Removal of Wilson's name and legacy will reinforce the flawed notion that it is preferable to erase our past, rather than to intellectually grapple with and understand our national heritage
By Peter M. Erickson
The ongoing attempt by a few Princeton University students to remove the name and erase the legacy of President Woodrow Wilson is severely misguided. Should the university acquiesce to this demand, it would send an extraordinarily bad message - one that would diminish the role and significance of higher education, and tarnish the legacy of Princeton University for years to come.
It is a dangerous exercise when we judge historical figures through a modern-day prism without simultaneously attempting to understand the contexts in which these historical figures lived. Indeed, we might not be comfortable with what we find or uncover. But such an exercise is vital and helps us to think critically about who we are and where we came from. It is essential to understanding our past.
Born in 1856 - nearly 160 years ago - in Staunton, Va., Wilson lived during a time in which policies and beliefs were no doubt at odds with contemporary values. The vast majority of Wilson's white, Southern, male peers probably held racist opinions throughout their lives. Though this does not excuse Wilson's beliefs, it reminds us that historical context must be considered when seeking truth and assessing the life and works of an individual. This involves the ability to think critically, a skill and art which is rapidly disappearing at elite academic institutions whose very purpose is the fostering of non-stifling discourse and critical intellectual thought.
We know that racism did not end with Wilson. In the wake of the Pearl Harbor attacks, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized Executive Order 9066, authorizing the internment of more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry. Though this decision was prejudiced and despicable, even within its historical context, the overarching theme of Roosevelt's life - as person and as president - is not one of racism. Rather, the dominant tenor of his life speaks of leadership, of courage, and of determination in shepherding the United States through the dark years of World War II. It is not only possible, but proper, to honor a figure's legacy while simultaneously denouncing that figure's particular attributes and decisions.
Princeton's trustees will study Woodrow Wilson's legacy
During a time in which American universities are marginalizing diversity of thought, the ongoing events at Princeton will undoubtedly impact generations of future students and educators. Removal of Wilson's name and legacy will reinforce the flawed notion that it is preferable to erase our past, rather than to intellectually grapple with and understand our national heritage. It would constitute yet another blow to the Aristotelian concept that "the mark of an educated mind is to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it."
Keeping Wilson's legacy alive need not be synonymous with approval of all aspects of his life. But it will pay tribute to the ideals of an imperfect person who, in spite of his human flaws, looked at the present day and desired something better for the good of mankind. This is the Wilson that Princeton is proud of and should continue to remember. Surely Princeton University can find the nuance of thought to build off his legacy toward a brighter future, while acknowledging his many mistakes.
I recently picked up a book in the campus library entitled "Woodrow Wilson As I Know Him," penned in 1921 by Joseph Tumulty, Wilson's personal secretary. In the book's preface, the author reveals a president whose attributes are obviously lacking across educational institutions today. Tumulty wants readers to know that Wilson "welcomed suggestions and criticism," and that it "was a habit of Mr. Wilson's to meditate before taking action, to listen to advice without comment." He closes the preface of the book by saying the following: "I am convinced that he who reads this book will feel that he has met a man whose public career was governed not merely by a great brain, but also by a great heart. I did not invent this character. I observed him for 11 years."
I cannot help but think that this aspect of Wilson's character - the ability to listen to a variety of opinions, and to even welcome criticism - is exactly what is missing from Princeton and other universities today. To that end, I welcome the ongoing dialogue and discussion about Wilson. But let us not erase our own history in the process. Instead, each student, educator and administrator in our universities should remain steadfastly committed to an educational atmosphere which fosters greater brains, improved critical thinking skills and even greater hearts.
Major Peter M. Erickson is a General Wayne A. Downing Fellow and an officer in the United States Army. He is currently a graduate student at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. His views are his own, and do not represent those of the United States Army or the Department of Defense.
Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @starledger. Find The Star-Ledger on Facebook.