The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

​GORMAN: Student protesters are fighting the wrong battles

By protesting alleged symbols of institutional racism, students at Missouri and Yale are missing an opportunity to address tangible issues

A few weeks ago, the University of Missouri and Yale University each reached the tipping point of racial tensions on their respective campuses, resulting in the ousting of a university president and a widespread movement toward the creation of “safe spaces” for minorities at colleges across the country. This initiative has raised awareness of numerous issues of racial injustice that certainly need to be addressed by the administrators of our nation’s schools — some that I find especially pressing are the disparities in grants and scholarships received by minority students, as well as the general lack of socioeconomic diversity at highly selective schools. However, while this movement has been largely successful in engaging administrators in conversations about the civil liberties that all students deserve, it seems to have diverged into an all-encompassing “war” on political correctness, which may detract from the very purpose of the movement itself.

Recently, protests have shifted from addressing more tangible instances of racial injustice toward a more abstract and distant illustration of racism: names. Princeton University students, for example, recently occupied the office building of their president, demanding two notable changes from their institution: the removal of the title “master” from the heads of residential colleges, and the removal of any instance of former President Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings and structures.

The case against using the term “master,” according to Princeton students, is based on the word’s ugly connotations associated with slavery in the past. Evidently, these student protesters regard the term “master” as some form of perpetuation of racial bigotry, even though the term in this context deals with the status of a person whose superiority derives from the task of their profession, not their race — namely to ensure the safety, happiness and success of every student in the residential college.

Furthermore, the same logic used to remove the title of “master” from Princeton faculty can just as easily be applied to any other strain of the word’s wide variety of uses. In fact, it may be more appropriate to protest the use of the term “master” in reference to a graduate degree than a job title; after all, according to the U.S. Department of Education, 72.8 percent of students who earned a master’s degree in 2010 were Caucasian — only 12.5 percent were black.

Students should certainly lash out against symbols that link directly to the injustices of the past (e.g., the Confederate Flag), but the word “master” seems to be a stretch in this context, especially considering the fact that true disparities in the education of minority students (such as the disproportional conferral of graduate degrees) remain largely unaddressed by student protests.

Yet, while the word “master” can be removed from certain titles without causing too much of an uproar, the removal of Wilson’s name from university buildings strikes at a far deeper issue in this nation’s history. Should institutions commemorate the lives of this nation’s inherently flawed heroes? And, perhaps more importantly, does the criticism of a historical figure’s character flaws fix any institutional problems in the present?

The arguments against Woodrow Wilson’s symbolism at Princeton are expressed most vehemently in an opinion piece written by Wilglory Tanjong for the Daily Princetonian. In the article, Tanjong points out examples of Wilson’s racial bigotry that “prove” the former president should no longer be associated with the university, including a quote from Wilson stating, “The whole temper and tradition of the place [Princeton] are such that no Negro has ever applied for admission, and it seems unlikely that the question will ever assume practical form.”

Without a doubt, Wilson was a racist. His values on race relations were despicable and ignorant, and Princeton students — especially racial and ethnic minorities — have every right to feel hurt by the opinions of one of the most integral figures in Princeton’s history. But, there is a stark difference between recognizing a character flaw and completely devaluing a human being’s contribution to society solely based on that flaw.

Wilson is commemorated at Princeton for his successes, not his failures. His enterprising spirit brought forth innovations in academics and architecture that have largely contributed to the school’s prestige to this day, a quality Princeton should certainly feel compelled to celebrate. Our University’s students could just as easily argue to remove any recognition of Thomas Jefferson — a prominent and unapologetic slave-owner — from our buildings and monuments, though I would be surprised if that argument ever came to light. Jefferson, like Wilson, is a hero in the eyes of many Americans for his successes as a politician and a human being. I can hardly speak on behalf of a black student, though when I look at the Lawn or the Rotunda or any monument of Jefferson himself, the first thought that comes to my mind is not the contemptible evil of slavery; rather, I am reminded of a man who revolutionized higher education in this nation and coined the idea of American liberty, which is exactly why the University holds him in such high esteem.

In a sense, the efforts to eliminate the word “master” and to remove Wilson’s name embody the same fundamental motivation: racial tensions will be ameliorated in this country if all symbols of racism and bigotry are eliminated. Yet, presently, neither of these symbols have any direct relation to the ongoing injustices experienced by minority students. Yes, both symbols can be tied to the notion of institutional racism, but attacking them takes away focus from the real, concrete issues that need to be fixed. If we are to tear down the repressive forms of racism that pervade our nation’s universities, we need to protest tangibles, not symbols.

Ryan Gorman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.gorman@cavalierdaily.com.

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt