Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
Commentary

Don’t Repress the Past

By James Livingston November 20, 2015
Students at Yale U. want to rename one of its residential houses, Calhoun College, to avoid honoring John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century proponent of slavery and secession.
Students at Yale U. want to rename one of its residential houses, Calhoun College, to avoid honoring John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century proponent of slavery and secession.Bob Child, AP Images

Yes, Woodrow Wilson was a racist. So was Teddy Roosevelt, and every other president until — who? FDR? JFK? LBJ? Remember, the New Deal was predicated on the exclusion of black people from its benefits, including those provided through the Federal Housing Administration.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Yes, Woodrow Wilson was a racist. So was Teddy Roosevelt, and every other president until — who? FDR? JFK? LBJ? Remember, the New Deal was predicated on the exclusion of black people from its benefits, including those provided through the Federal Housing Administration.

By the standards of our time, Abraham Lincoln was a racist who plainly stated — in impromptu remarks he chose to incorporate in the published version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 — that he wasn’t in favor of political or social equality between white and black people.

What then? What goes missing from current debates about, say, Wilson is the humility of retrospect — the capacity to recognize the possible limits of your ideas against the obvious failings of those who didn’t have the benefit of your education.

I teach social theory, G.W.F. Hegel to Judith Butler, in undergraduate and graduate courses. Until we get to de Beauvoir, the misogyny of the writers we study is consistent, even resolute, especially in Durkheim and Freud. (There are exceptions, among them Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, and Jane Addams.) How to teach the misogynistic thinkers?

I’m asked every semester why Hegel is such a formative figure in the curriculum — he is the theologian-turned-philosopher who famously claimed that Africa had no history, after all. Analogous questions might be asked about Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, just about anybody who wrote before 1950.

With respect to Hegel and race, the answer is his close, obsessive study of the revolution led by Toussaint L’Ouverture in what is now Haiti, which, as the political-philosophy professor Susan Buck-Morss has suggested, informs the master-slave dialectic at the heart of The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), and, by my reading, Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1821) as well.

It gets more complicated with the others — again, especially Durkheim and Freud. They were men of their time, and the notion of equality between the sexes seemed preposterous to most reputable observers (prominent exceptions are Mill and William James). Also, not incidentally, when the notion of equality between the races was countermanded by colonialism on the global stage and Supreme Court decisions on the domestic scene — Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), to be sure, but also, and perhaps more important, Williams v. Mississippi (1898), which validated the state’s Constitution of 1890 by noting that the disenfranchisement of black voters also excluded poor whites.

The question comes down to this: Do we read these theorists, repulsive warts and all, and learn what we can from them? Do we keep our differences with them, in other words, but engage with them anyway? Or do we decide that these differences saturate their texts so thoroughly that reading them becomes unbearable?

I’m asking the inverse of the question that led to the redefinition of the American literary canon in the late 20th century. The most difficult version of that question is: Do we exclude writers from the theoretical canon on the grounds that they were, by our standards, racists and misogynists? Where do we forage in our history if, on those grounds, we exclude Hesiod, Aristotle, Saul of Tarsus, Augustine, Aquinas, Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Voltaire, and those arrogant Germans I’ve mentioned? The intellectual commons looks pretty barren if we’re fenced off from all those ideas.

Now transpose from the key of philosophy and literature to that of politics, through which contemporary movements have congregated on campuses. At Yale, the demand is to erase the monumental memory of Sen. John C. Calhoun, a force behind slavery and secession. At Princeton, the demand is to do the same with the physical memorialization of Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. president who segregated federal offices in 1913.

ADVERTISEMENT

To my mind, these are ways of forgetting the past — repressing and mutilating it rather than learning from it, or, as the shrinks would say, working through it.

This nation was built on slavery and its offspring, racism. To think that we can ignore this fundamental fact is to pretend that we can escape the past, in keeping with that old frontier thesis — if we just light out for the territory along with Huck Finn, why, we’ll slip the yoke of a civilization predicated on barbarism. That way lie boyish beginnings and a model of the American Adam, but nothing else worth thinking with, or about.

I say keep Calhoun enshrined and teach the history of the Ivy League universities. Remind students that every Ivy League endowment, with the possible exception of Cornell, was connected either to the slave trade or to the Atlantic economy that could be constructed as a result.

As for Wilson: If we can acknowledge and teach the centrality of slavery and racism in 19th-century American history by keeping Calhoun on our minds, we can acknowledge and teach the centrality of imperialism and racism in 20th-century American history by keeping Wilson on our minds. As the historian William Leuchtenburg demonstrated many years ago, the social reforms we associate with progressivism, from the FDA to the Federal Reserve, were enabled by imperialism — every one of them. But then again the imperialism that Wilson sponsored was a vast improvement on the colonial precedent. It advocated national sovereignty and economic development rather than conquest and exploitation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Walter Benjamin and Freud were right, in any case: The original sin of civilization is the brutal subjugation of what its defenders portray as the Other, whether that is a city, a country, a people, a race, or an unruly Id.

The barbarian is always at the gate. It’s only when we acknowledge that we ourselves are the barbarians that we can stop running from the past and start learning from it.

James Livingston teaches history at Rutgers University at New Brunswick. He is the author of Against Thrift: Why Consumer Culture Is Good for the Economy, the Environment, and Your Soul (2011).

A version of this article appeared in the December 4, 2015, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Protesters attend a demonstration in support of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, March 10, 2025, in New York.
First Amendment Rights
Noncitizen Professors Testify About Chilling Effect of Others’ Detentions
Photo-based illustration of a rock preciously suspended by a rope over three beakers.
Broken Promise
U.S. Policy Made America’s Research Engine the Envy of the World. One President Could End That.
lab-costs-promo.jpg
Research Expenses
What Does It Cost to Run a Lab?
Research illustration Microscope
Dreams Deferred
How Trump’s Cuts to Science Funding Are Derailing Young Scholars’ Careers

From The Review

University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky
Photo-based illustration depicting a close-up image of a mouth of a young woman with the letter A over the lips and grades in the background
The Review | Opinion
When Students Want You to Change Their Grades
By James K. Beggan
Photo-based illustration of a student and a professor, each occupying a red circle in a landscape of scribbles.
The Review | Opinion
Meet Students Where They Are? Maybe Not.
By Mark Horowitz

Upcoming Events

Chronfest25_Virtual-Events_Page_862x574.png
Chronicle Festival: Innovation Amid Uncertainty
07-16-Advising-InsideTrack - forum assets v1_Plain.png
The Evolving Work of College Advising
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin