kudos to the Times editorial board for finally coming around to recognize that Wilson was far from 'one of our best presidents.' A clear eyed reassessment will conclude that his administration had many destructive and poorly thought through policies that set the stage for the failures and Great Depression to come, as well as the Second World War.
4
"...has drawn heavy fire from traditionalists." So, NOW we know the enemy: "traditionalists." How clever a phrase, that it can be applied to anyone!
3
There is such a thing as a "pact of forgetting." To remove Wilson's name will not discredit his bigotry but add to our amnesia. Wilson was not the only bigot to rise to high places and her honored for their accomplishments. It is arguable that Lincoln would be considered a racist by todays standards. Better to leave the names and the honors bequeathed and expose the foundations and attitudes that these individuals fostered. Sweeping them under the rug by removing their names is similar to airbrushing them from photographs, Better to prominently display under their schools and amend their honors "A STONE COLD BIGOT" than attempt to irradiate. ignore, or deny their prominence in American society.
3
The student activists served an important purpose by highlighting Wilson's racism.His name should should stand in Princeton and his ideas and deeds and harm that he caused should be widely disseminated.I know the problem of how difficult it is to stop drinking Cool Aid when you are addicted to it but you really should try NY T
You've gone too far on this one, NY Times. I'm embarrassed as a progressive.
President Wilson's actions are appalling and immoral. They also reflected common views of the times. If they were so out of step during his presidential administration, did your editorial board offer this opinion in print at the time? Furthermore, I'd like to ask, if he were alive today, would he be a different person?
We can't project the outcome of such complex questions. Trying to erase sins of the past creates a dangerous precedent. Should we remove all references to other Executives who engaged in war and genocide against the American Indians? In the future, who is going to suffer demotion for their views against same sex relationships?
These efforts, while meant to form an inclusive society, are misguided--we should focus on changing contemporary viewpoints and behaviors rather than scrub clean the past.
President Wilson's actions are appalling and immoral. They also reflected common views of the times. If they were so out of step during his presidential administration, did your editorial board offer this opinion in print at the time? Furthermore, I'd like to ask, if he were alive today, would he be a different person?
We can't project the outcome of such complex questions. Trying to erase sins of the past creates a dangerous precedent. Should we remove all references to other Executives who engaged in war and genocide against the American Indians? In the future, who is going to suffer demotion for their views against same sex relationships?
These efforts, while meant to form an inclusive society, are misguided--we should focus on changing contemporary viewpoints and behaviors rather than scrub clean the past.
4
Princeton protestors = whining white kids.
2
It is too easy to vilify others through the gauzy lens of history. George Washington was a slaveholder, John Kennedy bought elections, and Martin Luther King was an adulterer. I admire each of them greatly - should we purge them from public acclimation? The New York Times had racists views at one time - should we impeach the Sulzbergers? Robert E. Lee led the confederacy, and yet would not accept a significant sum of money (post Civil War and when he was broke) for lending his name to a product he did not use - who today has the kind or principal. These editorials are not uniting our country; they are balkanizing it, pitting people against each other for grievances that run the gamut from historical to opportunity based on skill. Enough is enough - I believe the US' historic animus with the media is in part based on this never-ending effort to take uncompromising positions, with no nuance, before looking in the mirror.
3
Wow! the barely disguised enmity seen amongst this comment board is amazing. The students are characterized as whiners, ungrateful, entitled, stupid (my favorite! as though a writer forgets that this is Princeton; but then again the "PC protesters" couldn't have earned their seats like the traditionalists because only traditiionalists/conservatives work hard right?) and history scrubbers.
It would have been instructive and intellectually honest for the NYT to print their contemporaneous views of Wilson at the time of his Presidency and account for it too. They didn't but they have space and time to rise to the challenge.
For those of the "how dare they speak out bent": why are you so bent out of shape? Is it your alma mater? I'd hazard a guess that many if not most are not and the comments boil down to good old fashion envy and it's unattractive.
It would have been instructive and intellectually honest for the NYT to print their contemporaneous views of Wilson at the time of his Presidency and account for it too. They didn't but they have space and time to rise to the challenge.
For those of the "how dare they speak out bent": why are you so bent out of shape? Is it your alma mater? I'd hazard a guess that many if not most are not and the comments boil down to good old fashion envy and it's unattractive.
1
Princeton got away with instititutionally downplaying and obfuscating the racial record of its hero, Woodrow Wilson, for the better part of the century. No more.
The time has come for a full accounting and full accountability for his legacy. The price of historical distortion of the facts needs to be paid, and paid in full. The truth comes out, and it stays out.
Every time Princeton University must mention this individual in any public venue, Princeton must add an asterisk to the effect that its hero was an unregenerate, unredeemable racist. That's all there is to it.
I regard as pathetic the argument that I should be judged by the standards of my time. If someone has an issue with my attitude a hundred years from now, let them - I'll be long dead and long out of reach of any criticism by then. And if criticizing me for my attitude a hundred years from now somehow reflects the fact that this country has turned into a better country, I'd be glad to take that criticism full in the face were I still alive - Which I very much doubt . And personally, I wouldn't care to live another hundred years anyway.
I am Asian American, should my origin matter.
The time has come for a full accounting and full accountability for his legacy. The price of historical distortion of the facts needs to be paid, and paid in full. The truth comes out, and it stays out.
Every time Princeton University must mention this individual in any public venue, Princeton must add an asterisk to the effect that its hero was an unregenerate, unredeemable racist. That's all there is to it.
I regard as pathetic the argument that I should be judged by the standards of my time. If someone has an issue with my attitude a hundred years from now, let them - I'll be long dead and long out of reach of any criticism by then. And if criticizing me for my attitude a hundred years from now somehow reflects the fact that this country has turned into a better country, I'd be glad to take that criticism full in the face were I still alive - Which I very much doubt . And personally, I wouldn't care to live another hundred years anyway.
I am Asian American, should my origin matter.
2
let's sanitize our history...let's tear our culture down brick by brick.
2
The truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth; do you recognize these words? They are usually contained in a question a court's clerk asks someone as part of the process of being sworn-in to testify in a court proceeding.
Very interesting editorial; very, very interesting comments. Today is Wednesday, November 25, 2015; why do you suppose it has taken so long for the whole truth about President Woodrow Wilson (for that matter, so many other historical American figures) to be made known? How many more historical American figures (and contemporaries) have not had the whole truth about their actions (and the impact of their actions) made known? I believe it is very important to differentiate between someone's beliefs and actions (since actions impose beliefs through policies). Based on the whole truth impact of the actions of President Wilson (and contemporary analogues), who benefited and who was punished? Have the benefits and punishment influenced future generations? For those who benefited and those who suffered punishment, what should justice look like? I believe these are some of the tough questions that need to be addressed if our American society intends to continue to pursue democracy, liberty and justice for all. I also believe it is foundational for every American to know the whole truth about historical (and contemporary) figures; and it is one of the responsibilities of our government, institutions and universities to make this learning available.
Very interesting editorial; very, very interesting comments. Today is Wednesday, November 25, 2015; why do you suppose it has taken so long for the whole truth about President Woodrow Wilson (for that matter, so many other historical American figures) to be made known? How many more historical American figures (and contemporaries) have not had the whole truth about their actions (and the impact of their actions) made known? I believe it is very important to differentiate between someone's beliefs and actions (since actions impose beliefs through policies). Based on the whole truth impact of the actions of President Wilson (and contemporary analogues), who benefited and who was punished? Have the benefits and punishment influenced future generations? For those who benefited and those who suffered punishment, what should justice look like? I believe these are some of the tough questions that need to be addressed if our American society intends to continue to pursue democracy, liberty and justice for all. I also believe it is foundational for every American to know the whole truth about historical (and contemporary) figures; and it is one of the responsibilities of our government, institutions and universities to make this learning available.
1
Yes, an atrocious record on African-Americans. But where does this end? Should Jefferson, a slave owner who only mildly questioned that "peculiar institution", be removed from our 5 cent coin and have his memorial bulldozed and Colleges honoring him censured? Should Madison Avenue be renamed, for after all he was the chief author of a Constitution enshrining slavery as the law of the land? Must we then judge Eisenhower, FDR and Truman as war criminals for Dresden, and Hiroshima and turning a blind eye to the mass murders and mass rapes of the Red Army as it occupied Germany? Where does this end?
A Princeton alumna myself, I will admit that prior to this week I was not aware of Wilson's track record with respect to race. I'm grateful to the students who raised the issue so that I could be educated about it.
But that's exactly the point. And it's exactly why erasing Woodrow Wilson from Princeton is not the answer which will solve the broader issue here. Princeton needs to see itself as THE institution that will set the standard for how to solve the complicated problems of our current time. What does the school provide in the service our nation - and all nations, as the famous Woodrow Wilson quote goes - if it does not provide the greatest minds who can help us find a better way?
Princeton should take this high profile controversy and use it to show the University's strengths by crafting a diplomatic response which fully addresses this serious issue without taking the nuclear option of erasing Wilson. As many other readers have commented, he is certainly not alone in a long list of flawed leaders our country recognizes through adding their names to our monuments, buildings, schools, parks, streets and more. Princeton should see that erasing Wilson entirely would be the beginning of a very slippery slope, and instead choose to show us all the best way to fully address the valid concern our students raised while avoiding an option which will inevitably allow the broader issue to continue to crescendo.
But that's exactly the point. And it's exactly why erasing Woodrow Wilson from Princeton is not the answer which will solve the broader issue here. Princeton needs to see itself as THE institution that will set the standard for how to solve the complicated problems of our current time. What does the school provide in the service our nation - and all nations, as the famous Woodrow Wilson quote goes - if it does not provide the greatest minds who can help us find a better way?
Princeton should take this high profile controversy and use it to show the University's strengths by crafting a diplomatic response which fully addresses this serious issue without taking the nuclear option of erasing Wilson. As many other readers have commented, he is certainly not alone in a long list of flawed leaders our country recognizes through adding their names to our monuments, buildings, schools, parks, streets and more. Princeton should see that erasing Wilson entirely would be the beginning of a very slippery slope, and instead choose to show us all the best way to fully address the valid concern our students raised while avoiding an option which will inevitably allow the broader issue to continue to crescendo.
Isn't there a risk in elevating historical figures at a university like this - that we will blind ourselves to current racial tensions by focusing so much on the past?
.
I grew up around Colby College in Waterville Maine. The abolitionist journalist Elijah Parish Lovejoy, an alumnus of the College, is to Colby what Woodrow Wilson is to Princeton. Buildings and scholarships are named after him; there are monuments. Could focusing on history: the honorable history of Colby; the dishonorable history of Princeton, blind us to current racial tensions? If there is progress made on racial issues at Princeton, will the University get credit for it? More importantly, if racism is uncovered at Colby, will Lovejoy blind us to it? I hope not.
.
I grew up around Colby College in Waterville Maine. The abolitionist journalist Elijah Parish Lovejoy, an alumnus of the College, is to Colby what Woodrow Wilson is to Princeton. Buildings and scholarships are named after him; there are monuments. Could focusing on history: the honorable history of Colby; the dishonorable history of Princeton, blind us to current racial tensions? If there is progress made on racial issues at Princeton, will the University get credit for it? More importantly, if racism is uncovered at Colby, will Lovejoy blind us to it? I hope not.
I can really understand that people here are exhausted by what they perceive as a never-ending reveal of our racist past. I get that people say "well, that was then and this is now". But you also must know that no emotional or psychological progress is made without first facing your Truth.
I know about Jefferson and his slaves, and Washington and his. Who doesn't?Slavery was an economic institution that built this country - god help us - and Lincoln was not an abolitionist. BUT President Wilson's actions opens up an opportunity to understand what happened to us as a people after Reconstruction. Understanding what happened in the not so distant past is the only way to begin to come to grips with the present. Why has it happened that we were institutionally held back? BECAUSE WE WERE! Well, now I know that President Wilson was the Architect. Because of the times? NO! Because of his warped view of us as a People. Not everyone who lived in those times was fundamentally racist - but the fact that as President of the United States he purposely altered the forward trajectory of an entire race of people who had recently been freed from the bonds of slavery and were working their way into society is worthy of discussion. If you don't think that discrimination has taken its toll on generation after generation of black people in this country, you are delusional. It's not just our problem, it's OUR problem. Like it or not, we are in this together. We have to be.
I know about Jefferson and his slaves, and Washington and his. Who doesn't?Slavery was an economic institution that built this country - god help us - and Lincoln was not an abolitionist. BUT President Wilson's actions opens up an opportunity to understand what happened to us as a people after Reconstruction. Understanding what happened in the not so distant past is the only way to begin to come to grips with the present. Why has it happened that we were institutionally held back? BECAUSE WE WERE! Well, now I know that President Wilson was the Architect. Because of the times? NO! Because of his warped view of us as a People. Not everyone who lived in those times was fundamentally racist - but the fact that as President of the United States he purposely altered the forward trajectory of an entire race of people who had recently been freed from the bonds of slavery and were working their way into society is worthy of discussion. If you don't think that discrimination has taken its toll on generation after generation of black people in this country, you are delusional. It's not just our problem, it's OUR problem. Like it or not, we are in this together. We have to be.
4
So are we to pull down all of the statues, remove all the plaques, change the names of all buildings streets and highways because that honored person is no longer deserving since they sure committed some sin, some crime against someone somewhere during their life time?
Do we remove Washington and Jefferson from our currency and do we remove Martin Luther kings memorial and names for many schools, etc. because we will likely discover that he was not some Christ like figure free of all sins of commission and omission?
This is not political correctness; this is stupidity and just another example of our current smugness at feeling superior to our ancestors both near and far into the past!
This is not to say that we deny that many of our "heroes" had feet of clay; it is to say that we should learn from the past and not spend our time trying to do history, to revise history with a hammer -aka ISIS in Iraq.
Do we remove Washington and Jefferson from our currency and do we remove Martin Luther kings memorial and names for many schools, etc. because we will likely discover that he was not some Christ like figure free of all sins of commission and omission?
This is not political correctness; this is stupidity and just another example of our current smugness at feeling superior to our ancestors both near and far into the past!
This is not to say that we deny that many of our "heroes" had feet of clay; it is to say that we should learn from the past and not spend our time trying to do history, to revise history with a hammer -aka ISIS in Iraq.
1
I am glad this debate is happening. I was never taught about Wilson's "darker side" in school -- and never knew about his racism.
While not sure what the "best" actions are (now), I know that raising these issues is the first step to better long term solutions. We are better for the discussion.
While not sure what the "best" actions are (now), I know that raising these issues is the first step to better long term solutions. We are better for the discussion.
2
Unless they repent from the grave, we should also rename the nation's Capitol, knock down that offending monument to the first president and then raze Monticello. Jackson Square in New Orleans: don't think you're off the hook.
Or we could just burn all the history books and start with a clean slate.
Or we could just burn all the history books and start with a clean slate.
3
"When they have burned the books, they will end by burning people." -- Heinrich Heine. We are not burning the history books yet, but we sure seem headed in that direction.
2
Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to prison camps and perpetuated segregation. When is the Left going to abandon him and his policies?
1
Irrelevant, not to mention wrong-headed. For example, my grad school just lost its name of about 170 years to a more or less unrelated, unknown hedge fund guy who wanted his name on it.
This happens all the time: schools, museums, world-famous concert halls, even cities are willing to throw their own heritage away for quick bucks. Chisel the name off, put the rich guy's on. Do we care anything about who the new figureheads are? How they managed to get their cash?
None of these elite posturing adventures pass the sniff test.
This happens all the time: schools, museums, world-famous concert halls, even cities are willing to throw their own heritage away for quick bucks. Chisel the name off, put the rich guy's on. Do we care anything about who the new figureheads are? How they managed to get their cash?
None of these elite posturing adventures pass the sniff test.
1
"I can teach peace to the Right, Markets to the Left, and why EVERYTHING is Woodrow Wilson's fault."
This is Antiwar.com's Libertarian foreign policy interviewer Scott Horton's promotional tag line been using for 15 years.
You mean he's right?!
This is Antiwar.com's Libertarian foreign policy interviewer Scott Horton's promotional tag line been using for 15 years.
You mean he's right?!
1
I had no idea Woodrow Wilson was a racist. While I agree that attention needs to be focused on revising historical figures to reflect their whole character, whitewashing history by completely removing any offensive participant will only harm our society in the long run.
It is one thing to remove images of Nathan Bedford Forest, even though he is the father of most of our modern military maneuvers, because of his role in creating the Ku Klux Klan. But it is entirely another matter when we begin to remove Thomas Jefferson from the public sphere.
Should we forget that Mr. Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned slavery? Should we remove George Washington from the dollar bill because he owned slaves? Should we close Arlington National Cemetery because it was the home of Robert E. Lee?
It is one thing to remove symbols from government endorsement, like the Confederate flag on top of State capitols. It is another to rewrite history in the private realm.
It is one thing to remove images of Nathan Bedford Forest, even though he is the father of most of our modern military maneuvers, because of his role in creating the Ku Klux Klan. But it is entirely another matter when we begin to remove Thomas Jefferson from the public sphere.
Should we forget that Mr. Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned slavery? Should we remove George Washington from the dollar bill because he owned slaves? Should we close Arlington National Cemetery because it was the home of Robert E. Lee?
It is one thing to remove symbols from government endorsement, like the Confederate flag on top of State capitols. It is another to rewrite history in the private realm.
People should appreciate that leaders like Woodrow Wilson cannot make a government racist nor carry out racist policies if the controlling majority of the governed are not racists, already. Wilson did bad things to people with his racist attitudes because he was provided with the authority to do so. Focusing upon treating him as a example by removing his name from an institution or building does nothing about the historical circumstances that were at work. The focus should be upon the effect of those racist policies and upon how widespread they were and upon how the effects still can be seen in the disproportional disadvantaged circumstances for minorities who have suffered under those policies. Too many Americans simply do not appreciate how racism is crucial to understanding higher crime and poverty rates for African Americans verses European Americans.
4
Your myopic editorial will only encourage students and others with a barebones knowledge of history to put a great American president on the rack for views, no matter how abhorrent today, that were widely held in his time. Woodrow Wilson was a great internationalist who tried to buck his narrow-minded contemporaries and bring this country into concert with other nations in the world. It is entirely appropriate that an institute of international affairs at Princeton bears his name as does a celebrated research center in Washington.
By adding its weight to movements on college campuses and elsewhere that distort the American past, the New York Times inadvertently aids the campaigns of Donald Trump and others appealing to the Know Nothings of our time.
By adding its weight to movements on college campuses and elsewhere that distort the American past, the New York Times inadvertently aids the campaigns of Donald Trump and others appealing to the Know Nothings of our time.
3
In the 1950s celebrated playwright August Wilson attended the same Catholic boys high school in Pittsburgh that I did in the 1970s. Sadly, because he was African American Wilson, was taunted and jeered and left the school. I can understand how that happened. Pittsburgh in the 1950s was still very segregated not only by race but also by nationality. Germans were okay with Irish but not Italians etc. African Americans were looked down upon by everyone. It was an accepted fact of life and apparently nothing was done by administrators or faculty to make Wilson comfortable. The school was very different when I attended and I consider my time there as the most pivotal education experience of my life. Am I sorry that it was not a supportive environment for a man who demonstrated remarkable talent? Yes, absolutely. Does that erase the value that generations of young men have gotten from their education at Central Catholic? No. I realize that the environment of a school and the actions of an individual are not comparable but I tell this story to emphasize the fact that yes, what is now inexcusable behavior was acceptable in the past. Although Wilson the president caused great pain and should be held responsible it does not mean that the accomplishments which he achieved at Princeton and on the world stage should be buried by removing his name.
1
Leftist political correctness out of control. Can't wait for the episode of South Park on this!
3
Do we do the same to Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Jackson, and Polk for owning slaves? How about Lincoln for not freeing all the slaves, just those in seceding states? The slaves in Kentucky and Maryland were NOT freed. This rewriting of history and taking down all the leaders of this country which provided much to our attitudes is the same as authoritarian governments banishing those of which they no longer approve. PC carried to the ultimate.,
3
This comment by the NYT editorial board is much more astonishing than the student protests at Princeton. It is a surrender to the forces of immaturity and political correctness.
7
Let's begin to name buildings after trees to avoid all this. "I went to Jabuticaba University at Oakland. And you?"
A reminder of how hard the American government and institutions have worked to keep black Americans poor, and frustrate their attempts to advance themselves and their families.
1
Please also comment on changing the name of the Rhodes scholarship to eliminate Rhodes. And strike every reference to FDR since he agreed to interring the Japanese. Remove him from the dime. Why didn't you also mention this?
2
It's gratifying to see that this editorial is too much even for many of the very liberal readers of the New York Times. You've really jumped the shark on this one.
5
No. Retriactive defrocking is a really bad idea. Next thing will be changing thr name of Washington State to something else (pick your ethnic hero) because he was married to someone who owned slaves. Or Reagan because, well, because he was a republican. Or whatevet grievance of the moment is fashionable.
2
As a graduate of Princeton University, I am proud of the student activism that has brought this debate to the national consciousness. While there have always been student protests focused on injustices throughout the world, the recent student activism is uniquely successful in changing hearts and minds. However, this is a tool that is best used to change the future rather than rewrite the past. I am more concerned about black men being shot today than the words of a man from a century ago expressing sentiments that were tragically considered acceptable in his era. Our great nation was built by brilliant but flawed individuals and we can celebrate the former without endorsing the latter.
2
moral equivalency has an expiration date too- let's say 100, 200 years max?
The virulent racism Woodrow Wilson espoused is no less immoral because he did his dirty deeds in 1913. History should not give him a free pass simply because his views were prevalent at that time. The same goes for Washington and Jefferson. Since we don't want to bring down the Washington or Jefferson memorials, perhaps their apologists would agree to marble statues to memorialize their slaves to accompany their memorials, and to put a more accurate light on their contributions to the nation.
Oh, we're rewriting history now are we? That's the way of a number of socialist and fascist societies. In this new era of Twittereffluvia, everyone has a megaphone and screams. This over-amplifies the realities of the situation. As a result institutions need to be more measured and thoughtful v.s. the onslaught of a relative few vocal malcontents. I've seen too many ridiculous knee-jerk reactions like the one the Editorial Board is is recommending here. Have you all lost your bearings... or simply your marbles?
4
I did not know this about Wilson, and that bothers me. The one thing I remember learning about him from high school that sticks with me 45 years later was the 2-line ending of John Dos Passos's "The Body of An American":
“All the Washingtonians brought flowers.
Woodrow Wilson brought a bouquet of poppies.”
“All the Washingtonians brought flowers.
Woodrow Wilson brought a bouquet of poppies.”
Wilson admired the KKK? He may have been a racist when considered by today's standards, but in his day? In the 1930s Harvard Medical School would not admit a black man, because no one would be his roommate. Blacks at Harvard College were shoved into the corner until the 1960s.
People should understand that not all racists or segregationists ever admired the KKK, although they opposed equality for blacks. KKK admirers would be 1/3d tops. Wilson would not have been one of them.
How many Presidents before the Civil War would have been considered racists by today's standards? How many after the Civil War?
The 1st President to oppose segregation was Truman--89 years after the Civil War officially ended slavery everywhere in the US. That is some delay. The next President to oppose segregation was Johnson.
People should understand that not all racists or segregationists ever admired the KKK, although they opposed equality for blacks. KKK admirers would be 1/3d tops. Wilson would not have been one of them.
How many Presidents before the Civil War would have been considered racists by today's standards? How many after the Civil War?
The 1st President to oppose segregation was Truman--89 years after the Civil War officially ended slavery everywhere in the US. That is some delay. The next President to oppose segregation was Johnson.
2
"Traditionalist"? Is that what racists are calling themselves these days?
2
And don't forget Lincoln. He was an avowed segregationist who recommended that freed slaves should be transported back to Africa. We need to scrap the Lincoln Memorial and anything named after Lincoln should be renamed after some saint, such as Martin Luther King. Oh, wait, wasn't MLK against gay marriage or transgender bathrooms? His name needs to be blotted out as well. We should just give numbers to all buildings, towns, streets, etc. No more naming, period.
3
Looks like we'll also need to purge Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Johnson and Grant, seeing as how they all *personally owned slaves.*
Surely we can savor the good work Wilson did without approving the bad. Purging western history based on a modern purity test smacks more of fanaticism than sensitivity.
Surely we can savor the good work Wilson did without approving the bad. Purging western history based on a modern purity test smacks more of fanaticism than sensitivity.
2
I think more than the name Wilson - students object to being bombarded with a super idealized version of the man. Andy Newman's article of the other day mentioned that there's a giant mural of Wilson in the dining hall, as well as a tv screen which streams Woodrow Wilson's quotations. A bit much.
1
Woodrow Wilson was a creature of his times. That is, he was comfortable with the national policy of the United States of white supremacy, that has persisted despite the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. As long as minorities remain an underclass and Americans feel free to insult and denigrate blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays, Asians, Indians.... then Wilson is us. America needs to fix this.
Let's celebrate the fact that we, as a nation, are making progress in rejecting racism, homophobia and sexism - and instead of leaving Wilson's name in place as a teachable moment, remove it to teach who we are NOW. Historically the leaders of the past have their statues, monuments and named events removed as a people moves on. (Rome, Russia, Germany to name a very few) Listing all the contributions of people who were also reprehensible doesn't change this - it does imply that having feet of clay makes such behavior acceptable, instead of just understandable. I'd like to see the list of people who have contributed to - say peace - for example, who were not toxic, rabid racists. Which Wilson was. Let's put their names on the buildings and chairs and be done with it - let's show that we actually can respond to new information with respect and inclusion.
1
Have we never seen a street renamed? A school renamed? How about an airport, a hospital, a pharmaceutical company? Most of the statements here are amazing. How nervous people are about re-examining deeds that were smoothed over in earlier years!
No one has stopped to think that the damage done by people like Woodrow Wilson, bigots who knew better, has affected all of us. Because African Americans in the 1910's were systematically removed from the jobs for which they were fully qualified, how many of their descendants never became our teachers, military heroes, elected officials, lawyers, inventors, doctors, clergy? Who is to say that Woodrow Wilson and his like-minded bigots are not responsible for the poverty in our cities right now because he systematically diminished one group of Americans?
It is mixing apples and oranges to bring up Lincoln and Washington. Wilson was part of our modern age. The men of his era, like Theodore Roosevelt before him, knew that the evils of bigotry and racism were wrong, yet these like Wilson persisted and other people looked the other way. Today we pay the price for people looking the other way. Being fully honest does not turn us into some kind of communist truth squad. Being fully honest allows us to look our children in the eye and say as Maya Angelou did: when we know better we [ must] do better.
No one has stopped to think that the damage done by people like Woodrow Wilson, bigots who knew better, has affected all of us. Because African Americans in the 1910's were systematically removed from the jobs for which they were fully qualified, how many of their descendants never became our teachers, military heroes, elected officials, lawyers, inventors, doctors, clergy? Who is to say that Woodrow Wilson and his like-minded bigots are not responsible for the poverty in our cities right now because he systematically diminished one group of Americans?
It is mixing apples and oranges to bring up Lincoln and Washington. Wilson was part of our modern age. The men of his era, like Theodore Roosevelt before him, knew that the evils of bigotry and racism were wrong, yet these like Wilson persisted and other people looked the other way. Today we pay the price for people looking the other way. Being fully honest does not turn us into some kind of communist truth squad. Being fully honest allows us to look our children in the eye and say as Maya Angelou did: when we know better we [ must] do better.
4
Your quote from Maya Angelou says it all. Thank you.
2
At the time of George Washington’s death, his Mount Vernon estate had 318 slaves.
Washington's will dictated the freedom of his slaves, but it would have been much more principled if he had freed them when he was the 'Father of Our Country' and still alive.
http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-was...
Revising history is a tricky task, and one would have to start with removing George Washington from every dollar bill, every Quarter, a street sign in every town in America, and rename about 5000 elementary schools, 100 towns and untold other institutions.
Perhaps a fair compromise is to start naming future American schools and institutions after people like the eponymous Sojourner Truth and the great Harriet Tubman, both born into slavery who became the black abolitionist and and suffragist heroines who fought even harder than American's privileged and entitled white male class for the true meaning of democracy and freedom.
"Truth is powerful and it prevails."
- Sojourner Truth
"I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other."
Harriet Tubman
One things is clear in colonial and American history; it has been horribly whitewashed over the course of 400 years.
Instead of honoring America's privileged white victors, we should level the historical playing field and honor our true black American heroes with more public monuments.
Washington's will dictated the freedom of his slaves, but it would have been much more principled if he had freed them when he was the 'Father of Our Country' and still alive.
http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-was...
Revising history is a tricky task, and one would have to start with removing George Washington from every dollar bill, every Quarter, a street sign in every town in America, and rename about 5000 elementary schools, 100 towns and untold other institutions.
Perhaps a fair compromise is to start naming future American schools and institutions after people like the eponymous Sojourner Truth and the great Harriet Tubman, both born into slavery who became the black abolitionist and and suffragist heroines who fought even harder than American's privileged and entitled white male class for the true meaning of democracy and freedom.
"Truth is powerful and it prevails."
- Sojourner Truth
"I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other."
Harriet Tubman
One things is clear in colonial and American history; it has been horribly whitewashed over the course of 400 years.
Instead of honoring America's privileged white victors, we should level the historical playing field and honor our true black American heroes with more public monuments.
3
I confess some sympathy with those who wonder when or where this righteous cleansing of American history and particularly holding leaders of the past accountable under today's standards will reach its limits. TR was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist; JFK would rather have kept the civil rights movement under wraps to serve other priorities of his. Republican presidents since Nixon, including Reagan the Far Right Saint, furthered the southern strategy and so on. Let's not forget that Jefferson's Declaration inspired all subsequent human rights movements in this country. Maybe the strongest of all the "sins of the past" cases can be made against Wilson. Most of all let's not be too smug about how we are going to fare with future generations looking back.
While I tend to believe that we do at times need to weigh the person against their times, we need to consider just how much their historical damage did as against their accomplishments.
It happens that President Wilson's ills were based on actually going against an at least somewhat enlightened status quo in support of a depraved view of his fellow man based solely on skin color.
The suggestion that 'at the time lots of people were racist' although true just doesn't fly in the face of the facts, any more than 20th century racially driven murder of the Armenians, or the even more heinous murders of those of Jewish descent could be forgiven.
Let's not forget the good things Wilson tried to do, but not hold him up as anyones ideal.
It happens that President Wilson's ills were based on actually going against an at least somewhat enlightened status quo in support of a depraved view of his fellow man based solely on skin color.
The suggestion that 'at the time lots of people were racist' although true just doesn't fly in the face of the facts, any more than 20th century racially driven murder of the Armenians, or the even more heinous murders of those of Jewish descent could be forgiven.
Let's not forget the good things Wilson tried to do, but not hold him up as anyones ideal.
Since his death, America’s political and intellectual elite glossed over Wilson’s troubling racism and how destructive his racist policies were to America. After all, being a former president of Princeton University, he was a member of that elite class. Incredibly they also sought to give him a status equal to the nation’s founding fathers.
Unlike our nation's founders, however, Wilson came of age well after civil war and enactment of the 14th Amendment where all Americans were to enjoy the equal protection of the law.
Late in their lives Washington and Jefferson also both openly questioned legitimacy of slavery. Washington willed all his slaves freed upon his and Martha’s death. Both acted during their lives to further human progress. Wilson, on the other hand, acted to set back human progress.
Wilson knew Jim Crow expressly violated the U.S. Constitution. He knew its evil aim was to terrorize and degrade America’s African-Americans population. Yet Wilson made that evil mission official government policy.
Moreover, Wilson’s racism also was directed at immigrants especially Italian immigrants, including my grandfather, who spoke out for social equality and economic justice. Wilson directed the “Department of Justice” to prosecute and deport or incarcerate immigrant “radicals.” In fact, the young man placed in charge of that unconstitutional effort was future FBI Director Hoover.
It’s about time, Mr. Wilson’s destructive legacy be recognized.
Unlike our nation's founders, however, Wilson came of age well after civil war and enactment of the 14th Amendment where all Americans were to enjoy the equal protection of the law.
Late in their lives Washington and Jefferson also both openly questioned legitimacy of slavery. Washington willed all his slaves freed upon his and Martha’s death. Both acted during their lives to further human progress. Wilson, on the other hand, acted to set back human progress.
Wilson knew Jim Crow expressly violated the U.S. Constitution. He knew its evil aim was to terrorize and degrade America’s African-Americans population. Yet Wilson made that evil mission official government policy.
Moreover, Wilson’s racism also was directed at immigrants especially Italian immigrants, including my grandfather, who spoke out for social equality and economic justice. Wilson directed the “Department of Justice” to prosecute and deport or incarcerate immigrant “radicals.” In fact, the young man placed in charge of that unconstitutional effort was future FBI Director Hoover.
It’s about time, Mr. Wilson’s destructive legacy be recognized.
8
Some here are using Thomas Jefferson, who was a slave owner, as a comparison to Wilson. But it's important to note that while Jefferson's ownership of slaves is deplorable and inexcusable, he was a part of implementing the very foundation that would eventually pave the way for the freedoms that all American citizens justly deserve. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of Woodrow Wilson, who used his various positions of power to block and take away those hard earned freedoms and rights.
2
The issue here is not that Wilson reflected the mores of his time and should therefore be excused for his racism and praised for his accomplishments, but that he ruthlessly used the power of his office to harm American citizens he was sworn to protect. He had no right to impose his own withered beliefs (which clearly were not shared by everyone, or there would have been nothing to change) on a bureaucratic system that wasn't broken, and in the process enhance the racism already present for generations to come. Our society might look and feel very different today were it not for Wilson's arrogance and hatefulness. His actions represented a wanton and brutal disregard for a whole segment of the population. Consign him to the dustheap and remove his name. The evil he did reflects a man of no character, unworthy of our recognition.
1
It's telling that this editorial makes no mention of the illegal occupation of Princeton's President's office. In this country we have procedures for addressing grievances. Those procedures should be respected, not ignored. The overriding issue at Princeton - and at scools across the country for that matter - is rule of law. If that doesn't produce the result you want you always have the option of civil disobedience - which should be the last rather than first resort. But if you go that route you must be prepared to take the legal consequences, as Thoreau, Gandhi and Dr. King were so prepared. When University presidents simply give in to demands with no expressed concern for that, we should all grieve for what the country has become.
3
I am shocked that the NY Times should enter this argument with such a blatantly ahistorical screed, ignoring all the significant accomplishments of Woodrow Wilson, esp with regard to the development of Princeton University, the idea of 'in the nation's service,' and much more. Why did you ever lend yourselves to this one-sided position? Shame on you.
2
Seeing how the reference is made in the piece, and in all due respect to the ancestors of persons who write recently posted op-ed pieces, it also is sometimes the case that some people do rise to the level of their incompetence.. and with a nod to the slow turning wheels of corrective (or charitable) bureaucracy being what they are even to this day, well... just because Tiger Woods is an excellent golfer does not by the shades of the rainbow mean he'll be a good president (luckily he chooses to stick to greener pastures). But to imply that blame for an historically unhappy outcome rests not in any part on unspecified circumstances yet all on the outcome of a single presidential election? Remember that warts-and-all flows in both directions.
I think even Ben Carson laid some claim to stone throwing in his youth, good thing he's not seeking to move into a glass house?
I think even Ben Carson laid some claim to stone throwing in his youth, good thing he's not seeking to move into a glass house?
"The historian, the iconoclast, and all that ghoulish crew
Have now debunked our dear defunct, excepting one or two . . ." (E.M.Rhodes)
There's something going around that insists on requiring folks of the past live up to standards of this day, standards that are often as not fanciful, if not fancied. The theologian will draw back, refer to something like "Adam's sin," and remind us that we are none of us perfect in every respect. Add in the TV milieu where all things (except soaps) are resolved within the hour and everything's simple - and a public conditioned by that, and we have these fusses about somebody's dirty socks a century or so back.
To expect perfection is an oversimplification - and indeed it is childish. A more mature perspective will consider accomplishment, far more than attitude - or worse, presumed attitude.
David prayed to God "Unto Thee, unto Thee only have I sinned . . ." but Uriah certainly had a certain place in the matter. Still, we honor David.
Have now debunked our dear defunct, excepting one or two . . ." (E.M.Rhodes)
There's something going around that insists on requiring folks of the past live up to standards of this day, standards that are often as not fanciful, if not fancied. The theologian will draw back, refer to something like "Adam's sin," and remind us that we are none of us perfect in every respect. Add in the TV milieu where all things (except soaps) are resolved within the hour and everything's simple - and a public conditioned by that, and we have these fusses about somebody's dirty socks a century or so back.
To expect perfection is an oversimplification - and indeed it is childish. A more mature perspective will consider accomplishment, far more than attitude - or worse, presumed attitude.
David prayed to God "Unto Thee, unto Thee only have I sinned . . ." but Uriah certainly had a certain place in the matter. Still, we honor David.
1
The problem is that there's a case against every U.S. President who came before him as well (and some after). Just Google any President's name before 1963 and add the word "racist." The results will shock you. More specifically, why zero in on Wilson? Why does the author give Washington, Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln a pass? Washington and Jefferson OWNED people (perhaps even some of my ancestors) and the NY Times itself has published articles about Abraham Lincoln's unrepentant segregationist ramblings (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/abraham-lincoln-racist/). Wilson's building is not "The Center for Segregationist Studies." They are not honoring the man's bigotry. They are honoring his undeniable leadership during a time of war and his contributions to foreign policy. Plenty of things are named after FDR and he segregated his White House staff, interned Japanese citizens, failed to support anti-lynching legislation, and appointed a former member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. Yet, we honor him with a room at the White House, on money, at airports, on roads, with schools, and monuments. Shall we strip them of his name as well? We have simply GOT to stop judging figures in contexts outside of the times in which they lived. Wilson was born in 1856... that's before the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, or the Civil Rights movement in general. The issue of racial equality had hardly been settled.
2
There is the past, the benighted good old days, during which everybody supposedly was racist so that kinda forgives everybody, even people like Wilson and Jefferson, and on and on.
But what about today? When only losers and dimwits still cling to white superiority and deride protest against that? When the leading candidate is a moral moron who is not only racist, sexist and a bigoted dimwit, but he's proud of it and all the morons and dimwits who support him are proud of it, too. Racism is alive and thriving despite all of the work and blood spent trying to dilute it, if not destroy it in our 'democratic' society.
I hope I live long enough to see protesters take the name, "Trump" off all of his vulgar buildings, private or not.
But what about today? When only losers and dimwits still cling to white superiority and deride protest against that? When the leading candidate is a moral moron who is not only racist, sexist and a bigoted dimwit, but he's proud of it and all the morons and dimwits who support him are proud of it, too. Racism is alive and thriving despite all of the work and blood spent trying to dilute it, if not destroy it in our 'democratic' society.
I hope I live long enough to see protesters take the name, "Trump" off all of his vulgar buildings, private or not.
Take half his name off. Make if the Woodrow School. It would signal that great women and men can be very mistaken in some things while heroic in others -- a lesson all students and public and international affairs should learn from the get go before heading into the service of others.
Woodrow Wilson was a flawed figure but the idea that we would get rid of his name is stupid. Why are we spinning our wheels over and over again about the past? The problem for these students is not about the past, its about a future that is hurtling at them faster and faster. Every minute that they waste on these attempts to sanitize history is precious time not learning skills necessary to compete in this world. It is indulgent and foolish to not shut this down with some expulsions of students who don't wish to spend their time learning.
1
Add me as another person educated in the late 50's through the tumultuous 60's who had no clue to the hatred that ran through Wilson while he was President.
Thousands of black middle class productive people in 1913. It makes one wonder what might have been save for his clearly unamerican views and more despicable actions.
Might an organic blossoming of true brotherhood have occurred without his interference. It's difficult to blame one person, even a President Wilson and his actions but it should bring about some serious contemplation. Call me naive but maybe those 60's might not have been so tumultuous.
Thousands of black middle class productive people in 1913. It makes one wonder what might have been save for his clearly unamerican views and more despicable actions.
Might an organic blossoming of true brotherhood have occurred without his interference. It's difficult to blame one person, even a President Wilson and his actions but it should bring about some serious contemplation. Call me naive but maybe those 60's might not have been so tumultuous.
2
The broader issue is - how does society instill in young people a proper appreciation of a virtuous life worth emulating? The naming of buildings, streets, cities, and other entities is a traditional means of doing that. What we name and how we name it is a reflection of the values our culture holds dear. Is it valid to reassess a person's role in the context of valuing truth and righting past wrongs?
The most important turning point in World War II was the battle fought at Stalingrad. Who would argue, however, that Volgograd should once again be named Stalingrad given Stalin's role in the murder of millions of Soviet citizens?
People who argue that the renaming process is wrong justify that position on the grounds that: 1) we are judging historical figures by present standards, 2) everyone embodies contradiction.
For those who believe that white people of Wilson's era and before shared his racist outlook the answer is - John Brown.
The larger questions are: 1) are there statutes of limitation on the truth? 2) will it benefit society to make amends for past wrongs?
People should know the truth. This debate concerning Wilson seems to have had that positive affect. Should amends be made to those harmed? The typical answer in a court of law is - yes. Richard Rothstein's research sheds light on the financial legacy of government-sponsored segregation.
This is a national dialogue that is long overdue. Do not bury it in historical obfuscation. Let it continue and flourish.
The most important turning point in World War II was the battle fought at Stalingrad. Who would argue, however, that Volgograd should once again be named Stalingrad given Stalin's role in the murder of millions of Soviet citizens?
People who argue that the renaming process is wrong justify that position on the grounds that: 1) we are judging historical figures by present standards, 2) everyone embodies contradiction.
For those who believe that white people of Wilson's era and before shared his racist outlook the answer is - John Brown.
The larger questions are: 1) are there statutes of limitation on the truth? 2) will it benefit society to make amends for past wrongs?
People should know the truth. This debate concerning Wilson seems to have had that positive affect. Should amends be made to those harmed? The typical answer in a court of law is - yes. Richard Rothstein's research sheds light on the financial legacy of government-sponsored segregation.
This is a national dialogue that is long overdue. Do not bury it in historical obfuscation. Let it continue and flourish.
1
Your righteous indignation over Wilson's crimes might have been tempered if you had gone back to see what your newspaper--and its editors--had to say about him when he was president. At the very least you may wish to consider removing "All The News That's Fit to Print" from your masthead.
I want also to suggest an application of your reasoning that even you with all your sentience failed to make. Brandeis students are missing a bet with their copycat demands for more black faculty, staff, students, etc. They could vault past Princeton in the attention-getting race if they called as well for renaming the University itself on the ground that Brandeis was a racist.
Brandeis was a racist? Sure. (1) He was an ardent Zionist. (2) No less august a body than the United Nations declared that Zionism was a form of racism. (3) Hence, Brandeis was a racist.
How could you have missed such an opportunity to set things right?
I want also to suggest an application of your reasoning that even you with all your sentience failed to make. Brandeis students are missing a bet with their copycat demands for more black faculty, staff, students, etc. They could vault past Princeton in the attention-getting race if they called as well for renaming the University itself on the ground that Brandeis was a racist.
Brandeis was a racist? Sure. (1) He was an ardent Zionist. (2) No less august a body than the United Nations declared that Zionism was a form of racism. (3) Hence, Brandeis was a racist.
How could you have missed such an opportunity to set things right?
1
Many of these comments point out that other presidents before Wilson owned slaves, which is correct, as far as facts go. What that does is ignore is the fact that with the 13th Amendment, slavery became unconstitutional. And despite this, a President Wilson used every means he could to circumvent the 13th Amendment.
Therefore we cannot look at the Founding Fathers with the same lens as we look at Wilson. In fact, he was impeachable because of his use of his office to instigate official segregation, denying black workers of their rights.
Therefore we cannot look at the Founding Fathers with the same lens as we look at Wilson. In fact, he was impeachable because of his use of his office to instigate official segregation, denying black workers of their rights.
4
I lean toward the protestors.
However, Wilson, like Andrew Jackson, was a double-edged role in our history. Jackson was a slave owner. He worked for the Indian Removal Act. And yet he did not simply symbolize white democracy. He embodied and encouraged both the ideal of democracy and the ideal of the self made (white) man. These remain foundational ideals of American democracy (albeit often honored these days in the breach) even as people have tried to eliminate the racist limits to them.
Wilson’s racism had consequences that went far beyond the simple assertion of white superiority. He extended segregation and celebrated the violence that oppressed Blacks.
He also continued a process in which the national government did more to protect citizens in a world in which oligarchs were mostly triumphant. His vision did not look past the line of race, but he had some capacity to look passed the lines of class. For those he considered full citizens (whites), he extended opportunity.
Times change, and sometimes change requires altering the tangible. That’s not erasing history; its acknowledging that history is a relationship between the past and the present. The racism embedded in our society has diminished but is not gone. Acknowledging how central racism often was to our history is one way to continue its diminishment. Changing the name would be another acknowledgement. .
I would leave one building named for him, however, dedicated to the good that he did.
However, Wilson, like Andrew Jackson, was a double-edged role in our history. Jackson was a slave owner. He worked for the Indian Removal Act. And yet he did not simply symbolize white democracy. He embodied and encouraged both the ideal of democracy and the ideal of the self made (white) man. These remain foundational ideals of American democracy (albeit often honored these days in the breach) even as people have tried to eliminate the racist limits to them.
Wilson’s racism had consequences that went far beyond the simple assertion of white superiority. He extended segregation and celebrated the violence that oppressed Blacks.
He also continued a process in which the national government did more to protect citizens in a world in which oligarchs were mostly triumphant. His vision did not look past the line of race, but he had some capacity to look passed the lines of class. For those he considered full citizens (whites), he extended opportunity.
Times change, and sometimes change requires altering the tangible. That’s not erasing history; its acknowledging that history is a relationship between the past and the present. The racism embedded in our society has diminished but is not gone. Acknowledging how central racism often was to our history is one way to continue its diminishment. Changing the name would be another acknowledgement. .
I would leave one building named for him, however, dedicated to the good that he did.
1
Likes others, I got through high school history without ever learning about the warts of people and politics in the US. The place I have recently learned about these issues is Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong is a 1995 book by sociologist James W. Loewen. The problem here is less the naming of a program by Princeton, and more the ongoing bland and incorrect history being taught in our schools. BTW: Loewen also takes on the likes of Helen Keller. Now there's a balanced act. His own history book, unsurprisingly, has not been widely adopted. Perhaps Princeton could include it as required reading.
I'm no fan of Woodrow Wilson, and nobody gets through even my intro history classes without learning that Wilson re-segregated the Federal government and screened the Klan-glorifying "Birth of a Nation" in the White House. And given the history of the 20th century, I wonder if it could have turned out any worse if we had just stayed home in World War I. But Wilson at least had some "socially redeeming value" in his idea of the League of Nations, even if his own self-righteousness was the biggest obstacle to its success.
On the other hand, how an Ivy League school can leave John C. Calhoun's name on anything I will never understand. If Andrew Jackson had strung him up for treason, I'd support keeping his portrait on the $20 bill despite all his numerous offenses.
On the other hand, how an Ivy League school can leave John C. Calhoun's name on anything I will never understand. If Andrew Jackson had strung him up for treason, I'd support keeping his portrait on the $20 bill despite all his numerous offenses.
1
Yes Wilson was a racist. Yes the affects on black families of his re-segregation of the federal government was deplorable. His vocal support of the KKK disgusting. However, in regards to his opinions on segregation, lets not forget that for a time there were calls from the African American community for separation referred to as the Black Separatist Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_separatism#Supporters) that was supported by Marcus Garvey, Martin Delany, and for a time Malcolm X. To vilify Wilson for the opinion that segregation/separation was a benefit is wrong. People of all skin colors have argued for the same.
As far as the Wilson's name being removed from buildings and schools at Princeton, I feel it would be wrong ignore all that Wilson did right and judge him a pariah because he held widely acceptable views for his time. It would be far more instructive to expand our view of him and learn from studying him as whole person. Too often we look at people with a microscope in this information age and miss the larger picture. No one in public office before us would stand up to the level of scrutiny used today and we as a society lose as we chase many flawed yet brilliant people away from public service.
As far as the Wilson's name being removed from buildings and schools at Princeton, I feel it would be wrong ignore all that Wilson did right and judge him a pariah because he held widely acceptable views for his time. It would be far more instructive to expand our view of him and learn from studying him as whole person. Too often we look at people with a microscope in this information age and miss the larger picture. No one in public office before us would stand up to the level of scrutiny used today and we as a society lose as we chase many flawed yet brilliant people away from public service.
6
What amazes me about this op-ed is that there are several history graduates on the Editorial Board of the New York Times. As a history major myself, I am wondering why the ED, especially those who studied history, are just now coming forward with their distaste for Wilson? Certainly they must have known all along that Wilson was a vicious and despicable racist. Why didn't they bring this to our attention sooner? It would never have surfaced as an issue, if the students at Princeton had not started to complain about it. That fact in and of itself shows that the furor over Wilson a non-issue. There are more important things facing this nation than Wilson's racist past.
The students at Princeton need to get over it and go to class and learn something. If I had a student there and they were involved in this stupidity, I would be very angry to see my money going down the drain to pay for their Ivy League education. I would suggest perhaps that they come home, get a job, and learn something about the real world, not the imaginary world taught in the Ivy tower. Perhaps after a year or two in the real world, they can return to the university with a clearer head and a better appreciation of how people truly live their lives. Cheers!
The students at Princeton need to get over it and go to class and learn something. If I had a student there and they were involved in this stupidity, I would be very angry to see my money going down the drain to pay for their Ivy League education. I would suggest perhaps that they come home, get a job, and learn something about the real world, not the imaginary world taught in the Ivy tower. Perhaps after a year or two in the real world, they can return to the university with a clearer head and a better appreciation of how people truly live their lives. Cheers!
2
The ravenous appetite for political correctness on the Left has become comical! Wilson was a hero of the Liberal (rebranded Progressive) movement. Until recently, the Times, and their flock of lemmings considered only Republicans racist demagogues. Guess you've run out of historical figures on the right to tarnish. Keep it going - eat your own....the Country needs this.
5
So why stop at Woodrow Wilson? The US has been a racist and sexist country since it's founding. Only white protestant males who owned land could vote in the beginning. Women were not allowed to attend most colleges until the 1900s. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners - are we going to rename cities? Andrew Jackson was responsible for murder and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans equal to Milosevic. FDR ordered the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. I'm sure there are many other examples. Princeton is a private university, so they can do what they want, but where will it stop?
2
Holy cow. You'd think they were talking about having his books burnt by the hangman in the public square. What's in contemplation is changing the name of the program from the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs, a subject about which, incidentally, Wilson knew less than Neville Chamberlain knew about military preparedness. Of course change it. There's no reason to keep it.
2
Let sleeping dogs lie.
He was a president. He didn't see the world as it is today . And he made some very bad calls.
Or should we dig up his body and shoot him just to make sure he is dead.
Or should we just blame the sun that through evolution made us different.
This is getting just plain silly.
He was a president. He didn't see the world as it is today . And he made some very bad calls.
Or should we dig up his body and shoot him just to make sure he is dead.
Or should we just blame the sun that through evolution made us different.
This is getting just plain silly.
2
French Revolution redux. Power is shifting. No old white people allowed. Off with their heads. New calendar, new holidays, history rewritten, the inmates run the prison.
4
Henry Ford sent a peace ship to Europe just before the outbreak of The Great War. As I remember, he was prejudged against black folks. Remind me. As you in the press and elsewhere shift our perspectives, new data arrives. I had no idea how women got the vote until I saw a feminist movie. "Got him!" was one memorable line. Apparently Wilson introduced the requisite amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a war measure -- but mostly because he was afraid of women starving themselves to death in our prisons.
1
I think it happened after the Armistice was signed, and I doubt that women starving in our prisons would have worried him much.
The problem is that Wilson acted out his hatred, harming others. Once this line is crossed, how can we forgive him?
1
Wilson has probably been the most over rated President. Not only was he a racist who acted on his beliefs, but most of the progressive actions credited to his administration were initiated by Teddy Roosevelt; his proposal for a League of Nations while laudable was never enacted by his own country, and the Treaty Agreements ending WWI not only fell far short of his enumerated goals, but actually laid the ground for WWII
3
Revisionist history, if ever it was written.
We can never know how we would have acted during the same historical era. We'd all like to think that we would have stood up to the Nazis in Germany, or fought for civil rights when no one else was. But the reality is that it is unfair to put our current knowledge and understanding of the world on the backs of long-dead, imperfect people. It's important to tell the entire story of
Woodrow Wilson, and in no way should their good outshine their flaws. Tell the whole human story honestly and in a straightforward way.
Woodrow Wilson, and in no way should their good outshine their flaws. Tell the whole human story honestly and in a straightforward way.
2
The "toxic legacy" of an "unrepentant racist", Woodrow Wilson, is an astonishing description by the NYT of an icon for progressive liberalism. Under no circumstances should the historical truth be hidden from the disinfectant qualities of the sunlight, but there should at least be a semblance of balance in your vicious rebuke of a past President of Princeton University and the United States of America. Providing an historical perspective is necessary for a complete understanding of any issue, a fact which the NYT has not provided it's readers. If I were to use the Editorial Board's arguments for removing Wilson's name from the Princeton campus, I would also never drive a Ford (Henry Ford was an unrepentant anti-semite) or never read the New York Times again as the past publisher of the NYT, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, systematically refused to write about the horrors of the Holocaust. I should also throw away all of my $20 bills (picture of Andrew Jackson), petition to remove Ty Cobb from the Baseball Hall of Fame, or refuse a Rhodes scholarship. Under no circumstances should Wilson's view on race be accepted in 2015,1915 or 1715, but historical perspective must be placed in its proper context. This editorial is an affront to the principles of higher education and the integrity of a newspaper once considered a beacon for knowledge - now a partisan rag used to inflame the sensibilities of a populace on the razors's edge.
5
I am ashamed to say that I was unaware of this part of American history. It seems like a no-brainer for Princeton to expunge anything laudatory regarding this man.
1
And do you know anything else at all about the achievements of Woodrow Wilson?
1
"In 1948...Black Americans were still viewed as nonpersons in the eyes of the state..." Is this true? Surely they had citizenship and (outside the South) voting rights?
I have to admit, this view of Wilson is new to me, and appalling if true.
Could a compromise be reached? Rename the School and building something like "Wilson and Davis" or "Wilson and King"?
I have to admit, this view of Wilson is new to me, and appalling if true.
Could a compromise be reached? Rename the School and building something like "Wilson and Davis" or "Wilson and King"?
1
King didn't have very nice things to say about homosexuals. Should we rename everything that has kings name attached to it too? I don't think so.
4
If all of this energy was put to educating people about thinned to respect all o f us, whatever the religion, color, background, etc. We cannot redo the past, but were can work hard to redo the future. We need to learn more about each other and realize that we all have good things to contribute. Is there anyone out there who does not have long held opinions that are negative (i.e., distrust Catholics and Jews, same for black people, etc.)? Prejudice exists in too many of us; recognize it and reject it out of hand for a better future!
2
Reading the comments I'm struck by how little the average Times' reader knows about Woodrow Wilson. For example, Wilson departed the US for Paris in Dec. of 1918 to be there for the January conference in Versailles. He did not reuturn to the United States until July of 1919. The President spent 6+ months out of the United States & without a single representative of the opposition party in his delegation, hence it was not unpredictable that the Republican members of Congress would not embrace the League of Nations with open arms.
It's an interesting discussion. We don't want to forget the historical contributions of those who were otherwise flawed (as in, "all of us"). We also don't want people who suffer even to this day for those past injustices to be surrounded by echoes of racist messages.
It would be hard to take away credit from Wilson for his work for international peace, and Princeton can hardly just choose another former Princeton president, NJ governor and U.S. president to replace his name. Perhaps the name of the residence area could be changed to that of someone whose name symbolizes progress in human rights.
For those of us who have the privilege of reflecting on the complexities of humans and our history, we don't have to just remember the positive contributions and ignore the rest. We can be aware of both. For those who don't, we must be careful of the symbols with which we surround ourselves.
It would be hard to take away credit from Wilson for his work for international peace, and Princeton can hardly just choose another former Princeton president, NJ governor and U.S. president to replace his name. Perhaps the name of the residence area could be changed to that of someone whose name symbolizes progress in human rights.
For those of us who have the privilege of reflecting on the complexities of humans and our history, we don't have to just remember the positive contributions and ignore the rest. We can be aware of both. For those who don't, we must be careful of the symbols with which we surround ourselves.
The Editorial Board is advocating a dangerous action here: evaluating historical figures using a contemporary moral lens. Yes, it is possible that current analysis may render some previously regarded figure as undeserving, but that really is not the case with President Wilson.
First off, Wilson's racism is well known, or certainly should be know, by those at Princeton. He governed and died nearly a hundred years ago. No one is pointing to some recently discovered documents that shed new light on the scope of his bigotry. Pardon me for a moment, but saying Wilson was a racist, even using an early 20th Century perspective, is tantamount to saying the sky is blue.
Second, his racist views do not directly detract from his work in establishing the League of Nations, the Federal Reserve, advocating women's suffrage, or working as a Progressive reformer. This resume is likely what earned him the distinction at Princeton anyway, not necessarily his social position.
Lastly, most adults should recognize historical and personal complexity. In short, people who do amazing things, such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, had various problems or held views that the modern mind may find abhorrent. Though time should not excuse bad behavior, it should help put it in perspective.
Though the University president and trustees should engage students and take their complaints seriously, I certainly hope they do not bend to their ultimate demands or to the Times' editorial board.
First off, Wilson's racism is well known, or certainly should be know, by those at Princeton. He governed and died nearly a hundred years ago. No one is pointing to some recently discovered documents that shed new light on the scope of his bigotry. Pardon me for a moment, but saying Wilson was a racist, even using an early 20th Century perspective, is tantamount to saying the sky is blue.
Second, his racist views do not directly detract from his work in establishing the League of Nations, the Federal Reserve, advocating women's suffrage, or working as a Progressive reformer. This resume is likely what earned him the distinction at Princeton anyway, not necessarily his social position.
Lastly, most adults should recognize historical and personal complexity. In short, people who do amazing things, such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, had various problems or held views that the modern mind may find abhorrent. Though time should not excuse bad behavior, it should help put it in perspective.
Though the University president and trustees should engage students and take their complaints seriously, I certainly hope they do not bend to their ultimate demands or to the Times' editorial board.
3
If we begin retroactively assessing the sins of those sufficiently prominent to have public (or even private) buildings named after them and, based on our own current discovery of their holding values that differ from our own at the moment, insist on banishing that "honor", where will be begin...and end? And by what criteria will we establish the cutoff line for keeping or not keeping a name? Who will decide? The loudest, the most fervent, the most media-savvy, the wisest, the most understanding, the...?
We are already on the eve of a police state when people like Trump unapologetically call for citizens to start spying and reporting on their neighbors, all in the name of safety. Better, I think, for the students and faculty who work or live in a "Wilson" building, to be ever reminded that anyone (even they) might use their power at the service of their own biases, and learn how to recognize and control any such abuses in themselves, in current events, and in emerging trends rather than in historical (and xenophobic) witch-hunting.
We are already on the eve of a police state when people like Trump unapologetically call for citizens to start spying and reporting on their neighbors, all in the name of safety. Better, I think, for the students and faculty who work or live in a "Wilson" building, to be ever reminded that anyone (even they) might use their power at the service of their own biases, and learn how to recognize and control any such abuses in themselves, in current events, and in emerging trends rather than in historical (and xenophobic) witch-hunting.
2
I think there is a difference between behaving in a way that was accepted for men of their stature at the time (e.g., owning slaves) and actively trying to turn time back by directly harm African Americans who had earned positions of stature after the civil war. These people had apparently attained their positions legitimately and were accepted in their workplaces until Wilson demoted them for no other reason than the color of their skin. This goes way beyond simply acquiescing to how business was done and I agree his name should be removed, especially from a school of public affairs! Thanks to the Princeton students for educating so many of us who were ignorant of this side of Wilson.
1
Yes, Wilson's racism was not and is not a pardonable sin.
As you noted Wilson's racism set back the cause of Civil Rights
for a hundred years.
As you noted Wilson's racism set back the cause of Civil Rights
for a hundred years.
2
This is more than one man's personal failing. This man was the top executive in our land. He used his elected power to reach down into the agencies he controlled, singling out people to eliminate solely on the basis of the color of their skin. They, too, were part of "we, the people." I was appalled to learn this about one of our presidents.
5
To understand Wilson's view of African Americans, watch The Birth of A Nation. He loved that racist movie and held multiple White House screenings.
So you've somehow managed to neglect Wilson's significant domestic achievements like creating the Federal Reserve and trademark liberalism in his views of self-determination during World War I. Being an otherwise stellar president does not excuse racism, but I would think it might bear mentioning. And while we strip Woodrow off these buildings, we'd better get Abe and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson off our buildings and our currency as well. News flash: racism and slavery are a huge part of America's legacy. Rather than attempting to gloss over the names of our American heroes, we need to discuss the controversies and figure out how to solve racism today. Princeton students need to stop whining and you, as an editorial board, need to stop turning America's complicated history into a simple conflict between black and white.
1
It would be illuminating (and clever) for tomorrow's Times Editorial to be, "The Case FOR Woodrow Wilson," and present a defense to balance today's prosecution AGAINST WW. The final judge and jury in this case, of course, is Princeton's Board of Trustees - but Times will have served the learned court of public opinion well.
The Board of Trustees will go the way of this edotorial. Who do you think populates these boards? They are all inclusive. To the extent that there remains an old, white male guard - and there does not - they would be powerless to change it.
Another racist southern white Democrat bites the dust. On deck, Andrew Jackson's place on the $20 bill. If there's anything in DC named after Robert Bird, let's change that. The Democrat Party has an awful history.
Another racist southern white Democrat bites the dust. On deck, Andrew Jackson's place on the $20 bill. If there's anything in DC named after Robert Bird, let's change that. The Democrat Party has an awful history.
So, Wilson was a racist. What then do you call the Founding Fathers who actually owned other human beings- including the "Father of His Country"? One needs to judge a public figure's worth based on the totality of their work not just one aspect- however execrable.
4
Thank you NYT; until the students protested, I hadn't know about Wilson's bigotry and active campaign to re-segregate the civil service. Our institutions of learning can't be both simultaneously welcoming to all and at the same time commemorating racist practices.
1
I hope liberals continue on this P/C crusade. By the end of it they will come to realize that all of their heroes (Margaret Sanger, Wilson, Roosevelt (both of them), Jackson, LBJ, ) and most of their institutions, not the least of which the Democrat Party, you know, the party of slavery(?), were repugnant, racist, and un-American at just about every level.
My favorite is Margaret Sanger. As the liberal author Edwin Black devastatingly points out in his must read "War Against the Weak", she wasn't pro-abortion (actually thought it immoral), but was for keeping "human weeds" (blacks, Mexicans, other third world types) from procreating via getting them fixed. Using government force.
A repulsive movement deserves its heroes and for the left they are plentiful. Strip their names off all the public buildings and quit holding your annual fundraising dinners in their names. Oh, and have Hillary return her Margaret Sanger award.
My favorite is Margaret Sanger. As the liberal author Edwin Black devastatingly points out in his must read "War Against the Weak", she wasn't pro-abortion (actually thought it immoral), but was for keeping "human weeds" (blacks, Mexicans, other third world types) from procreating via getting them fixed. Using government force.
A repulsive movement deserves its heroes and for the left they are plentiful. Strip their names off all the public buildings and quit holding your annual fundraising dinners in their names. Oh, and have Hillary return her Margaret Sanger award.
3
Surveys of academics, even in recent years, rate Wilson quite highly. In 2015, the American Political Science Association polled scholars specializing in the presidency who rated Wilson tenth among all presidents. In January 2013, when he was still writing for the Times, Nate Silver calculated a composite ranking of similar surveys of scholars, ranking Wilson seventh. While he seems to be dropping, Wilson is still rated highly among the best presidents by those most knowledgeable about the presidency. There seems quite a disconnect here.
2
I am a lifelong liberal, but after reading this editorial I am seriously considering canceling my subscription. I can think of no one more appropriate to name Princeton's School of Public Policy after than a two-term President of the United States who was also a president of the university. Yes, his views on race are extremely objectionable but it's better to learn from his faults than to try to sweep them under the rug. Also, if Princeton sanitizes history by removing his name, the 'slippery slope' implications of such a decision are staggering.
The Times should be embarrassed by this editorial. As a subscriber, I certainly am.
The Times should be embarrassed by this editorial. As a subscriber, I certainly am.
12
I hate to think of what tests I will have to pass in the future, long after I'm dead. Pet owner? Fossil fuel user? Mark Twain reader? New York Times subscriber? There's no telling what sorts of shame I might be in for.
6
It is interesting that this effort is only being made for whites who were racist against blacks. I wonder what the reaction will be when there is a demand made to scrub the name of Malcolm X due to his anti-Semitism, homophobia and misogyny? If people who were bigots are going to be removed from their pedestal it needs to be done across the boards regardless of the race of the offender or whether there transgression was against blacks, Asians, Jews, gays, women, transgendered, etc. This movement will come to a screaming halt when it is applied to the large number of minority bigots who currently are hailed as heroes despite the large character flaws that are swept under the table.
4
Oh those poor people of the past! Jefferson, Shakespeare, Picasso, Austen, Leonardo, Plato, Mozart .. How sad that these naifs do not share the high morality and sensibilities we display every day.
4
Sad, but not surprising to see the NYT aligning itself with the identity politics hysteria now so prevalent on today's colleges.
We can remember, and condemn, Wilson's racist policies, but such efforts to expunge the man from history per whimsical academic trends is a slippery slope that can only take us to a very foolish and bad place.
We can remember, and condemn, Wilson's racist policies, but such efforts to expunge the man from history per whimsical academic trends is a slippery slope that can only take us to a very foolish and bad place.
3
As a Yalie and conservative Republican, part of me likes seeing Princeton and Wilson get their moment under the PC microscope. But let's just see this for what it is--faux moralizing by the NY Times editorial board. Wilson was important to Princeton and the country for a whole lot of reasons that had nothing to do with his racial positions which were the standard position of the Democratic Party at that time. If we take this logic any further, we will start removing Martin Luther King's name from monuments--after all he was an adulterous homophobe.
5
I agree. Wilson's legacy is a disgrace.
It is high time we admitted it. No historical context, or ethical "period dependent" framework can justify what was ultimately his personal free choice. Particularly from the seat of such power and influence as the President of the United States. The intellectual dishonesty, the stubborn refusal to see things from a more objective point of view, the clinging to his own personal whims in a way that was clearly detached from the progress of reality around him lead to the disgrace that is his legacy. It was his choice and it is time to erase it forever. Especially because many still suffer from it to this day.
I'm talking, of course, not about the nonsense in this article, but about the League of Nations which led to the U.N.- a black mark on our national consciousness, and a blot on the east shore of our city to this very day.
It is time for Princeton to remove his name, and more importantly, to move the building that represents his nefarious legacy just a few short blocks to the east.
It is high time we admitted it. No historical context, or ethical "period dependent" framework can justify what was ultimately his personal free choice. Particularly from the seat of such power and influence as the President of the United States. The intellectual dishonesty, the stubborn refusal to see things from a more objective point of view, the clinging to his own personal whims in a way that was clearly detached from the progress of reality around him lead to the disgrace that is his legacy. It was his choice and it is time to erase it forever. Especially because many still suffer from it to this day.
I'm talking, of course, not about the nonsense in this article, but about the League of Nations which led to the U.N.- a black mark on our national consciousness, and a blot on the east shore of our city to this very day.
It is time for Princeton to remove his name, and more importantly, to move the building that represents his nefarious legacy just a few short blocks to the east.
2
I think the problem with the arguments of those who analogize Wilson to Jefferson and other founders is that that founders (even Jefferson) wrestled with the issue of how to get away from racism and tried to find a way to deal with it. Wilson and his cohorts did not simply tolerate the status quo, they made it worse not only for blacks but for all who are not part of the racial majority. Bigotry - from Sacco and Vanzetti to the Rosenbergs to the current police brutality most recently seen in Chicago to the apparently acceptable bigotry reflected by the Republican candidates and governors - was not increased by the founders of the republic, but was enhanced and exacerbated by Wilson's racism.
1
If the history described in this editorial is accurate and reasonably complete, then the Times Editorial Board, and the many who feel similarly, are right. What Wilson believed and more importantly what he did goes beyond what can be forgiven by acknowledging the times in which he lived. He does not deserve to be honored.
I am just a little cynical, as, in contrast to most of Times' news coverage, the editorials tend to be selective in the facts they present. But if this piece is complete in its reporting, then its conclusion is correct. Woodrow Wilson did tremendous good, but he also did tremendous harm.
I am just a little cynical, as, in contrast to most of Times' news coverage, the editorials tend to be selective in the facts they present. But if this piece is complete in its reporting, then its conclusion is correct. Woodrow Wilson did tremendous good, but he also did tremendous harm.
What about a university named after a terrible sexual predator [55 wives] who also failed to prevent the murder of 130 men, women and children in the Mountain Meadow Massacre in 1857? Maybe it time to rename BYU from Brigham Young to LDS University.
2
The student protesters at Princeton have raised a valid set of issues. I was not aware that as recent and as famous a President as Woodrow Wilson was a racist who reversed a long-standing integration of black civil servants in the Federal government, and who thought the Ku Klux Klan was good and necessary. Yes, demote his status at Princeton, and take his name off of its many buildings and curricular programs.
My question now is when and where does this sort of action end? Many of the black relatives of those 9 dead at the hands of the Charleston church shooter, Dylann Roof, have forgiven him. At what point is this an appropriate response for the actions of the many, many racists in America's past?
Mythology is powerful. When we lionize people we cover up their failings. Certainly many progressive leaders had/have feet of clay. JFK had to be dragged into the Civil Rights fight, FDR pandered to Southern Democrats to get New Deal legislation, Bill Clinton was/is a misogynist who continues to disappoint, Truman pandered to the Missouri KKK, Robert Byrd was a member of the hooded hillbillies, no president seemed ready to take on J. Edgar Hoover who used the FBI to minimize civil rights organizations. Wilson is being targeted now. When will the young radicals start looking at institutions (NYT and others) who promoted wars, backed neanderthal political policies, and so on. It would have been outrageous to take the actions the Princeton radicals have taken just a generation ago. What happens when they come for you?
1
Was Woodrow Wilson truly unrepentant? He died in 1924, well before the dawn of the modern civil rights movement, a period during which many people came to terms with their prejudices. Most reasonable people would not think Wilson should be faulted for the misfortune of dying before having that opportunity for his own personal reassessment. Shame on the NYT Editorial Board for joining the Princeton students in such historical short-sightedness.
1
I had no idea Wilson used governmental policy to destroy the lives of our fellow citizens. How come this stuff was never included in my high school American History class? We should take his picture off of the $100,000, now that we know who the One-Percent got its advantages from!
Wilson wasn't particularly fond of Irish Catholics, either. Long nearly totally excluded, they are still under-represented today at Princeton.
We are repeated admonished to judge people by the standards of their times, not our time. By that standard, Wilson's egregious acts still stand out. We should compare him with Theodore Roosevelt, who appointed black postmasters in the south and had Booker T. Washington as his dinner guest in the White House, and compare him with his much maligned successor, Warren G. Harding, who tried to do what he could to protect the rights of black citizens. Wilson in an important historical figure, but in no way should he be honored.
2
Unlike other commentators, I find debates such as this very refreshing because it is evidence that even in this throw away world of Kardashians and their ilk, ideas - and ideals - are still important and worth debating. True, the racism and discrimination of the 20th century was far worse than it is today, but whatever the degree that exists today it is the racism and discrimination of the living and therefore cannot be dismissed using an historical context. The bottom line, however, is that all awards and honors are not about the recipient but the giver, in this case Princeton University. Wilson's racism make him a poor choice for honors in this situation, and his removal for that reason would say much about the university and be no less significant or appropriate than the recission of academic honors granted Bill Cosby.
6
Unfortunately, these protestors haven't the slightest interest in any debates, for they are utterly convinced that in all things they are right and any diverging opinion is wrong and must not be tolerated or even heard (lest distress be caused and a "safe place" be required at once!). They are naive hypocrites at best.
1
One year the AP Language free response question was whether historical wrongs can ever be righted. Interesting debate here. I try to make students understand how remarkable it was of Twain to see the injustice in slavery, immersed as he was in a time when all was so normal that he said of his own mother she was a Christian woman who never once questioned slavery. When you are born into a situation surrounding you every day, it is the unusual consciousness which perceives the outrageousness of the normal. Who among us has not looked back fifty years and been surprised at what once was considered normal as banality.
BRAVO NEW YORK TIMES!!!! In a modern world with increasingly more and more swords, lets hope (your) words continue to be mightier — as the paper's are. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I find it mildly ironic that the student protesters at Princeton demanding that Woodrow Wilson's name be removed from school of international affairs for racism have acquiesced to the implicit but blatant (and racist) quota Princeton and other elite Ivy League institutions have placed on Asian American enrollment. Unlike Wilson's racism, this racism is negatively and unfairly impacting large numbers of Asians today.
It's a bit unfair to paint with such a broad brushstroke but I also find these student movements protesting racism at these elite schools generally hollow. The vast majority of these students, whatever their race, come from the wealthiest 1 or 2% of American families and even more came from loving, supportive and highly educated families. These institutions are the greatest cluster of socioeconomic privilege perhaps anywhere. Why is Wall St. so bad and structural racism so abhorrent but this sort of lopsided socioeconomic distribution of benefits so, in their view, apparently copacetic? I assume of course if they found it problematic they would say something about it.
It's a bit unfair to paint with such a broad brushstroke but I also find these student movements protesting racism at these elite schools generally hollow. The vast majority of these students, whatever their race, come from the wealthiest 1 or 2% of American families and even more came from loving, supportive and highly educated families. These institutions are the greatest cluster of socioeconomic privilege perhaps anywhere. Why is Wall St. so bad and structural racism so abhorrent but this sort of lopsided socioeconomic distribution of benefits so, in their view, apparently copacetic? I assume of course if they found it problematic they would say something about it.
1
I understand why African Americans are are calling for President Wilson to be held accountable for the harm he did thier ancestors. It is an issue for Prince to address in a way that satisfies its students and alumni. Let them.
Wilsons legacy is marred by his racist behavior but it is polished by much more than hat he did to improve the nation and the world. History is complex. Most of america's best leaders are compromised by its origioal sin: salvery and racism, which was invented to justfy slavery. Addressing this complaints compassionately and justly is the challenge of our future.
Wilsons legacy is marred by his racist behavior but it is polished by much more than hat he did to improve the nation and the world. History is complex. Most of america's best leaders are compromised by its origioal sin: salvery and racism, which was invented to justfy slavery. Addressing this complaints compassionately and justly is the challenge of our future.
Why start with Princeton? Why not "unmake" him President of The United States? Then, we could all live in a utopian world where Woodrow Wilson had never been President. Wouldn't that be nice?
As others have stated, we need to remember and learn from our history, not try to recreate it.
As others have stated, we need to remember and learn from our history, not try to recreate it.
2
The suggestion by some that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners represents some equivalency vis-a-vis Wison's racist polices is ridiculous. Yes, they were salve owners, but Washington's will called for freeing his slaves, and Jefferson worked to end the slave trade in the hopes that the practice would end. Wilson on the other hand worked actively and assiduously to reverse the post-civil war progress that African-American's were making. I was stunned, and saddened, to read Gordon Davis' account of how Wison's white-supremacist administration caused his grandfather's demise .
2
Have you ever read the reflections of Jimmy Carter? Rudyard Kipling had nothing on his views.
2
Why stop there? Perhaps we should revoke the Washington and Jefferson Memorials on account of those men's racism as well. We could auction the renaming rights to some multi-national corporation. And let's rename all those streets while we're at it.
2
What happened to viewing people within the context of their times? we now demand perfection from every historical figure that is even considered for
an honor? who among us could withstand the same scrutiny today, let alone 100 years from now in a newer and very different environment? if we are going to go dpwn this questionable path, then lets go all in: pull down the Washington and Jefferson monuments for the slave ownership of their namesakes. remove all vestiges of most of the 19th century presidents for the horrible treatment of native americans - dont forget FDR, he waited too olong to get into WW2 despite the knowledge of Hitler's final solution. These people were human, with all of the frailtiies and errors that come with that. why not continue to celebrate their achievements AND at the same time use their mistakes as teachable moments?
an honor? who among us could withstand the same scrutiny today, let alone 100 years from now in a newer and very different environment? if we are going to go dpwn this questionable path, then lets go all in: pull down the Washington and Jefferson monuments for the slave ownership of their namesakes. remove all vestiges of most of the 19th century presidents for the horrible treatment of native americans - dont forget FDR, he waited too olong to get into WW2 despite the knowledge of Hitler's final solution. These people were human, with all of the frailtiies and errors that come with that. why not continue to celebrate their achievements AND at the same time use their mistakes as teachable moments?
1
The "slippery slope" argument supporting the keeping of Woodrow Wilson's name on an institution and a residential complex at Princeton is less than persuasive. The action requested of Princeton trustees is a limited one which in no reasonable reality could lead to the removal of all of the names of other "great men" in US history from things to honor them , although it should lead to specific discussions about the choosing of names for bridges, Post Offices, stretches of interstate highways and other excessive "honorings". It might also expand the discussion to honoring more people from communities which have been undervalued throughout history.
If the current mission statement of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs conflicts with the totality of the man's legacy, then those with the power to change the name should seriously weigh doing so--and make public their rationale for their decision.
On the other hand renaming a "residential complex" seems much less complex and a "why not" type of decision. If Princeton has a commitment to welcoming students from diverse communities, then keeping the name of an acknowledged racist/white supremacist is incompatible with that goal. Many of us remember well the fight against turning the male institutions of the Ivy League co-ed; the world didn't end when that happened.
If the current mission statement of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs conflicts with the totality of the man's legacy, then those with the power to change the name should seriously weigh doing so--and make public their rationale for their decision.
On the other hand renaming a "residential complex" seems much less complex and a "why not" type of decision. If Princeton has a commitment to welcoming students from diverse communities, then keeping the name of an acknowledged racist/white supremacist is incompatible with that goal. Many of us remember well the fight against turning the male institutions of the Ivy League co-ed; the world didn't end when that happened.
While we are about it, rename the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge over the Potomac, which connects Maryland and Virginia, two slave states.
1
If Donald Trump wins the Presidency, we will be repeating history, suggesting its cyclic nature. It's important to be aware of it and to guard against it, but not waste our time and resources trying to weed out all that have done wrong. The list is too long.
I wasn't aware of Wilson's unabashed racism - and the actions he took based on that racism. If this is all true, then we shouldn't flinch from updating our opinions and from renaming revered institutions to something more reverential.
No. You might just as well remove the Jefferson Memorial and raze Mount Vernon because both of those men were slave owners. Wilson was just as much a product of his times as Eisenhower was of his. We cannot separate men from their times and to argue against Wilson ignores too much for the sake of a one-size-fit-all view of history.
So, now it's Woodrow Wilson's turn to join the Pantheon of the elitist leaders and racists who have come to define the history of this great country. And it has only taken how long to discover this very dark, and not so secret past? Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson represents just the tip of a very large iceberg when it comes to the discriminatory practices that by and large, continue to go on unnoticed today. In that sense, it doesn't make much of a difference if the name of this preeminent institution changes its name, or not. But it's still a good start.
1
So now that we're in the business of recasting history, when will we start removing statuary and ignoring the achievements of everyone who has ever slighted the many members of MY minority - women?
3
Orwell Lives!
1
I'm surprised how many commenters here seem to be saying basically "his views were common at the time so we have no business judging him". Yet as this and several recent articles have shown, he was extremely racist _even for his time_. He rolled back advances made by African Americans. His views were _not_ part and parcel of his time -- they were awful, and contributed to much misery for many people. Yes he did some great things, but I don't think that means we should ignore the real damage he did.
2
Woodrow Wilson's racism is hardly news (but leave it to the Times to make the most of it). He represents the final stage in what historians of the South would call "redemption" (the retaking of political control from the northern forces). This surely did involve the re-institution of segregation at state and even Federal levels (SCOTUS had ruled that separate but equal satisfied the law). All this is lamentable. But presidents are human beings who have flaws. These we must way against their accomplishments, and Wilson had a great many to his credit. We acknowledge the flaws, but we also recognize the accomplishments, which is what Princeton should continue to do. Otherwise, we run the risk of a "sanitized history" something like expunging Stalin from Soviet academic writings.
1
This is, honestly, craziness in the extreme. President Wilson is "unrepentant" mainly because he has been dead through the revolution in the way our whole nation deals with race. Singing out the president who truly died for his country, who did everything any person could to try to prevent the Second World War after the horrors of the one he reluctantly led us into, and who laid the seeds for the New Deal that a member of his administration, Franklin D Roosevelt, put into place in the wake of the Depression, is wrong, wrong, wrong. Probably more than anyone else President Wilson was the man who established the idea that the federal government is not just some extra layer to back up the states, but can lead in many areas. He was a racist, certainly, and a native of the South, where the culture was even more racist than the the rest of the country (quite racist, too). But he was hardly alone in that. Judging one of our most important presidents by the standards of 2015 is ridiculous in the extreme.
2
I have to say, when I first read about this kerfuffle, I thought, "here we ago again, judging a man without consideration to the times in which he lived." However, I had no idea of the level of pernicious racism that guided Wilson's thoughts and actions. I hereby retract my earlier criticism, and agree that, while he has many noble attributes, this particular legacy makes him unworthy of the elevated stature that he and his name enjoy at Princeton.
1
Val in Brooklyn, NY
I cannot thank the New York Times Editorial Board enough for this. Bravo!
Acknowledgement. Education. Enlightenment. Healing. Respect.
That's the recipe for the balm needed here and you have provided it regarding the subject of Woodrow Wilson's "legacy." Reminders and refreshers of a complete truth are always better than complacency--for everyone.
Submitted 11-25-15@10:57 a.m. EST
I cannot thank the New York Times Editorial Board enough for this. Bravo!
Acknowledgement. Education. Enlightenment. Healing. Respect.
That's the recipe for the balm needed here and you have provided it regarding the subject of Woodrow Wilson's "legacy." Reminders and refreshers of a complete truth are always better than complacency--for everyone.
Submitted 11-25-15@10:57 a.m. EST
1
Comparison with a more contemporary figure would be J Edgar Hoover. The FBI is planning to build to a new HQ building and the question for them more so than for Princeton is whether to continue to honor the legacy of its most notorious as well as notable and longest-serving director by identifying their HQ with him, or to begin afresh with a name that symbolizes the FBI's commitment to uphold the law and serve the public. The choice for the FBI is much less complicated than the dilemma Princeton faces.
1
Truman ordered an end to segregation within the US military in 1948. A counterpart of Wilson's actions would be as if Eisenhower or a subsequent President had reversed Truman's policy together with a policy to discriminate, e.g., demotions and other biased actions against black soldiers and officers. Wilson's attempts to create a lasting peace after WW1 are noteworthy but his attempts failed; his racist actions are also noteworthy and had long-term damaging effects. I wonder to what extent his racist policy ricocheted and damaged his credibility on the world stage and brought about his subsequent failure? That his racist policy inflicted damage isn't the question; rather, if there is a question to be addressed it should be on how severe was the damage ... IMHO, it was unimaginably horrific.
"The overwhelming weight of the evidence argues for rescinding the honor that the university bestowed decades ago on an unrepentant racist"
So that is what Wilson was in the NYT nutshell? That's it? That's a lie.
The NYT is the leader of the political correctness brigade, which is at its root, a great mind control game that I resent. You are also guilty of "presentism" which is the interpretation of the past (really, the judgment of the past) through the eyes of the present. It is distortion, nothing less.
I am not a Donald Trump fan but I agree with him that we should blast political correctness out of the sky. It is for weak people that can't handle the truth or the past, and who try to rewrite it.
So that is what Wilson was in the NYT nutshell? That's it? That's a lie.
The NYT is the leader of the political correctness brigade, which is at its root, a great mind control game that I resent. You are also guilty of "presentism" which is the interpretation of the past (really, the judgment of the past) through the eyes of the present. It is distortion, nothing less.
I am not a Donald Trump fan but I agree with him that we should blast political correctness out of the sky. It is for weak people that can't handle the truth or the past, and who try to rewrite it.
2
So the NYT is now the morality police. I can't wait to read the Editorial asking President Obama to give back his Nobel Peace Prize for Killing innocents with drones. Killing innocents is worse than racist views. Right NYT?
9
Following the same thought, everything with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's name on it should be removed as well. He ordered the physical removal of all Japanese Americans into internment camps during World World 2, and he was a proven racist as well:
"FDR’s office also reportedly sent invitations to the White House to white athletes following the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games—four-time gold medal winner Jesse Owens never got the invite.
“Hitler didn’t snub me—it was our president who snubbed me,” Owens said while stumping for Alf Landon, the Republican candidate running against Roosevelt in 1936. “The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/11/04/sorry-ben-stein-these-forme...
Will the democratic party distance themselves from their liberal icon?
"FDR’s office also reportedly sent invitations to the White House to white athletes following the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games—four-time gold medal winner Jesse Owens never got the invite.
“Hitler didn’t snub me—it was our president who snubbed me,” Owens said while stumping for Alf Landon, the Republican candidate running against Roosevelt in 1936. “The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/11/04/sorry-ben-stein-these-forme...
Will the democratic party distance themselves from their liberal icon?
2
OK, why don't we just name everything after Jesus, Socrates, the Buddha, and Mohammed -- oh, and Jeanne d'Arc?
As numerous commenters have written, WW was a deeply flawed man, and it has never been a secret. The problem with "cleaning up" history in this manner is that we make it more difficult for our children to learn from our past. Wilson is not being honored by Princeton for his racism but for his (admittedly controversial and sometimes pigheaded) idealistic visions for the future of the geopolitical world. And in any case, Wilson is only the object of the moment: the real issue is how we deal with the complexities of our human history. This NYT editorial is not helpful in this effort.
As numerous commenters have written, WW was a deeply flawed man, and it has never been a secret. The problem with "cleaning up" history in this manner is that we make it more difficult for our children to learn from our past. Wilson is not being honored by Princeton for his racism but for his (admittedly controversial and sometimes pigheaded) idealistic visions for the future of the geopolitical world. And in any case, Wilson is only the object of the moment: the real issue is how we deal with the complexities of our human history. This NYT editorial is not helpful in this effort.
3
What is next, changing the name of Washington D.C. and Washington State because George Washington owned slaves?
It is finally time for the NYT to get someone on the Editorial Board to stand up to the bullies in America today. Stop trying to change history. You can't take something from decades and centuries ago and try and rewrite or apologize for acts that were legal then and make our forefathers bigots and racists based on today's mores.
This over sensitivity to things that don't matter today is appalling. Regardless of their sins, many of those who fought and sacrificed and built the United States made mistakes based on today's values. That does not make them lesser men. The NYT Editorial Board may be judged as racist, bigoted, and downright unintelligent in a hundred years for it's stance on many arguments if people in that time have different values.
Our world history is filled with stories of men who made mistakes and still did what was considered brave and strong and heroic. That's what helps to make them heroes. They are proof that we can fail and still help others.
Don't help pull down heroes. We can acknowledge their faults without destroying what they did that was important. You can't expect every hero we have to have evolved morals when they lived in the 1800's, 1900's, etc. We are who we are brought up to be based on the times we live in.
The Editorial Board would do well to remember that.
It is finally time for the NYT to get someone on the Editorial Board to stand up to the bullies in America today. Stop trying to change history. You can't take something from decades and centuries ago and try and rewrite or apologize for acts that were legal then and make our forefathers bigots and racists based on today's mores.
This over sensitivity to things that don't matter today is appalling. Regardless of their sins, many of those who fought and sacrificed and built the United States made mistakes based on today's values. That does not make them lesser men. The NYT Editorial Board may be judged as racist, bigoted, and downright unintelligent in a hundred years for it's stance on many arguments if people in that time have different values.
Our world history is filled with stories of men who made mistakes and still did what was considered brave and strong and heroic. That's what helps to make them heroes. They are proof that we can fail and still help others.
Don't help pull down heroes. We can acknowledge their faults without destroying what they did that was important. You can't expect every hero we have to have evolved morals when they lived in the 1800's, 1900's, etc. We are who we are brought up to be based on the times we live in.
The Editorial Board would do well to remember that.
3
Political correctness is so borish at this point. Many people wont read the NYTs because of their over-the-top liberal bias. Our cultural views are often products that change over time. Would any of us of a certain age want to be judged on all of our political and cultural opinions from decades ago? I feel mine have evolved for the better. As society became more empathetic to diversity, norms changed for the better. Will Hillary and our current president be erased from history because they once opposed gay marriage?
4
We can probably find something nefarious in the backgrounds of just about everyone that something is named after.
Going forward, I propose naming places and things after cartoon characters, Mickey, Minnie, Bugs, Jughead, Alfred E. Newman.
Going forward, I propose naming places and things after cartoon characters, Mickey, Minnie, Bugs, Jughead, Alfred E. Newman.
2
I feel that a heaven bound Woodrow Wilson would agree that in his last incarnation he came up way short due to his campaign to disenfranchise a portion of the population that he was upheld to serve and protect. I feel that he would consider the removal of his name from the Princeton buildings as an act of love, and more than anyone else would approve it.
Wilson was a racist, but how far does the NYT wish to go in redressing the gross imperfections of our historical leaders and heroes . Franklin Roosevelt chose not to save thousands of Jews during WWII ... how should we rewrite his history beyond renaming the FDR highway here in NYC. Washington was a slave owner, shall we remove his name from the 240 towns and 26 cities named for him? 1300 Princeton students called for a more meaningful dialogue than the revisionism NYT encourages in this editorial. I'm with the 1300.
2
Your commentary is written in splendid isolation of everything else Wilson did as president. As if his whole tenure was spent on demoting African Americans. In many countries he is remembered as the one who stopped the carnage of World War I and tried to establish a new world order based on treaties and arbitration without the use of force. Your op-ed is not a "case against Woodrow Wilson" - its a nasty caricature. I would expect more of NYT
3
"The overwhelming weight of the evidence argues for rescinding the honor that the university bestowed decades ago on an unrepentant racist."
Yikes! If we start using the "unrepetentant racist" test for disqualification of current admiration and honorifics there are an awful lot of institutions that will need to change there name...Schools, highways, libraries, and a boat load of military bases.
Mr. Wilson's legacy in international affairs is to be admired. His domestic policy..Not so much.
Yikes! If we start using the "unrepetentant racist" test for disqualification of current admiration and honorifics there are an awful lot of institutions that will need to change there name...Schools, highways, libraries, and a boat load of military bases.
Mr. Wilson's legacy in international affairs is to be admired. His domestic policy..Not so much.
1
We've lost our minds wanting to scrub clean anything from the past that does not fit neatly into our narrative of what we deem to be right and good and true from our 21st century perch. Are we now communist China where we insist on writing the narrative of our forefathers?
3
Next the students will want the university to change it's name to "Peopleston" because someone will dig up a the names of a number of princes who were racist.
2
As a native of New Jersey, I am embarrassed that I know so little about this part of American history. As a woman who is fortunate to be well-read and have spent many years in higher education, I am surprised that this is just coming to light. Just goes to show, the ability of the winners to write history ensures their place at the top for much longer than many of them deserve to be.
Thank you to these young people for bringing this to our attention. Wilson's level of bigotry seems excessive, even a hundred years ago during a time of changing attitudes towards race.
Thank you to these young people for bringing this to our attention. Wilson's level of bigotry seems excessive, even a hundred years ago during a time of changing attitudes towards race.
2
Some commentators' callousness is part of the problem. The reality is that we live in a society where we can no longer wash the sins of our past. In this age of technology, history is no longer written by the victor. We shouldn't turn the other cheek for past transgressions, otherwise we risk having history repeat itself.
3
Woodrow Wilson was a racist but a great man. George Washington was a great man but a slave owner as was Thomas Jefferson. Franklin Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Martin Luther King were great men but all were adulterers. Earl Warren was probably the best Supreme Court Justice we have ever had but he was instrumental in the Japanese Interment.
If we are to remove all recognition to great men and women who have moral defects, we will have no one left to honor.
Lets remember Wilson as the man who led us in the First World War and created the League of Nations, not as a racist just as we remember Martin Luther King as a great civil rights leader and not as an adulterer.
If we are to remove all recognition to great men and women who have moral defects, we will have no one left to honor.
Lets remember Wilson as the man who led us in the First World War and created the League of Nations, not as a racist just as we remember Martin Luther King as a great civil rights leader and not as an adulterer.
1
Every human being comes with a balance sheet - some assets, some liabilities. We are starting to focus largely on the debit side, I fear, with little balance in applying judgment.
And every life must be evaluated in the social context in which it was lived, the values and mores of the time - we might now smugly believe that there are unchangeable, absolute, universal values that endure forever, but I would love to see what people 100 years from now think of ours.
Where do we stop? Should we oppose Homo Sapiens because they committed genocide on Neaderthals? Let us cherish where we have come from, blemishes and all. We are all only people, not Gods, and we are all products of our times.
And every life must be evaluated in the social context in which it was lived, the values and mores of the time - we might now smugly believe that there are unchangeable, absolute, universal values that endure forever, but I would love to see what people 100 years from now think of ours.
Where do we stop? Should we oppose Homo Sapiens because they committed genocide on Neaderthals? Let us cherish where we have come from, blemishes and all. We are all only people, not Gods, and we are all products of our times.
2
Lincoln said that he was for whites having the superior position to blacks and that they were not and could not be social and political evils? Maybe some day his memorial will be gone too. Maybe the capital will no longer be named Washington, after a slave holder, or district of Columbia, after a man who today would be considered a monster. In the end, it is the school's choice what to do and others' choice as to what relationship to have with them. The school should consider protests, but I do not think give in to coercion. Make their choice and let others make theirs.
3
Smacks terribly of unmitigated PC-ness. Let's discuss the whole man... the really visionary, as well as the horribly mistaken. We might see ourselves, and understand the path to our own better selves. See Kathleen Parker in today's WaPo.
1
Wilson's racism did very real damage in this country. So what if the name of the Wilson institute were retained -- to placate the traditionalists -- but its purpose entirely redirected to addressing and ameliorating Wilson's legacy of economic oppression and unequal opportunity for African-Americans at home and all non-whites here and abroad? The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs could become a well-funded, influential think tank for the Black Lives Matter movement. It could examine and address racial discrimination in consumer loans and in hiring practices. It could find a solution to the bonds that link race and poverty in this country. It could address any and all race- color-, and creed-based inequities and injustices that plague the world today, up to and including the proclamations by Republican governors barring Syrian and Iraqi refugees from settling in their states.
Let old Woodrow make his name anew as a real agent of positive change in the lives of people of color everywhere.
Let old Woodrow make his name anew as a real agent of positive change in the lives of people of color everywhere.
1
Clearly a nasty misguided man with an antiquated social philosophy. Nevertheless, taking the view from 100 years on, should we rename Washington DC because our first President was a slave holder? I don't know what the correct answer to handing Mr. Wilson's legacy should be. A complex issue demonstrating that the teaching of American history remains filtered by rose colored glasses. There is an ugly underbelly to all societies. We need to illuminate our past honestly to learn from it.
2
In addition, Woodrow Wilson's Administration was complicit in illegal tactics used against suffragists trying to gain the right to vote for women. He did nothing to assist the suffragists until they forced him to through many years of nonviolent protests that put their lives in danger. (Some attempts to rewrite history have him as a savior; he was not.) Naming a school of public policy after this man also is an insult to all women.
1
As noted below, in many comments, we cannot go about righting wrongs of the past by applying current standards.
5
This childish editorial by the NYT is over the top. Should I judge them and all their supporters for typing on phones and computers they know were made by slaves. Or how about feeding their pets food that was made by slaves on fishing boats? Or how about we ruin FDR's name for rounding up Japanese? Maybe Obama for killing innocents with drones. Lincoln for racist comments. Washington for owning slaves. Oh, and Disney which owns Star Wars was an anti-semite. I guess if you watch ESPN or Dancing with the stars you are supporting Disney. The NYT is no longer run by adults but it appears childish college students who type on the slave made phones are really calling the shots over there. Rule 1 of any serious historian. NEVER judge prior generations by today's standards.
11
"Or how about we ruin FDR's name for rounding up Japanese? " Well, did he or did he not? If he did, then he is accountable for it. Period. And I don't care how long ago he died.
You don't want to be held accountable? Watch your act. That's all there is to it.
You don't want to be held accountable? Watch your act. That's all there is to it.
1
We can't go around renaming everything in America (or whatever we might call it based on say the language spoken by native peoples in what is now Massachusetts, Manhattan Island or Virginia, say) because of abuses done at various times in the past by people we are now descended from. Learn from history, discuss it, and go from there. But once you go down this slippery slope there is no end to it.
3
This is the most appalling thing the Times has ever printed. I am truly outraged that the Times has decided that we now must judge past leaders based on the principals we believe today because children who have neither the experience or wisdom to judge anyone demand it. No leader from the past can withstand such scrutiny. Would we remove the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument because they owned slaves? Woodrow Wilson is one of the leading progressive Presidents of his time or any other and led this country through a World War. As President of Princeton, he revitalized the institution.
And yes, he was a racist who segregated the civil service. He was a man of his time Segregation was as common a practice back then as Slavery was during the founding. You must teach every aspect of his life and character and judge the entirety of it within the context of his time. That is what fair-minded people would do. Any fair-minded person would judge that Woodrow Wilson has earned the honorariums Princeton has given him. You can’t erase racism by erasing the past; the editors should know that. How is what the students are trying to do different from Texas school boards rewriting textbooks? What has happened to this paper that I have read all my life?
What the students and the Times want to do is petty, hateful and vicious. Why not do something positive like finding a prominent black Princetonian or New Jerseyite to name a building after instead of tearing down a great man.
And yes, he was a racist who segregated the civil service. He was a man of his time Segregation was as common a practice back then as Slavery was during the founding. You must teach every aspect of his life and character and judge the entirety of it within the context of his time. That is what fair-minded people would do. Any fair-minded person would judge that Woodrow Wilson has earned the honorariums Princeton has given him. You can’t erase racism by erasing the past; the editors should know that. How is what the students are trying to do different from Texas school boards rewriting textbooks? What has happened to this paper that I have read all my life?
What the students and the Times want to do is petty, hateful and vicious. Why not do something positive like finding a prominent black Princetonian or New Jerseyite to name a building after instead of tearing down a great man.
2
I am surprised by all the educated commenters here who right that they never hear of any of this. "Why didn't they teach it at my school? or my college?"
I suspect they did and you were not listening.
I am 71 and I knew this by the time I was 12. My dad was a Wilson skeptic who saw him as as a feckless idealist in international affairs, preaching self-determination with no intention of pursuing it.
My high school history teacher taught us about the degree of "southern-ness" that came into the White House with Wilson (in contrast with the largely abolitionist background of New England presidents, esp TR).
My freshman college American Government course with Clinton Rossiter dwelt on the "two faces of Woodrow Wilson" at some length. Rossiter enjoyed pointing out the foibles of famous men.
So, back to the point.
I suspect "they" told you. And you were not listening.
I suspect they did and you were not listening.
I am 71 and I knew this by the time I was 12. My dad was a Wilson skeptic who saw him as as a feckless idealist in international affairs, preaching self-determination with no intention of pursuing it.
My high school history teacher taught us about the degree of "southern-ness" that came into the White House with Wilson (in contrast with the largely abolitionist background of New England presidents, esp TR).
My freshman college American Government course with Clinton Rossiter dwelt on the "two faces of Woodrow Wilson" at some length. Rossiter enjoyed pointing out the foibles of famous men.
So, back to the point.
I suspect "they" told you. And you were not listening.
5
While these facts were not hidden, as another commenter pointed out this is not stuff they go out of their way to teach you in school. Which tells you something about inherent bias in our educational curricula.
I do think there is a legitimate place for discussion of whether it is a good idea to take down all the monuments to anyone who was not perfect or nearly so, or whether there is another way to recognize and appreciate the contributions of those who came before us while not denying that many of them were flawed. I know people who have seriously advocated changing the name of Pennsylvania, and I am not sure we can go there.
That being said, I feel -- with sadness -- that this is the right decision as to Mr. Wilson. I wish the skeletons in his closet were more ambiguous ones. But they are not. It may not be entirely rational, but to me the idea of re-segregating the civil service is more evil, more mean-spirited and dehumanizing, than simply allowing an existing discriminatory system to persist. And advocating for the KKK was nothing other than supporting terrorism against American people. When it happens outside our borders, we are quite comfortable in condemning leaders who foster terrorism against subgroups of their own people as the absolute worst of the worst.
I do think there is a legitimate place for discussion of whether it is a good idea to take down all the monuments to anyone who was not perfect or nearly so, or whether there is another way to recognize and appreciate the contributions of those who came before us while not denying that many of them were flawed. I know people who have seriously advocated changing the name of Pennsylvania, and I am not sure we can go there.
That being said, I feel -- with sadness -- that this is the right decision as to Mr. Wilson. I wish the skeletons in his closet were more ambiguous ones. But they are not. It may not be entirely rational, but to me the idea of re-segregating the civil service is more evil, more mean-spirited and dehumanizing, than simply allowing an existing discriminatory system to persist. And advocating for the KKK was nothing other than supporting terrorism against American people. When it happens outside our borders, we are quite comfortable in condemning leaders who foster terrorism against subgroups of their own people as the absolute worst of the worst.
2
Honors bestowed on public figures are done so within a particular historical, political, and cultural context and understandings derived from them. It honors and clarifies history, not sanitizes it, to remove such honors should, reflecting traditional American values, those understandings and contexts change.
In Miami, there is a street named for a still playing Miami-raised (NYC born) baseball player. Following an evolving history of drug abuse and related spousal abuse, periodically the signs are pasted over with "Wife-Beater Way." I suspect American values will soon catch up with history and the County Commission will change the name, again.
In a past context, he might have deserved the honor. As we learned and recognized more, a none-sanitized history evolving, not so.
Similarly in this Woodrow Wilson case.
In Miami, there is a street named for a still playing Miami-raised (NYC born) baseball player. Following an evolving history of drug abuse and related spousal abuse, periodically the signs are pasted over with "Wife-Beater Way." I suspect American values will soon catch up with history and the County Commission will change the name, again.
In a past context, he might have deserved the honor. As we learned and recognized more, a none-sanitized history evolving, not so.
Similarly in this Woodrow Wilson case.
By renaming the Woodrow Wilson School and Wilson College, Princeton would take on an important position of leadership in what has become a new and crucial discussion of race in our country. The story of Woodrow Wilson and Princeton University is being written right now, and Princeton has a stark choice. It can either stand behind a figure who, despite his accomplishments, is inextricably linked with extreme and atypical racism, or it can play a critical role in the current intensifying fight against racism.
1
I think any sitting President, regardless of his personal views, has an ethical obligation to uphold the law of the land, in spirit as well as to the letter. Unlikely he abandoned his racist views when he entered the office of the Presidency. President Wilson was a product of his upbringing and the times, and it's hard to fault anyone for that. However, we were well past the Civil War and the question of full citizenship for black Americans had been long decided, in the law if not in practice. To undermine the value of equality by his actions to demote and denigrate fellow citizens, actions that made a material difference, seems serious enough to not glorify his name at the very scene of the crime.
The image of a long dead President and unaccountable cops who kill people today are not the same. Those privileged by a Princeton education, whatever their other problems in life, are precisely those who, I would hope, would use their abilities and position to take on the big battles for progress.
I do not know the heart of any individual student in these demonstrations. However, I can say with a high degree of certainty that it is much easier to rail against symbols, than it is to change the current material conditions of discrimination and oppression.
At their age I had yet to learn that often the greatest enemy of the good is the perfect. The Times Editorial Board, on the other hand, has been around the block a few times and should know better.
Woodrow Wilson was not Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush is not ISIS. This Manichean approach to politics we seem to wallow in guarantees that nothing good will ever be accomplished. If you want progress, you engage in politics, the art of compromise. If you want moral purity, you become a cleric, damn who you want, kill abortion providers, behead heathen, get sheep to do your bidding, and dispense with all those who think differently.
To quote the visionary Hibbingesche Rebbe, Shabtai ben Avraham, "You never ask questions when God's on your side." Even he had to confront the rebellion of his own sheep when, at Newport, he brought forth a new, more inclusive vision, not rejecting the old, but progressing beyond its limitations.
I do not know the heart of any individual student in these demonstrations. However, I can say with a high degree of certainty that it is much easier to rail against symbols, than it is to change the current material conditions of discrimination and oppression.
At their age I had yet to learn that often the greatest enemy of the good is the perfect. The Times Editorial Board, on the other hand, has been around the block a few times and should know better.
Woodrow Wilson was not Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush is not ISIS. This Manichean approach to politics we seem to wallow in guarantees that nothing good will ever be accomplished. If you want progress, you engage in politics, the art of compromise. If you want moral purity, you become a cleric, damn who you want, kill abortion providers, behead heathen, get sheep to do your bidding, and dispense with all those who think differently.
To quote the visionary Hibbingesche Rebbe, Shabtai ben Avraham, "You never ask questions when God's on your side." Even he had to confront the rebellion of his own sheep when, at Newport, he brought forth a new, more inclusive vision, not rejecting the old, but progressing beyond its limitations.
1
Better Take FDR's name off the FDR drive too. He only had four terms because of block support from the segregated South, after all. JFK airport better be changed back to Idlewild too, since he was also elected with Southern support and all that entails. And by the way, even though LBJ gave us the Civil Rights Act, he initially drew his support from Southern racists and made some pretty discriminatory comments himself. We better get rid of him too. Those that think of Jimmy Carter as a hero better reconsider too. You might like to look at some of his comments on race as he was running for Governor of Georgia in the 70's. You can't draw a line. In thirty years, will Bill Clinton and Obama be purged from the history of the Democratic party for their initial statements against gay marriage? This is not a productive path to go down.
3
Will have to get Bobby Kennedy's name off the Triborough Bridge: he was a counsel to Joe McCarthy during his witch hunts.
2
Let's take it to the logical conclusion: remove personal names from all public and private institutions, buildings, cities, etc. No one in our history has been perfect, and everyone has something in his/her past that would cause offense to someone. If a philanthropist offers to fund a building or foundation with the stipulation that it bear his/her name, too bad, you'll have to turn it down. Why can't we just recognize the fact that even great people have done bad things and honor them for their positive accomplishments? Rewriting history gets us nowhere.
2
Princeton is named after William III according to some sources. He was king of England and sovereign Prince of Orange. Certainly one can assume that he was an "unrepentant" slave owner on a massive scale. Maybe it's time to change the name.
3
I am taken back by this posture of the NYT. I would have thought it would certainly acknowledge a past that was not intended for today's racial climate but would not agree with erasing the history of a person that helped shape our country. We have rid ourselves of the confederate flag, now an esteemed educationa institution is considering erasing a President's name from their University and even the mayor of NYC is being thrown into the conversation with a suggestion by his son that slave owners who have prominent street names in NYC also be renamed. What will the NYT say about that? Is history to be rewritten for our children? Are we ashamed of those who have shaped our country that they were not the most ethical? What are we coming to, seriously?
2
Well, I knew Woodrow Wilson was prejudiced, but I never knew the extent to which his prejudice was acted on. How shameful. I completely support the Princeton students.
5
Glenn Beck has been talking about this for years. He hates Wilson and all he stands for. Funny how he was ignored by the NYT and the MSM for over 10 years. Now of course the subject is "important" since it has been brought up by African/Americans and students.
Wonder how many other things Mr. Beck is right about.
Wonder how many other things Mr. Beck is right about.
1
Seems as though the NY Times neglects to read its archives. Just ONE example: "Woodrow Wilson's Administration, 8 Years of the World's Greatest History" NY Times Magazine, February 27, 1921 (10 pages long). Said the Times: "No American President except Lincoln had ever been concerned with matters of such vital importance to the nation; and not even Lincoln had had to deal with a world so complex and so interrelated with the United States." This assertion was followed by 10 pages of praise for his Presidential accomplishments big and small and in 10 pages of praise, not one mention of his racial policies. Shame on you NY Times editors of 1921. How does the Times amend ITS history??
6
And then there was FDR (From the FDR Museum): "On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 granting the War Department broad powers to create military exclusion areas. Although the order did not identify any particular group, in practice it was used almost exclusively to intern Americans of Japanese descent. By 1943, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans had been forced from their homes and moved to camps in remote inland areas of the United States."
Does it matter that women didn't have the vote in 1912, the year Woodrow Wilson was elected president? Sadly, most white Americans in 1912 were "racists" as well as misogynists , and to try to erase the good that men at the beginning of the 20th century accomplished because they were typical of their time seems petty and juvenile.
Where's the end if one looks backwards, not forward in going about ones academic life? That so many black Americans today want to go back in time to vent their anger is sad and unreasonable and futile. Holding grudges for a century can't be healthy. Move forward, not backwards!
Where's the end if one looks backwards, not forward in going about ones academic life? That so many black Americans today want to go back in time to vent their anger is sad and unreasonable and futile. Holding grudges for a century can't be healthy. Move forward, not backwards!
2
I manage to never agree with the overwhelming majority of Times letter writers. In most cases I'm too conservative but in this instance I agree with the protesting students and the Times editorial board.
I strongly disagree with judging those who lived in the past by our contemporary standards. Hopefully we are advancing, and our expectations of how people will behave rise as well. But in this instance Wilson is being judged by HIS contemporaries. In HIS time his actions were racist, and he was a racist. No way around and no excuse for it.
I strongly disagree with judging those who lived in the past by our contemporary standards. Hopefully we are advancing, and our expectations of how people will behave rise as well. But in this instance Wilson is being judged by HIS contemporaries. In HIS time his actions were racist, and he was a racist. No way around and no excuse for it.
Once again, The Times is making the Good the enemy of the Perfect. No history book I've ever read labelled Wilson a reactionary; to the contrary, he's uniformly rated a "Liberal" and a good president. I assume the next Times editorial will go after the authors of those histories?
Did Woodrow Wilson believe that whites were superior to blacks, and did he treat blacks callously and unfairly? Yes. That is the terrible truth.
If Wilson had been born in 1956 in the North rather than in 1856 in the South, and if he had been President of Princeton University, Governor of New Jersey, and President of the United States from 2002-2020 rather than 1902-1920, would he have believed and acted the same way? No.
A person's beliefs—whether about religion, politics, or "race"—are not inherent; they are learned. Woodrow Wilson spent the "formative" years of life—from birth to 20—in the Deep South. "My earliest recollection," he wrote, "is of standing at my father's gateway in Augusta, Georgia, when I was four years old, and hearing some one pass and say that Mr. Lincoln was elected and there was to be war." One of Wilson's biographers, John M. Mulder, writes: "His early lessons were of warfare and bloodshed, enemies and allies, victory and defeat." While growing up in the Confederacy and then Reconstruction, Wilson was largely taught by his father, a clergyman who preached that scripture ordained slavery. Moreover, Wilson lived in an age of extreme racial, ethnic, and religious bias—the age of imperialism, segregation, and xenophobia.
I mention the historic and personal context not to imply that Wilson's racist views and behavior were anything but wrong and destructive. I mention them to argue that, like every racist, he was largely taught racist views and behavior.
If Wilson had been born in 1956 in the North rather than in 1856 in the South, and if he had been President of Princeton University, Governor of New Jersey, and President of the United States from 2002-2020 rather than 1902-1920, would he have believed and acted the same way? No.
A person's beliefs—whether about religion, politics, or "race"—are not inherent; they are learned. Woodrow Wilson spent the "formative" years of life—from birth to 20—in the Deep South. "My earliest recollection," he wrote, "is of standing at my father's gateway in Augusta, Georgia, when I was four years old, and hearing some one pass and say that Mr. Lincoln was elected and there was to be war." One of Wilson's biographers, John M. Mulder, writes: "His early lessons were of warfare and bloodshed, enemies and allies, victory and defeat." While growing up in the Confederacy and then Reconstruction, Wilson was largely taught by his father, a clergyman who preached that scripture ordained slavery. Moreover, Wilson lived in an age of extreme racial, ethnic, and religious bias—the age of imperialism, segregation, and xenophobia.
I mention the historic and personal context not to imply that Wilson's racist views and behavior were anything but wrong and destructive. I mention them to argue that, like every racist, he was largely taught racist views and behavior.
Comparing Wilson's racism to that of slave holders like Madison, Washington, Jefferson and others who led the country before the Civil War misses the point. The racism Wilson brought to the Presidency was post-Civil War, and therefore inexcusable as national, and personal policy. Taking his name off a prominent institution at Princeton University will help people understand the complexity of his place in history with out undoing the good work he is justly famous for.
2
I have never thought the removal of President Wilson's name from the school property was the actual goal of the student protesters. The protesters presented a list of demands that included this item. In a negotiation it is customary to have outlandish/impossible demands admixed with what you really want. Using this technique, your real demands look far more reasonable and manageable. Furthermore, you can gauge how serious your opponent is in addressing your issues. If you capitulate to the renaming demand, yes I have "won" but not really; it's a phyrric one at best and you walk away with that and nothing else. Please consider that there are grievances so personal and private to that campus alone (inappropriate behaviors of faculty or other students or even the protesters themselves if you must believe that) that the administration is not free to discuss them at this time. Erasure of history is not the goal here; stopping the daily micro-aggressive behaviors on campus, ending the decontextualized discussions of Wilson and stopping the "why can't those people just their -ish together" meme are the goals.
2
Without Woodrow Wilson, there would be no Princeton as we know it.
The problem with the PC police is that they are not constructive and the fact that they want to shut down opposing voices means that they fear their truth.
There were many abuses of Southerners and Southern rights during reconstruction. The KKK at that time can be seen as a reaction to those abuses. Wilson grew up in the South during reconstruction. As ivory tower 21st century PC liberals, we will never have the benefit of President Wilson's experience.
The problem with the PC police is that they are not constructive and the fact that they want to shut down opposing voices means that they fear their truth.
There were many abuses of Southerners and Southern rights during reconstruction. The KKK at that time can be seen as a reaction to those abuses. Wilson grew up in the South during reconstruction. As ivory tower 21st century PC liberals, we will never have the benefit of President Wilson's experience.
3
Thoughts on the discussion sparked by previous comments:
Wilson proposed the League of Nations. Yes, Wilson had a great vision of world unity. Let us imagine a Wilsonian world in which the world is both in peace and also subject to white suprematism. Who is really benefitting from world peace when more than half of the world's population is shoved into a lower tier?
One of the opinions most frequently voiced refers to the fact that Wilson's views and the opinions of his peers were products of their environment and that their beliefs must be seen in the context of history. Many will see Wilson as an imperfect human being, just like the rest of us. Much as how Wilson's philosophy can be seen as the expression of a past era, the same can be said for Princeton naming buildings after Wilson in the forties. Both of them are representative of eras in which racial inequality was accepted and even supported, at least much more so than today. History cannot be an argument against renaming buildings at Princeton, and if it is then it is counterweighted by the argument in favor. Renaming buildings today is perhaps an expression of our era, of how far we have come since then-- what is there to lose, other than tradition? Might we remember how slavery and segregation were once traditions too?
Wilson proposed the League of Nations. Yes, Wilson had a great vision of world unity. Let us imagine a Wilsonian world in which the world is both in peace and also subject to white suprematism. Who is really benefitting from world peace when more than half of the world's population is shoved into a lower tier?
One of the opinions most frequently voiced refers to the fact that Wilson's views and the opinions of his peers were products of their environment and that their beliefs must be seen in the context of history. Many will see Wilson as an imperfect human being, just like the rest of us. Much as how Wilson's philosophy can be seen as the expression of a past era, the same can be said for Princeton naming buildings after Wilson in the forties. Both of them are representative of eras in which racial inequality was accepted and even supported, at least much more so than today. History cannot be an argument against renaming buildings at Princeton, and if it is then it is counterweighted by the argument in favor. Renaming buildings today is perhaps an expression of our era, of how far we have come since then-- what is there to lose, other than tradition? Might we remember how slavery and segregation were once traditions too?
So he was a pig who reversed gains African Americans had made which surely put many into poverty and despair. I did not know this, the only thing I learned in school was about his attempts with the precursor to the United Nations....rip his name down and replace it with a less vile person.
I completely agree that the Wilson School should be renamed. However it is equally important not to forget that Princeton bestowed that name as recently as 1948, not deterred by Wilson's racism. (I presume the university will not plead ignorance.)
4
Princeton has always been a bastion of upper class elitism. It is still is. One wonders why we're supposed to care much either way. The views that Wilson held about blacks are hardly any different than the views that many upper class members today hold about most people who aren't rich.
3
One can only conclude that the NYT's Editorial Board-- like President Wilson himself-- is not a model of perfection. People and institutions are shaped by many forces, not the least of which is the environment in which they live. In our final calibration of the measure of both men and organizations, we need to weigh carefully both the inherent actions they have taken as well as the prevailing rationale for them-- and then to draw ultimate conclusions. The Times has erred in its editorial denouncing one of America's great Presidents, as it appears to have been swept up by the emotions of the day. The editorial board should add a legitimate historian to its ranks to bring some needed perspective to the historically absurd conclusion of this editorial.
2
Woodrow Wilson's name is associated with Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs. Given his legacy, the association with International Affairs seems appropriate. ("Public Affairs"? Too vague for me to judge.) If Princeton had a Woodrow Wilson School of Interracial Harmony, I would certainly advocate renaming it. I can also see renaming a dormitory, or anything else that has nothing to do with Wilson's legacy.
I am in agreement with those who say we can't, and shouldn't attempt to, sanitize history. We have to remember the totality of an individual. Keeping the school's name seems like a viable compromise. I am sure Princeton offers many courses that offer the opportunity to present Wilson's flaws (an inadequate word) as well as his strengths.
I am in agreement with those who say we can't, and shouldn't attempt to, sanitize history. We have to remember the totality of an individual. Keeping the school's name seems like a viable compromise. I am sure Princeton offers many courses that offer the opportunity to present Wilson's flaws (an inadequate word) as well as his strengths.
1
America has been on the wrong side of history more than once. As long as we can correct previous mistakes, we will succeed and progress as a nation of free peoples well into the future.
1
I am rather troubled by the one-sidedness of this op-ed. It picks out the one blemish on Woodrow Wilson's record, as if that blots out his extraordinary accomplishments. Wilson was keenly associated with Princeton University and helped turn it into an elite university. As a two-term president of the United States, he was a major Progressive Era reformer who envisioned the world at peace. But he was also a Southern Democrat who allowed his party's segregationist views to predominate in the era of Jim Crow law. Wilson came up short on the question of race.
I'm very disturbed by the sit-in at Princeton University, with the student demands to remove Wilson's name from the college, and by the NYT editorial board siding with the student protesters. Rather than confront the past or take a balanced look at what Woodrow Wilson did, this is an attempt to simply remove any bit of history that one might find objectionable. It removes the ability to learn from the past in favor of not being offended. It's a form of censorship.
I hope the university officials stand pat and maintain Woodrow Wilson's name at Princeton. He's an important part of the university's history. Should we take George Washington's name off Mount Vernon or rename the City of Washington because our first president owned slaves?
I'm very disturbed by the sit-in at Princeton University, with the student demands to remove Wilson's name from the college, and by the NYT editorial board siding with the student protesters. Rather than confront the past or take a balanced look at what Woodrow Wilson did, this is an attempt to simply remove any bit of history that one might find objectionable. It removes the ability to learn from the past in favor of not being offended. It's a form of censorship.
I hope the university officials stand pat and maintain Woodrow Wilson's name at Princeton. He's an important part of the university's history. Should we take George Washington's name off Mount Vernon or rename the City of Washington because our first president owned slaves?
3
What about all the gays who were fired in the 1950s from the US State Department. What about Teddy Roosevelt who said it would take a thousand years for the black man to equal the white ( and he didn't use "black man"). What about Lincoln? He didn't think blacks and whites were equal while objecting to slavery as an institution. This just feels like political non-sense that serves some unknown purpose. The civil rights movement is lost and confused when it focuses on these questions, in my opinion.
2
Simply ridiculous. If we apply contemporary standards of morality to past individuals, we will wipe out the legacy of Western civilization. I am a woman, and I would have to demand the removal of virtually every statue or plaque of male historical figures, since virtually all held sexist beliefs.
But I will never demand that, because these men were a product of their time, and their distasteful qualities must be placed in context and must also be weighed against the good that they did. We are talking about Woodrow Wilson, for goodness sake, who created the League of Nations, the precursor to the UN, and who led the nation successfully through a world war.
I teach at a university and I am increasingly disgusted and alarmed at the grievance-focused culture emerging about the young. They are so fragile and precious, it's absurd. My husband (one of the most beloved professors on campus) just got in trouble for the off-the-cuff remark "Hitler was crazy." Evidently, this was seen as offensive to students with mental-health issues. I kid you not. Their fragility is matched by their lack of critical reasoning skills; they think that if you say Hitler is crazy, you must be saying that all mental-health patients are crazy.
Many of our students are wonderful, but there is a distinct element that is making things a joke and censoring the faculty and other students.
Everyone needs to read "The coddling of the American mind," an article published in The Atlantic. Google it.
But I will never demand that, because these men were a product of their time, and their distasteful qualities must be placed in context and must also be weighed against the good that they did. We are talking about Woodrow Wilson, for goodness sake, who created the League of Nations, the precursor to the UN, and who led the nation successfully through a world war.
I teach at a university and I am increasingly disgusted and alarmed at the grievance-focused culture emerging about the young. They are so fragile and precious, it's absurd. My husband (one of the most beloved professors on campus) just got in trouble for the off-the-cuff remark "Hitler was crazy." Evidently, this was seen as offensive to students with mental-health issues. I kid you not. Their fragility is matched by their lack of critical reasoning skills; they think that if you say Hitler is crazy, you must be saying that all mental-health patients are crazy.
Many of our students are wonderful, but there is a distinct element that is making things a joke and censoring the faculty and other students.
Everyone needs to read "The coddling of the American mind," an article published in The Atlantic. Google it.
8
The PC madness continues. Woodrow Wilson is one of the giants of American history, and now a cadre of chronically aggrieved students wants to eradicate his name from a great institution that quite rightly honored him. I do so hope that the university tells them to take a hike; however, I fully expect that Princeton will do no such thing but will cravenly comply with their ludicrous demands. And where does this end? Let's dynamite, Taliban-style, no-longer-approved images from Mount Rushmore; let's take down paintings from our art museums if someone no longer feels "safe" or "included" in their presence; let's ban words they don't like and people they don't want to hear from. Then let's move to Canada. People, our country is going nuts.
8
You're confusing political correctness with actual racism. Wilson's racism wasn't an artifact, a mere byproduct of his time. He worked successfully to achieve racist ends. He was unrepentant. When he is honoured, it's as a statesman, but racism wasn't incidental to his statesmanship, it was part and parcel of it.
It seems to me that the debate surrounding whether or not to remove the names bulidings etc. honoring our dear departed leaders is based on our inedequate knowledge of American history and these "pillars" because of the information we got from our severly censored textbooks.
http://www.newsweek.com/company-behind-texas-textbook-calling-slaves-wor... This is a recent example of exgregious rewriting of history- calling back slaves "immigrants" and 'workers"
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-... The Smithsonian has a very damning article pieced together from Jefferson's own records about just what a miserable slave owner he was.
Howards Zinn's "controversial" "The Peoples History of America" gives a different and less flattering view of those we heretofor have put on pedestals.
Perhaps if we had a more accurate account of what these people were actually like maybe we would not be in the unenviable position of deciding who to chisel out.
http://www.newsweek.com/company-behind-texas-textbook-calling-slaves-wor... This is a recent example of exgregious rewriting of history- calling back slaves "immigrants" and 'workers"
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-... The Smithsonian has a very damning article pieced together from Jefferson's own records about just what a miserable slave owner he was.
Howards Zinn's "controversial" "The Peoples History of America" gives a different and less flattering view of those we heretofor have put on pedestals.
Perhaps if we had a more accurate account of what these people were actually like maybe we would not be in the unenviable position of deciding who to chisel out.
1
Woodrow Wilson is dead and not coming back. His story is tragic but not surprising for those times. The man was elected and re-elected by a voting public that didn't even include women.
Perhaps we should channel this energy into screening living, would-be future presidents. I hear there's an election coming and a group of highly flawed candidates that includes hatemongers, frauds and those who would take us back by making voting more difficult for minorities.
Perhaps we should channel this energy into screening living, would-be future presidents. I hear there's an election coming and a group of highly flawed candidates that includes hatemongers, frauds and those who would take us back by making voting more difficult for minorities.
1
When did having a namesake building equate with sainthood?
2
Woodrow Wilson is the subversive fellow of discrimination or genius of world peacefull dipolomacy ?
The issue of discrimination is old like stinking " wiener schnitzeel " . You get what you desrved and now endemic racism is the US history. Do not blaim Wilson since in his term at Princeton such notion was in vogue . Honestly speaking, he was just the innocent hostage of conflicting situations.
The overwhelming evidence shows that Wilson was an unique dyplomatic
genius , establishing new world doctrine of peace and international
communication.
Currently ,in convenient amnesia, Princeton Afro-American students are attempting to destroy Wilson legacy ? No way !
His masterpiece involvement during and after World War I , accomplished order and simplification among European so divisive fractions. It was Wilson who created international forum of political dialogue of Ligue of the Nation
today called United Nations.
Wilson should have erected today at Princeton WILSON MEMORIAL honoring his the most sophisticated , outstanding contribution toward today secured and peacefull life on our Blue Planet.
And you are promoting Wilson degradation at Princeton ? You call it justice ?
Shame on you !!!
The issue of discrimination is old like stinking " wiener schnitzeel " . You get what you desrved and now endemic racism is the US history. Do not blaim Wilson since in his term at Princeton such notion was in vogue . Honestly speaking, he was just the innocent hostage of conflicting situations.
The overwhelming evidence shows that Wilson was an unique dyplomatic
genius , establishing new world doctrine of peace and international
communication.
Currently ,in convenient amnesia, Princeton Afro-American students are attempting to destroy Wilson legacy ? No way !
His masterpiece involvement during and after World War I , accomplished order and simplification among European so divisive fractions. It was Wilson who created international forum of political dialogue of Ligue of the Nation
today called United Nations.
Wilson should have erected today at Princeton WILSON MEMORIAL honoring his the most sophisticated , outstanding contribution toward today secured and peacefull life on our Blue Planet.
And you are promoting Wilson degradation at Princeton ? You call it justice ?
Shame on you !!!
1
To be clear, I have no love for Woodrow Wilson. Zero. Maybe even less than zero. But if holding racial views that do not correspond with those of 2015 warrants blacklisting historical figures from any honor or recognition, there is truly no reason to stop with Wilson ... or with former presidents or even Americans generally. Racialized views have existed -- and indeed were dominant -- in some fashion or another quite literally back to the earliest periods of recorded human history.
Purging the honors bestowed upon those who do not meet modern sensibilities should keep our generation very busy indeed. But whether it is a blessing or a curse, likely what comes around will go around. In a few generations (if it takes even that long), those who deem themselves 'progressive thinkers' today will find themselves the anathema of tomorrow ... and their names will also be chiseled off the statues we dare to raise.
Purging the honors bestowed upon those who do not meet modern sensibilities should keep our generation very busy indeed. But whether it is a blessing or a curse, likely what comes around will go around. In a few generations (if it takes even that long), those who deem themselves 'progressive thinkers' today will find themselves the anathema of tomorrow ... and their names will also be chiseled off the statues we dare to raise.
1
Let's have a Maoist cultural revolution and rewrite history and ban books, and while we're at it, we can all wear the same drab grey outfits too, so that we all look alike.
It's amazing how the left, with all their pontificating about social justice, are so quick to espouse the end of free expression unless it's sanitized to their concept of "free." It's times like this that I'm thankful our democracy is so messy. Our founding fathers (oops....can't say that anymore....) knew what they were doing when they created a government which is inherently cumbersome, designed to prevent any single faction from dominating the people. Unfortunately, the federal bureaucracy has weakened that concept, and if we're not careful, the "thought police" will gain power. Should that power swing to the extreme right, the NYT Editorial Board will have a different view.
It's amazing how the left, with all their pontificating about social justice, are so quick to espouse the end of free expression unless it's sanitized to their concept of "free." It's times like this that I'm thankful our democracy is so messy. Our founding fathers (oops....can't say that anymore....) knew what they were doing when they created a government which is inherently cumbersome, designed to prevent any single faction from dominating the people. Unfortunately, the federal bureaucracy has weakened that concept, and if we're not careful, the "thought police" will gain power. Should that power swing to the extreme right, the NYT Editorial Board will have a different view.
3
At the time of George Washington’s death, his Mount Vernon estate had 318 slaves.
Washington's will dictated the freedom of his slaves, but it would have been much more principled if he had freed them when he was the 'Father of Our Country' and still alive.
http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-was...
Revising history is a tricky task, and one would have to start with removing George Washington from every dollar bill, every Quarter, a street sign in every town in America, and rename about 5000 elementary schools, 100 towns and untold other institutions.
Perhaps a fair compromise is to start naming future American schools and institutions after people like the eponymous Sojourner Truth and the great Harriet Tubman, both born into slavery who became the black abolitionist and and suffragist heroines who fought even harder than American's privileged and entitled white male class for the true meaning of democracy and freedom.
"Truth is powerful and it prevails."
- Sojourner Truth
"I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other."
Harriet Tubman
One things is clear in colonial and American history; it has been horribly whitewashed over the course of 400 years.
Instead of honoring America's privileged white victors, we should level the historical playing field and honor our true black American heroes with more public monuments.
Washington's will dictated the freedom of his slaves, but it would have been much more principled if he had freed them when he was the 'Father of Our Country' and still alive.
http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-was...
Revising history is a tricky task, and one would have to start with removing George Washington from every dollar bill, every Quarter, a street sign in every town in America, and rename about 5000 elementary schools, 100 towns and untold other institutions.
Perhaps a fair compromise is to start naming future American schools and institutions after people like the eponymous Sojourner Truth and the great Harriet Tubman, both born into slavery who became the black abolitionist and and suffragist heroines who fought even harder than American's privileged and entitled white male class for the true meaning of democracy and freedom.
"Truth is powerful and it prevails."
- Sojourner Truth
"I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other."
Harriet Tubman
One things is clear in colonial and American history; it has been horribly whitewashed over the course of 400 years.
Instead of honoring America's privileged white victors, we should level the historical playing field and honor our true black American heroes with more public monuments.
7
"Revising history is a tricky task, and one would have to start with removing George Washington from every dollar bill, every Quarter, a street sign in every town in America, and rename about 5000 elementary schools, 100 towns and untold other institutions."
With all due respect, this seems to me the opposite of revising history. The 1948 dedication of the school does seem like a whitewash or revision.
Furthermore, the Washington or Jefferson comparison is fundamentally flawed. Unlike Wilson, neither of these men sought to actively reverse progress made by, and this is important, constitutionally protected citizens. He basically contravened no less than 3 Amendments!
With all due respect, this seems to me the opposite of revising history. The 1948 dedication of the school does seem like a whitewash or revision.
Furthermore, the Washington or Jefferson comparison is fundamentally flawed. Unlike Wilson, neither of these men sought to actively reverse progress made by, and this is important, constitutionally protected citizens. He basically contravened no less than 3 Amendments!
American history is a complex and at times very unsavory affair. Thomas Jefferson, venerated with his spectacular memorial in DC and place on our currency owned slaves until the day he died and fathered an illegitimate child with one of them. Alexander Hamilton published the most vile political attacks against his opponents and fought a duel that resulted in the death of a Vice President. Ronald Reagan governed during the most critical early years of the AIDS epidemic and didn't even utter the word until several thousand people had already died. There are so many examples of people who we admire who had very serious character flaws. The point is we're talking about ADMIRATION and not VENERATION. There are no saints in the political sphere. Black marks are balanced against positive achievements. It remains to be seen if Wilson comes out ahead or not BUT we absolutely should not conclude that people with character flaws are automatically not deserving of SOME admiration so long as it's put in it's proper perspective. That is all, ladies and gentlemen.
1
I have to agree with the President of Princeton, who said “People become very invested in symbols. And one of the benefits of having a genuine public discussion, informed by scholarly opinion, about some of these questions is that it can help educate people about problems that go beyond the symbol in our society.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/nyregion/at-princeton-addressing-a-rac...
While the name of the school could be changed easily enough, would that solve the day to day problems minority students are facing? It seems to me like a symbolic scapegoat for deeper racial frustrations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/nyregion/at-princeton-addressing-a-rac...
While the name of the school could be changed easily enough, would that solve the day to day problems minority students are facing? It seems to me like a symbolic scapegoat for deeper racial frustrations.
History is replete with leaders who pursued policies, actions and values that were just wrong, whether racist, homophobic, anti equality, exploitive of labour and totally inconsistent with our majority values today. George Washington was a slave owner! To be consistent with your editorial on Woodrow Wilson, George Washington's name should I guess be removed from cities, states, bridges, universities, and monuments.
Even given the times in which Wilson was President, he is supposed to the the President of all the citizens, blacks were made citizens by the Civil War Amendments. So he was clearly violating the Constitution. Maybe "the times in which he lived" could "justify" not being more aggressive about affirmative action type issues, but to appoint racists government officials and role back already achieved advances is inexcusable. While not a student of Wilson's record, his pigheadedness about what he wanted in the League of Nations, his treatment of blacks, and initial reluctance to back women's right to vote are important negatives to me. I've never really considered him a great president for these reasons.
1
"The honor bestowed on an unrepentant racist decades ago should be rescinded." -- NYT tag line on digital story
The tag line and the "traditionalists" who oppose removing Wilson's name are making a fundamental mistake: the honor was not bestowed decades ago. Wilson IS being honored every second of every day, including today, and including the day after tomorrow, until the adults realize removing his name is not a maneuver of the politically correct, but a decision descent people MUST make to right the wrongs--wrongs that continue every second of every day. Imagine the horror, a word I do not use lightly, for those associated with Princeton's Wilson College. His aggressions toward African-Americans were morally repugnant back in the day for a "great" man. But at this second of this day they verge on criminal.
The tag line and the "traditionalists" who oppose removing Wilson's name are making a fundamental mistake: the honor was not bestowed decades ago. Wilson IS being honored every second of every day, including today, and including the day after tomorrow, until the adults realize removing his name is not a maneuver of the politically correct, but a decision descent people MUST make to right the wrongs--wrongs that continue every second of every day. Imagine the horror, a word I do not use lightly, for those associated with Princeton's Wilson College. His aggressions toward African-Americans were morally repugnant back in the day for a "great" man. But at this second of this day they verge on criminal.
If we continue down this path of sanitizing our past to suit the current moral and politically correct fervor put forward in this editorial, American history will fit neatly on three pages.
Of course there were people who shaped our history that subscribed to ideals and practices which by today's standards seem reprehensible. They did however exist and in in many cases pushed our nation forward to where it stands today.
To simply deny their existence and erase them due in large part to the time they lived in is naive. Learn from their transgressions, don't villify them.
Of course there were people who shaped our history that subscribed to ideals and practices which by today's standards seem reprehensible. They did however exist and in in many cases pushed our nation forward to where it stands today.
To simply deny their existence and erase them due in large part to the time they lived in is naive. Learn from their transgressions, don't villify them.
3
Many ask - "What's next?" --
From The Washington Post -
"University yoga class canceled because of ‘oppression, cultural genocide’"
November 23, 2015
In studios across the nation, as many as 20 million Americans practice yoga every day. Few worry that their downward dogs or warrior poses disrespect other cultures.
But yoga comes from India, once a British colony. And now, at one Canadian university, a yoga class designed to include disabled students has been canceled after concerns the practice was taken from a culture that “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy,” according to the group that once sponsored it.
...Jennifer Scharf, who taught the class for up to 60 people at the University of Ottawa, said she was unhappy about the decision, but accepted it.
...
“Yoga has been under a lot of controversy lately due to how it is being practiced and what practices from what cultures (which are often sacred spiritual practices) they are being taken from.
"Many of these cultures are cultures that have experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy, and we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves and while practicing yoga.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/23/university...
Then there's the alleged usage of "Anti-Semitic" text by J.S. Bach in his "St John's Passion" -
From The Washington Post -
"University yoga class canceled because of ‘oppression, cultural genocide’"
November 23, 2015
In studios across the nation, as many as 20 million Americans practice yoga every day. Few worry that their downward dogs or warrior poses disrespect other cultures.
But yoga comes from India, once a British colony. And now, at one Canadian university, a yoga class designed to include disabled students has been canceled after concerns the practice was taken from a culture that “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy,” according to the group that once sponsored it.
...Jennifer Scharf, who taught the class for up to 60 people at the University of Ottawa, said she was unhappy about the decision, but accepted it.
...
“Yoga has been under a lot of controversy lately due to how it is being practiced and what practices from what cultures (which are often sacred spiritual practices) they are being taken from.
"Many of these cultures are cultures that have experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy, and we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves and while practicing yoga.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/23/university...
Then there's the alleged usage of "Anti-Semitic" text by J.S. Bach in his "St John's Passion" -
And he was a democrat. That's weird....
2
There's a problem with the central premise of this editorial piece: If we apply what it describes as racist behavior to our founding fathers, who would we have left? By no means am I condoning that behavior, just if we apply it to one we need to apply it to all.
1
So what’s next? Should the name of Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, be expunged from public buildings and monuments around the country? Perhaps Jewish opera fans should demonstrate for the removal from the Metropolitan Opera House of busts of Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss, who were, respectively, a rabid anti-Semite and a member of the Nazi Party. And what of Winston Churchill, who was a colonialist and had distinctly unkind things to say about the Muslim religion?
As Orwellian as such a quest for moral purity in honored historical figures would be, it is not even the most important issue.The student protesters whom the Times praises for performing a “public service” emphasized their demands by the physical occupation of the university president’s office.At Yale, students enraged at a faculty member’s perceived softness on hypothetically offensive Halloween costumes surrounded and cursed at her husband, also a faculty member. And at the University of Missouri, the threat of a strike by football players succeeded in forcing the resignation of the university’s president, whose strong condemnation of racism was deemed an insufficient response to some racial incidents on campus. That's apart from the regular spectacle of students shouting down speakers whose views make them feel “unsafe."
The response of university administrators to these apprentice brown shirts has been craven.It's time to stand up to mob rule on campus, whatever the merits of a particular dispute.
So what? How many people at that time didn't share his views? It is the height of hypocrisy for the NY Times, which was the standard bearer for Wilsons views back in the day to suddenly rewrite history because of a bunch of coddled Princeton students whose feelings are hurt? History is ugly. Get over it. Do something with your life that merits having building named after you.
Political correctness has gone too far.
Political correctness has gone too far.
2
Quit trying to re-write history! Woodrow Wilson did some bad stuff and he did some good stuff. If we keep trying to cleanse our history we'll end up like the Chinese who destroyed so much of their culture during the "Cultural Revolution" and the current ISIS group that is blowing up all those wonderful ancient monuments. For Pete's sake, 1912 is NOT 2015. We've grown up a bit, have a ways to go, but we need to remember where we've been and how far we've come!
They could sell the naming rights to a large corporation or billionaire donor like everyone else does as the silver lining.
1
I'm so comforted to know that these "student protesters" are perfect people who, when their lives are examined, will bear no flaws, bad behavior, hypocrisy, contradictions of character, thoughts or ideas, or standards that future generations will find abhorrent. My, my.
4
Otherwise, Wilson was the greatest of all the progressives... & I'm uncomfortable with this but it's true.
Whitewashing history is perhaps a greater crime than Wilson's "whitewashing" of the govt bureaucracy. (I would add, by the way, that when repub governors "shrink" or "reduce the size" of govt, they are doing very much the same thing as Wilson did, but surreptitiously, throwing thousAnds of middle class blacks out of employment, in many cases permanently.)
Wilson also struggled (unsuccessfully) to form a viable League of Nations.
So, Rather, rename these institutions for another alum- the Wilson-Kennan School etc. George Kennan (who says Wikipedia was rather unhappy at Princeton) was the architect of the ultimately successful containment policy vis-a-vis theUSSR.
Whitewashing history is perhaps a greater crime than Wilson's "whitewashing" of the govt bureaucracy. (I would add, by the way, that when repub governors "shrink" or "reduce the size" of govt, they are doing very much the same thing as Wilson did, but surreptitiously, throwing thousAnds of middle class blacks out of employment, in many cases permanently.)
Wilson also struggled (unsuccessfully) to form a viable League of Nations.
So, Rather, rename these institutions for another alum- the Wilson-Kennan School etc. George Kennan (who says Wikipedia was rather unhappy at Princeton) was the architect of the ultimately successful containment policy vis-a-vis theUSSR.
Take his name off.
The question is whether he was better than his era, or worse than his era.
He clearly was worse than his era.
Take his name off.
The question is whether he was better than his era, or worse than his era.
He clearly was worse than his era.
Take his name off.
3
I believe all forms of racism and segregation are vile, and try to live according to that belief. But who is to cast the first stone? Washington, Jefferson, FDR, your parents, my parents, the New York Times, ourselves in our youth?
Kudos to today's students, of whatever color or faith, for 'outing' Wilson, Calhoun, and others. But the past should be remembered (good and bad), not forgotten or re-polished. Wilson was fully in synch with most white men (and women) of his time. Perhaps it would be good to have a prominent statement to that effect prominently displayed at Princeton (and at Yale, and elsewhere). But he was who he was (positive and negative), and the names of schools , and streets, and etc etc should remain as was. Perhaps that can teach us, and our children, some humility about human frailty and short-sightedness.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
Kudos to today's students, of whatever color or faith, for 'outing' Wilson, Calhoun, and others. But the past should be remembered (good and bad), not forgotten or re-polished. Wilson was fully in synch with most white men (and women) of his time. Perhaps it would be good to have a prominent statement to that effect prominently displayed at Princeton (and at Yale, and elsewhere). But he was who he was (positive and negative), and the names of schools , and streets, and etc etc should remain as was. Perhaps that can teach us, and our children, some humility about human frailty and short-sightedness.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
How is it that I had no notion whatsoever of President Wilson's racism? I only had admiration for him because of his League of Nations and Fourteen Points. I'm personally torn over whether we should expunge his name from all honors and institutions, but it is clear to me that we need to completely overhaul the history curriculum in the public schools in this country to show our students more truths and fewer idealized whitewashes of our historical figures and events.
1
Most of us would like to be remembered for the good we contributed to the world. If we were solely measured by the worst of our actions and beliefs, there would be few to none of us worthy of admiration. So are we to rip our past to pieces in search of an impossible purity of belief, purging our history of imperfect historical persons? What then do we honor from our past?
Did Wilson view blacks as inferior to whites? Yes he did. But he thought Southern Europeans, Catholics and Jews were inferior to whites as well. And my guess is he didn't even consider Hindus, Confucians and Muslims as worthy of inclusion in the dream of America. Because by white he meant Protestants from the north of Europe. And even with such blatantly bigoted elitist thinking he still imagined the League of Nations, involving people of countries with all languages, colors and religions. Was that simply another infamous verse in Kipling's Take Up The White Man's burden, or was it the sincere conception of a man who envisioned peace in our time along with the capacity to envision relations beyond his own prejudices.
More importantly what were Wilson's views on the LGBT community? Which begs the question: what can we really know?
Did Wilson view blacks as inferior to whites? Yes he did. But he thought Southern Europeans, Catholics and Jews were inferior to whites as well. And my guess is he didn't even consider Hindus, Confucians and Muslims as worthy of inclusion in the dream of America. Because by white he meant Protestants from the north of Europe. And even with such blatantly bigoted elitist thinking he still imagined the League of Nations, involving people of countries with all languages, colors and religions. Was that simply another infamous verse in Kipling's Take Up The White Man's burden, or was it the sincere conception of a man who envisioned peace in our time along with the capacity to envision relations beyond his own prejudices.
More importantly what were Wilson's views on the LGBT community? Which begs the question: what can we really know?
1
Many folk posting comments here seem to see hypocrisy in the actions of Princeton. Calling Wilson a racist does not mean they don't acknowledge the wrongs committed by other historical figures. Unless there are other buildings on campus named after known racists of the late 19th or early 20th centuries you have no point.
In the America of that day, it would have been almost impossible to win the nomination as a Democrat without the infamous "solid South." Anything good that Wilson did, he would not have been able to accomplish without serving his political constituency.
And that's the real point. It's not Wilson in 1912, it's America in 1912. Was it all evil? Shall we scrub it all out, and have some sort of Department of Truth review every name on every building? If we are trying to scrub out all the sinners, will anything be left?
We are living in a social media world. The one-liner and the symbol is more important than the nuance and the reality. I get that it turns out Wilson was a racist. I get that if I was a person of color I probably would be pretty outraged that, after fighting for the right to get into a school like Princeton, I found racist guys' names on the buildings.
But are we really talking about racism in America, or are we engaged in a social media-style Shaming? It seems very similar to the "gotcha culture" from the Hollywood media. Let's find some dirt on somebody and shame them. So now that's how history works - we're shaming Wilson this week. You joining in, or want to wait until we go after FDR next week? C u there.
This country desperately needs to find a way to confront its racism and its ghosts and maybe even Princeton should take Wilson's name off of the building. But this kind of shaming culture is fake, shallow, divisive, and leads to argument, not dialogue.
And that's the real point. It's not Wilson in 1912, it's America in 1912. Was it all evil? Shall we scrub it all out, and have some sort of Department of Truth review every name on every building? If we are trying to scrub out all the sinners, will anything be left?
We are living in a social media world. The one-liner and the symbol is more important than the nuance and the reality. I get that it turns out Wilson was a racist. I get that if I was a person of color I probably would be pretty outraged that, after fighting for the right to get into a school like Princeton, I found racist guys' names on the buildings.
But are we really talking about racism in America, or are we engaged in a social media-style Shaming? It seems very similar to the "gotcha culture" from the Hollywood media. Let's find some dirt on somebody and shame them. So now that's how history works - we're shaming Wilson this week. You joining in, or want to wait until we go after FDR next week? C u there.
This country desperately needs to find a way to confront its racism and its ghosts and maybe even Princeton should take Wilson's name off of the building. But this kind of shaming culture is fake, shallow, divisive, and leads to argument, not dialogue.
We tend to teach history as hagiography. Perhaps we're afraid that, if we portray in full those enshrined in our national memory (Jefferson, Washington, slaveowners; King, JFK, womanizers), we'll degrade our past and, perhaps, ourselves.
If the bright light now focused on Wilson represents the first step in an honest, unflinching debate about the faults and achievements of past leaders, good. If it's a mere passing squall, then it's hardly worth the effort.
If the bright light now focused on Wilson represents the first step in an honest, unflinching debate about the faults and achievements of past leaders, good. If it's a mere passing squall, then it's hardly worth the effort.
1
Good moral character is the most important virtue. The NY Times has convenced me to put Ben Carson on the top of my list for 2016. None of the others can hope to pass muster with this Editorial Board.
1
I can see the Times editorial a year now: "Why are we honoring the man who ordered the internment of 100,000 Japanese-Americans? Change the name of the FDR Drive now!"
1
.
personally, I am above criticism and revisionism - never having done anything wrong in my past -
and as such
only want to hang out with others of my exalted status
where are you?
I'm getting lonely
.
personally, I am above criticism and revisionism - never having done anything wrong in my past -
and as such
only want to hang out with others of my exalted status
where are you?
I'm getting lonely
.
5
When is someone going to address Princeton's other naming problem: Old Nassau and Nassau Hall. These are celebrations of sectarian triumph and William of Orange-Nassau, conqueror of England, whose victories in Ireland set in stone the proto-Apartheid Penal Laws that oppressed the Gaelic-speaking Catholic peasantry for centuries. This is something people should be celebrating in the 21st century.
1
There are indeed certain things which need there name changed, but this is not one of them. The fact that a Rhodes Scholarship is one of the most prestigious awards one can get as an American student for postgraduate study is appalling because of who the award is named after. But hey, I guess it was "his money" he granted. And then again, I guess a diamond really is forever.
Might as well bulldoze the Jefferson Memorial. Much of the high mindedness he stood for has already been trampled so finish the job, and let yesterday's pop icons set our standards.
1
Of course he wrote high minded prose, but did not practice.
He made considerable profit from breeding and selling Blacks (aka slaves)
He raped and fathered children by a child slave (Sally Hemings)
and he fought to get compensation for the slaves that escaped during the Revolutionary War to British camps and died.
Let's focus on the acts of people and stop revering individuals, none of whom are perfect.
He made considerable profit from breeding and selling Blacks (aka slaves)
He raped and fathered children by a child slave (Sally Hemings)
and he fought to get compensation for the slaves that escaped during the Revolutionary War to British camps and died.
Let's focus on the acts of people and stop revering individuals, none of whom are perfect.
Many people here cite to the fact, e.g., that some Founding Fathers were slave owners as reason not to demonize Wilson and justification for not removing his name from the school at Princeton.
There is a difference, however: Wilson consciously worked to intentionally discriminate in a "setting back" way, to actually REMOVE rights from a group of American citizens who had done nothing to justify such setback.
That is significantly different than merely perpetuating or participating in the social behaviors at a then-contemporary moment in history.
My walking by, watching and doing nothing as kids throw eggs at my neighbor's house is not the same as me picking up eggs and throwing them myself, and it is significantly different than me instituting a rule, as "mayor" of my block, that eggs SHOULD be thrown at my neighbor's house.
There is a difference, however: Wilson consciously worked to intentionally discriminate in a "setting back" way, to actually REMOVE rights from a group of American citizens who had done nothing to justify such setback.
That is significantly different than merely perpetuating or participating in the social behaviors at a then-contemporary moment in history.
My walking by, watching and doing nothing as kids throw eggs at my neighbor's house is not the same as me picking up eggs and throwing them myself, and it is significantly different than me instituting a rule, as "mayor" of my block, that eggs SHOULD be thrown at my neighbor's house.
3
To my mind, the reason for removing Wilson's name and not some others such as Washington and Jefferson is summarized in Davis' piece about his grandfather: Wilson "reversed decades of racial progress." He was not just becalmed in the mores of his time, he systematically moved us backwards, though it pains me to say so when he also is of the era that gave women the vote. Time to think up a new name for some pretty buildings.
2
I disagree with this "Political Correct": opinion of the Times. I am a product of the Old South, where segregation was a given cultural in everyday lives. Accepted and lived with by both whites and blacks. Quietly objected to but nothing changed. I remember my grandmother and I walking down a sidewalk and an elderly black man was approaching from the opposite direction. He left the sidewalk and walked in the street as he passed us. I asked my grandmother why he did that. The response, "That is the way it is. It is not right, but nothing can be done about it."
Wilson and his actions reflect that time and other prominent whites in positions of power did the same. It is unfortunate, but it is a part of our history and cannot be just erased with political correctness
Wilson and his actions reflect that time and other prominent whites in positions of power did the same. It is unfortunate, but it is a part of our history and cannot be just erased with political correctness
1
I do imagine that affixing someone's name to an edifice is a form of honor which one generation may afford a predecessor whose overall influence has been well regarded. Occasionally living people are afforded this privilege which may be withdrawn for criminality. I recall a train station/car park in New Jersey losing the name of an Abscam tainted US Senator. Removing Wilson's name is a no brainer. Princeton is still a racist organization in dire need of a sociological cleansing. What's better than removing a dead racist's name from a large slab of concrete? This, if done in response to the University's current and future students and faculty will be productive. The same cannot be said for inaction while yielding to those whom excuse Wilson and his deeds. Universities are living, learning places. Practicing racists, pedophiles and xenophobes beware; your names will no longer be valuable for buildings.
American history is colored by human hypocrisy, denial and deceit. What about the Founding Father's who enslaved other human beings colored by Africa? What about the rebels who created the Confederate States of America? What about the European ethnic sectarian crew who leveraged Jim Crow to their white privileged advantage?
1
Samuel F.B. Morse, the inventor of Morse code was also a very big racist. I am waiting for the PC Police to start changing Morse code to something less "Morsey". Good luck!
Actually, Morse could be a front runner in the Republican presidential race today. He hated blacks, Catholics and immigrants and wrote books defending slavery and advocated for forbidding Catholics from holding public office. He was Donald Trump 150 ago.
Actually, Morse could be a front runner in the Republican presidential race today. He hated blacks, Catholics and immigrants and wrote books defending slavery and advocated for forbidding Catholics from holding public office. He was Donald Trump 150 ago.
1
Judging political figures within their historical context is critical, and most revisionism uses our current views as the prism of correction. Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington are mis-judged by Wilson is not. Woodrow Wilson, was a new Progressive Democrat who pursued racial superiority. His ascent can be traced to his unification of big city Xenophobia with Southern Jim Crow racial policies. His victory was because of a Republican blunder, not a voter mandate.
After the Supreme Court misinterpreted the law with Plessy, society pivoted, Wilson institutionalized Jim Crow within the Federal Government.
Wilson's views on race stirred the embers of racism and stoked new flames. The racial incidents of his Presidency were criminal. Unlike slave owning Presidents who inherited their society and culture, Wilson transformed American Society when he institutionalized Jim Crow injustice from a Southern to a a National.
We should not destroy our history but we should judge on historical context and culture. When you rewrite history, you sew seeds of secrecy, distrust, rebellion, and tyranny. The pendulum pushed to the left, will push back to the right. If you want toleration and civil liberty in academic settings then this protest movement must foster historical and cultural debate not Safe Space Singleness of Thought. Wilson is not our problem, Wilson's singleness of thought is a problem.
After the Supreme Court misinterpreted the law with Plessy, society pivoted, Wilson institutionalized Jim Crow within the Federal Government.
Wilson's views on race stirred the embers of racism and stoked new flames. The racial incidents of his Presidency were criminal. Unlike slave owning Presidents who inherited their society and culture, Wilson transformed American Society when he institutionalized Jim Crow injustice from a Southern to a a National.
We should not destroy our history but we should judge on historical context and culture. When you rewrite history, you sew seeds of secrecy, distrust, rebellion, and tyranny. The pendulum pushed to the left, will push back to the right. If you want toleration and civil liberty in academic settings then this protest movement must foster historical and cultural debate not Safe Space Singleness of Thought. Wilson is not our problem, Wilson's singleness of thought is a problem.
1
A common theme in these comments is that we have to accept these men because they contributed to our society more than they harmed it. As usual, those not on the receiving end of this treatment are the main proponents of this argument. Maybe we should rethink the "founding fathers" and who we choose to honor. Why would such a change be wrong? Is it because it will change what these United States look like? I would love the biggest highway running North/South be named Sojourner Truth Freedom Highway, what about Fredrick Douglas, W.E.B Du Bois? Are they less in American values because they were not Presidents?
3
Umm, so will the Times rescind their endorsements for Wilson in both the 1912 and 1916 elections?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presidential-endor...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presidential-endor...
3
Along similar reasoning: Should the Presidential Medal of Freedom be revoked from Bill Cosby? Is he a role model? Does many, many hours of sit-com entertainment to millions of American families enter into the equation?
Better yet, don't name anything after any human being and then there is no issues of any misdeeds from decades or centuries ago......He was a racist but then again so was the whole country decades ago So? ...what of it....... now is now and then was then... If we go down that road do we also rename Bob Jones University, for example? You are going to school for an education not for social race relations. IF you don't like the name don't go to that school.
This editorial chronicles two abominations. The first comprises Wilson's actions to destroy the lives of black federal employees. The second is a decision made by Princeton in 1948, when "none of this mattered."
How will rescinding the honors bestowed on Wilson help us all to remain mindful of the wrongs done, and of the shameful succession of decades during which black Americans were "viewed as nonpersons"? To my mind, erasing Wilson's name from Princeton lets Princeton and all who go there or visit forget what could be done to black Americans, was done, and sadly enough is still done down to the present day. The honors given to Wilson should not be rescinded, but reinterpreted and annotated, as memorials to the suffering he caused.
How will rescinding the honors bestowed on Wilson help us all to remain mindful of the wrongs done, and of the shameful succession of decades during which black Americans were "viewed as nonpersons"? To my mind, erasing Wilson's name from Princeton lets Princeton and all who go there or visit forget what could be done to black Americans, was done, and sadly enough is still done down to the present day. The honors given to Wilson should not be rescinded, but reinterpreted and annotated, as memorials to the suffering he caused.
2
It was a time of no Jews allowed, Irish need not apply, hatred of Italians, Germans, Asians, and of anyone who was not a WASP male.
Get some perspective.
Get some perspective.
2
This editorial did lend some perspective, sad to say.
Applying today's internet-driven mob standards to people from the long ago past is imbecilic. Wilson was a white southern gentleman. Being "racist" was the status of every white southern gentleman at the time.
Today's student agitators, free speech opponents, are a new kind of Red Guard. Just another straw in the wind of our descent.
Today's student agitators, free speech opponents, are a new kind of Red Guard. Just another straw in the wind of our descent.
2
These "he was a product of his milieu" arguments take one only so far, as they usually depend on whose ox is being gored. Generally the argument is invoked by people belonging to a group, in this case whites, not directly affected by the injurious actions or words of the person under discussion. As a Jewish person, I'd be highly offended if a German university named one of its faculties after Heidegger, a supporter of the Nazi regime, even as I recognize his major contributions to philosophy. And, I'd hardly be mollified, if a non-Jewish person told me "yes, yes, but he was a great philosopher, so let's move on". Why should blacks feel any differently in the Woodrow Wilson case?
2
There are a lot of defensive people exerting themselves on this issue. "Everybody was racist back then," "Washington had slaves," "Let's rename DC then" etc. etc.
But I'm glad this conversation is happening and thank the protesters for it. For me, it doesn't much matter about whether Princeton renames its buildings. It's more important to have a conversation about actual and unpleasant historical truths.
So keep the name, Princeton, if it means that much to your donors. Just know, thanks to this protest, the name "Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs" will have a funny smell from now on.
Public affairs, yeah right.
But I'm glad this conversation is happening and thank the protesters for it. For me, it doesn't much matter about whether Princeton renames its buildings. It's more important to have a conversation about actual and unpleasant historical truths.
So keep the name, Princeton, if it means that much to your donors. Just know, thanks to this protest, the name "Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs" will have a funny smell from now on.
Public affairs, yeah right.
2
We have no idea what Wilson actually believed, and it is impossible for him to explain. But we do know that, as a Southerner, to be elected he needed the support of the southern states that were still reeling from post Civil War reconstruction. Gaining support is politics and playing to the support of your base has not changed much over the years.
1
It is wrong to bowdlerize American history. If you hide the past you not only delay our learning from it, but also hide that fact that we can learn, can improve, can change. Keep the name and keep the conversation alive.
3
Maybe next the editorial board should take on the Washington Redskins. Here's a current sports team with a racist name named after a city named after a slaveholder. How can the board live with itself?
2
Where does this stop? Orwell lives.
8
This editorial opinion is a sure sign of progressives becoming as bad as conservatives. The political divide widens daily.
Where are American moderates when we need them?
Where are American moderates when we need them?
3
As a Princeton alum, I share part of a open letter sent by President Eisgruber, which calls for a thorough and thoughtful process before any decision - maybe the NYTimes should wait - Wilson's legacy is complex, both good and bad.
"As every Princetonian knows, Wilson left a lasting imprint on this University and this campus, and while much of his record had a very positive impact on the shaping of modern Princeton, his record on race is disturbing.
As a University we have to be open to thoughtful re-examination of our own history, and I believe it is appropriate to engage our community in a careful exploration of this legacy...
The Board of Trustees will form a subcommittee to collect information about Wilson’s record and impact from a wide array of perspectives and constituencies. This information will include a range of scholarly understandings of Wilson.
The Board will solicit letters from experts familiar with Wilson, and it will make those letters public. The Board will also establish a vehicle to allow alumni, faculty, students, and staff to register their opinions with the subcommittee about Wilson and his legacy......
After assessing the information it has gathered and hearing the views of all parts of the Princeton community, the Board will decide whether there are any changes that should be made in how the University recognizes Wilson’s legacy."
"As every Princetonian knows, Wilson left a lasting imprint on this University and this campus, and while much of his record had a very positive impact on the shaping of modern Princeton, his record on race is disturbing.
As a University we have to be open to thoughtful re-examination of our own history, and I believe it is appropriate to engage our community in a careful exploration of this legacy...
The Board of Trustees will form a subcommittee to collect information about Wilson’s record and impact from a wide array of perspectives and constituencies. This information will include a range of scholarly understandings of Wilson.
The Board will solicit letters from experts familiar with Wilson, and it will make those letters public. The Board will also establish a vehicle to allow alumni, faculty, students, and staff to register their opinions with the subcommittee about Wilson and his legacy......
After assessing the information it has gathered and hearing the views of all parts of the Princeton community, the Board will decide whether there are any changes that should be made in how the University recognizes Wilson’s legacy."
If some students at Princeton want to remove Wilson's name from one of the University buildings, let them make a case before the whole student body plus all the alumni and let them decide by majority of votes. If they will like the procedure they can renew it every year and remove or reinstall Wilson's name accordingly. This is a local affair. The argument is whether Wilson's role in the history of Princeton deserves the honor of naming a building after him. This has nothing to do with Wilson's role in American and world history. And those who would like to debate the latter can open a page at Facebook and express their opinions there.
Wilson was a DEMOCRAT, folks.
2
This would be insane to wipe out all the accomplishments of Wilson in a vast state of denial because of the past. I saw only one example of harm done by his actions to one person in this article. I am not convinced. Furthermore, history can never be changed only corrected. This is a wrongheaded decision.
Of course Willsinned. But people are not one-dimensional, and neither are their legacies. Students who embrace the "outrage" ethic of media outlets live in a sad world of clear-cut binaries, where historical complexities are seen as dispensable. Is the University prepared to create an ad hoc inquisition to judge the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Henry Frick, John Witherspoon and all the other namesakes on Campus?
1
Editorials like this one just validate conservative arguments that the New York Times is a totally biased liberal newspaper that can't be trusted.
3
Those of us whose eyes aren't burdened by the tint of "progressive" hagiography have been calling Wilson out on his racism for years.
It's funny to see that we had to wait for the present-day left to begin its self-immolation -- for young Jacobins to grope about their campuses in search of fresh targets -- before the sainted sage of Versailles could fall subject to a well-deserved and long-overdue judgment.
Funny. Or sad?
It's funny to see that we had to wait for the present-day left to begin its self-immolation -- for young Jacobins to grope about their campuses in search of fresh targets -- before the sainted sage of Versailles could fall subject to a well-deserved and long-overdue judgment.
Funny. Or sad?
I spent a year in southern Germany when I was 20 years old, in 1965. Many of the older people I met were willing to admit, at least at private dinner parties, to having been supporters of Adolf Hitler. These people were fond of telling me how much Hitler had done for Germany, including social programs, public works (the autobahns were a favorite) and similar things.
Most of these accomplishments were perfectly real, and improved the lives of ordinary Germans at the time.
Shall we reverse our opinions of Mr. Hitler now? Go back to naming buildings in his honor, on the theory that "he was a man of his time" and "his record was mixed"? I think not.
What Woodrow Wilson did was not OK. It was not OK at the time and it certainly is not OK now. Some public acknowledgement of this fact is way overdue.
Most of these accomplishments were perfectly real, and improved the lives of ordinary Germans at the time.
Shall we reverse our opinions of Mr. Hitler now? Go back to naming buildings in his honor, on the theory that "he was a man of his time" and "his record was mixed"? I think not.
What Woodrow Wilson did was not OK. It was not OK at the time and it certainly is not OK now. Some public acknowledgement of this fact is way overdue.
16
that is such a false equivalency, i frankly cannot even believe you'd trot out such a myopic viewpoint.
2
Wilson was a racist and for that he should be condemned. He was also a progressive president whose domestic and international accomplishments profoundly changed America for the better. He is not in a league with Washington, Lincoln or FD Roosevelt, but he remains one of the more important leaders the nation has experienced.
Morality cannot be measured by an additive rule. Bad deeds do not subtract from good ones. We are to the totality of our actions, not the sum of them. Wilson championed good policies and bad ones. Calling out Wilson’s xenophobic attitude towards black America and removing his name from buildings as a result of it will not cure American racism. America’s history of racism is not negated by any of the good this nation has created in the world. American’s should acknowledge our racist past and recognize the current attitude towards people of color, immigrants and Islam is still more of it.
Morality cannot be measured by an additive rule. Bad deeds do not subtract from good ones. We are to the totality of our actions, not the sum of them. Wilson championed good policies and bad ones. Calling out Wilson’s xenophobic attitude towards black America and removing his name from buildings as a result of it will not cure American racism. America’s history of racism is not negated by any of the good this nation has created in the world. American’s should acknowledge our racist past and recognize the current attitude towards people of color, immigrants and Islam is still more of it.
1
If the Times editorial board proposes that Wilson's name be removed, it should also consider writing an editorial doing the same thing for FDR, whose name is glorified on many academic campuses, who knowingly turned back the ship St. Louis, resulting in the demise of nearly 1,000 Jewish people hoping to gain access to the United States to escape the Nazi slaughter. And what about Jefferson, co-author of the Declaration of Independence, who owned slaves and held black women in captivity to father his children? I agree that we should honor the demand to remove Wilson's name, but to be equitable, the editorial board should also come out against many other presidents and other prominent public servants for their record of abuse and bigotry. I've named two more, but there are many more than Wilson whose name should not be exalted.
Certainly an excellent eye-opening editorial which casts light on the dark side of a progressive in world affairs and introduces a debate that we should have about how we honor him or if we should honor him. After all, he did do many things to promote world peace after a disastrous war, made the US a recognized world power, and was the granddaddy of the UN.
So, now do we consider chiseling Teddy Roosevelt off Mt Rushmore for his genocidal action in the Philippines, which today would be considered war crimes and his pro-racist policy toward Japan, which he felt were Eastern Aryans and were encouraged by him to militarize and take over Korea, an ally of ours at the time, actions which helped foster WWII?
If fair is fair, then more than just Black Lives matter.
As a general philosophical question is it fair, or wise, to judge our ancestors or heroes of the past in the light of today's ethical concerns?
FDR was anti-Semitic; JFK was an adulterer; MLK was a womanizer - do we rename the highway, stop the adulation and withdraw the holiday for these men? And, of course, Andrew Jackson is having his day in the pillory. He was in his age, very popular. Do we shame our past for its prejudices and not honor anyone?
We should be wary about castigating our leaders for sharing the ethos of their times lest future Americans do the same to us, feeling that we did not live up to the higher standards of some future generation and shame us because we succumbed to the prejudices of our times.
So, now do we consider chiseling Teddy Roosevelt off Mt Rushmore for his genocidal action in the Philippines, which today would be considered war crimes and his pro-racist policy toward Japan, which he felt were Eastern Aryans and were encouraged by him to militarize and take over Korea, an ally of ours at the time, actions which helped foster WWII?
If fair is fair, then more than just Black Lives matter.
As a general philosophical question is it fair, or wise, to judge our ancestors or heroes of the past in the light of today's ethical concerns?
FDR was anti-Semitic; JFK was an adulterer; MLK was a womanizer - do we rename the highway, stop the adulation and withdraw the holiday for these men? And, of course, Andrew Jackson is having his day in the pillory. He was in his age, very popular. Do we shame our past for its prejudices and not honor anyone?
We should be wary about castigating our leaders for sharing the ethos of their times lest future Americans do the same to us, feeling that we did not live up to the higher standards of some future generation and shame us because we succumbed to the prejudices of our times.
Take two men who grew up in my home town, Columbia, South Carolina, Woodrow Wilson and Wade Hampton. Both were segregationist (Hampton even owned slaves). Both, earlier, were associated with racist groups including the KKK. And both were in positions of power, able, to great extent, control events (Hampton as governor after Reconstruction ended). There, the similarities, as far as civil rights, end.
While Wilson, eliminated the progress that blacks had made, Hampton, at great political risk, preserved black voting rights. (Side note: the Wikipedia article on Hampton, egregiously, leaves this out.)
Who should we honor by naming things after them? Wilson? It's a tough call because, outside of civil rights, he did so much good for the nation, but, no. Hampton? Though he remained a staunch segregationist, unlike Wilson, he refused to eliminate the political gains blacks had made. Yes to him.
In honoring our past leaders, I think the standard should be who, ultimately, advances our nation? We should quit trying to find saints. We aren't going to find any.
(The right of blacks to vote in South Carolina was, indeed, later taken away by Hampton's bitter rival, Ben Tillman.)
While Wilson, eliminated the progress that blacks had made, Hampton, at great political risk, preserved black voting rights. (Side note: the Wikipedia article on Hampton, egregiously, leaves this out.)
Who should we honor by naming things after them? Wilson? It's a tough call because, outside of civil rights, he did so much good for the nation, but, no. Hampton? Though he remained a staunch segregationist, unlike Wilson, he refused to eliminate the political gains blacks had made. Yes to him.
In honoring our past leaders, I think the standard should be who, ultimately, advances our nation? We should quit trying to find saints. We aren't going to find any.
(The right of blacks to vote in South Carolina was, indeed, later taken away by Hampton's bitter rival, Ben Tillman.)
Being an avowed racist is unacceptable. Thus, assuming the accuracy of the editorial, every honor given to Wilson anywhere should be removed. Hold people accountable for their "stupidity" and selfishness, and maybe we have half a chance people will consider the consequences of their actions when taking action. I see that one reader wrote that everyone has sinned, and that if we judged people based on past sins, no one would be worthy to be honored. Interesting, but inaccurate. First, someone who is repentant is, in my eyes, in a different category because he or she has admitted his or her error in judgment. Second, there are varying degrees of "sin." Being an avowed racist is no doubt over the line of forgivable sins.
I wonder if those in agreement with the editorial have a problem with, say, a bridge named after Edmund Pettus or a school building named after Jefferson Davis. Or, are those things somehow different?
As during the racial confrontations in the 1960s and 1970s, the Princeton students’ demands to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from buildings and other structures have provoked serious discussions of race in our country. Reactions to them have also demonstrated that the tentacles of “racial insensitivity” or racism extend much farther than pick-up trucks and Southern defenders of the Confederate Battle Flag.
These reactions are both a “blessing” and a “curse” in that they show it often takes ugly confrontations to get us to address racial issues in our country despite race-related demonstrations and violence from coast to coast.
Let’s hope that some reasoned dialogue and civil discourse will eventually emerge regarding this agonizing issue that has been with us for nearly four centuries.
These reactions are both a “blessing” and a “curse” in that they show it often takes ugly confrontations to get us to address racial issues in our country despite race-related demonstrations and violence from coast to coast.
Let’s hope that some reasoned dialogue and civil discourse will eventually emerge regarding this agonizing issue that has been with us for nearly four centuries.
We cannot erase history that we do not like, we can only learn from it. Slavery and racism was rampant all over the world in earlier times and still is in some places. There is a lot of looking backwards and blaming with these young people when they should be looking at where we are today.
Many of these young people got admitted to great universities with lower grade point averages than others with a 4+ average to make the classes more balanced and are now saying they don't do well because some people are racist and they don't feel comfortable there.
It is up to them to work harder in school and fit in not the other way around. Out in the real world people say stupid things every day that we do not like but we ignore them and go about our business. If they would start to be grateful for being there and get busy studying they would not have time to get their feelings hurt.
Many of these young people got admitted to great universities with lower grade point averages than others with a 4+ average to make the classes more balanced and are now saying they don't do well because some people are racist and they don't feel comfortable there.
It is up to them to work harder in school and fit in not the other way around. Out in the real world people say stupid things every day that we do not like but we ignore them and go about our business. If they would start to be grateful for being there and get busy studying they would not have time to get their feelings hurt.
Maybe nothing should be named after anyone, since no one is perfect.
Interesting what having a black President has wrought. In the long run, it's probably good to get the racism and bigotry out in the open and try to deal with it. It may be difficult to know how symbolic gestures would change the hearts and minds of racists and bigots. However, respecting the feelings of others would be indicative of an acceptance that is definitely lacking these days, whether the others are of a different skin color, country of origin, or political persuasion.
Bottom line is that changing the name of the school would not make it less prestigious. So who care what it's called?
Interesting what having a black President has wrought. In the long run, it's probably good to get the racism and bigotry out in the open and try to deal with it. It may be difficult to know how symbolic gestures would change the hearts and minds of racists and bigots. However, respecting the feelings of others would be indicative of an acceptance that is definitely lacking these days, whether the others are of a different skin color, country of origin, or political persuasion.
Bottom line is that changing the name of the school would not make it less prestigious. So who care what it's called?
3
I think part of the problem is that we're only a couple hundred years old, and as such we must look to some dubious historical figures to lionize.
We don't really have the luxury of reaching into the shrouded mists of history to find some semi mythical heroes to admire. We ain't got no Joan of Arc.
We don't really have the luxury of reaching into the shrouded mists of history to find some semi mythical heroes to admire. We ain't got no Joan of Arc.
If every US President or great world leader is judged by the standards of our own time, no one short of Christ would escape this kind of retroactive condemnation. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and is rumored to have fathered children by his slave Sally Hemings. I doubt that the University of Virginia would reject Thomas Jefferson and remove his name from that institution. Franklin Roosevelt refused permission to dock in US ports to the doomed shipload of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis in Europe and they were sent back to their deaths at the hands of the Nazis. Should Roosevelt’s name be expunged? Wilson tolerated segregationists in his administration, that is true, but he appointed the first Jewish Professor to Princeton and first Jewish member of the US Supreme Court. Bernard Baruch considered him almost as a father. A century ago, the civil rights issues of that time and place were the rights of Jewish people to be accepted in all areas of society AND women's suffrage. Wilson both supported and signed the amendment granting women the right to vote. Those were the big civil rights issues of that day. Wilson was correct in his positions on those issues. Women did not gain the right to vote until 55 years after African American males did. The fact that we are having this debate about a visionary world leader is a sad commentary on our time and on the NY Times. It also explains the political rise of Donald Trump. Please read Scott Berg’s fine biography of Wilson.
1
The Constitution does not provide for the President's signature on an amendment. Enactment of that amendment was restricted to the Congress and state legislatures. Wilson did not have the power to accept or veto an amendment.
1
You Editors failed to recognize the basis for Wilson's racism, what conditioned his thinking. He was born and raised in 19th Century --ta da -- Virginia! I followed suit 60 years later in the 1950s, and I know what Virginia thought of blacks even then, when Brown v. Board of Education was considered a joke. It took me decades to outgrow that upbringing, which required attending college in the north and never living in Virginia again.
Oscar Hammerstein said it as well as anyone:
You've got to be taught to hate and fear,
You've got to be taught from year to year,
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear,
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six, or seven, or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be carefully taught.
Oscar Hammerstein said it as well as anyone:
You've got to be taught to hate and fear,
You've got to be taught from year to year,
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear,
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six, or seven, or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be carefully taught.
1
If anyone ever posts these lyrics again I think I'll throw up. Everyone knows the lyrics, they're great, but a tad bit overused.
This is what is wrong with the protestors and liberalism today. The renaming of a school and residential complex achieves NOTHING for the people of today who are victims of racism.
From Black Lives Matter to PC inanities like this one, there is no clear policy or understanding by these protestors of how to make ordinary and LIVING people have a better, more satisfying life. These protests achieve little in society, as opposed to the student protests during the 60s, which were far more inclusive, and wanted to better society.
The protestors spend their time being angry and blaming everybody, and will never be able to look towards a better future, since they are encouraged and coddled to look backwards, with venom.
That doesn't bode well for their or society's future.
From Black Lives Matter to PC inanities like this one, there is no clear policy or understanding by these protestors of how to make ordinary and LIVING people have a better, more satisfying life. These protests achieve little in society, as opposed to the student protests during the 60s, which were far more inclusive, and wanted to better society.
The protestors spend their time being angry and blaming everybody, and will never be able to look towards a better future, since they are encouraged and coddled to look backwards, with venom.
That doesn't bode well for their or society's future.
3
The righteous liberals of our day are unable to digest an extraordinarily varied record from our history. It's always he did "good" things and he did "bad" things. For me it's about historical experience and Wilson was one of the most influential American presidents, Do we purge the Progressive era or the fateful and flawed vision of peace with the Fourteen Points and the League? I find Wilson to be an unbearable figure---perhaps even more self-regarding than his modern-day critics---but today's universities would do well to go slow in this rush to a purified polity.
1
When will The Times run an article detailing the Democratic Party's extremely racist roots, from opposition to Lincoln to Jim Crow to Woodrow Wilson to FDR (he of the Japanese internment camps) to Truman to Senators like Al Gore Sr, Fulbright and Byrd. Democratic Party racism that was far worse than the racism you complain about in today's Republican Party. While you write Woodrow Wilson out of Princeton, how about all the other Democratic racists that formed the core of the Democratic Party through the mid-1960s?
While we are being politically correct, how about mentioning the war on women committed by certain Democrats, from JFK to LBJ and on to Bill Clinton. While we judge Woodrow Wilson by the morality of 2015, how about judging some other former presidents and Congressmen by the morality of 2015. Not until The Times comes clean on the roots of the modern Democratic Party might we have the chance to move on.
While we are being politically correct, how about mentioning the war on women committed by certain Democrats, from JFK to LBJ and on to Bill Clinton. While we judge Woodrow Wilson by the morality of 2015, how about judging some other former presidents and Congressmen by the morality of 2015. Not until The Times comes clean on the roots of the modern Democratic Party might we have the chance to move on.
2
The pushback against disassociating Princeton from Wilson is infuriatingly disingenuous and shockingly callous.
There is no doubt that many men and women who were held in high esteem said or did disreputable things. But the protests at Princeton aren't about Kennedy or Roosevelt or Clinton. If and when the time comes for a reassessment of their legacies, let it happen. But it's intellectually dishonest to reject changes at Princeton on the grounds that every other public figure who has been honored throughout American history must first be held to account for his or her own shortcomings.
Second, we can and must judge Wilson and other prominent figures by today's standards when their actions and beliefs offend today's sense of justice.
There is no doubt that many men and women who were held in high esteem said or did disreputable things. But the protests at Princeton aren't about Kennedy or Roosevelt or Clinton. If and when the time comes for a reassessment of their legacies, let it happen. But it's intellectually dishonest to reject changes at Princeton on the grounds that every other public figure who has been honored throughout American history must first be held to account for his or her own shortcomings.
Second, we can and must judge Wilson and other prominent figures by today's standards when their actions and beliefs offend today's sense of justice.
1
Wilson is touted by admirers as the president who ushered in the era of a dominant US presence on the global stage. But that clearly was an accomplishment of Theodore Roosevelt, who had begun pushing for overseas intervention while at the Navy Department, long before even becoming president. Wilson took what Roosevelt left to him and used it, along with greedy partners Clemenceau and Lloyd George, to carve up the world with little or no regard to the welfare of the affected populations (some of whom were allies). What happened in Paris in 1919 at the hands of these men, led by Wilson, was a turning point in international relations that started us on a path to WWII, and fueled fires in the Balkans and Middle East that still burn today. His despicable racism aside, it would be hard to overstate the damage to the world wrought by this hubristic, self-obsessed man.
Wilson was a very accomplished president whose racial views were not atypical.
The idea that the NYTimes and Democratic Party would condemn him is symptomatic of its own cynical racist search for votes that entire denies the
pathology of the urban Negro. A huge per cent of Negroes have risen through accomplishment to levels while given every advantage for 50 years. Those who have not need to be acknowledged and controlled like any defect.
If Princeton throws Wilson overboard let BLM endow it in the future.
The idea that the NYTimes and Democratic Party would condemn him is symptomatic of its own cynical racist search for votes that entire denies the
pathology of the urban Negro. A huge per cent of Negroes have risen through accomplishment to levels while given every advantage for 50 years. Those who have not need to be acknowledged and controlled like any defect.
If Princeton throws Wilson overboard let BLM endow it in the future.
At one time I thought Woodrow Wilson was an academic that was elected President and tried to form the League of Nations. He seemed to be a tragic figure, a good man that had not attained the lofty goals he had strived to achieve.
But, as Paul Harvey used to say, now for the rest of the story. Wilson was a racist. My opinion of Wilson has changed.
I didn't attend Princeton. I don't have a dog in this fight. But, if revisionist history proved that a person that had a building named after them was unworthy at my school, I would stand with the students in 2015. I admire the students of Princeton. There have been many great people that have been connected with that university. Use their name. They deserve the honor.
But, as Paul Harvey used to say, now for the rest of the story. Wilson was a racist. My opinion of Wilson has changed.
I didn't attend Princeton. I don't have a dog in this fight. But, if revisionist history proved that a person that had a building named after them was unworthy at my school, I would stand with the students in 2015. I admire the students of Princeton. There have been many great people that have been connected with that university. Use their name. They deserve the honor.
Have the protesters really flawlessly thought through their 'top goal' of renaming university institutions that were given the name of a racist American democrat?
Doesn't the name perfectly fit many courses that are taught at the Woodrow Wilson School which have in scientific formulas justified capitalist democracy and very bloody foreign policies for two hundred years. What leading US political figures would remain to replace the racist Wilson? Perhaps Lyndon Johnson who supported and signed the Civil Rights Bill 1964 just a few months before he ordered 'rolling thunder' - a devastating air campaign against the Vietnamese people of whom thousands were slaughtered by the freedom-bombs? The names that are given to schools always reflect what is taught at them which in a formal scientific mode has to justify the ruling principles of the US economy and its political superstructure. Does any public or more or less renowned private school in the US bear the name Fred Hampton - a Black panther activist massacred by the FBI - or Rosa Luxemburg - a Jewish socialist economist executed by rightest troops in Germany, just to name a few candidates totally inappropriate for any US school that predicates what it teaches on the principles of 'freedom and democracy' that are 'beyond the bounds of rational discourse'?
Doesn't the name perfectly fit many courses that are taught at the Woodrow Wilson School which have in scientific formulas justified capitalist democracy and very bloody foreign policies for two hundred years. What leading US political figures would remain to replace the racist Wilson? Perhaps Lyndon Johnson who supported and signed the Civil Rights Bill 1964 just a few months before he ordered 'rolling thunder' - a devastating air campaign against the Vietnamese people of whom thousands were slaughtered by the freedom-bombs? The names that are given to schools always reflect what is taught at them which in a formal scientific mode has to justify the ruling principles of the US economy and its political superstructure. Does any public or more or less renowned private school in the US bear the name Fred Hampton - a Black panther activist massacred by the FBI - or Rosa Luxemburg - a Jewish socialist economist executed by rightest troops in Germany, just to name a few candidates totally inappropriate for any US school that predicates what it teaches on the principles of 'freedom and democracy' that are 'beyond the bounds of rational discourse'?
If the policies enacted by Wilson ruined the lives white people, I feel pretty confident the tone of these comments would be different. But because it was black folks, oh well, he was man of his times. Get over it! He really was great.
Many of you never cease to amaze me.
Many of you never cease to amaze me.
1
When will this silliness pass? Brown University should be renamed- slave trade; Washington-Lee too--slave owner and traitor; Duke University -how many smokers die as a result of the product? Reagan National Airport too -he blatantly campaigned on a southern strategy from day 1 of his campaign. Given the nature of the current Republican primary campaigns there are many more serious current issues to discuss than somethings that happened years ago!
3
Reagan's name should be off that airport for other reasons.
1
Am I mistaken, but, for the last six months, hasn't the Fox News, conservative media been embracing Wilson as a paragon of American culture?
Hey, Jefferson and Washington were slave owners. How about we only focus their racism while ignoring their accomplishments. Wouldn't removing the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument show how tolerant and progressive we are becoming as a society?
2
"The progressive movement has discovered that Wilson, one of its intellectual founders, was a horrible racist. Wilson promoted segregation and attacked the concept of racial equality. Wilson’s disgusting philosophy was shared by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, but liberals are still giving out awards with her name. The identity politics dominating the modern left owes more to Wilson and Sanger’s tainted legacy than liberals would like to admit. "
2
The editorial board needs to decide how far it wants to go here:
Honoraria
Medals and awards from the US government
Public Memorial (statuary, paintings, engravings, photographs)
Places of Public Assembly throughout the nation - parks, auditoriums, transportation facilities, etc.
Degree of reversal required - expunging public records, renaming streets, etc.
Avoidance of future issues via guidelines for naming all manner of things.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.....
Honoraria
Medals and awards from the US government
Public Memorial (statuary, paintings, engravings, photographs)
Places of Public Assembly throughout the nation - parks, auditoriums, transportation facilities, etc.
Degree of reversal required - expunging public records, renaming streets, etc.
Avoidance of future issues via guidelines for naming all manner of things.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.....
5
This isn't about "sanitizing" history or "erasing" great historical figures. It's about knocking people off pedestals on which they were placed in spite of -- and sometimes because of -- thoughts and deeds that offend our communal (and, yes, evolving) sense of decency. It's about actually recognizing the faults of our leaders, rather than blindly venerating their achievements. It's about having a real dialogue about race in this country, something that has proven to be extraordinarily difficult, well-nigh impossible.
To those who ask, "where does this end?" I answer, it ends when racism ends, it ends when reparations issue, it ends when this country's white privileged collectively feels the contrition and remorse -- which it never truly has felt -- for years of human bondage, genocide and ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. It ends when the vision of the Fourteenth Amendment is achieved.
In other words, it doesn't end now, and it doesn't end any time soon. Excising Wilson's name from the most glorified posts at one of our most glorified centers of higher learning is a very small and very simple beginning.
To those who ask, "where does this end?" I answer, it ends when racism ends, it ends when reparations issue, it ends when this country's white privileged collectively feels the contrition and remorse -- which it never truly has felt -- for years of human bondage, genocide and ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. It ends when the vision of the Fourteenth Amendment is achieved.
In other words, it doesn't end now, and it doesn't end any time soon. Excising Wilson's name from the most glorified posts at one of our most glorified centers of higher learning is a very small and very simple beginning.
2
As a Princeton graduate (AB 1965, Ph D 1971) like my father and grandfather (whose name is on the roll of World War I graduate deceased in World War I) I fully accept that Wilson was a racist who encouraged black disempowerment. In fact he was hosting the author of the novel Birth of a Nation at the White House while the NAACP was protesting the premiere of the famous film outside. But I find it curious that this attribute, and the actions resulting from it, should take precedence in the internationalist New York Times over all the other achievements or initiatives taken by Wilson that were truly progressive. Why, also, should Wilson be singled out among all our other prominent forebears who actually owned slaves. Should the State of Washington change its name to the State of Puget Sound? As one of your op-ed commentators mentioned earlier this year, Washington would abscond every year with his household and slaves to Pennsylvania and then return to Mount Vernon so he could avoid the state taxes on slaves. Ad infinitum. Racism is bred into the bones of the nation. New York City merchants opposed the freeing of slaves, which would decimate their supply of slave-picked cotton from the south. Let the pot call the kettle black (no pun intended)
5
Funny it was not 4 years ago the Times and progressives were mocking Glenn Beck for his hatred of Woodrow Wilson. Now they are making common cause with Beck.
I think you all owe him an apology.
I think you all owe him an apology.
6
When South Africa made the transition from apartheid state to democracy, one of the steps taken to acknowledge the change was to rename cities and provinces to acknowledge the reality of the "new" South Africa. It was the honest thing to do. Why perpetuate "traditions" that do not bear continuity? So with the Woodrow Wilson School. Times change.
2
OK who is next? How about FDR. Let's not forget that FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps! Such an act would be viewed as completely criminal today, yet FDR is held up as one of the greatest Presidents.
8
Japanese Americans were able to recover from internment far more quickly than African Americans recovered from nationwide segregation. That is the only reason Woodrow Wilson is a slightly worse President than FDR.
"...thousands of African-American men and women passed Civil Service examinations or received political appointments that landed them in well-paying middle-class government jobs in which they sometimes supervised white workers."
Sounds like the Government just handed them success on a silver platter by virtue of their color.
Sounds like the Government just handed them success on a silver platter by virtue of their color.
Do you mean like the hundreds of MILLIONS of white people just handed them success on a silver platter by virtue of their color?
History continues to be rewritten as the standards of the time change.
I am with the editorial board on this one. There is too much praise for famous people and not enough respect for the good folks who keep their heads down and take care of the people around them. It is a mistake to make heroes out of people like Wilson and Jefferson and Jackson and so many others. There are a few famous people who lived good lives, but not proportionately many. Hero worship might be an eighth deadly sin.
1
The particular irony here is that it is the name of a school of 'Public and International Policy' that is being challenged. In high school I learned about the "He kept this country out of war!" version of WIlson. He was 'a reluctant warrior who in the end broke the stalemate on the Western Front only after keeping us out of the bloodbath for almost three years, then helping create the League of Nations, and destroying his health campaigning to get the US to join'. Sounds good, right?
Trouble is, it leaves out all the parts about disempowering the people of color throughout the world, an extension of his racist policies at home. International Policy? Restoring the European Empires after WW1 including chopping up the Ottoman Empire and German colonies, all for the benefit of France and England. Just look at the map of the Middle East, created at the Versailles Peace Conference. In the East, only the Japanese Empire, closely aligned with England and France, was given provisional membership in the Imperial Club. Oops.
Yes, Wilson favored peace, but a peace in which the betters ruled the lessor people, the same as his view of racial balance at home. This is not "revisionism", it is an attempt to correct the past public history of this man. If we can cope with Jefferson's racism, surely we can deal with Wilson's. He did good things and he did bad. Let us understand both. That is how students at Princeton and elsewhere should learn history.
Trouble is, it leaves out all the parts about disempowering the people of color throughout the world, an extension of his racist policies at home. International Policy? Restoring the European Empires after WW1 including chopping up the Ottoman Empire and German colonies, all for the benefit of France and England. Just look at the map of the Middle East, created at the Versailles Peace Conference. In the East, only the Japanese Empire, closely aligned with England and France, was given provisional membership in the Imperial Club. Oops.
Yes, Wilson favored peace, but a peace in which the betters ruled the lessor people, the same as his view of racial balance at home. This is not "revisionism", it is an attempt to correct the past public history of this man. If we can cope with Jefferson's racism, surely we can deal with Wilson's. He did good things and he did bad. Let us understand both. That is how students at Princeton and elsewhere should learn history.
1
“The protesters’ top goal — convincing the university to rename the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the residential complex known as Wilson College — has drawn heavy fire from traditionalists.”
Another of the protester’s goals is the creation of separate spaces for students of color. Isn’t that segregation except that this type of segregation is demanded by students of color so that is OK? I was in graduate school in the Washington DC area during the early 2000s and my school had separate clubs based on ethnic background. There were no clubs for white students and nor should there be. But demands made by minority groups to cluster within their groups are met by colleges and universities all the time. So much for people coming together to truly share ideas.
Another of the protester’s goals is the creation of separate spaces for students of color. Isn’t that segregation except that this type of segregation is demanded by students of color so that is OK? I was in graduate school in the Washington DC area during the early 2000s and my school had separate clubs based on ethnic background. There were no clubs for white students and nor should there be. But demands made by minority groups to cluster within their groups are met by colleges and universities all the time. So much for people coming together to truly share ideas.
Bad, immoral, antihuman behavior is bad whenever it's practiced. And there's no ambiguity about Wilson's beliefs. There were also plenty of people in Wilson's day who advocated for the inclusion of black people. The fact that many more were actively racist doesn't absolve Wilson of responsibility for a toxic legacy.
The real absurd arguments are those that continue to suggest that since we're all imperfect, we should just forget about it. But like it or not, to continue to acquiesce in the veneration of such a legacy is a tacit affirmation of the belief system underlying it. It's not that bad behavior can't be changed. It's that we really don't want to change it.
The real absurd arguments are those that continue to suggest that since we're all imperfect, we should just forget about it. But like it or not, to continue to acquiesce in the veneration of such a legacy is a tacit affirmation of the belief system underlying it. It's not that bad behavior can't be changed. It's that we really don't want to change it.
2
Additionally, if Princeton had a building named Ku Klux Klan hall, I think everyone would be in agreement that the name should be changed. So, where do we draw the line? One could argue that the Ku Klux Klan had both significant historical impact and horrible racist views, as people have argued about Wilson. Is it only former presidents who are excused and allowed to have buildings named after them? Is it a utilitarian equation: if the man has done x amount of good things it cancels out x amount of bad things? I don't believe changing the name will solve anything, but I also haven't seen a convincing argument against changing name.
2
Autres temps, autres moeurs
The New York Times enthusiastically endorsed Woodrwo Wilson for President in 1912 and 1916.
His virtues then out-shone his failings.
A reminder to us all about perspective.
The New York Times enthusiastically endorsed Woodrwo Wilson for President in 1912 and 1916.
His virtues then out-shone his failings.
A reminder to us all about perspective.
6
As a southern man who was born in 1944 and came of age during the 1950's and 1960's, I ask the question: Is there a difference between a segregationist and a racist?
1
I held a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship at Cornell. I didn't use the money, because I had other funding, so it was honorary. I was just waking up (late) to the enormity of this country's racist history, in regard to both African and Native Americans. One truth is that the country's landscape, including its campuses, is littered with the consequences of that history, many of them bloody. Another is that the whole story needs telling and can be told, as tragedy and triumph tangled together, not as melodrama. Frederick Douglass, William Faulkner, Walt Whitman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Herman Melville, Martin Luther King, Toni Morison, and Wynton Marsallis all have understood the point. So have many others. But it does not seem to sink into the morass of so-called exceptionalism. What is to be done at Princeton is Princeton's concern. The larger issue is what is to be done to really understand how this country became what it is and actually deal with the consequences. The debate about Wilson at Princeton, like recent debate about Jefferson Davis at the University of Texas at Austin or the heritage of slavery at Brown or the chicanery and industrial deaths that made Stanford possible or the building of the land grant universities on land expropriated from Native people--all these are specific questions within the much larger issue. Lincoln got it best: we cannot escape history. And Faulkner knew that the past isn't even past yet. And that is a matter for the whole country.
2
This is probably the best comment on this editorial. Well done!
This self serving pronouncement from an Editorial Board that thought Teddy Kennedy was just wonderful. If they are worried about racism, they should check out the current occupant of the White House. The entire Black Lives Matter movement is built on racism. Show some integrity!
2
Do we know of any regimes on the national level, or administrators in the business world, who have instituted a policy of sweeping change, or an attempt to steer public thought, or group thinking? What were their goals? What were their methods? Think of Henry Ford. Is a private citizen considered a different case? Of course, there is no reason for buildings to be named after individuals. There is no reason for multi-religion displays during the holiday season. All this can be banned. And then, only those of means in the private sector can use the concept of "honoring" by naming edifices or displaying symbols to promote an idea. Unpromoted ideas will naturally fall by the wayside, and people will forget they ever were.
I understand that Caesar was not particularly nice.
Perhaps we need to get rid of July
Pity - one of my favourite months
Perhaps we need to get rid of July
Pity - one of my favourite months
5
This editorial is poorly thought out. For generations historians rated Wilson a near great president. He also was a significant president of Princeton. And, he was a racist. In the time he lived and from where he was from that did not make him unique. It probably did not even make him unusual. To judge people by current standards is ahistorical. It also raises the question how far back should we go and how far geographically? It might be more useful for Princeton students and all students to learn all about Wilson and get over their sensitivities and their need to dictate to everyone else what to think and say.
6
Oh, I get it....we need to ban Woodrow Wilson, and to be fair to all, we need to eliminate Columbus Day, Presidents Day (since Washington was a slave owner and Lincoln tried to isolate all blacks), all the founding fathers (since they all had slaves), of course we need to take Ben Franklin off our currency, change the name of John Jay college, change the corp name of John Hancock, and change James Madison University. Gotta take Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill. A little google will tell you we must demonize both Roosevelts and of course, LBJ. Harry Truman was dues-paying to the KKK, so he's got to go too.
Babe Ruth, Walt Disney (we need to close those parks, I guess), and John Wayne - take them out as well.
I think there's a few thousand others, but you get the point.
We can either accept that, in the past, opinions of race were not evolved (in fact, the norm was very different) than today, and get on with life.
OR we can take one at a time, and endlessly apologize for thought and life that no live person today is responsible for.
Babe Ruth, Walt Disney (we need to close those parks, I guess), and John Wayne - take them out as well.
I think there's a few thousand others, but you get the point.
We can either accept that, in the past, opinions of race were not evolved (in fact, the norm was very different) than today, and get on with life.
OR we can take one at a time, and endlessly apologize for thought and life that no live person today is responsible for.
2
One cannot compare Wilson to the Founders who were slave owners. They lived at a time when consciousness of racism barely existed in the United States and Europe.
But Wilson was president a half century after the Civil War, Emancipation and Reconstruction. He knew the deadly effects of racism and he approved. None of the Founders took America backwards on race issues, they horribly left the status quo alone. Wilson successfully repealed gains that had been made against racism, like resegregating the federal work force, like endorsing the KKK and encouraging (by his endorsement of "Birth Of A Nation") its revival.
No. There is no legitimate comparison between the Founders, men of the 18th century, and Wilson, a man of the 20th.
Take his name down.
But Wilson was president a half century after the Civil War, Emancipation and Reconstruction. He knew the deadly effects of racism and he approved. None of the Founders took America backwards on race issues, they horribly left the status quo alone. Wilson successfully repealed gains that had been made against racism, like resegregating the federal work force, like endorsing the KKK and encouraging (by his endorsement of "Birth Of A Nation") its revival.
No. There is no legitimate comparison between the Founders, men of the 18th century, and Wilson, a man of the 20th.
Take his name down.
3
Wilson certainly seems to have been a racist and should be openly discredited for causing misery for millions of innocent people as well as for worsening the national condition by promoting racist policies but was he so far outside the norm for white leaders at that time that his other accomplishments should be discredited, too? I think that if we erase Wilson's entire legacy to disassociate ourselves from his bad actions, we probably should do the same for any who committed bad acts as did he. It's hard to measure people by today's standards without finding many former national leaders who we can hold in esteem for their beneficial actions but from who we must disassociate from for their bad ones. I think perhaps we should find a way to both respect what good men have done that sets them apart as well as to discredit them for their wrong headed or wrongful deeds, both.
1
NYT, you've jumped the shark by joining the side of oversensitive college students (read: children). These students have a lot to learn about real life and the real world. There are any number of injustices in the world happening right now that they could be protesting. Instead, they choose to fight against dead people from a time where modern standards of morality didn't apply.
These students have gone too far. Political correctness has become a farce. And you, the editorial board, are enabling them. The adults involved at these universities must take a stand to preserve American history. And they must do their job: teach young people to think critically about the past, consider all sides, and not reflexively lash out in an effort to erase the parts of history they don't like. This has to stop now.
These students have gone too far. Political correctness has become a farce. And you, the editorial board, are enabling them. The adults involved at these universities must take a stand to preserve American history. And they must do their job: teach young people to think critically about the past, consider all sides, and not reflexively lash out in an effort to erase the parts of history they don't like. This has to stop now.
7
Princeton honored Wilson for his foreign policy legacy when it named the School of International Affairs after him. It isn't the School of Domestic Segregation, after all. The notion that we can't separate the good from the bad in our history is a simpleton's mindset. I am sure that every American President can be viewed as having affronted one oppressed class or another. We shouldn't seek to sanitize history. This is an Orwellian mistake that brings to mind the Taliban and ISIS destroying the legacy of ancient ruins. Before we start on this slippery slope, calmer heads should prevail. No one at Princeton (or hopefully elsewhere) would agree with Wilson's racist views, but we wouldn't agree with many things that were acceptable even a few years ago. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't honor the important accomplishments of our mortal predecessors.
3
Columbia University should change its name as should the country of Colombia and Columbia Sporting and the Columbus Crew....all in deference to the explorer who subjugated and enslaved indigenous peoples.
5
Well, I suppose if we stopped celebrating everybody in History who was a
jerk, we might as well get started destroying historical monuments and
artworks along with ISIS or ISIL.
jerk, we might as well get started destroying historical monuments and
artworks along with ISIS or ISIL.
1
Much of the commentary seems to focus on the fact that many of the historical figures in our history were slave owners or at least complicit in the practice of slavery and discrimination. However, the case against Woodrow Wilson is not complicity; it is the use of policy and executive action to actively disenfranchise Black Americans. This should not be viewed on the same level as George Washington owning slaves; this should be viewed on the level of Senator Jesse Helms or Governor George Wallace, figures that most of us Americans would agree should not be honored with buildings, statues, etc.
2
I have a better idea. Why not simply close the college? Surely if it is based on a non-palpatable, racist person then would it not be hypocritical to try and now benefit from it? A simple rename isn't good enough, just close it down completely. I am sure this will only hit white people, "social justice" achieved.
3
I'm ambivalent when it comes to wave of revisionism that would call historical figures to account for actions that had a rationale in their day. Can we know, for example, that Jefferson and Sally Hemmings did not have a loving relationship within the constrictions of their time, and that it was not simply a matter of master-slave domination? Does Sen. John Calhoun, SC, get his name stripped from a college at Yale for his pro-slavery advocacy [“freedom was based on slavery”] as certainly as the Confederate flag is being exiled? Arguably, Wilson's racism is not the only rationale for his exile. Under the cover of WWI, he reinvoked the Alien & Sedition Act with the Espionage Act of 1917, jailing anti-war types like Socialist Eugene Debs who garnered 6% in the 1912 Presidential election that Wilson won. A Wilson clause enabling the executive branch to censor the press did not pass muster in Congress, but other limitations of free speech were included and applied beyond WWI. Reading Mr. Davis' personal account resulting from Wilson's systematic dismantling of progress made by black Americans post-reconstruction, brings the issue to bear. Perhaps, the compromise for Princeton is strip Wilson's name from the residential complex and maintain it on Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Thanks for this. Now I see why the students are offended and agree with them.
2
Let's be clear about this. Wilson was no "passive" racist who was merely echoing what most Whites believed during his day and age. He was an active and activist racist who did everything within his power to disavow and roll back the racial progress that had been achieved since the Civil War.
Wilson was not some crazy old uncle sitting around the Thanksgiving Dinner table cracking racist jokes. This is a man who used the full power and executive authority of the Presidency to seek and root out any faint semblance of equality that Black Americans had achieved since the Civil War.
Further, it is well documented that he also endured that any mention of racial equality was struck from international treaties such as those after WW1.
The tired old excuse that we would have to strike every US statesman before the Civil Rights era off the honor roll of our history books is plain old malarkey. A lot of them were racists, yes. Some were slaveholders, yes. But it was also true that they were of their times and hardly activists for the cause of bigotry. Wilson was clearly at the worst end of the spectrum in his time, and indeed wanted to take the US back to a time that we had clearly progressed beyond.
Strike him off the honor roll of history. Forthwith.
Wilson was not some crazy old uncle sitting around the Thanksgiving Dinner table cracking racist jokes. This is a man who used the full power and executive authority of the Presidency to seek and root out any faint semblance of equality that Black Americans had achieved since the Civil War.
Further, it is well documented that he also endured that any mention of racial equality was struck from international treaties such as those after WW1.
The tired old excuse that we would have to strike every US statesman before the Civil Rights era off the honor roll of our history books is plain old malarkey. A lot of them were racists, yes. Some were slaveholders, yes. But it was also true that they were of their times and hardly activists for the cause of bigotry. Wilson was clearly at the worst end of the spectrum in his time, and indeed wanted to take the US back to a time that we had clearly progressed beyond.
Strike him off the honor roll of history. Forthwith.
3
Reading these comments makes me think of how the various communist countries tried to re-write history to erase anything that didn't go along with their view of the moment.
Is there no balance anymore? Can't we weigh the good things Wilson, Washington, Jefferson,FDR, etc. did against the "bad" they did? Why is everything taken out of context? While these men were brilliant, I don't think they could see so far into the future that irrationality would rule the day.
Should we just put a shroud on Mt. Rushmore because somebody doesn't agree with the views of one or two of the presidents carved up there?
Aren't we supposed to learn from history? Are all the yoga places now going to go out of business because of some one got their nose out of joint.
Merry Christmas!!
Is there no balance anymore? Can't we weigh the good things Wilson, Washington, Jefferson,FDR, etc. did against the "bad" they did? Why is everything taken out of context? While these men were brilliant, I don't think they could see so far into the future that irrationality would rule the day.
Should we just put a shroud on Mt. Rushmore because somebody doesn't agree with the views of one or two of the presidents carved up there?
Aren't we supposed to learn from history? Are all the yoga places now going to go out of business because of some one got their nose out of joint.
Merry Christmas!!
4