Andrew Adeola
Princeton University takes its turn in the national spotlight on college campuses where racial tensions have entered the fore of social discourse. This time, the discussion pivots around Woodrow Wilson, an alumnus, former Princeton president (1902-1910) and the 28th U.S. president (1913-1921).
About 200 students participated in a walkout in protest of racial injustice on the campus and what they consider university passivity. The students held sit-ins at the office of university President Christopher Eisgruber, with about 15 students remaining at the office overnight Nov. 18. The next day, Eisgruber responded by agreeing to begin a discussion with the student body on the Black Justice League’s list of demands and to forward these demands to the board of trustees for deliberation.
Part of the group’s demands include the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from any buildings at the university — specifically, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and a residential complex named Wilson College — and the implementation of a mandatory course on “the history of marginalized peoples” for students, along with cultural competency training for staff and faculty.
Criticism of the use of Wilson’s name on buildings and academic structures mirrors that surrounding the University of Maryland’s football stadium, named in honor of Harry Clifton “Curley” Byrd, a former university president. The grounds for comparison center on both leaders’ shared ideologies regarding racial progressiveness and tolerance.
Neither were particularly known for their tolerance, but they were well-known for their proud adherence to their beliefs and willingness to apply them to their work.
Wilson, like Byrd, was a devout segregationist who celebrated the concept of “separate but equal.” In 1914, Wilson said “segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you” in a comment to a group of black professionals led by Harvard alumnus William Monroe Trotter, who had met with Wilson to protest segregation.
During his tenure as U.S. president, Wilson diminished the progress blacks had made since the Reconstruction Era by overseeing the resegregation of several agencies of the federal government and approving the segregation of workers. Through his time as president of Princeton, no blacks were admitted into the institution, though other higher institutions such as Yale and Harvard had for many years admitted minorities into their schools.
Likewise, Byrd, in his position of power as president of this university, ensured his campus remained segregated and admitted no black students until 1951, after facing numerous legal challenges. He left the office to run for governor in 1954 against Theodore McKeldin on the same “separate but equal” platform but lost.
Like Wilson, Byrd’s tenure as university president was marred with intolerance and discrimination. His leadership, especially, as university president was far short of what can be regarded as a hallmark.
That these names are now aggrandized on stadiums and academic buildings is disconcerting to many. Many who enter these structures do so with the awareness that they are in a construction that memorializes men who made it their mission to impede and overturn the progress of minorities.
It is a solemn reminder for some — students, faculties and patrons — who walk through the halls of these buildings, that if the men who they were named after had been successful in their undertaking, they would have no place in those halls. That bit alone is distressing and should impel a change.
