Princeton Trying to Walk Back Self-Accused Racism Following Federal Investigation
“simultaneously claims it’s racist — but also not racist”
We covered the investigation in an earlier post. It’s funny to watch the school’s attempt to backtrack on this.
The College Fix reports:
In wake of Ed Dept. probe, Princeton denies it’s racist after it said it’s racist
Have you heard about the emerging claim among progressive scholars that 2+2 can equal 5?
That’s the same kind of logic currently being applied by Princeton University leadership as it simultaneously claims it’s racist — but also not racist.
Over the summer, students, faculty and alumni decried the private Ivy League institution as a hotbed of racism, from the systemic kind, to garden-variety microaggressions, to hiring, funding and policy decisions.
“At this moment of massive global uprising in the name of racial justice, we the faculty—Black, Latinx, Asian, and members of all communities of color along with our white colleagues—call upon the University to take immediate concrete and material steps to openly and publicly acknowledge the way that anti-Black racism, and racism of any stripe, continue to thrive on its campus,” stated a July 4 demand letter from Princeton faculty.
In response, on September 2, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber complied.
He declared in an open letter to the campus community that racism is very much still embedded in the Ivy League institution…
With that, in mid-September the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into the university, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race. If Princeton is racist, it is ineligible for federal funding.
In response, the university put out a statement that it “stands by its representations to the Department and the public that it complies with all laws and regulations governing equal opportunity, non-discrimination and harassment.”
Next the statement walks back the part where Eisgruber previously talked about systemic racism on campus, and adds language about the grander systemic racism problem in America as a whole.
“The University also stands by our statements about the prevalence of systemic racism and our commitment to reckon with its continued effects, including the racial injustice and race-based inequities that persist throughout American society,” it states.
It concludes by defending its original narrative in much more muted and generalized terminology. Gone are the declarations that Princeton itself is a hotbed of systemic racism.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Princeton’s positions are 100% consistent with affirmative action.
E.g. Discrimination is evil and should never occur.
Let’s base the hiring decision upon the person’s race.
Dare I suggest… doublethink?
The more expensive the college, the dumber the faculty.
Is anyone investigating them for systemic stupidity? If not, what would something like that pay? Asking for a friend.
As befitting Princeton, Eisgruber is dumb even by the standards of university presidents–and that is some achievement.
The irony is that Princeton would be better of with Trump as President. This is a 3 course meal on a platter to the Dumbs.
Denying racism is absolute proof you’re a racist. Can’t dodge that.
ANSI standard kafkatrapping.
I am an alum and I live in town. Yes, it’s hilarious. Despite being an early supporter of the FIRE initiatives, Princeton has become quite rigorous in their policing of anything-that-a-snowflake-might feel is “hate speech”
Despite financially supporting the (one?) notable political conservative on campus — Robert George, Princeton’s politics are moderately Democrat with a very strong streak of socialists/BLM/Anti-Israel/etc. Most entertainingly, Imani Perry made an incredible fool of herself a few years ago after a routine police stop for going 70+ in a 45-35 mph zone. Check it out.
President Eisgruber tries, I really think he does, but he is paddling on a fomenting cauldron of hatred against the forces that created Princeton University (financially generous, inclusive and economically-liberal white protestant men). Jews and Asians were eventually welcomed with open arms and somehow they/we didn’t seem to have so many problems.
The guilt continues. Nothing the administration will ultimately please the Black Justice League and other SJW-organizations de jour, and so goes the game, until they stop and say, “that’s enough”.
The other irony is that the spokesperson of Chris Eisgruber is Ben Chang (probably of Chinese ancestry?). Now he makes a living polishing off mea-culpas from Princeton about their racism against Black americans. Think about it.
Princeton Administration and faculty aren’t too bright. They can’t decide if they’re racist or not.
Logic and objectivity are white supremacists constructs, and thus must be rejected. Hence, Princeton can easily argue that A equals not-A.
Motte and bailey strategy in action.
Genuine question: Does a student truly get a better education at an Ivy than he/she might get at a flagship state university? I am not thinking of “market value” of the diploma, but the pure educational experience. Seems really hard to measure due variance in student intake, out of class experiences, etc.
The antics of the credentialed “faculty/staff” makes one wonder if higher education is still a good thing. Maybe we should stick with learning.
Blaming it on society at large is not ‘walking it back’; it’s monumental blame-shifting. The accusation of racism leveled by the faculty included micro-aggression, hiring, funding, and policy decisions. These are Princeton in-house, not society at large. The University President is not only a fool, but a coward as well.
As Paul Mirengoff, for whom cases like this were his bread and butter, it won’t work. According to its recent admission the university itself has discriminated against black students and employees; according to its statements under oath it has not. One of these must be false.
But, but, but … he did it too!
.