Letters: Rename middle school after local Black educator

5 Comments

1. Or name it after Harvey Hoagland, perhaps; a Princeton hero.

2. The process of renaming the middle school has been problematic on many levels. The students had made videos of the people nominated, citizens were invited to vote on the district website. Then the board, changed rules midstream and asked the students to vote, but not for the candidates that had been nominated. They were, instead, given the choice of “neutral” names like Princeton Middle School, and similar names-not Shirley Satterfield or John Lewis or RBG, or others that the students had researched and diligently presented in their videos. The board voted to name the school Princeton Middle School, a neutral name. The community had elected Shirley Satterfield, whose family has been in Princeton for several generations, a beloved educator and guidance counselor, an African American woman and active member of the Princeton Historical Society and Deacon in historic Witherspoon Street Presbyterian Church. Ms. Satterfield is by far the most fitting individual to replace John Witherspoon, who had enslaved people, as the person for whom our middle School will be named. A neutral name obscures the truth of the process and of our history as a nation and a town. Let’s respect the democratic process and enact justice by naming the Shirley Satterfield Middle School!
   Respectfully submitted.
   Hinda Winawer, parent of four former Princeton Public Schools Students

3. The Board made a wise decision. The problem with the community name survey was the same as with elections with multiple candidates. Even if the top choice gained 20% of the vote, the majority may still prefer not to have that choice. There needed to be fewer choices or a way to rank one’s vote.

   The controversy about which name to pick shows that it’s good to have no name chosen so that the focus of the schools is entirely on the students.

4. I thought “John Witherspoon” was a decent name. It connected the school to the broader community historically. In 30 years people will reflect on this period and wonder why every naming decision was so racialized. Go with “Princeton Middle School” and move on.

5. Presented to Princeton Council five years ago in anticipation of this sort of intellectual dishonesty:

   “There is a tide in the affairs of men, a nick of time. We perceive it now before us. To hesitate is to consent to our own slavery. That noble instrument upon your table, which ensures immortality to its author, should be subscribed this very morning by every pen in this house. He that will not respond to its accents and strain every nerve to carry into effect its provisions is unworthy the name of free man. “
   With these words, John Witherspoon sought to convince his fellow congressional delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence.
   Today there again is a tide in our affairs, where some people seek to paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. This attempt is both intellectually and historically dishonest. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Revolution. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers. The American Revolution itself was actually a turning point in the national attitude toward slavery.

   Thomas Jefferson complained that King George:

   “… has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold …”
   Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. He wrote:
   “. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.”

   The following year, Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society. Rush described slavery as “repugnant to the principles of Christianity.” John Jay was president of a similar society. Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall and Richard Stockton of Princeton. As a result of their efforts, Richard Allen, who was a friend of Benjamin Rush, a former slave and the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America said in his famous address “To the People of Color:”
   “Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal.”

   John Adams, who to his credit owned no slaves, said of John Witherspoon, “he is as high a Son of Liberty as any man in America.”
   Witherspoon preached against slavery in his discourses. He also chaired the New Jersey legislative committee concerned with the abolition of slavery in the state. Because of these efforts New Jersey began the process of ending slavery in 1804 just ten years after Witherspoon’s death.

   Have you ever heard of John Chavis? He was the first African-American to receive a college education in the United States. He began his studies for the Presbyterian ministry at the College of New Jersey, where he was personally tutored by the President of the College, John Witherspoon. Of course, Witherspoon had previously tutored James Madison, the father of our Constitution.

   In his “I have a dream” speech in 1963, Martin Luther King said:

   “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

   King also pointed out that it was to him obvious that America has defaulted on this promissory note, so far as people of color were concerned.
   Now some would say that some of the Founding Fathers were hypocrites. Let’s agree that is true in the lens that we view them from today. However, history itself teaches us over and over again not to judge the past through the lens of the present.

   Is it incumbent upon all of us to ensure that the promissory note of Liberty is fulfilled for all people? Yes it is. But you ensure that by honoring the terms of the note itself, not by burning down the bank upon which it was written.

   T. Jeffery Clarke
   Princeton, New Jersey

Comments are closed.