I am appalled by the latest news….
Along with the removal of former president Woodrow Wilson’s name and likeness from campus buildings,
the protesters also demanded a space on campus JUST for BLACK students, and got it (?) when their
disruption became intolerable. You had that ‘space’ in the 50’s, it was called segregation, and you complained about that until we changed it for you years ago.
Replacing a white leader with a black man at another big university through disruption is a crime, cry some
more even though you are no longer the oppressed minority.
And WE are all racist without a “White Clergy” give me a break “Black Justice League” for you it’s progress
For anyone who’s interested: movement toward a black cultural space has been on the docket for a while at Princeton, and is hardly controversial given that it would be an integrated space dedicated to black students and culture and welcoming to all students regardless of skin color. The BJL’s sit-in simply forced the hand of the administration. There are definitely problems to discuss (e.g. should we relocated any dedicated cultural spaces closer to the center of campus where they will get more visibility and traffic from otherwise unaffiliated students? Are the BJL’s tactics appropriate for their demands? How does this affect the equity movements of other groups on campus, most notably the Latinx community’s recent petition and the Asian-American community’s calls for academic inclusion of their cultural heritage?), but “isn’t this segregation?” ignores the facts as they stand.
@Waiting2exhale ^ I’m not sure what the OP meant with that statement. I interpreted it is meaning we should be attempting to acheive equality instead of caving into the demands of factions.
Regardless, I think Princeton and other universities involved have not responded especially well to these protestors. The universities should take a more authoritative stance and seriously evaluate the decisions being made by their respective admissions offices.
@1golfer1 I have to disagree with you and say that the diplomacy with which President Eisgruber and the administration carried out talks with the protesters was artful and extremely important to the long term success of all parties involved. When all was said and done, Eisgruber only “caved” to one demand: designating a few cultural spaces within the building that is a dedicated cultural space. All other points that were agreed upon are simply commitments to continue the discussion with appropriate parties (I’ve linked to the document below). I have my qualms with the sit-in as a protesting tactic (as in, it seemed like they wasted a great gambit on some pretty low-ball demands), but part of the administration’s job is addressing the grievances of the university population. The fact that they addressed those grievances in a manner acceptable to the protesters and with minimal immediate effect on the school is the way that institutions ought to interact with their constituents.
Also, propensity to voice grievance–whether or not it can be measured in an application at all–is hardly a criterion to base an admissions decision on. The willingness to not only acknowledge discomfort but push back against it is integral to the efficacious evolution of any system or institution and has as much merit as the desire to maintain the stability of those same systems and institutions by more conservative means.
@1golfer1 I don’t know why you perceive these and other protesters to be a bane to their colleges. They’re equally valued, outsiders’ views not withstanding. Your call for admissions is to refocus their evaluations to accept more docile or pliant black folks? Really?
