The following content is purely satirical, but unfortunately not entirely fictional.
Good morning to you wonderful students, faculty, and community! It’s incredible to have you all here and energized for the day, and I applaud your resilience. Your presence is a testament to your conviction to learn, in spite of the overwhelming dissidence and vitriol hurled your way. As much as the mob may want our voices silenced, we’re not going anywhere.
Since our inception in 2000, the James Madison Program has remained committed to our mission of seeking the truth and probing the depths of Western political thought. We engage with scholars with a wide range of backgrounds, ideals, and practices. This, of course, has been an unfortunate point of contention in the eyes of many of our peers. However, we always consider it worthwhile to listen to perspectives we might feel uncomfortable about; there is always something to be learned from any conversation. With that in mind, for this event we wanted to focus on prominent but previously sidelined individuals who have made significant contributions to the field of science as a whole. In the current age of misinformation and false narratives, we must recognize trusted authorities in the scientific community and the literature they produce. One such individual stood out to all of us at the Initiative on Freedom of Thought, Inquiry, and Expression: We proudly dedicate this event to statistician Frederick Ludwig Hoffman.
For a little background, Hoffman was born in Germany in 1865 to a rather wealthy family of industrialists. However, he lacked the propensity to follow in his family’s footsteps. Instead, he claimed to be more of the “scientific temperament.” Certain that he wouldn’t find success in his homeland, he made the nearly 4000-mile journey to New York with less than five dollars to his name. Here, he would begin his path towards the sciences in earnest and carve a space for himself in the world of statistics. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves, otherwise there’d be little point to the event!
Our decision was met with a fervorous support from Princeton’s conservative academic community. Eminent philosopher and Politics professor, our very own Gobert D. Forge, commented, “It’s about time that man gets some recognition.” Nonetheless, we also understand how such a decision might provoke controversy in other academic spheres, as many have claimed that his most prominent work is too offensive to have any relevance to the common era. Well, we can assure you, Mortality from Respiratory Diseases in Dusty Trades is a harmless read (even if it is dated). There is also the case of one of his other books, Race Traits, which purportedly says less-than-savory things about African-Americans. Although, if you ask us, some of these critiques are a tad overblown. “Advocating for eugenics?” “The premature death of Black Americans?” Come on, this is the 20th century we’re talking about here. Three hundred years after slavery. People can change — people have changed. And Hoffman himself was in a unique, objective position to address the “Negro problem,” as it is called. And so, we want to take the time to describe our selection in greater detail and demonstrate how Hoffman not only meets but exceeds our expectations, all while using the tenets of Princeton’s honorary degree requirements to guide us; if he were with us today, he would certainly be our first pick.
First: Genuine achievement and distinction in an activity consonant with the mission of the University.
To work “in the nation’s service and in service of humanity” is to us a willingness to challenge the problems facing the world, going beyond individualistic desires to serve one’s community. Hoffman decided to publish Race Traits, no doubt, because he understood that race was one of the most pressing issues of American society at that time. After Congress passed Reconstruction Era amendments that banned discrimination based on skin color, certain community members were subjected to increased and undeserved persecution. We’re speaking, of course, about insurance companies, who were suffering potential revenue losses because of these tumultuous changes. Who was at the front lines of this conflict, eager to bring about a resolution? Hoffman, of course! Having already established himself as a rising expert in Black mortality, he was hired by Prudential Financial (based in Newark, New Jersey, no less!) to prove that the continued discrimination was, in fact, justified. Using statistical methods, he gleaned valuable information about inherent racial criminality and allowed Prudential to continue profiting from its most vulnerable clients. Hoffman thus demonstrated a willingness to serve not only himself but Prudential and his surrounding community. And people say America is a land of individualism!
We’d also dare say that African-Americans reaped some rewards from this too. Hoffman approached the “Negro problem” with great detail and care. The man said it himself, stating, “crime, pauperism, and sexual immorality are without question the greatest hindrances to social and economic progress, and the tendencies of the colored race in respect to these phases of life will deserve a more careful investigation than has thus far been accorded to them.” Census data, the testimonies of experts, and his objective prose all created a watertight narrative of the future of Black communities. And yet, almost brilliantly, Hoffman manages to craft a timeless work by not considering the society in which Black Americans lived as a factor that contributed to the problem. Contrast this with another paper of his, “Suicide and Modern Civilization,” which unequivocally claims that rising White mortality rates were a product of societal factors. Some of you might be quick to call it racism, but consider the following. Society is ever-evolving, you know? The audience, the society, that Hoffman appealed to then isn’t the same as today, and it likely won’t be the same 100 years from now. For instance, groups in the 1860s might have proudly waved Confederate flags, but it’d certainly be ridiculous to say that there are individuals who’d do this today. Surely. In essence, his arguments for addressing White mortality might have become dated, but making the plight of Black Americans an issue outside of society means that the solution is also independent of society. In other words, there’s always a solution. Genius, is it not? The problem is and will always be Black people. Perhaps society hasn’t changed in some regards.
Next: Adequate reason for recognition by Princeton University of such achievement and distinction. We’d like to tie this in with another criterion: Appropriateness of recognition at a ceremony attended by undergraduate and advanced degree candidates reflecting a diversity of interests and concerns.
You might think that Hoffman himself has no connection to Princeton or the state of New Jersey, and you’d be wrong. He shares the same middle name as our very own President Eisgruber. That has to count for something!
Moreover, Hoffman’s viewpoints and ideals certainly enrich the intellectual pool of this University. Everyone on the political spectrum has something to gain from his expertise, but we’d imagine that this dedication may prove refreshing to our more right-wing constituents. After all, conservative beliefs on this campus have been subjected to a fair bit of controversy and backlash. One of our Politics students in particular has attracted national media attention discussing this ever-growing divide. As stated in a recent interview, “Conservative values aren’t respected on this campus, and it’s really awful to see. Hmm? No, not the free market. No, not lower taxes. Not defense spending! No – NOT deregulation – I’m clearly talking about my right to harass disenfranchised students and shame them in a national publication!” Sure, members of the Black Justice League have faced death threats, risks of expulsion, borderline doxing, and an overwhelming sense of insecurity on campus. These so-called “protected minorities” have to contend with University-sponsored events that debate their very existence. But one must also consider that conservatives are being asked to defend their opinions and are (gasp!) encountering disagreement; it’s rather mentally damaging, if you ask us. I mean, the psychological strain is so awful, they’ve resorted to condemning courses that no one is forcing them to take. All the while they willfully call into question the educational history and past criminal offenses of scholars to delegitimize their standing and engender acts of bigotry against them. They’re so far gone that they’ve abandoned their ideals of anti-cancel culture! Recognizing an individual like Hoffman certainly helps to heal these bitter wounds and gives them the safe space these groups so clearly need.
This brings us to our final two points: Particular meaning to the individual being recognized. Also tied in with: Achievement and distinction that have not been similarly recognized by a number of other institutions.
What’s underappreciated about Hoffman’s origins and what gave him a unique power as a statistical researcher was his lack of bias. Young, impoverished, and lacking fluency in English, Hoffman was certainly unfamiliar with race relations in America. One could consider him a blank slate, eager to learn while preserving his objectivity. Of course, there’s hardly a better place to form an unbiased opinion than the Deep South. There, Hoffman would spend eight years learning about culture, identity, and race relations, provoking his desire to find an explanation for the “Negro problem”. The rest is, as they say, history. Hoffman would later enjoy a life of relative success and fame, establishing himself as a central figure in the discussion of race relations in 20th century America. A true coming-of-age story of the quintessential immigrant to the United States. When someone of that caliber and background tells us that the Black American is part of a dying race, it might be controversial, but who are we to deny it?
But the more astute of you might be wondering, “Hey, wait a minute. Didn’t Hoffman change his perspective? What about all the stuff he did for Native Americans?” Indeed. For those who are unaware, following his work on safety in the workplace, he began to reconsider his stance and relationship with the minority population. He advocated for the rights of Native Americans, and he urged Prudential to make them eligible for their insurance. And yes, his stance on the “Negro problem” reversed. As he put it: “unfavorable influences on Negro health were environmental rather than racial.” So there you have it. Didn’t we say that people can (and have) changed? Hoffman is no exception.
Even if you want to whine about how damaging his book supposedly was, the beliefs that inspired and supported that wonderful piece of literature are no longer his; thus, there is no need for your misguided outrage. Really, it’s a downright shame he changed his perspectives. We honestly thought they had some weight to them. But you can just ignore all of it, if you really want to protect your beloved safe spaces. It’s not as if Hoffman’s work Race Traits became pivotal for reinforcing the concept of inherent Black criminality. He said himself that the supposed “Negro problem” was a societal issue, and he was (and still is) a very respected figure in his field. So surely you can’t sit here and tell us that scientists would, in spite of this non-endorsement, continually publish studies attempting to derive a causal link between race and intelligence during the coming century well after his passing. And in either case, Princeton as an institution knows better. Even with the pursuit of free expression of ideals, we cannot compromise our mission of truth-seeking by entertaining blatant misinformation. So it would be ludicrous to imply that Princeton would willingly invite academics who endorse this false narrative to speak in a special event. Not once, but twice.
We speak directly to Hoffman’s critics now. If you’re so upset that a multitude scientists and academics hold these views to this day, shouldn’t you consider examining your own biases? Rather than run to your echo chamber, why not engage with a well-researched and objective perspective? What are you yelling and protesting for? Do you think you can cancel crime statistics and data? Tell it to say something else? At this point, you’re just preaching to the void. You claim we have to take your socioeconomic data and evidence seriously. You argue that in order to protect innocent lives, we have to pay attention to these “concerning trends” and offer “support” and “reparations.” Well, we are taking the data seriously, and the data is seriously telling us that you aren’t worth the effort. If you’re on the road to extinction, then go alone for goodness’ sake! Don’t take us with you! Oh, and on the way out, don’t go blaming “systemic racism” or “state-sanctioned violence” for your plights; you honestly have no one to blame but yourselves. “No justice, no peace?” “I can’t breathe?” Don’t make us laugh. Joshua Katz was right; “terrorist organization” doesn’t even begin to describe the likes of you.
At the end of the day, this event isn’t about you, nor it is a space for you to freely express your feelings. This is a congratulatory address first and foremost. Frederick Ludwig Hoffman is a man that is well-deserving of his accolades, and we hope our reasons and facts outlined above make that clear. If you disagree, that’s fine; you’re entitled to your opinions, and we welcome you with open arms to debate us in good faith. But if you think you have the right or freedom to call us bigots and catalysts of a system of oppression, then the road is open for you to walk down, too. We won’t miss you.
Bibliography
- Cohen, C. J. (1999). The boundaries of blackness: AIDS and the breakdown of Black politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Hoffman, A. (2022). Princeton Offers “Black Queer BDSM” Course. Princeton Tory. Retrieved November 26, 2022, from http://theprincetontory.com/princeton-offers-black-queer-bdsm-course-news/
- Hoffman, B. (2003). Scientific Racism, Insurance, and Opposition to the Welfare State: Frederick L. Hoffman’s Transatlantic Journey. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 2(2), 150–190. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144326
- Iacobucci, A. (2022, January 28). Princeton-based Academic Freedom Group backs Amy Wax as UPenn starts review process over anti-Asian remarks. The Princetonian. https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2022/01/professor-amy-wax-faculty-review-racist-remarks
- Li, E., & Farah, O. (2020). Part I | ‘Resurfacing history’: A look back at the Black Justice League’s campus activism. The Princetonian. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2020/07/black-justice-league-princeton-history-2015-protest-nassau-hall-sit-in
- Li, E., & Farah, O. (2020). Part II | ‘Resurfacing history’: A look back at the Black Justice League’s campus activism. The Princetonian. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2020/07/black-justice-league-retrospective-woodrow-wilson-sit-in
- Muhammad, K. G. (2019). The condemnation of blackness: race, crime, and the making of modern urban America, with a new preface. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
- Richardson, B. (2016, December 9). Charles Murray Talk: Princeton students, Faculty Walk Out in “silent protest.” The Washington Times. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/charles-murray-talk-princeton-students-faculty-wal/
- Shapiro, D. (2022, September 23). Opinion | I committed journalism, and Princeton told me not to communicate. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 26, 2022, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-committed-journalism-and-princeton-told-me-not-to-communicate-nco-title-ix-regulations-campus-israel-misconduct-chicago-principles-11663945517
- Sypher, F. J. (2000). The Rediscovered Prophet: Frederick L. Hoffman (1865–1946). COSMOS Journal. Retrieved November 26, 2022, from http://www.cosmosclub.org/journals/2000/sypher.html.
Be First to Comment