In the aftermath of a 32-hour sit-in at Nassau Hall, culminating last Thursday in an agreement, a follow-up letter Sunday from University President Christopher L. Eisgruber, and much ensuing controversy, Princeton University will be examining its past, present, and future in order to “make Princeton a more welcoming and supportive community for all its members.”

At the center of the controversy are two Princeton University presidents: Woodrow Wilson, University president from 1902 to 1910 and U.S. president from 1913-21, whom Princeton has honored with the establishment of its prestigious Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and its Wilson residential college, but whose record on race is disturbing; and Mr. Eisgruber, currently in his third year as Princeton president, who, after acknowledging that Woodrow Wilson was racist, met last Wednesday and Thursday with the protesting members of the Black Justice League (BJL) student organization, and agreed to follow up on their concerns in a series of discussions with trustees and various groups of students, staff and alumni.

Last week’s protest, starting with a walk-out from classes late Wednesday morning by about 200 students, the Black Justice League’s presentation of its demands, then the occupation of Mr. Eisgruber’s office by about 15 students, ended Thursday around 8:45 p.m. as students left the building after signing their agreement with Mr. Eisgruber, Vice President W. Rochelle Calhoun, and Dean Jill Dolan.

“Our students deserve better, and Princeton must do better,” Mr. Eisgruber’s letter to Princeton students, faculty, staff, and alumni stated. “We must commit ourselves to make this University a place where students from all backgrounds feel respected and valued.”

Mr. Eisgruber emphasized that “when I spoke to the students who occupied Nassau Hall, I insisted that we would consider carefully the issues that troubled them, but that we would do so through appropriate University processes С processes that allow for full and fair input from the entire University community.”

The processes are certain to be challenging and fraught with controversy as the University moves forward in fulfilling the modified demands agreed to in discussions between BJL students and university officials.

Responding to Demands

In addressing the first demand, concerning the legacy of Woodrow Wilson at Princeton, President Eisgruber, noting that the Board of Trustees has authority over the naming of buildings, stated that the Board has agreed to develop a process to consider this issue and will form a subcommittee to collect information and to listen to the views of the University community before deciding whether changes should be made in how Princeton
recognizes Wilson’s legacy. Mr. Eisgruber stated his personal view that a mural depicting Woodrow Wilson should be removed from the Wilcox Dining Hall, but did not state an opinion on the names of the Woodrow Wilson School and Wilson College.

In response to demands for affinity housing, the signed agreement immediately designates four rooms in the Carl A. Fields Center to be used by cultural affinity groups, and BJL members will be involved in a working group with the staff of the residential colleges to discuss the viability of the formation of affinity housing for those interested in black culture.

In response to the third demand, the administrators agreed to enhance cultural competency training for the counseling staff and initiate further discussions between the BJL and the Faculty Advisory Committee on Policy and the General Education Task Force on the issues of cultural competency training for faculty and staff and required classes on the history of marginalized peoples. The administration, in response to the final demand, promised amnesty from disciplinary action for protestors who occupied the Nassau Hall offices overnight.

In the context of the “black lives matter” movement, racial violence in Ferguson Missouri, Charleston, South Carolina, and elsewhere and the often heated national debate on race and racism, Princeton joins many other universities struggling to come to terms with past histories of discrimination and racism and campus environments that are considered not welcoming for all community members.

Strong Reactions

The BJL demands and the agreement reached by Mr. Eisgruber and the BJL students encountered immediate strong reactions, pro and con, from the Princeton community, on campus and beyond. An online petition drafted by two Princeton seniors and calling upon the University to promote “increased dialogue and the creation of a process that properly considers the input of all students and faculty, not merely those who are loudest” was initiated late Thursday afternoon and collected more than 500 signatures in the first 24 hours.

Authors of the petition and others have formed a Princeton Open Campus Coalition, claiming widespread support on campus. They have written a letter to Mr. Eisgruber requesting a meeting to discuss their opposition to the demands of the BJL and their concern with “the importance of preserving an intellectual culture in which all members of the Princeton community feel free to engage in civil discussion and to express their convictions without fear of being subjected to intimidation or abuse.”

Objecting to the “methods employed by the protesters,” as well as the content of their demands, the Open Campus Coalition members called for “a fair debate about the specific demands that have been made.”

The petition, claiming to “appreciate the concerns but oppose the demands of the BJL,” described Woodrow Wilson as “a significant historical figure who, despite his flaws, made great contributions to this University,” and stated that the demand that his name be removed from University buildings was “an alarming call for historical revisionism.” and an ill-fated precedent that “creates a slippery slope that will be cited by future students who seek to purge the past of those who fail to live up to modern standards of morality.”

The petitioners, claiming to “protect plurality, historical perspective, and academic speech at Princeton,” further objected to what they called “the Black Justice League’s attempt to impose their unilateral narrative upon all undergraduates through the core curriculum.” They proposed instead a “diversity requirement” that allows students “to study a non-American culture or American minority of their choice — not merely those who have been deemed marginalized by the Black Justice League — and that will be accompanied by a required course in Western or American civilization in order to better enable cross-cultural understanding.”

In his letter to the Princeton community, Mr. Eisgruber described steps already taken on the path to addressing these conflicts. A Special Task Force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, established a year ago, has issued recommendations that are in the process of being implemented. The University is also continuing to follow up on the September 2013 report of a joint faculty and trustee committee seeking new strategies to diversify Princeton’s faculty, staff, and graduate student body.

“But we have not come far enough, and making further progress will require hard work and good will,” Mr. Eisgruber stated. “These are turbulent and demanding times, but if we engage in thoughtful and meaningful conversation they offer hope for real progress.”