In an open letter to the professors, students, and faculty of Princeton University, President Christopher Eisgruber listed several proposals “to fight systemic racism in the world at large” and “within our own community.”

His ideas include creating a new degree program for “communities disproportionately affected by systemic racism,” “assemble a faculty that more closely reflects” the student makeup of the college, and “diversify Princeton’s postdoctoral researchers, lecturers, visiting faculty, and graduate students.”

His laundry list of ideas to bend over to the race-obsessed mob and fight racism that has for “too long damaged the lives of Black, Indigenous, and people of color, both at this University and in the United States more broadly” come after several paragraphs of apologies and woke-language to try to make Princeton sufficiently progressive for the current left-wing ideology.

“Princeton contributes to the world through teaching and research of unsurpassed quality, and we must continue to find ways to bring that mission to bear against racism, and against all of the discrimination that damages the lives of people of color,” he writes.

Interestingly, Princeton’s current student racial profile, according to College Factual, is 41.9 percent white, 21 percent Asian, and 10 percent Hispanic, and 7.6 percent Black. With Eisgruber’s promise to remake the school’s staff to resemble this racial make-up more, it may not be progressive to have a majority white staff.

Instead of encouraging students of different backgrounds that they can achieve and be anything they want in the Land of Opportunity, he says such students are “disproportionately affected by systemic racism and related forms of disadvantage.” Students being told they are behind and “disadvantaged” no matter their effort or drive, is an interesting message from the President.

Eisgruber, who made $970,900 in 2018 while the median Black salary in America that year was $41,511, apologized for the University’s past of excluding races and for the “systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.”

He failed to mention Princeton’s current usage of looking at race during the admission process as a factor—instead he proposes doing this for everything including faculty, lecturers, and even contract workers.

“We can and will provide central support and increased accountability to enhance Princeton’s diversity, but there are limits, including legal restrictions, to what we can do or require as we press ahead with initiatives to diversify the University,” he writes. “For example, we cannot reserve jobs or specific positions for members of underrepresented minority groups.”

To fight racism, he proposes, he will take race into account in almost every factor of the University, including, but certainly not limited to: student make-up, tenured faculty, graduate students, professional development, and even suppliers and contractors.

Whether the cancel culture mob will be pleased, is yet to be seen.