Naming at Princeton
November 23, 2015 9:23 AM Subscribe
What We Owe the Students at Princeton A Crooked Timber discussion of naming public architecture and engineering in the context of the recent Princeton controversy over Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson is still in the history books, we can read all about him there. But it's fucking annoying to walk around and see various reminders of a person who would have no probably putting you down, based solely on the color of your skin.
We can remember him, but there's no reason we have laud him.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:33 AM on November 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
We can remember him, but there's no reason we have laud him.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:33 AM on November 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
When we look at the balance -- Who benefits? -- leaving the monuments in place does far more harm than good. As Brandon Blatcher points out, actual living people suffer from (at best) microaggressions about these things; on the other side, no one benefits. Are the great-grandchildren of Woodrow Wilson going to suffer the least indignity over this that wasn't more than balanced out by the privilege previously accrued to them by the accident of their birth?
Get rid of the names. Keep the history. Acknowledge that Wilson was a transformative figure in the history of Princeton (and a lesser but still important figure in the history of the United States of America), but do so holistically.
posted by Etrigan at 9:42 AM on November 23, 2015
Get rid of the names. Keep the history. Acknowledge that Wilson was a transformative figure in the history of Princeton (and a lesser but still important figure in the history of the United States of America), but do so holistically.
posted by Etrigan at 9:42 AM on November 23, 2015
I like this idea very much:
Besides, there’s any number of ways to take Wilson’s name off a campus building — without erasing the past. Princeton could put up a plaque that says, “This building was once named after Woodrow Wilson in honor of his achievements as president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey and president of the United States. In 2015, after lengthy campus discussions of Wilson’s racial policies — including his decision to segregate the federal bureaucracy — the university decided to remove his name from this building and to rename it the W.E.B. DuBois School of Public and International Affairs, in honor of Wilson’s most formidable critic on matters of race.”
You don't erase him. But you demote him as someone to emulate. And you raise up someone else (or several someones) who are worthy of emulation.
posted by emjaybee at 9:42 AM on November 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
Besides, there’s any number of ways to take Wilson’s name off a campus building — without erasing the past. Princeton could put up a plaque that says, “This building was once named after Woodrow Wilson in honor of his achievements as president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey and president of the United States. In 2015, after lengthy campus discussions of Wilson’s racial policies — including his decision to segregate the federal bureaucracy — the university decided to remove his name from this building and to rename it the W.E.B. DuBois School of Public and International Affairs, in honor of Wilson’s most formidable critic on matters of race.”
You don't erase him. But you demote him as someone to emulate. And you raise up someone else (or several someones) who are worthy of emulation.
posted by emjaybee at 9:42 AM on November 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
Corey Robin (also writing at Crooked Timber): When Universities Really Do Destroy the Past…
Fifteen years ago, NYU announced a plan to expand its law school by tearing down Edgar Allan Poe’s home on West Third Street, where Poe wrote “The Cask of Amontillado,” revised “The Raven,” and acquired his own literary magazine. [...] Four years later, a nine-story, 170,000 square-foot Furman Hall was formerly opened. The Poe House was completely gone; a version of its facade was reconstructed a half-block away.posted by tonycpsu at 9:42 AM on November 23, 2015 [9 favorites]
[...]
When politicized university students ask that we revisit the nation’s racial past, however, that we rename buildings not to remove memory but to revise it, we become the most ardent preservationists. Even law professors who said not a word about the destruction of the Poe House.
If the revision in question is for the sake of capitalism, we sigh, whisper an All That’s Solid Melts Into Air, and move on. If it is for the sake of knowledge and anti-racism, we say no, in thunder.
Regardless of what either side would have you believe, there is no simple answer. You would have to look long and hard to find someone without moral failing. MLK was an adulterer and sexist, Betty Friedan was a homophobe, and I'm sure there must be a prominent gay rights advocate who was/is transphobic.
Are we going to end up renaming Washington?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:43 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Are we going to end up renaming Washington?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:43 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
The last two paragraphs are so incisively correct. Thank you to the student activists who are working on this issue, for raising my consciousness of this and working for concrete change.
Here are those great last paras:
Besides, there’s any number of ways to take Wilson’s name off a campus building — without erasing the past. Princeton could put up a plaque that says, “This building was once named after Woodrow Wilson in honor of his achievements as president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey and president of the United States. In 2015, after lengthy campus discussions of Wilson’s racial policies — including his decision to segregate the federal bureaucracy — the university decided to remove his name from this building and to rename it the W.E.B. DuBois School of Public and International Affairs, in honor of Wilson’s most formidable critic on matters of race.”
And then we could have another debate: about how DuBois would have been appalled to see his name adorn a building on a campus where dining hall workers, many of whom are black (it’s telling that the demographic on campus that has the highest percentage of African Americans is “all other staff”), make less than a living wage if they are parents and are often treated as if they were servants.
posted by latkes at 9:46 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Here are those great last paras:
Besides, there’s any number of ways to take Wilson’s name off a campus building — without erasing the past. Princeton could put up a plaque that says, “This building was once named after Woodrow Wilson in honor of his achievements as president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey and president of the United States. In 2015, after lengthy campus discussions of Wilson’s racial policies — including his decision to segregate the federal bureaucracy — the university decided to remove his name from this building and to rename it the W.E.B. DuBois School of Public and International Affairs, in honor of Wilson’s most formidable critic on matters of race.”
And then we could have another debate: about how DuBois would have been appalled to see his name adorn a building on a campus where dining hall workers, many of whom are black (it’s telling that the demographic on campus that has the highest percentage of African Americans is “all other staff”), make less than a living wage if they are parents and are often treated as if they were servants.
posted by latkes at 9:46 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
On that note, how many of our early presidents would qualify as virulently racist today? More than half?
posted by gottabefunky at 9:46 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by gottabefunky at 9:46 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wilson was racist even comparing him to the values of his day. But even if he was just an average racist, these places should have meaning to the students who attend the school today. There are historical figures who now, with the wisdom of perspective, most of us would choose to celebrate, even if they were also imperfect, as all of us are.
posted by latkes at 9:49 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by latkes at 9:49 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, all of them.
posted by dilaudid at 9:49 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dilaudid at 9:49 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Are we going to end up renaming Washington?
There's got to be a name for this hyperbolic, jumping to extremes debating tactic, right? It's like when women complain about being harassed and That Guy immediately jumps in with "So now I can't compliment anyone anymore?!"
posted by zombieflanders at 9:53 AM on November 23, 2015 [13 favorites]
There's got to be a name for this hyperbolic, jumping to extremes debating tactic, right? It's like when women complain about being harassed and That Guy immediately jumps in with "So now I can't compliment anyone anymore?!"
posted by zombieflanders at 9:53 AM on November 23, 2015 [13 favorites]
Regardless of what either side would have you believe, there is no simple answer.
If only we had a place where people could study and discuss questions without simple answers. Some sort of school...
posted by Etrigan at 9:56 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
If only we had a place where people could study and discuss questions without simple answers. Some sort of school...
posted by Etrigan at 9:56 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
you would have to look long and hard to find someone without moral failing
Its not about moral failing. Which can be personal or professional/public. But Woodrow Wilson's public and professional impact was very harmful and hatefilled and racist. So why celebrate that? Its not his persona life that we are judging, its that he was a public racist who publicly instituted racist policies and that should not be celebrated.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:59 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Its not about moral failing. Which can be personal or professional/public. But Woodrow Wilson's public and professional impact was very harmful and hatefilled and racist. So why celebrate that? Its not his persona life that we are judging, its that he was a public racist who publicly instituted racist policies and that should not be celebrated.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:59 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also, unless you went there or work there now, anyone complaining about what these students are doing needs to justify why they are invested in the naming of some building which doesn't affect them to the point where they aren't just indifferent but actively working against a change.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:08 AM on November 23, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:08 AM on November 23, 2015
There's got to be a name for this hyperbolic, jumping to extremes debating tactic, right?
I'm not sure, is there a name for the corresponding hyperbolic response that shows one didn't read a comment and/or assumes bad faith?
I said it's a complex issue. Washington owned slaves, Wilson didn't own slaves. Why are we worrying about a racist who some buildings named after him when the capital of our country is named after a slaveholder?
Let's be clear: I think Wilson was a dick and his policies negatively and directly impacted my ancestors as well. I'm just asking questions here. You know, dialogue?
posted by entropicamericana at 10:09 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure, is there a name for the corresponding hyperbolic response that shows one didn't read a comment and/or assumes bad faith?
I said it's a complex issue. Washington owned slaves, Wilson didn't own slaves. Why are we worrying about a racist who some buildings named after him when the capital of our country is named after a slaveholder?
Let's be clear: I think Wilson was a dick and his policies negatively and directly impacted my ancestors as well. I'm just asking questions here. You know, dialogue?
posted by entropicamericana at 10:09 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just mandate that ", virulent racist" be added to every lintel, plaque, website, and letterhead bearing his name. No censorship! Then the administrators and alumni can decide whether to do the censoring.
posted by chortly at 10:13 AM on November 23, 2015
posted by chortly at 10:13 AM on November 23, 2015
Maybe we just stop naming things after people altogether? It really seems like more trouble than it's worth.
Or we ask how other countries with... problematic... pasts cope with this sort of thing? Surely this cannot be a problem that's isolated to the US. (Any UK MeFites able to chime in and comment?)
posted by schmod at 10:16 AM on November 23, 2015
Or we ask how other countries with... problematic... pasts cope with this sort of thing? Surely this cannot be a problem that's isolated to the US. (Any UK MeFites able to chime in and comment?)
posted by schmod at 10:16 AM on November 23, 2015
I said it's a complex issue. Washington owned slaves, Wilson didn't own slaves. Why are we worrying about a racist who some buildings named after him when the capital of our country is named after a slaveholder?
Clearly some amount of "grading on a curve" for the standards of the time exists, but given that 1913 - 1789 = 124 years, one would expect much more out of Wilson than one would expect from any of the founding fathers. Unfortunately:
Woodrow Wilson was extremely racist — even by the standards of his time
Indeed.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:18 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Clearly some amount of "grading on a curve" for the standards of the time exists, but given that 1913 - 1789 = 124 years, one would expect much more out of Wilson than one would expect from any of the founding fathers. Unfortunately:
Woodrow Wilson was extremely racist — even by the standards of his time
Leaving the broader question of whether Wilson's name should be removed, let's be clear on one thing: Woodrow Wilson was, in fact, a racist pig. He was a racist by current standards, and he was a racist by the standards of the 1910s, a period widely acknowledged by historians as the "nadir" of post-Civil War race relations in the United States.I'm just asking questions here.
Indeed.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:18 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maybe that Vox link should have been in the post?
Anyway, like I said, Wilson was a dick. He has a no shortage of company in that department.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:23 AM on November 23, 2015
Anyway, like I said, Wilson was a dick. He has a no shortage of company in that department.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:23 AM on November 23, 2015
Why are we worrying about a racist who some buildings named after him when the capital of our country is named after a slaveholder?
Well I'm sure the students at Princeton are more worried about the school they actually go to than the country at large.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:26 AM on November 23, 2015
Well I'm sure the students at Princeton are more worried about the school they actually go to than the country at large.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:26 AM on November 23, 2015
There's got to be a name for this hyperbolic, jumping to extremes debating tactic, right?
"Taking things to their logical conclusion"?
It's unfair to accuse entropicamericana of JAQing off a la 9/11 truthers and Glenn Beck or whatever. There is room for legitimate debate here about what standard, or violation of a standard, causes society to decide to remove someone's name from a building (or otherwise not honor them).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:27 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Taking things to their logical conclusion"?
It's unfair to accuse entropicamericana of JAQing off a la 9/11 truthers and Glenn Beck or whatever. There is room for legitimate debate here about what standard, or violation of a standard, causes society to decide to remove someone's name from a building (or otherwise not honor them).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:27 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Are we going to have a conversation or are we going to accuse people of bad faith?
I think the Washington thing is just that its kind of set. But there's some room to remove Wilson's name. Also changing the name of a capital is rare and heavily politicized, changing the name of a building/school is not so much.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:32 AM on November 23, 2015
I think the Washington thing is just that its kind of set. But there's some room to remove Wilson's name. Also changing the name of a capital is rare and heavily politicized, changing the name of a building/school is not so much.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:32 AM on November 23, 2015
There is room for legitimate debate here about what standard, or violation of a standard, causes society to decide to remove someone's name from a building (or otherwise not honor them).
"Are we going to end up renaming Washington?" is not within that room, however. It's an accusation of hyperbolic intent on one side.
posted by Etrigan at 10:33 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Are we going to end up renaming Washington?" is not within that room, however. It's an accusation of hyperbolic intent on one side.
posted by Etrigan at 10:33 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
No one has any right, divine, legal, or otherwise, to have something named after them, and once so honored, they have no right to retain that honor in perpetuity. Therefore, we need not articulate one single standard that has to apply for our nation's capital, campus buildings, or anywhere else. We can leave it up to the constituents, students, and other stakeholders to decide based on what the institution in question means to them, and we should allow people over time to look back at people who were honored and decide that those who had the character to do things that were ahead of their time ought to retain their honor, while those who merely performed at the level of their times or worse can give up their spot for someone else.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 AM on November 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 AM on November 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
zombieflanders: "Are we going to end up renaming Washington?
There's got to be a name for this hyperbolic, jumping to extremes debating tactic, right?"
Well, maybe. Maybe not?
I'm actually pretty OK looking at the edge-cases, because this particular edge-case is an obvious and extremely-significant elephant in the room. It isn't productive to go chasing after the small stuff if we don't have a reasonable answer for what we should do about the larger problem.
Maybe Washington's actions were okay for his time. Maybe they weren't. I'm actually not particularly interested in exploring the issue, because the guy died 216 years ago. The lessons that we can learn from his life are so weighed-down with caveats that they're probably not even worth considering.
The federal district that bears George Washington's name has been around for more than 3 times as long as Washington was alive. At this point, the name is more tightly-associated with the place rather than the name. I'm not sure we're going to do much good by renaming the city (but, I speak for almost all of us when I say that we would happily change the name if you gave us the fucking right to vote).
Meanwhile, we've built monuments for some historical figures rather than others, largely because of their accomplishments. At the risk of sounding vaguely Soviet, let's celebrate those accomplishments directly. Build a monument to emancipation. To the constitution. To Social Security. When we have more significant accomplishments to celebrate, we can move some of the less-significant older ones out of the way (ohmygod DC is overrun with monuments, and it's impossible to remove any of them).
This is a seemingly difficult issue, but I really don't understand why it's so difficult for us to gradually move some of the statues out of view, and rename buildings if their namesake has taken on a negative connotation? Who gains by keeping the name unchanged?
In other cases, I think we need to remind ourselves that, over the span of time, the name of a place becomes more closely tied to that place than the person for whom it was named. There are egregious outliers, but for the remainder, the best course of action might be to adjust the imagery so that "Wilson" is just an abstract name that happens to be shared between a building and one guy. Maybe take Washington's face off of the dollar bill. It still comes across as a microaggression (albeit a smaller one), but I'm honestly not sure if there aren't greater tradeoffs that would come from robbing a place of its identity.
And stop making this mistake in the future. I'm pretty adamant about that part. Stop naming things after people.
posted by schmod at 10:37 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's got to be a name for this hyperbolic, jumping to extremes debating tactic, right?"
Well, maybe. Maybe not?
I'm actually pretty OK looking at the edge-cases, because this particular edge-case is an obvious and extremely-significant elephant in the room. It isn't productive to go chasing after the small stuff if we don't have a reasonable answer for what we should do about the larger problem.
Maybe Washington's actions were okay for his time. Maybe they weren't. I'm actually not particularly interested in exploring the issue, because the guy died 216 years ago. The lessons that we can learn from his life are so weighed-down with caveats that they're probably not even worth considering.
The federal district that bears George Washington's name has been around for more than 3 times as long as Washington was alive. At this point, the name is more tightly-associated with the place rather than the name. I'm not sure we're going to do much good by renaming the city (but, I speak for almost all of us when I say that we would happily change the name if you gave us the fucking right to vote).
Meanwhile, we've built monuments for some historical figures rather than others, largely because of their accomplishments. At the risk of sounding vaguely Soviet, let's celebrate those accomplishments directly. Build a monument to emancipation. To the constitution. To Social Security. When we have more significant accomplishments to celebrate, we can move some of the less-significant older ones out of the way (ohmygod DC is overrun with monuments, and it's impossible to remove any of them).
This is a seemingly difficult issue, but I really don't understand why it's so difficult for us to gradually move some of the statues out of view, and rename buildings if their namesake has taken on a negative connotation? Who gains by keeping the name unchanged?
In other cases, I think we need to remind ourselves that, over the span of time, the name of a place becomes more closely tied to that place than the person for whom it was named. There are egregious outliers, but for the remainder, the best course of action might be to adjust the imagery so that "Wilson" is just an abstract name that happens to be shared between a building and one guy. Maybe take Washington's face off of the dollar bill. It still comes across as a microaggression (albeit a smaller one), but I'm honestly not sure if there aren't greater tradeoffs that would come from robbing a place of its identity.
And stop making this mistake in the future. I'm pretty adamant about that part. Stop naming things after people.
posted by schmod at 10:37 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
And stop making this mistake in the future. I'm pretty adamant about that part. Stop naming things after people.
but how will universities and civic institutions regain some of the money plundered from them (and society at large) by plutocrats if not by appealing to their ego?
I'm serious
posted by lalochezia at 10:55 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's got to be a name for this hyperbolic, jumping to extremes debating tactic, right?
Yes, it's called the fallacy of relative privation.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 11:12 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, it's called the fallacy of relative privation.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 11:12 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Given there's talk about removing Jefferson , I don't think it's hyperbolic to talk about Washington.
(Renaming the city ? Yes, that's hyperbole. Invoking founding fathers seems fair game, re naming, removing statues etc.).
posted by k5.user at 12:08 PM on November 23, 2015
(Renaming the city ? Yes, that's hyperbole. Invoking founding fathers seems fair game, re naming, removing statues etc.).
posted by k5.user at 12:08 PM on November 23, 2015
k5.user: "Given there's talk about removing Jefferson , I don't think it's hyperbolic to talk about Washington. "
That article really muddles the stuff going on at Missouri with what's going on at William & Mary. The two situations aren't even remotely equivalent.
Also, speaking of W&M, Max Fischer recently wrote an article comparing the current issues with a right-wing meltdown that happened at W&M a few years ago, which went more or less unnoticed by the general public (possibly because it didn't fit into a compelling media narrative). [Disclaimer: I'm a W&M alumnus. I'm still angry about what happened.]
One thing that I will note is that when the aforementioned incident took place, the right-wing student newspaper on campus suddenly had tons of funding, and two more sprouted up beside it. The speed with which the Conservative money-machine kicked into gear (even in 2006) was frightening.
In this particular case, the W&M faculty I've seen on Twitter/Facebook seem to largely agree that the protests are valid, but they aren't convinced that the statue should be removed.
More than many other places, W&M has a rather checkered history, between the British Colonists, misguided interactions with local Native Americans, and role in the Confederacy. However, and perhaps uniquely, I think that W&M has found a way to constructively make peace with its past; acknowledging The College's history without trying to hide the bad parts (no doubt influenced by Colonial Williamsburg's struggle to do the same). They haven't done a perfect job of it, but this is something that they've been making a conscious effort to deal with for quite a long time -- perhaps it's time for them to stand up and teach others to do the same.
posted by schmod at 2:03 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
That article really muddles the stuff going on at Missouri with what's going on at William & Mary. The two situations aren't even remotely equivalent.
Also, speaking of W&M, Max Fischer recently wrote an article comparing the current issues with a right-wing meltdown that happened at W&M a few years ago, which went more or less unnoticed by the general public (possibly because it didn't fit into a compelling media narrative). [Disclaimer: I'm a W&M alumnus. I'm still angry about what happened.]
One thing that I will note is that when the aforementioned incident took place, the right-wing student newspaper on campus suddenly had tons of funding, and two more sprouted up beside it. The speed with which the Conservative money-machine kicked into gear (even in 2006) was frightening.
In this particular case, the W&M faculty I've seen on Twitter/Facebook seem to largely agree that the protests are valid, but they aren't convinced that the statue should be removed.
More than many other places, W&M has a rather checkered history, between the British Colonists, misguided interactions with local Native Americans, and role in the Confederacy. However, and perhaps uniquely, I think that W&M has found a way to constructively make peace with its past; acknowledging The College's history without trying to hide the bad parts (no doubt influenced by Colonial Williamsburg's struggle to do the same). They haven't done a perfect job of it, but this is something that they've been making a conscious effort to deal with for quite a long time -- perhaps it's time for them to stand up and teach others to do the same.
posted by schmod at 2:03 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
“I think we have to look at what it means to change the name of an internationally known school,” she said. “Our alumni are identified with the Woodrow Wilson School, so it’s not an easy decision.”
This dean's opinion paradoxically seals the deal for me. Its obverse explains exactly why it would be a great move for an institution such as Princeton to change this name.
I'd walked past Prospect House in my life as a grad student more times than I care to recall, over all the hours of the day, all weather conditions. The article doesn't mention that the complex, used exclusively for guests and faculty, has a back that is a two-story dining room with floor-length glass windows. It's a fish bowl: Every student and public visitor can walk past the flower garden, and view the goings-on in the interior. And when campus is in session, often you do see the Black and Latino staff, standing stiffly in their handsome uniforms, preparing for dinner service, etc. It's definitely an image, whose juxtapositions are suddenly made stark when you include the historical context.
I once confided with a friend in student government that I felt that the graduate students didn't have a great relationship with the staff, particularly those responsible for shuttling us back and forth between our housing and the departments. I mean, it's a limited extent if the only times they are represented in our emails is, invariably, in connection to us complaining that the shuttles are not arriving on time, or frequently enough, or late enough. Today I'd say this level of interaction - and that was just one example - is a sign of the degree of compartmentalization - segregation! - of the groups of people that Princeton in its official language loves to repeat as part of the "community". As long as the gears are oiled and pipeline running smoothly, everything is fine.
posted by polymodus at 4:05 PM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
This dean's opinion paradoxically seals the deal for me. Its obverse explains exactly why it would be a great move for an institution such as Princeton to change this name.
I'd walked past Prospect House in my life as a grad student more times than I care to recall, over all the hours of the day, all weather conditions. The article doesn't mention that the complex, used exclusively for guests and faculty, has a back that is a two-story dining room with floor-length glass windows. It's a fish bowl: Every student and public visitor can walk past the flower garden, and view the goings-on in the interior. And when campus is in session, often you do see the Black and Latino staff, standing stiffly in their handsome uniforms, preparing for dinner service, etc. It's definitely an image, whose juxtapositions are suddenly made stark when you include the historical context.
I once confided with a friend in student government that I felt that the graduate students didn't have a great relationship with the staff, particularly those responsible for shuttling us back and forth between our housing and the departments. I mean, it's a limited extent if the only times they are represented in our emails is, invariably, in connection to us complaining that the shuttles are not arriving on time, or frequently enough, or late enough. Today I'd say this level of interaction - and that was just one example - is a sign of the degree of compartmentalization - segregation! - of the groups of people that Princeton in its official language loves to repeat as part of the "community". As long as the gears are oiled and pipeline running smoothly, everything is fine.
posted by polymodus at 4:05 PM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. If people want to talk about renaming Washington that's fine, and if not that's also fine; if it was proposed as an absurd conclusion that nobody should accept and indeed nobody accepts it, well, ok. But having a running fight over whether it's ok to talk about talking about renaming Washington is a derail.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 5:14 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 5:14 PM on November 23, 2015
I'm actually pretty OK looking at the edge-cases, because this particular edge-case is an obvious and extremely-significant elephant in the room. It isn't productive to go chasing after the small stuff if we don't have a reasonable answer for what we should do about the larger problem.
Philadelphia dealt with Washington's problematic history in a fine way: when they excavated the original Presidential House by the Liberty Bell museum they focused the material and narration of the house on the lives of the slaves he kept. A very solid acknowledgement that we can't pretend he was some angelic hero of liberty rather than a human like any other.
These things do not revise history; they expand on it.
posted by Anonymous at 8:04 PM on November 23, 2015
Philadelphia dealt with Washington's problematic history in a fine way: when they excavated the original Presidential House by the Liberty Bell museum they focused the material and narration of the house on the lives of the slaves he kept. A very solid acknowledgement that we can't pretend he was some angelic hero of liberty rather than a human like any other.
These things do not revise history; they expand on it.
posted by Anonymous at 8:04 PM on November 23, 2015
I have a degree from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. I'm ashamed to admit that until this issue started being discussed amongst alumni in recent months, I had no idea about Wilson's racism. If nothing else, no-one associated with Princeton will be able to forget his legacy now, and that's a good thing.
Princeton is a strange place with a particularly troubling history (and contemporary record - including but certainly not limited to the composition of its student, faculty and staff as identified in Robin's piece) on race issues, even by the standards of the Ivy League. Personally I think changing the name of the school would be a good thing, but I doubt the old guard amongst the alumni will let it happen.
posted by une_heure_pleine at 8:45 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Princeton is a strange place with a particularly troubling history (and contemporary record - including but certainly not limited to the composition of its student, faculty and staff as identified in Robin's piece) on race issues, even by the standards of the Ivy League. Personally I think changing the name of the school would be a good thing, but I doubt the old guard amongst the alumni will let it happen.
posted by une_heure_pleine at 8:45 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Lessons From Princeton’s Struggles With Woodrow Wilson’s Racism
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2015
Mason B. Williams: The Crumbling Monuments of the Age of Marble
But, while both the protesters and their detractors focus on the question of what to do with the legacies of historically prominent figures today, there is a larger reckoning that America needs to have with the style of commemoration embodied in these individual monuments—and the meanings of the American nation bound up in them. These protests may be dealing a final blow to a style of commemoration that thrived for much of the 20th century. Something new will take its place. But what? Discussing individuals and (where warranted) removing names is good—but it is just a start. The crucial next step is to rethink and reinvent the ways the nation commemorates. To do that, it is important to first understand the ideological underpinnings of these enduring monuments, the touchstones of an age when America churned out everything from statues to buildings to new currency at a furious pace.posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:26 PM on December 6, 2015
Even Judging Woodrow Wilson by the Standards of His Own Time, He Was Deplorably Racist
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:39 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:39 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
a parallel from across the pond
Don’t ban Donald Trump. Just keep on laughing at him - David Mitchell
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:38 AM on December 21, 2015
Don’t ban Donald Trump. Just keep on laughing at him - David Mitchell
I’m not very keen on these ideas. I dislike the trend for “stripping” the disgraced of the honours bestowed on them when they were in our good books. I think if it turns out you’ve made, say, Hitler an honorary PhD in peace studies, the record ought to stand as a rebuke to your whole honorary doctorate admissions policy.via A Don's Life
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:38 AM on December 21, 2015
« Older (Sail Away) | Come aboard. We're expecting... well, maybe not... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:25 AM on November 23, 2015