Princeton University Is Not Racist, but Race-Obsessed

In a strange new twist of the “Princeton is racist” saga, the United States Department of Education (DOE) announced on September 17 an investigation of Princeton’s self-declared racist practices. In his virtue-signaling competition with leaders of other top U.S. universities, President Christopher Eisgruber created this crisis by asserting, in a letter addressed to the Princeton community on September 2, that “racism and the damage it does to the people of color persist at Princeton” and “racist assumptions remain embedded in the structure of the university itself.” This, as the DOE now points out, runs afoul of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and raises concerns that Princeton’s previous representations to the government of full compliance with non-discrimination and equal-opportunity requirements may have been false.

In its official response, Princeton tries to have it both ways: We are not racist according to the law, but we are, nevertheless, like the entire country, structurally and systemically racist (SSR). That is, we are racist but not because of anything specific we do. In his letter, Eisgruber gives one and only one example as evidence of SSR at Princeton: the fact that “there are 9 departments dedicated to European languages and only one small department dedicated to African studies.” Never mind that our most under-represented minorities, African-American and Hispanic students, happen to be mostly English and Spanish speakers and that European languages and cultures not only are of interest to the vast majority of American citizens but also are prevalent throughout the world, including Africa and, of course, both American continents. This was the best Eisgruber could do. At a town-hall meeting to discuss Eisgruber’s letter, a more coherent example, purely hypothetical, was advanced by a faculty member who observed that one can be systemically but not individually racist by hiring historians of the Renaissance while not hiring historians who study how racist Princeton was in the past. I’m not making this up.

SK

About the Author

Sergiu Klainerman

Sergiu Klainerman is the Higgins Professor of Mathematics at Princeton University, a MacArthur fellow, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Arts and Sciences, and foreign member of the French Academy.

Featured Tags

In a strange new twist of the “Princeton is racist” saga, the United States Department of Education (DOE) announced on September 17 an investigation of Princeton’s self-declared racist practices. In his virtue-signaling competition with leaders of other top U.S. universities, President Christopher Eisgruber created this crisis by asserting, in a letter addressed to the Princeton community on September 2, that “racism and the damage it does to the people of color persist at Princeton” and “racist assumptions remain embedded in the structure of the university itself.” This, as the DOE now points out, runs afoul of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and raises concerns that Princeton’s previous representations to the government of full compliance with non-discrimination and equal-opportunity requirements may have been false.

In its official response, Princeton tries to have it both ways: We are not racist according to the law, but we are, nevertheless, like the entire country, structurally and systemically racist (SSR). That is, we are racist but not because of anything specific we do. In his letter, Eisgruber gives one and only one example as evidence of SSR at Princeton: the fact that “there are 9 departments dedicated to European languages and only one small department dedicated to African studies.” Never mind that our most under-represented minorities, African-American and Hispanic students, happen to be mostly English and Spanish speakers and that European languages and cultures not only are of interest to the vast majority of American citizens but also are prevalent throughout the world, including Africa and, of course, both American continents. This was the best Eisgruber could do. At a town-hall meeting to discuss Eisgruber’s letter, a more coherent example, purely hypothetical, was advanced by a faculty member who observed that one can be systemically but not individually racist by hiring historians of the Renaissance while not hiring historians who study how racist Princeton was in the past. I’m not making this up.

SK

About the Author

Sergiu Klainerman

Sergiu Klainerman is the Higgins Professor of Mathematics at Princeton University, a MacArthur fellow, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Arts and Sciences, and foreign member of the French Academy.