Not erasing, reconsidering

Recently, a number of comments have appeared based on the misleading and confused notion that a change in the name or dedication of a monument or other entity amounts to an erasure or forgetting of history. On the contrary, such a change is an indication that the person or other referent in question does not deserve commemoration. Instead it warrants informed criticism and perhaps condemnation. (Hence Princeton University recently decided to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from its public policy school and one of its residential colleges.)

This is not a matter of forgetting or erasing but of rectifying how and why one remembers someone or something. The person or event should be remembered and noted historically in a way that indicates what they have brought about and, if appropriate, why it is open to criticism as something that should be overcome in the present and future through a change in practices and institutions. Ideally, any such change should include an explanation of why the change has been made and why it is justified. This is not a matter of being “woke” or “politically correct,” as current catchphrases have it. It is a matter of how one comes to terms with the past, notably including the ways its injustices and enduring negative effects are not to be covered up or obfuscated by specious appeals to “history” or “our legacy.”

Dominick LaCapra professor emeritus of history Cornell University