I respectfully disagree with Richard S. Snedeker ’51 (Inbox, Sept. 14). All our identities and personalities are shaped by the context of our respective times and social realities. We do, however, deem individuals responsible for their actions and beliefs. The Nuremberg Trials firmly established this principle. Furthermore, as faith teaches us, we understand that all humans are complex in their beliefs and behavior and may live contradictory, yet redeemable, lives.
I can cite many examples of people who challenged the American racial caste system and in so doing risked life, reputation, and property. Of the many, the following are noteworthy: 1) Justice John Marshall Harlan, a contemporary of Woodrow Wilson 1879, dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson strongly supporting the civil and constitutional rights of African Americans; and 2) Harry Truman, even while continuing to use the “N-word,” supported civil-rights legislation and openly criticized the racist treatment of African American veterans. Each of these persons, in their own imperfect way, found the courage and moral fortitude to challenge the prevailing and hostile forces of American racism.
As president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson did not maintain the status quo and protect the precious gains of African Americans. Instead, he intentionally used race to block opportunities and expand the caste system. It was not the “flawed society” that acted, but it was Wilson the individual.
Wilson’s triumphs should not be denied. We can’t, however, continue to boost American “exceptionalism” and fail to reconcile American “flaws.”