Suggestions for Witherspoon Statue Include Destroying, Toppling, Moving
One speaker at the symposium called it ‘a bad work of art’
Though the speakers at the second Committee on Naming symposium on Princeton’s John Witherspoon statue were specifically asked not to make recommendations for the future of the statue, one presenter advocated for the destruction or permanent storage of monuments with ties to racism, and others alluded to adding contextual information, displaying it in the University’s new art museum, displaying an empty pedestal, and toppling the statue, which one presenter described as “a bad work of art.”
The future of the statue, which is located in Firestone Plaza, has been in question since 2022, when five members of Princeton’s philosophy department started a petition — eventually signed by 285 University community members — to replace it because Witherspoon, Princeton’s president from 1768 until 1794, owned slaves.
About 40 people attended the Nov. 3 event, which was moderated by Committee on Naming chair and history professor Beth Lew-Williams and featured speakers from inside and outside the University. Lew-Williams kicked things off by saying the discussion would build on the spring symposium — which considered the life and work of Witherspoon — but focus instead on the monument itself rather than the man.
The two recurring themes of the afternoon were the broader reckoning of art with connections to racism in the country and the impermanence of art, despite a widely held public perception that art is permanent.
Rachel DeLue, a professor of American art and chair of the art and archaeology department at Princeton, has discussed the Witherspoon statue and its place on campus in her classes for nearly two decades; the statue was erected in 2001. She spoke about how the statue connects Princeton with the University of the West of Scotland, which features an identical version of the statue by Scottish sculptor Alexander Stoddart, on its campus.
However, DeLue also commented that the statue “really is an odd statue” relative to the rest of the public art at Princeton, and that in her opinion, “Maybe it’s a work of art, but it’s a really bad one. It’s poorly executed. The technique is shoddy. It doesn’t look as if the sculptor had ever had a life drawing class in his training. … It’s just a bad work of art.”
Patricia Eunji Kim, an assistant professor of ancient art and culture at New York University, discussed the wider reckoning of representation within the art world, which she said speaks “to a conscious investment in the importance of taking accountability as a community and as a society.”
Kim cited other educational institutions that have dealt with controversial art — such as Duke University, which left the niche that once held a Robert E. Lee statue empty — as possible paths forward for Princeton, and reminded the audience that society should “leave ourselves open to letting go of things, especially if we are to really grapple with and participate in this current political moment … .”
Kim commended Princeton for looking into the statue issue seriously. No matter which route the University chooses, she urged that “there must be some kind of engagement with the core questions” that led to the petition for the removal. She said universities should be thought leaders in this space as they have a moral and pedological responsibility to think through the messages art can present to viewers.
Renée Ater, a visiting associate professor in Africana studies at Brown University, advocated for the destruction or permanent storage of art with ties to racism, as sometimes adding contextual information “do[es] not work in the ways that we think that they might” since labels are “stagnant” and can “shut down the conversations.”
She encouraged deeper conversations with descendants of slaves about what the “new monumental landscape” should look like in the United States.
Louis Nelson, vice provost for academic outreach and professor of architectural history at the University of Virginia (UVA), spoke about a surreptitious design competition UVA architecture students created about a decade ago — without the approval of administrators — inviting proposals for a physical remaking of the campus landscape. That eventually led to a president-approved and funded commission on slavery and UVA, which contributed to the construction of the Memorial to Slave Laborers on campus. Nelson said the memorial, which was unveiled in 2020 and is about 80 feet in diameter, “has had a fundamental impact on the way the University of Virginia understands itself and functions as a community.”
Finally, Ron McCoy Jr. *80, the University architect, spoke to the history of architecture, landscape, and art on campus. According to McCoy, “the quietness of the campus makes the Witherspoon statue stand out in such a strange way” as most of the monumental sculptures on campus are not free-standing, like the Witherspoon statue, and not as large; the Witherspoon statue is 10 feet tall and stands on an 8-foot plinth. McCoy believes the statue was installed as a result of a gift rather than growing organically out of institutional values.
In an interview with PAW, Lew-Williams commended the speakers and their varying perspectives.
“I think all of our speakers agreed that statues are not neutral, that monuments make meaning,” Lew-Williams said. “And what they were doing, I think, was to try to help us think through what kinds of meanings does this particular statue hold, … how does the statue influence the ways we understand the past, how we understand concerns of our present, and then how we imagine the future at Princeton.”
The Committee on Naming, a standing committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC), provides advice on naming and iconography to the Board of Trustees, which will make the ultimate decision on the Witherspoon statue. Lew-Williams declined to give a timeline for the decision.
2 Responses
Bill Hewitt ’74
11 Months AgoWitherspoon Statue Symposium Takes a Bad Fall
Kudos to both the PAW and The Princeton Tory for their timely and informative coverage on this important issue for the Princeton community. Earlier I found the Committee on Naming’s April symposium “John Witherspoon in Historical Context” an example of Princeton at its best. In regrettable contrast, the November Witherspoon statue symposium fell far below the standard achieved by its predecessor. I offer four points.
First, foremost among the November symposium’s shortcomings is that those presenters calling for the removal (or worse) of the Witherspoon statue displayed essentially no awareness of Witherspoon’s relation to slavery, other than his having owned two slaves. Hence, their recommendations stand on faulty foundation. These presenters were ignorant of — or omitted from their remarks — profound achievements by Witherspoon on slavery for which all Princetonians can take pride.
These vital accomplishments by Witherspoon (elaborated in the presentations by the Rev. Kevin DeYoung and Professor Sean Wilentz at the April symposium, and publicly available on video) include: (1) Witherspoon lectured against slavery at Princeton. (2) As a New Jersey legislator, Witherspoon worked against pro-slavery advocates and established the principle that the state had the right to abolish slavery. (3) As a national Presbyterian leader, Witherspoon achieved the adoption of a resolution promoting emancipation and calling for the gradual abolition of slavery. (4) Based on archival tax records, Witherspoon appears to have arranged for the emancipation of his own two slaves.
Second, in fairness to all the symposium presenters, their understandings of Witherspoon on slavery are likely skewed by the University-sponsored website of the Princeton & Slavery Project, in particular its “John Witherspoon” essay. I wrote “On Witherspoon, Eisgruber Flunks His Own Test” to highlight the project’s grossly misleading depiction of Witherspoon — and the University’s ongoing failures to stop these wrongs committed on University websites. These falsehoods about Witherspoon have sown needless anguish and dissension among the Princeton community over the statue honoring him.
These damaging depictions and the ongoing failures to correct them caused me recently to file with the University’s Judicial Committee a 39-page complaint against President Eisgruber and the Princeton & Slavery Project. Among the measures sought by this complaint are that the University administration be prohibited from changing the location or other presentation of the Witherspoon statue. I also ask that the Committee on Naming not make its recommendation concerning the statue until the full completion of the complaint proceedings.
I filed this complaint on Oct. 31. I believe it satisfies the “formal statement of the charges” called for such complaints by Section 1.9.3.1 of the University’s Rights, Rules, Responsibilities and that the complaint provides a clear statement establishing the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction for the matter. Quite remarkably the committee appears not yet to have proceeded with the steps set forth for the complaint’s resolution. This case now before the committee marks the foremost effort to require the Princeton & Slavery Project and the University administration to answer publicly for their alleged misdeeds on Witherspoon. Please follow developments at https://tigerroars.substack.com.
Third, once videos of the November symposium are posted on the Committee on Naming’s Witherspoon statue webpage, interested persons can view the presentations and judge for themselves. I hope these postings include the presentations’ Q&A discussions, following the salutary practices by the November 17, 2017, Princeton & Slavery Symposium and the October 5, 2019, interview of Princeton & Slavery Project Director Martha Sandweiss. Despite my repeated requests, video of the Q&As for the April symposium remain withheld from the public. This badly serves the University community in its understanding of the historical John Witherspoon and the Witherspoon statue debate.
In particular, I distinctly recall from my attendance of the April symposium a statement by presenter Emmanuel Bourbouhakis, associate professor in Princeton’s Department of Classics. Professor Bourbouhakis forthrightly stated during Q&A that any removal of the Witherspoon statue from its original location would constitute a damnatio memoriae of Witherspoon.
I renew my earlier calls that all the Q&A videos be made public. I see no acceptable reason why the public should have to rely upon my memory as to Professor Bourbouhakis’ remarks that the removal of Witherspoon’s statue would constitute a condemnation of John Witherspoon.
Last, in 1999 Princeton’s then-President and Trustees decided to honor John Witherspoon with the statue that has stood on Firestone Plaza since 2001. May their successors never undermine this decision so to honor Witherspoon — nor alter his statue.
Paul G. Rochmis ’60
11 Months AgoWitherspoon Statue’s Future
Don’t these so-called academics have anything better to do than change history to their liking? Will they sleep better and feel less threatened if the statue is removed, destroyed or hidden? “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” — Maya Angelou
Perhaps a reasonable resolution for the overly sensitive, self-righteous cancel culture crowd would be to remove the statue to a not-so-prominent location, erect it without a base, and provide a detailed plaque with a truly educational message, in keeping with the mission of a purportedly educational institution.