Datasets:

hoanganh-bgf

/

Princetontory

like 0

On Witherspoon, Eisgruber Flunks His Own Test

Bill Hewitt

October 31, 2023

President Eisgruber has flagrantly failed his own stated standards of conduct – and abandoned his duties to the Princeton community. He refuses to prevent publication of multiple statements on University websites that falsely defame the reputation of John Witherspoon, Princeton’s indispensable early president and a founder of the United States. Moreover, these defamations’ profound misdirection about Witherspoon’s true relation to slavery have sown anguish and dissension across the University community. Actions have consequences; so does inaction. After a long period of neglect by the administration, on October 31st, I finally placed before the University’s Judicial Committee a It sets forth the defamations of John Witherspoon by the and websites. Here is why I have taken such a drastic step. In his letter to Princeton Professor Keith Whittington regarding the “Known and Heard” website, published jointly by two University offices, President Eisgruber publicly enunciated for himself and his administration these standards:To be sure, speech that comes from University offices is properly subject to more control from the central administration than is faculty and student speech. , and consistent with the mission and responsibilities of the offices authoring it (emphasis added). These standards are appropriate, as they further the University’s the pursuit of truth and transmission of knowledge. The maintenance of intellectual integrity is essential to these aims. But on Witherspoon, President Eisgruber flunked – and continues to fail – his own test of factual accuracy and respect for University values. On , I notified President Eisgruber that the “Known and Heard” website contains a false and defamatory statement about John Witherspoon. The website states that Witherspoon “did not fight for abolition” of slavery. But a dispositive historical analysis by Princeton’s Professor Sean Wilentz , in his words, that “Witherspoon not only upheld that idea, the pro-abolitionist idea; he actually acted on it.” Further, my email reminded President Eisgruber of the standards of conduct he had set forth in his Whittington letter. Last, I informed President Eisgruber that I intended to file a complaint to the University’s about this defamation by the “Known and Heard” website and other defamations of Witherspoon on his relation to slavery, and that this complaint would name him individually. Troublingly, the wrongful statement by the “Known and Heard” website continues. In telling contrast is the prompt correction to the record on Witherspoon’s stance on slavery by . When informed of its having previously published a that Witherspoon “opposed abolition” of slavery, the publication gracefully responded to the notice and posted its correction – and did both within 24 hours.Even worse, President Eisgruber continues his refusal to end the far more damaging defamations of Witherspoon at the Princeton & Slavery Project website. The Project’s prominent essay contains numerous defamatory statements. For example, the essay opens by stating that Witherspoon lectured against the abolition of slavery. This is false. Rather, Witherspoon lectured that slavery was wrong, though he left unaddressed the issue of whether (and how) the laws permitting slavery should be ended. Far from seeking to perpetuate slavery, Witherspoon consistently advocated gradual abolition, both as a and as a . The available evidence also suggests that he emancipated his own two slaves. He also at Princeton. Few, if any, of our nation’s leaders at the time advanced the ultimate end of slavery and the moral equality of all humans as did Witherspoon by his teaching, action, and character.  President Eisgruber has permitted the promotion of these outrageous falsehoods to continue. In addition to each page on the Princeton & Slavery Project’s website displaying the University’s name, logo, and copyright notice, it also carries a “” URL and otherwise uses the University’s IT resources. These valuable privileges carry important responsibilities and restrictions. One of the latter comes from the University’s : “From any location, University resources may not be used to transmit malicious, harassing, or content” (emphasis added). The defamations of Witherspoon on the Princeton & Slavery Project’s essay clearly violate this restriction. At its launch in 2017, President Eisgruber the Princeton & Slavery Project, and two of his administration’s offices (the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity and Office of the Provost) serve among its “Princeton Partners.” Not unlike Captain Ahab to Moby Dick, President Eisgruber has bound himself to the Princeton & Slavery Project, which for six years has created – and continues to foster – a tragic misunderstanding within the University community and society at large of the true measure of Witherspoon’s relation to slavery. In the true history of Witherspoon’s relation to slavery there resides much for Princetonians of today to be proud. Instead of furthering these truths about John Witherspoon, the Project’s multiple defamations of him have brought the University community a bitter harvest. These defamations are foundational for the to remove from Firestone Plaza the very statue that by act of the University Trustees has honored Witherspoon for over 20 years. A regarding the statue’s fate remains pending.The University administration bears substantial responsibility for a fundamentally misinformed petition to remove Witherspoon’s statue. My formal complaint seeks various remedies. Noteworthy among them is an injunction to prevent the University administration from moving or otherwise changing the presentation of the John Witherspoon statue on Firestone Plaza. Until such time as the Judicial Committee orders otherwise or there occurs an improbable change of heart by President Eisgruber or the Project’s director, the Princeton & Slavery Project remains destined to roam as the – a ghost ship haunting Princeton with profound misinformation about Witherspoon, his legacy for us, and the debate over the meaning and fate of his statue.On the defamations of Witherspoon, the University administration has aided and abetted what I have “a fiasco of profound proportion.” W.E.B. Du Bois us to action, “And shall we not best guide humanity by telling the truth about all this, so far as the truth is ascertainable?” The now before the Judicial Committee provides a good start for that telling of the truth. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/on-witherspoon-eisgruber-flunks-his-own-test/

Conservatives, Don’t Retreat from the Ivy League

Zach Gardner

March 22, 2024

America has an Ivy League problem. With each day comes a new ridiculous headline or opinion poll showing how Ivy League students, alumni, and administrators are growing increasingly out of touch with common sense. This growing divergence, coupled with the disproportionate influence of Ivy League graduates in the public sphere, has sparked new levels of outrage and animosity against these institutions. The average Ivy League graduate holds from his non-Ivy counterpart, including the job performance of President Biden, the use of consumer controls to “fight climate change,” and even the importance of individual liberty. On campuses, students openly voice their support for terrorism, disrupt classes, and intimidate fellow students. This social rift is doing real damage to American culture. It is not, however, an insurmountable challenge.A month ago, Fox Nation captured these trends in , Pete Hegseth’s exposé of the Ivy League’s moral and intellectual decline. I had the privilege of being featured in the special alongside my friend and fellow student, where we discussed our experiences as conservative Princeton students, particularly in the wake of Hamas’ October 7th attacks on Israel. The special traced the Ivy League’s takeover by progressives, starting with the colleges’ Protestant origins and following their Dantean descent into secular progressivism. Despite including optimistic perspectives, namely from Princeton professor Robert P. George, the special ended with little hope for the universities’ futures. Many of those featured, including Kaleigh McEnany, Meghan McCain, and Pete Hegseth, questioned whether they would allow their kids to attend their Ivy League alma maters. Although understandable, their pessimism is misguided. Despite the ideological capture of Ivy League universities, it would be a mistake to leave them, especially given the opportunities to change them from the inside. When it comes to these historic institutions, the conservative response should be attack, not retreat. If the recent months and years have demonstrated about higher education, it is that a conservative presence is crucial to combatting the excesses of progressivism. If conservatives abandon the Ivy League, then who will challenge political orthodoxy on these campuses? More importantly, if conservatives retreat, who will be invested in restoring these institutions to a role that embraces their deep history and maintains truth and excellence as guiding principles?Although the “Ivy League” has itself become a metonym – and epithet – for elite, progressive-dominated higher education more generally, one must not neglect the unique histories of its eight constitutive universities. Seven of these eight are so-called “colonial colleges,” institutions which preceded, and in many ways shaped, the United States. If conservatives are still serious about maintaining the American Founding as their political lodestar, they must fight to preserve the institutions that were crucial to its development. To abandon historic institutions because they are currently controlled by ideological opponents is to cease being conservative, at least in any meaningful sense of the term. This task, however, will not be easy. It will take a level of dedication and fortitude not recently seen in conservative politics, but it can be, and will be, possible. It is here that a look to the Founding itself – particularly as experienced by my own university – can provide a lesson from which today’s conservatives can learn.During the early months of the American Revolution, Princeton University – then called the College of New Jersey – was caught in the crossfire of war. In December of 1776, the Continental Army was beleaguered, cold, and dwindling. The British had swiftly captured New York and New Jersey, and Washington’s men were pushed back into eastern Pennsylvania. The town of Princeton was overrun by redcoats. Across the country, the American people awaited a miracle. Luckily, the miracle came.On December 19, pamphleteer Thomas Paine – renowned for his revolutionary pamphlet – published the first number in a series called . “These are the times that try men’s souls,” Paine declared. “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” A week later, in the early morning hours of December 26, Washington’s army made its famed crossing of the Delaware River, surprising and defeating Hessian troops in Trenton. To a demoralized Continental Army, Paine’s words were as forceful and rousing as a battle drum.A little over a week after the Battle of Trenton, these same soldiers ran across a British force in Princeton, just a mile from the college that today bears its name. After a 45-minute engagement, the American troops emerged from the smoke victorious, forcing the British troops to retreat further from New Jersey. Shortly after the battle ended, Washington and his army, including a 19-year-old artillery commander named Alexander Hamilton, recaptured the college from the British. It proved to be a turning point in the war, and it breathed new life into the revolutionary cause.Just as Paine’s words held the key to retaking Princeton from the British in 1777, they hold the key to wrangling America’s elite universities away from their prevailing ideological commitments. Luckily for conservatives, the momentum is shifting. Last year, the Supreme Court finally put an end to race-based affirmative action, paving the way for universities, especially highly-selective ones, to be true to their promise of holistic evaluation. Ivy League universities faced the greatest public accountability in recent memory after antisemitism exploded on their campuses, culminating with the resignation of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. Most recently, in response to worries about the decline in admissions standards during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dartmouth and Yale became the first Ivy League schools to their standardized testing requirement for admissions. While positive, the progress wrought by these changes will be for naught if not followed by a continued effort to reform these universities. Crucially, if this effort is to have any chance of meaningful success, it must come from within. Students are vital in maintaining conservative pressure on Ivy League universities, especially on their professors and peers. Combined with strong campus infrastructure like the James Madison Program at Princeton and the Buckley Institute at Yale, a robust conservative student presence serves as the sole counterbalance to the beliefs held by a majority of their peers. Ivy League universities are certainly not the paragons of elite higher education in America. There are countless universities at which students can receive a quality education that prepares them for a successful and purposeful life. Nevertheless, the eight Ivies are historically important, resource-rich, and well-networked institutions from which conservative students can greatly benefit. Going forward, conservatives should not relish the decline of America’s first universities. The reputational damage suffered by Ivy League schools should not be an opportunity for schadenfreude – it should be an opportunity for reflection and change. If conservatives view the Ivy League not simply as a metonym for progressive elitism but as a collection of eight historic institutions ripe with potential, they can begin the necessary work of reorienting them towards a mission centered on truth, knowledge, and pride in a common American heritage. To begin these changes, there is no better place to start than with the students themselves.So, to prospective students, I encourage you to apply to schools in the Ivy League. Apply to schools you think might be “too progressive.” Apply to schools where you might be outnumbered. Follow the advice from Thomas Paine and embrace the challenge ahead. Be a winter soldier. You will not regret it.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/conservatives-dont-retreat-from-the-ivy-league/

The Trump Trance

Darius Gross

June 16, 2024

On May 23, I attended former President Donald Trump’s rally in the Bronx. It was my first time at a Trump event, and it felt historic – his first New York City event since 2016. It also enabled Trump to show off how the MAGA movement is drawing in demographics that GOP leaders have long written off. New York’s youthful, diverse character was reflected in the crowd, a fact that some media outlets reluctantly acknowledged. “There were a lot of people here that were actually from the Bronx,” CNN correspondent Kristen Holmes with surprise. (These cases of rare honesty did not prevent rallygoers from frequently booing the assembled media and leading chants of “CNN Sucks.”) The turnout was massive. Ushers and organizers strained to keep people moving slowly to prevent a stampede. Ultimately, the crowd that streamed into Crotona Park more than the campaign’s turnout expectations.Attendees had not chosen to stand in line for hours simply to hear political speeches. They were preparing themselves for a life-altering experience. Small influencers showed off their rap skills and posted selfies to their social media stories; other rally-goers excitedly FaceTimed their family members. Brawny middle-aged men cracked jokes and got into verbal scuffles. All seemed energized for what was coming.Each time an introductory speaker was announced, the assembly swelled with expectation, like a massive engine cranking to a false start. But when the loudspeaker introduced “the next president of the United States,” the crowd roared to life at last. Absurdly, the platform was placed uphill from the crowd, which only added to the gravitas of the scene. I strained to view above a sea of heads toward the stage, where, beaming in the sunlight, stood the man who remade the GOP in his image.All the abstract arguments about Trump’s success evaporate like phantoms in his physical presence. Trump seems invincible or divine – or so a naive viewer from pagan antiquity might have believed. The “starstruck” effect captured the whole crowd. Trump radiates an unmistakable aura, a kind of psychotropic haze that confounds the senses. Despite his magnetism, Trump did not inspire reverential silence. The crowd remained as boisterous as before, and indeed became a near-equal participant in the rally in its own right. Trump took his supporters’ cues, asking permission to go off-script and pausing to gauge reactions. He led the dance, though he was not independent in his motions. It is easy to see why this display of alchemy consistently draws throngs of devotees. The political energy behind the MAGA movement is unparalleled. Many in the media-tech-DNC establishment who oppose Trump’s political ambitions have sensed this fact, and as a result, they fear him like nothing else. The weapons they wield against him, blunt and dirty, reflect their desperation: hoaxes (), dishonest investigations (), cover-ups (), and even (three of which are still pending). Yet these tools are only suited to taking down an ordinary politician. Hence the Left’s continual dismay when, like a magician, Trump swiftly his enemies’ force against them.Years after the Trump movement’s debut, centrists and ‘establishmentarians’ on Left and Right alike still refuse to reckon with its potency. Perhaps that was the true significance of bringing the campaign to a deep-blue neighborhood. It was not really to “win New York” or to turn the Bronx into “Trump country,” as was insisted over the loudspeakers numerous times. The point was to bring the feelings that animate the MAGA movement right to the heart of the coastal city that spurns Trump – to shake the sense of complacency and steadiness that still dominates political life. The new, populist way does not just attract Midwesterners; even New York urbanites see a future in it. Can the diehard anti-Trumper accept that his very own neighbor, perhaps even a part of himself, desires what Trump is offering? The phenomenon of the Trump rally points to a major shift in our political order. A new social psychology is at work within the Right: that of total, hypnotic dependency on one personality. Trump has unflinching, unitary control over the Republican Party and its fate. Several changes in official priorities should illustrate this. “I will never let anyone touch your Medicare or your Social Security,” Trump told the Bronx crowd. After a prolonged struggle over Obamacare, Trump abandoned the cause, and now the topic is simply dead in public discourse. Similarly, abortion was once central to the GOP agenda – but knowing it, too, could prove a political liability, Trump has tried to drop it as a campaign issue. (It never made much sense for a playboy businessman to defend that hill, anyway.) A divided Congress must seek Trump’s license to act. When Democrats were ready to concede immigration restrictions to the Right, Trump chose to block the bill. Its stalwart Republican sponsors were dubbed traitors. Congressional Republicans favored Trump’s electoral interest – letting the Democrats bleed from a self-inflicted gash – over acting in the national interest and closing the wound on our southern border. Trump’s interest is the Party’s, and right now it is more important for him to play the hero than to achieve results. The last and most fickle element of Trump’s control is the party base. As during his speeches, Trump must monitor and gently guide them while attempting to hold their trust. This he has so far managed skillfully. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party limps along, devoid of any organizing logic. A jumble of philanthropists, activists, and students pushes leftist dogma to its natural conclusions. Academics then convert these bullet points into the language of philosophy, policy, and law. Whatever these organs spout on matters of principle or social justice is accepted by the party , without protest. Hence, Democratic officials vote monolithically on most social issues. Political control within the Democratic Party, however, is slack. The ‘moderates’ cannot rein in their most extreme leftist colleagues on technical policy matters such as the environment and foreign affairs. And despite the apparent centralization in the DNC that secured Hillary Clinton’s nomination in 2016, since then the party has been unable to unite enough to convince its aged President to let younger hands take the reins. For conservatives like me, there is something to celebrate in this. Whereas the Democrats lurch predictably leftward against the prudent but ultimately fruitless warnings of its leaders, the Right has finally found a unifying principle of its own. And even if Trump has molded the form of politics to his purposes, their substance remains much the same. “” simply demand louder what most Republicans have long wanted: a strong economy, safe and clean cities, the enforcement of immigration law. The GOP is no longer the unwieldy, contradictory juggernaut it once was. The buckling Buckleyite stool of libertarianism, religious conservatism, and neoconservatism has not stood the test of time. The Right’s factions, constantly stepping on each other’s feet, could not advance – only lock arms against the ever-encroaching Left. Trump has pared down the Republican promise to a few core issues, spearheaded by an electorally viable coalition. Rather than just agreeing to slash taxes (yet again), the Trump GOP shows the will and focus to deliver on some other key promises – especially those on which the Left has gained ground by exploiting division within the Right. What’s lost in the bargain, however, is clear: Trump has become the GOP. No force in the party is willing to buck his dictates. Even Nikki Haley has . But a political coalition cannot remain healthy if it imposes silence upon dissenters who wish to call attention to the movement’s blindspots.Even those who believe Trump to be an effective leader must admit that the long-term outlook for the party is not good. Trump is the only pole holding up the GOP tent. Over the past eight years, we have come to take for granted his lone Atlantean strength. But we must be ready for his eventual absence, lest the party cave in and consume itself. During his Bronx speech, Trump recounted the story of William Levitt, the father of the American suburb. Levitt had taken a long break from business, but when he got back into the game, he found no success. Trump recalled meeting him as a broken man who had “lost his momentum.” This was why, Trump told the crowd, he had to insist that 2020 was an electoral victory. “You have to always keep moving forward,” he declared. The question for the Republican Party is: can it move on its own at all – or will it remain fixed in its Trumpian trance forever?

https://www.theprincetontory.com/the-trump-trance/

Make Conservatism Relatable Again

Jaden Stewart

December 11, 2023

When Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy began Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” during the Iowa State Fair, many were rightfully confused. Why would a highly accomplished individual who seeks to occupy the highest office in the land do something so over-the-top? The answer is that Ramaswamy understands the importance of connecting conservative values to likable people. This is a lesson that would do conservatives a lot of good to internalize.  At a time when many already distrust politicians, conservatives are at an even greater disadvantage due to the nature of conservative argumentation. While the Left prioritizes emotional appeals (e.g., “a poor, single mother shouldn’t have to have a child she doesn’t want” or “America’s systemic racism prevents African Americans from being able to succeed”), conservatives employ facts and logical reasoning (“some babies can feel pain as early as twelve weeks” or “poor economic outcomes are statistically tied to lower-quality education”) to argue for their preferred policies. And while these types of conservative arguments may be right, they are, by their very nature, less appealing to the average American. As a result, the Left, which acknowledges the emotional dimension of many American problems, positions itself as genuinely concerned about American citizens, while the Right appears distant and out-of-touch with the people.The Left has built upon this advantage by proving that it not only values the interests of Americans but that it embodies their priorities. Some of the most dynamic moments in recent presidential campaigns have been from Democratic presidential candidates demonstrating that they have personalities beyond their ideological leanings – that they are real people. Bill Clinton playing the saxophone on MTV and Barack Obama releasing a list of his favorite rap songs are just two examples of many. Even Joe Biden, as out of touch as he may seem, released a bracket with his picks for this year’s March Madness Tournament. President Trump declined to do this throughout his tenure in office.This is not to say that Republicans haven’t tried to garner this type of appeal. Most presidential candidates have made their rounds of Iowa and New Hampshire, talking with residents and flipping burgers. Yet these moves seem more like the contrived requirements of campaigning rather than a genuine expression of their personalities – which is why it felt so odd, yet refreshing, to see Ramaswamy rapping on that stage in Iowa. You can tell that even though he’s not a trained rapper, he genuinely loves the music.As soon as the video of Ramaswamy’s performance began to gain traction online, Eminem hit Ramaswamy with a , demanding that Ramaswamy stop using all of his music for campaign purposes. Liberal candidates have used Eminem’s music on numerous occasions without any retaliation from the artist.Eminem’s actions are indicative of a much broader trend: banning conservative voices from the culture to ensure that our values lack mass exposure and appeal. Hollywood’s censorship of and Tim Allen, as well as blacklisting from the NBA, are several recent instances of this. Even on college campuses, it’s difficult for openly conservative students to carve out a social identity for themselves or try to persuade fellow students once the labels of “racist” and “sexist” are applied. The Left’s takeover of our cultural institutions means the Right is unable to appeal to Americans in the exact same way.Conservatives must combat this systemic image issue if they want to see a revival of their values in America. We must recognize that our policies don’t, in fact, speak for themselves. have to speak for them. That means that every conservative is an ambassador for their beliefs. We must show compassion when discussing politics and cultural issues, not harshness and animosity. Not every political conversation has to be an aggressive “debate,” as much as social media may want us to believe this is the case. Most importantly, if you’re a conservative, show your personality beyond your politics. It’s not easy to acknowledge, but “Republican” and “conservative” have become antagonistic and corrosive brands that are hard to evade. But we all have an identity beyond these labels – a religious background, hobby, or artistic interest. These are sides of us that are important for others to see. Prioritize showing these parts of yourself to others before talking politics. Only then will others be able to see there is an actual, likable person behind your beliefs. I can’t guarantee that this course of action will change anyone’s mind, but I am certain it will set up conservatives for both electoral and personal success in the present and into the future. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/make-conservatism-fun-again/

The Monologue of an Optimo-Pessimist

Arnav Vyas

December 7, 2023

I am conflicted about how to think of the future.I am first drawn to the opinion of the optimist, charmed by John Stuart Mill’s that “our general tendency is that towards a better and happier state.” This is a view that speaks of our current participation in an upward arc of modern civilization, one where I can look back and recognize the past two hundred fifty years as an utter miracle. Lost in its reverential outlook, I watch millions rise from the squalid trenches of poverty that proved insurmountable for thousands of years before. Bewildered, I witness people throw off the yoke of tyranny that once appeared to be impossibly permanent.I note the freedom of slaves, the enshrinement of women’s suffrage, the advent of vaccines; the invention of air conditioning, the rise of personal automobiles, and the global adoption of the InternetMy time is freely spent contemplating a world that has attained unprecedented heights, reaching a higher level of material living standards than any time in human history. Accordingly, in this position, I also find myself carrying a profound belief in the system where this was made possible, in both democracy and the free market, and lamenting those who think otherwise. Pessimists who espouse existential fears of overpopulation and environmental catastrophe stand far from the truth, given that current positive population growth may actually living standards and the economic impacts of 3°C warming (twice as high as stated goal of the Paris Climate Accords) are . Critics of businesses not paying their “fair share” are empirically mistaken. Not only are tax breaks negligible relative to the overall U.S. budget, but corporate income is . Categorical support for welfare programs that ‘ameliorate’ capitalism’s consequences are simply ignorant of past defeats: as Thomas Sowell explains in , “the failure of Lyndon Johnson’s ‘war on poverty’ to achieve its goal of reducing dependency – and in fact an dependency as these policies went into effect – brought no acknowledgment of failure.”I am captured by a vision that, while acknowledging problems do exist as a result of capitalism, does not think they are problematic enough to warrant mass pessimism or a significant overhaul of our current system of government. Near to us is a future of abundance that, being liberatory in nature, will free every one of us to climb Maslow’s hierarchy and shift our focus upward to grander questions concerning the transcendent and spiritual. Growth and progress are inevitable, and the path forward only appears bleak to those who fall prey to the tendency Hume astutely described: “Where real terrors are wanting, the soul finds imaginary ones, to whose power and malevolence it sets no limits.” Yet I would be lying if I said this is the only vision that captures my attention, for the perspective of the pessimist is not without a kernel of truth. Indeed, I would say my natural tendency to be pessimistic. A more scientific mind might frame entropy as the ruling law of the universeIn my mind, several adages strike me as prudent and sensible: What can break will break, all good things must come to an end, this too shall pass, and the like. In this eschatology, the inevitable end of political society is not progress, but collapse. I believe history is epitomized by the extinction of the dinosaur and the fall of the Roman Empire, both of which few could have predicted would perish but nonetheless did. Reality is a pre-WWII Germany that, as described by , was morally corrupt despite standing at such civilizational heights that it could boast of authors like Herman Hesse, Stefan George, and Franz Kafka; painters like Paul Klee and Oscar Schlemmer; composers ranging from Anton Webern to Arnold Schoenberg; and a formidable scientific enterprise that was at the world’s cutting edge. We live in a world where Heinrich Himmler unabashedly carried the Bhagavad Gita, a central text in Hindu scripture, in his pocket. “To fully grasp the horror of the Holocaust,” said Scalia, “you must imagine, for it probably happened, that the commandant of Auschwitz or Dachau, when he had finished his day’s work, retired to his apartment and listened to some tender and poignant Lieder of Franz Schubert.” Material and cultural achievement stand for very little if the societies that produce them are mired in moral decay. Antithetical to Mill’s sentiment, this view envisions a universe in which past successes count for nothing and history has no upward direction. It is a world capable of falling at any moment – from the highest peaks of human civilization into the lowest depths of unimaginable horrors and unspeakable tragedy. Anyone who believes that the future is bleak is naive, convinced of their own righteousness, and blind to the multitude of disastrous outcomes that might occur.Just as it happened before, so too can it happen again. I am thus conflicted. Caught between these two perspectives, I see both a world moving up and a world about to crumble. I am aware of our upward movement but cognizant of its fragility. I am grateful, yet never overconfident. The future does not belong to those obsessed with fixing a society that is not broken, but to those of us who actively conserve what we have. Perhaps it is this position – being neither cynical nor complacent, aware of America’s genius yet not convinced of its permanence – that is most productive. The stance that is best is the one of the Optimo-Pessimist.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/the-monologue-of-an-optimo-pessimist/

Publisher’s Note: Volume XXXIX, Issue No. 3

Darius Gross

January 23, 2024

Dear Tories, In October and November, hundreds of Princeton students and professors gathered before Nassau Hall to call for the eradication of the Jewish state. Repeated calls for “Intifada” and cheering Palestinian “resistance” against Israel rang out – not-so-subtle endorsements of the October 7 slaughter and kidnapping of hundreds of innocents. Yet the University has put out insipid statements protecting the activists’ calls to violence under the banner of free speech, while reminding students that the campus community “deplores expressions of hatred directed against any individual or group.” With this ambiguous phrasing, those who did not witness the vitriol at these demonstrations were left to guess who expressed hatred against whom.Previously, the University has issued unequivocal statements on issues from the Russia–Ukraine war to George Floyd and BLM. President Eisgruber managed to condemn Hamas’ attacks – yet he remained tight-lipped when Princeton students called for further violence against Jews. Rather than appeal to Princeton’s “mission” in serving higher values like “human rights,” as he did in prior statements, Eisgruber directed the community to “scholarly contributions and public panel discussions.” Why has conviction melted away in the wake of this horrific massacre? Why has the University, seemingly out of nowhere, decided to practice institutional restraint?The answer lies in genealogy. Senior administrators like President Eisgruber were inculcated into an older liberal progressivism, a moral framework that they assume will prevail in the marketplace of ideas. They sired a new brood of illiberal progressives with a more militant approach and values. They hold contempt for the West and express partiality toward anti-Western movements – in this case, Hamas. However, the institution that fathered these progressives cannot betray them. Any activism with progressive DNA is untouchable. If the University reprimands its children, the University itself will be disgraced and the progressive name besmirched.  In this attitude, I detect the death knell for Princeton’s moral compass. Princeton has failed to instruct its pupils in the foundations of a liberal system of ethics – the distinctions between instigation and self-defense, between civilian and soldier, between murder and accident. This leaves students to light their own way out of moral confusion. In this task, I hope this issue may be of use. It contains our news coverage of anti-Israel campus demonstrations and our writers? analysis of the situation unfolding here and abroad. I hope their words can provide some moral clarity at this troubling moment at Princeton and beyond.As always, we welcome your questions, feedback, and letters to the editor. You can send these and more to . Best, Darius Gross ’24, Publisher November 27, 2023

https://www.theprincetontory.com/publishers-note-volume-xxxix-issue-no-3/

John Witherspoon, Thanksgiving, and the Season of Humility

Zach Gardner

November 25, 2023

Thanksgiving has not always been the stand-alone national holiday we celebrate today. Born out of the agricultural calendar of American colonial life, fall days of thanksgiving were traditionally preceded by spring days of fasting and humiliation, days in which the American people would come together in prayer for a successful planting season and a bountiful harvest. In the fall, when the time of harvest had finally come, days of thanksgiving were proclaimed to celebrate what had been gathered. So, in order to fully appreciate Thanksgiving, we must understand it in light of how it was originally celebrated – as the harvest season’s counterpart to the sowing season’s day of fasting and prayer. Although they served distinct purposes, the days were both linked by the common theme of humility, a thread that runs through the history of our Nation our University. During the fight for American independence, Princeton’s most prominent president, John Witherspoon, played a central role in the young nation’s most important days of national humility. On Friday, May 16, 1776, Witherspoon stepped into the pulpit to deliver what would become the most well-known sermon of his career, The day had been set aside by John Hancock and the Continental Congress as “a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer,” a day when all American Christians would cease their labor and humbly repent of their “manifold sins.” In 1776, the occasion for the fast day was , however, the season of planting. It was the season of revolution.Almost a year earlier, the first shots of the Revolutionary War had been fired at Lexington and Concord, and the colonies’ future remained painfully uncertain. In less than two months, they would declare their independence from Great Britain as the United States of America. The seeds of independence had been sown, but it remained to be seen if they would bear the fruits of freedom. As Witherspoon described in his sermon, the country was “putting on the harness, and entering upon an important contest, the length of which it is impossible to foresee.”Witherspoon discussed the extent to which the hand of Providence had pushed the country along the path towards independence. He beseeched his congregation, however, to “guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of an arm of flesh.” In order for the nation to achieve its independence, “the Christian character, particularly the self-denial of the gospel” would have to “extend to [the People’s] whole deportment,” and they would have to exercise “humility of carriage, a restraint and moderation in all [their] desires.” To Witherspoon, humility was the key to victory. Seven months later, after independence had been declared and the Continental Army had suffered a wave of staggering defeats, Witherspoon drafted a congressional resolution calling for the year’s second “Day of solemn Fasting and Humiliation” on December 11th. Just two weeks later, in the waning hours of Christmas Day, George Washington led his army across the Delaware River into Trenton, surprising a contingent of Hessian soldiers and achieving a monumental victory for the Patriot cause. A little over a week later, Washington and the Continental Army came to John Witherspoon’s doorstep, defeating the British once more at the Battle of Princeton. In the first year of the war, Witherspoon’s strategy of humility seemed to be working. However, there was still a long road ahead, and much American blood would have to be shed before the yoke of British rule could finally be thrown off. In the following years, Congress would issue a number of similar springtime proclamations for days of public fasting, humiliation, and prayer. However, in October of 1777, Congress also began issuing proclamations for days of “solemn thanksgiving and praise,” during which “the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts” and approach the Almighty with “humble and earnest Supplication.” As in the earliest days of America’s history, the American wartime calendar was marked with these twin days of fasting and thanksgiving. Without a day of humiliation, there would not be a day of solemn gratitude. Although the words “humility” and “humiliation” have distinct modern connotations, they both come from the same Latin root , meaning “ground” or “earth.” In their most literal sense, the two words denote lowering oneself to the ground, the basest possible state. In fact, farther back in etymological history, Latin and (from which we eventually get the word “human”) are descended from a common Proto-Indo-European root meaning “earth.” Ultimately, to be human is to be formed from the earth, and to be humble is to remind oneself of that fact. In his sermon, John Witherspoon reminds us that we ought to “humble us in the dust” when considering our history, the pages of which bear witness to human frailty, sinfulness, and hardship. When we celebrate Thanksgiving, we should remember that our great national tradition was born out of times of immense strife, times when American life was most difficult.When President Abraham Lincoln issued his Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1863, officially marking the fourth Thursday in November as “a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise,” the country was embroiled in another fight for its survival. While the ink was drying on the President’s proclamation, the fields of Gettysburg were still wet with the blood of Union and Confederate soldiers. Many of the fallen were being reburied in the soldiers’ cemetery under construction on the battlefield, and the war was raging on. Almost two weeks earlier, the second deadliest battle of the war had been fought along Chickamauga Creek in North Georgia. North and south, east and west, the nation’s bloody wounds ran deep, and the soothing balm of peace was still two years away.Although he acknowledged the ongoing war, Secretary William Seward, the author of the proclamation, also took time to recognize the happening across the country. He mentioned the expansion of American territory, the vast material wealth unearthed across the country’s mines, and the plentiful harvests enjoyed by American farmers. In fact, he began the proclamation by celebrating a year “filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies.” In the midst of the nation’s most horrific tragedy, Seward took the time to find the light in the midst of darkness, to officially recognize a day in which the American people could come together in prayer and humble supplication to the Lord. Exactly a week before this first official Thanksgiving Day was celebrated, President Lincoln delivered his famous address at the dedication of Gettysburg National Cemetery. Standing upon the final earthen resting place of the Union dead, Lincoln declared that “we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground” any more than had been hallowed and consecrated by their blood. “It is for us the living,” Lincoln said, “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced,” and to ensure “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” It is in the Gettysburg Address that Abraham Lincoln fully captured the spirit of the national holiday which would be celebrated a week later. Thanksgiving is about remembering the year’s blessings, many of which we enjoy because of the work of those who came before us. Gratitude is the chief conservative virtue, and gratitude cannot be expressed without humility. If we are to fully appreciate the importance of lasting traditions and institutions, we must first understand our own frailty. We must understand that we, too, must one day lie beneath the ground, returning to the soil and clay from which we were formed. Like the soldiers at Gettysburg, we will inevitably perish from the earth. However, if we humble ourselves before the past, we might hope to leave our mark by sustaining those institutions and traditions that have sustained us. Although he lived to see the end of the war, President Lincoln did not live to see the Nation’s “new birth of freedom.” On the night of April 15, 1865, his life was stolen by an assassin’s bullet, extinguishing the light that had led the Nation through its darkest times. A month and a half after Lincoln’s death, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation declaring “a day of humiliation and mourning” to remember the departed president’s life. As the People prepared to face the long road of Reconstruction, they returned to the time-honored practice of humbly petitioning the Lord for guidance.  Unlike President Lincoln, John Witherspoon lived to see the fruits of the national conflict in which he was involved. In 1777, a few months after drafting the December proclamation, Witherspoon joined the Continental Congress, where he would serve until 1784 and draft two national thanksgiving proclamations, one in 1781 and a second in 1782. Weeks after writing the 1782 proclamation, during which time the war was drawing to a close, Witherspoon returned to his pulpit in Princeton to preach a thanksgiving sermon. Centered around King David’s declaration in Psalm 3 that “salvation belongeth unto the Lord,” the sermon described the young nation’s deliverance from the threat of extinction. At the beginning, Witherspoon reminded his congregation where the nation began its journey towards independence, noting that nothing “could be more discouraging than our situation at the close of the year 1776.” Remembering the famous sermon he had delivered that fateful year, he now found himself on the other side of the contest whose end he admitted could not have predicted.After recounting the war’s most consequential events, including “the surprise of the Hessians at Trenton, and the subsequent victory at Princeton,” Reverend Witherspoon concluded his sermon by describing the vital role of religious virtue in promoting free government, exclaiming that “civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue.” These virtues, among which Witherspoon defined as “piety, order, industry, [and] frugality,” could only be cultivated by “put[ting] honour upon modesty and self-denial.” Like his advice during the earliest years of the war, the key to preserving and fostering freedom was humility. At the beginning of the war, at the sowing season of freedom, Witherspoon had preached a fasting day sermon beseeching his congregation to humbly pray for Divine favor. At the end of the war, when the fruits of freedom were ready to be harvested, he preached a thanksgiving sermon expressing his gratitude for the nation’s success in the war effort. However, he also recognized the need to sow a new lot of seeds, the seeds of republican government and constitutional stability. The work of fighting had ceased, and the work of building had begun. In the spirit of John Witherspoon, we must remember Thanksgiving as a day of humility. From dust we came, and to dust we shall return. Thus, we should give thanks for every breath and every moment we have on this earth, and we should use every breath and every moment to continue giving thanks. I give thanks for my country and my University. I give thanks for the flag that hangs triumphantly above Nassau Hall, and I give thanks to the men and women who have laid down their lives so that the stars and stripes may fly. I give thanks to those who have come before me, and I am endlessly grateful for the institutions they have bequeathed to me and my generation. I give thanks to those who formed the Union, those who preserved it, and those who have fought to make it more perfect.As the misguided continue in their prideful quests to topple the building blocks of American culture and history, whether it be the at Princeton or , I urge everyone to adopt the humble disposition that originally marked our national days of prayer and supplication. Just as our forefathers inevitably failed, so too will we fail. Just as they erred, we will err. And, just as they did wrong, we will do wrong. However, just as they built and sustained great things, we, too, can build and sustain great things. First, we must understand the finitude of our existence, and second, we must strive to create things which outlast it. Before we till the soil and make way for a new and bountiful harvest, we must remember our humble origins in the earth, the place to which we inevitably return.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/witherspoonthanksgiving/

Princeton’s Carl Field Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding Hosts “Creating a Pleasure Practice with The Fat Sex Therapist”

Reid Zlotky

April 24, 2023

On Wednesday, April 19th, Princeton’s Pace Center for Civic Engagement and the Carl A. Field Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding hosted an event entitled “Creating a Pleasure Practice with The Fat Sex Therapist,” featuring Sonalee Rashatwar. This was not Rashatwar’s first engagement at Princeton. In 2020, Rashatwar gave two at the University: “Decolonizing Sex Positivity” and “Race as a Body Image Issue.”According to the Pace Center , Rashatwar, a biological female who uses they/he pronouns, is a “clinical social worker, sex therapist, adjunct lecturer, and grassroots organizer.” The site also describes Rashatwar as “a superfat queer bisexual non-binary therapist.” Rashatwar is a co-owner of the , which “provides trauma informed, client-centered services and products that have an intentional anti-oppression lens.” According to the center’s website, “our mission is simple – to your .” Rashatwar’s clinical practice focuses on “treating sexual trauma, diet trauma, racial and immigrant trauma, and South Asian family abuse while offering fat positive sexual healthcare.” Rashatwar’s views have been subjects of controversy in the past few years. Rashatwar received pushback for putting a child on a diet to statutory rape, saying: “I truly believe that a child cannot consent to being on a diet the same way a child cannot consent to having sex.” Rashatwar also claimed that high blood pressure might be a result of “weight stigma” rather than unhealthy habits.  Rashatwar gained the most notoriety from an featured in the 2022 BBC documentary . In it, Rashatwar argued that in “an idyllically sex-positive world,” people would be able to drug women and have sex with them while they are unconscious “so that I can get my kink out—my fetish [of] having sex with unconscious people.” Rashatwar has since for the comments.Despite the controversy that Rashatwar has caused outside of Princeton’s campus, only a handful of people attended the event. “I have taught workshops like these for seven or eight years and…I always like to offer a grounding in black radical feminism because that’s what radicalized me,” Rashatwar told the audience at the beginning of the April 19 talk. The focus of the talk was creating a “pleasure practice,” which Rashatwar defined as “the finding of moments throughout the day to savor the little opportunities and experiences of joy in your experience.” Rashatwar emphasized how common forms of “pleasure restriction” are socially conditioned and should be dismantled. Rashatwar’s presentation slides on “common forms of pleasure restriction” argued that “capitalism teaches us that productive bodies are good bodies… christofascism moralizes the delay [of] pleasure, non-normative pleasure (BDSM, kink, tattoos, etc) is pathologized as deviant” and finally “refusing medication is healthist + rewarded.” Rashatwar expressed skepticism of scientific consensus when questioning the role of the “doctor’s office” and the “medical industrial complex” in reinforcing the “thin beauty ideal.” Rashatwar also decried the “pleasure restriction” inherent in “being told that fatness symbolizes overindulgence,” presumably so that one restricts oneself from eating fattening foods. Rashatwar told the audience that “for a lot of us, the health outcomes we experience later in life, for the most part, are genetic,” arguing that diabetes is not caused by the unhealthy lifestyle associated with being overweight. “If you have been told that, or if someone believes that,” Rashatwar said, “it is often because they have read something that affirms their already fatphobic beliefs. The belief that fat people are inherently inferior. That they do not live long enough or do not have long enough lives.”During the talk, Rashatwar self-identified as a fat futurist, a term designating a desire for “fat people to exist in the future.” Rashatwar also argued that fatphobia is “really based in white supremacy” in many cases and that “the kind of fatphobia that we have in the U.S. is directly rooted in anti-blackness.” 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/princetons-carl-field-center-for-equality-and-cultural-understanding-hosts-creating-a-pleasure-practice-with-the-fat-sex-therapist-news/

Purim Reflections: Navigating Celebration in the Shadow of Antisemitism

Alexandra Orbuch

March 25, 2024

For years, celebrating the Jewish holiday of Purim was just that: a celebration. As a kid, I dressed up in all manners of costumes, from a purple Crayola crayon to a cheerleader from one of my favorite childhood television shows; I attended carnivals put on by my school and synagogue; I gathered with my family, friends, and community to read the Megillah (scroll) of Esther, which commemorates the deliverance of Persian Jewry from near destruction. I was always entranced watching the elders of my community read from a parchment scroll, synagogue members of all ages dressed up in a myriad of costumes and engaged in the redemptive narrative of our people.  This year felt fundamentally different. It was still celebratory, as it is a religious imperative to celebrate. But for once, I found it difficult to fulfill what was once an easy commandment—if such a thing even exists. Every Jew is required to hear the Megillah twice during the day-long holiday. During the reading, one cannot speak and must concentrate and listen closely to every word. So that is what I did. I listened to every word of the melodic Hebrew. Twice. And each time, I registered how different this year felt from past years. I felt chills run down my spine listening to the plot to destroy the Jewish people—the plot that Persia’s leadership signed onto without pause or question; one that masses across the empire took upon themselves, their personal safety less important than their vitriol towards the Jews.I found it tough to celebrate in the moment when I felt history’s repetitive nature at its strongest. When Jews were slaughtered in their own homes, beside their babies, women , and entire families snuffed out. When antisemitism has spread over every inch of the American public square.To put it mildly, it has not been pleasant to be a Jewish student on campus in the wake of October 7. My anti-Israel classmates have where they harassed Jewish students, stalked and —myself included—and led . They declared that the Palestinians “have the right to resist, and live, ,” and called for an “intifada” from and for “One Solution,” ominously–and perhaps intentionally–invoking Hitler’s final solution. I was personally at a rally and subsequently until I acquired legal help. Harassment, intimidation, and support for violence against a religious and ethnic minority cannot be allowed to run rampant in a free country like ours—yet they do. The challenges we confront today extend beyond our immediate moment; today is not just about today. It also shapes the trajectory of our future. As the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors who grew up with the harrowing stories about how my family in Romania and Poland experienced the same dismissals at the early hints of hatred and discrimination, I am fearful of what will happen if you fail to answer these calls. And this Purim, I was reminded of just how dangerous such a reality would be.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/purim-reflections-navigating-celebration-in-the-shadow-of-antisemitism/

The Right Goes Postmodern

Khoa Sands

May 21, 2023

“We are not gonna let this state be overrun by woke ideology,” Ron DeSantis declared in his gubernatorial victory speech last year. “We will fight the woke in the businesses, we will fight the woke in government agencies, we will fight the woke in our schools. We will never ever surrender to the woke agenda. Florida is the state where woke goes to die.” DeSantis has staked his political career on joining the culture war fray as the ‘effective’ anti-woke candidate. In doing so, he has positioned himself as the ideological successor to Trump, who was catapulted to the presidency in 2016 on a wave of cultural grievances. Although the idea that culture and politics are linked is an old one, it has been newly infused into the modern American discourse and reoriented the right towards a particularly polemical focus on cultural politics. This shift finds its origin in Andrew Breitbart’s famous aphorism: . The “Breitbart Doctrine,” as this maxim came to be known, has come to animate conservative politics and transform the 21st-century Republican Party. Breitbart’s mission was to create alternative cultural institutions to fundamentally reshape the civil superstructure of American society. This mission has been taken up by his protégé, Ben Shapiro, whose media company, , is openly to become the right-wing alternative to Hollywood. However, this mission is likely doomed. Cultural power is so entrenched in existing institutions that it is unlikely new ones will affect any lasting change. The struggles of reveal an old truth conservatives know well: it?s hard to build new institutions from scratch. Today’s culture-war conservatives complain about the social dominance of a liberal ruling class supposedly controlling the news, the media, certain churches, higher education, and major corporations. Through these civic institutions, the ruling class can infuse society with its progressive values. The right’s struggle against the cultural hegemony of the left has been a losing battle. Yet while the left has gradually risen to sociocultural dominance, the right still has substantial political power. DeSantis has used this power to reverse the Breitbart doctrine: culture can be downstream from politics; the power of the government can affect cultural change. This is DeSantis’s gambit in going after woke corporations (such as Disney) and higher education (by replacing the progressive administration of ). A popular target of the cultural right is postmodernism, often conflated with Marxism. There is no shortage of conservative figures decrying the movement, from Jordan Peterson’s rants on “postmodern neo-marxism” to former British Prime Minister Liz Truss blaming the failures of education on postmodernism and Foucault. Yet this view conveniently ignores the postmodern strains of thought within conservatism which animate the culture war today. Postmodernism critiques objective empirical truth, instead treating truth as a reflection of power. Those who have social power are able to have their perspectives treated as objective truth and their values treated as objective morals. Subjective identity then becomes the locus of worldview, and the new focus must be on “lived experience” rather than empirical rational truth. For postmodernists, it is only natural that different identities will perceive different “truths” and socially accepted “truth” is only the “truth” of the powerful. This makes postmodernists inherently skeptical of any grand meta-narratives, including Marxism. While Marxism acknowledges that while “truth” is bounded by history, identity, and society, there still exists a higher objective truth – that being the Marxist worldview, of course. Therefore, in Marxism, one can be subjectively correct while objectively incorrect. Postmodernism, on the other hand, dismisses the Marxist meta-narrative claim to objectivity. The mainstream cultural right, including DeSantis, has largely advanced a defense of conservative values not because they are necessarily , but because leftism is perceived as antithetical to our culture, nation, or tradition. In laying out his , DeSantis praised the cultural and philosophic tradition of the West. “The core curriculum must be grounded in actual history,” he stated, “the actual philosophy that has shaped Western civilization.” DeSantis’ opposition to DEI and CRT education programs is not staked on a conception of the truth-seeking mission of the university, but rather on the conservation of a cultural heritage. The preservation of a Western identity is the animating cause for the right-wing culture war; that which opposes the Western classical tradition must be excised from society. Conservatism has long contained its own strain of truth-skeptical politics. These ideas were developed in opposition to the universalist claims of the Enlightenment, and especially the French Revolution. Writing in opposition to the revolutionaries, Edmund Burke criticized the rationalism and universality of the Enlightenment, instead emphasizing tradition, identity, history, and the wisdom of the ages. While this appeal to tradition made Burke a conservative icon, it also implied a view that regarded values and truth as subjective to different historical and social circumstances. The modern cultural right can be viewed as postmodern in several ways. In addition to their identitarian defense of values, the cultural right is highly skeptical of seemingly objective power structures, especially bureaucracies and scientific “experts.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, the right used postmodern critiques of scientific consensus and the healthcare apparatus, arguments that could have been lifted from Foucault. This is in no small part a reaction to the pseudo-religious devotion of progressives to their values – including scientism – as objective moral truth, any opposition to which must be due to sheer ignorance or reactionary prejudice. The problem with this view is not that it critiques the intersection of power and truth (or that truth is often distorted through identitarian lenses), but that postmodernism might disavow, be indifferent to, or at least be nihilistic about the possibility of ever even ascertaining objective truth. The frightening endpoint of this worldview is a deep relativistic nihilism, in which the subjective passions of the self become the only guides for truth and morality. Today, the cultural right has abandoned all pretenses of libertarianism, content to unabashedly use political power to influence culture. Yet in doing so, many fall into the same identitarianism the left suffers from. Worse still, reason itself is dethroned as a guiding principle, made subject to the passions of tradition. If conservatives are not to fall into the trap of relativism, politicians, students, and philosophers alike must ask themselves why certain values are worth defending over others. After all, defending a value based on identitarian tradition may be , but that does not make it . The preservation of liberty, the furthering of human flourishing, and the achievement of a just and virtuous society are only possible when politics orients itself toward reason and truth.() 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/read-khoa-sands-26-opinion-piece-the-right-goes/

Oppenheimer, A Much-Needed Culture War Détente

Zach Gardner

August 31, 2023

In a quote often attributed to Martin Luther, the 16th-century reformer argues that “the Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship.” To him, work is more reflective of our Creator than a cheap nod to the divine. Despite its religious message, this quote can be easily applied to American culture, especially the film industry. Applied in this context, the quote could plausibly read: “The American filmmaker does his duty not by simply putting overt cultural messages in his films, but by making good films, because the public is interested in good craftsmanship.”This past July, the American public was gifted such a film in Christopher Nolan’s , the much-anticipated thriller biopic about the titular “Father of the Atomic Bomb” – and – J. Robert Oppenheimer. The film shows the quote’s sentiment to be true. At its core, Nolan’s epic is a film. It is technically incredible, narratively tight, and emotionally intense. In a summer dominated by talk of , , and , the three-hour epic has provided a much-needed détente from the onslaught of the culture war. The film doesn’t seek to sacrifice art for ideology. It doesn’t seek to be a sermon or diatribe. It simply aims to be a great movie, and it triumphs in that pursuit. As much as some conservatives critique Hollywood – and as much as some look to alternative platforms like The Daily Wire and Fox Nation for “conservative” content – is a movie that only Hollywood could make. That’s not to absolve Hollywood of its cultural sins, but it’s to give credit where credit is due. Although dealing explicitly with political events, has been minimally radioactive (no pun intended) in the broader American culture. It has been lauded for its technical feats –  including the exclusive use of 65mm film, IMAX cameras, and practical effects – and the depth of its performances, especially Cillian Murphy’s Oscar-worthy portrayal of the titular protagonist. Although it rehashed decades-old debates about nuclear proliferation and the American bombing of Japan, it has sparked the same repetitive, shallow culture war debates to which the American public has become so accustomed. No widespread talk of “” or “” accompanied the film’s release. It has managed to remain above the political fray, being judged primarily on the basis of artistic merit. Much of this owes to the film’s quality.  In 70mm IMAX, jumped off the screen. When Nolan depicted short bursts of nuclear fission, it felt like I was swimming in a sea of subatomic particles. When the film’s protagonist walked with a Princeton professor through the East Pyne courtyard, it felt as though I were right there with them, taking a daily walk to class. And, when the bomb unleashed its power upon the New Mexico desert, it felt like I was engulfed by an orange wall of nuclear flame, jumping in my seat from the thundering crack of the blast’s shockwave. It was these moments of immersive grandeur that elevated from a film into an . Each shot, sequence, and sound matched the gravity of the historical moment it portrayed. The film’s moment is not, however, where the story ends. After the “gadget” is detonated at White Sands, the story enters its hour-long final act. In its final stretch of runtime, the film’s two main narratives are whittled down to their bare parts, following the Senate confirmation hearings of Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) in the former and J. Robert Oppenheimer’s secret security clearance hearings in the latter. Both are explicitly and intensely political. However, they never seem to be the most important events in the movie. When compared to the threat of nuclear war, these inquisitions pale in comparison. At the end of the film, Lewis Strauss’s Senate aide (Alden Ehrenreich) informs him that the Senate has denied his confirmation for Commerce Secretary. His life’s goal has been thwarted, and he believes Oppenheimer is to blame, chiefly for turning the scientific community against him. Recalling a conversation he witnessed between Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein beside a pond at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Strauss becomes convinced that the two men were talking about him. In a stunning moment, his aide rebukes this theory, simply asking him:“Is it possible they didn’t talk about you at all? Is it possible that they spoke about something more important?” The film ends with this conversation, which until this point was hinted at but never shown. As it turns out, the two men discussing something more important than Lewis Strauss. The “starting gun” of the Cold War has fissioned into the large-scale proliferation of nuclear weapons. Oppenheimer’s bomb has indeed caused a chain reaction, but not the one he had imagined. He is left envisioning the world he has created, haunted by images of global destruction. After the credits roll, no ubiquitous post-credit scene follows. , and our world, are the post-credit scene. In this vein, should point us – at least partially – away from the culture war and towards the greater threats which lie on the horizon.As Christopher Nolan in promotional interviews, the film can serve as a cautionary tale for a world confronting rapidly developing technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. Like nuclear weapons, these technologies have the potential to give us “,” requiring significant ethical inquiries into the types of advancements we will allow ourselves to make. Another threat exists in China’s rising influence in the global sphere. This second threat will require all the strength our country can muster, especially in terms of cultural output. Among other things, these past few weeks have been a great reminder of America’s soft power. Our cultural exports are still some of our most valuable, with American IP raking in billions worldwide and exerting influence in every market it touches. In the two weeks since its release, has grossed globally, making it the highest-grossing World War II film ever made. Along with economic benefits, this success boosts international knowledge of American culture and history. Just as history is said to be written by the victors, so too is national reputation. If we continue to remind the world of all we have done for it, we are more likely to wield persuasive power alongside our military strength. A look to history proves this true. America’s great-power conflict with the Soviet Union may have been started by Oppenheimer’s atomic bomb, but it was ended largely by America’s cultural and economic might. If we want to deal economic defeats to China and deter other nations from aligning with its interests, we must continue to support our cultural sector, even if it sometimes produces content some deem unimportant or counterproductive. All of this to say, has been a national and global success. At its core, it was a film. Christopher Nolan performed his duty to the audience – and the country – in admirable fashion, and the result is a movie that will be cherished for many years to come. It was a triumph for both casual viewers and film enthusiasts alike, equal parts stunning and profound. For a few weeks, has allowed Americans to turn their attention away from their phone screen and toward the silver screen. It has given us common figures and moments from our past to connect over, devoid of the guilt mongering that has recently accompanied discussions of American history. It has made the summer blockbuster great again, achieving a unifying moment in pop culture we have not seen in years. In culture, as in nuclear physics, bringing things together is more powerful than tearing things apart. Ultimately, fusion yields more energy than fission. In both style and substance, the film embodied the Senate aide’s quote. It really did feel like something more important.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/oppenheimer-a-much-needed-culture-war-detente/

From the Editor’s Desk: To My Fellow Princetonians, Condemn Terrorism

Alexandra Orbuch

October 23, 2023

Over the past two weeks, I have had a lot of conversations with classmates, friends, and other Princetonians. In a heartwarming show of support, many of my non-Jewish friends reached out to let me know that they have been thinking of and praying for me, my family, and my people. Over 400 people gathered together for an to honor the memory of those who perished at the hands of Hamas and to express support for the State of Israel just last Thursday. Despite the immense light brought to Princeton and its Jewish community by students like these, there has also been darkness. Some classmates I spoke to refused to condemn Hamas and attempted to persuade me that if I were Palestinian, I would understand that Hamas’ actions could be justified in pursuit of liberation. Many tried to convince me that Hamas’ attack was a “political issue” – and a divisive one at that; that because people on campus and beyond held differing perspectives on what was happening, wholly condemning Hamas’s actions would be taking a political stance. They didn’t accept that they should condemn a terrorist organization that murdered babies, executed parents in front of their children, and uploaded videos of murder victims to the victims’ Facebook accounts for all their loved ones to see.  These deeply disturbing interactions would have been enough on their own to make me question what kind of education Princeton is offering. But even worse than those who lacked moral clarity were students who felt that the issue was clear – just in the other direction. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) scheduled a “Teach-In” for the same time as the campus-wide Israel vigil, during which the group attacked “the Israeli Apartheid State as ultimately responsible for the cycle of violence” in recent days. Princeton’s SJP chapter also hosted a “vigil” – though it focused more on condemnation of Israel than the memory of those innocents lost – during which one of the organizers facilitated a call-and-response chant of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and peddled accusations that Israel was “built” on “colonization, genocide, [and] apartheid.” One of the speakers went so far as to equate the Jewish State with Nazism, telling listeners, “We are reading the words of Israeli politicians using the same language that Hitler did.” That’s right. In the wake of the mass murder of innocent Jewish mothers, fathers, babies, and elderly Holocaust survivors, Princeton students had the temerity to compare the Jews to those who systematically sought their extermination not 80 years ago. Standing in the crowd – one of the only Jewish students present – as everyone around me raised their voices in unison to call for the eradication of the Jewish state was one of the most chilling experiences I have ever had. Not once did SJP acknowledge the loss of Jewish lives. Not once was the word “Jew” used by anyone who took to the microphone at SJP’s so-called vigil.  Princeton is an institution that is supposedto hold some of the country’s brightest minds and future leaders, and it boasts the lofty motto, “In the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity.” This week has made me question the fitness of some of my peers to serve the best interest of this nation, let alone all of humanity. To my fellow Princeton students: Condemning mass civilian murder is not a complicated political issue. It’s a humanitarian issue; one that requires moral clarity, not rationalizations for brazen bigotry, rape, and murder. Alexandra Orbuch Editor-in-Chief,

https://www.theprincetontory.com/from-the-editors-desk-to-my-fellow-princetonians-condemn-terrorism/

University Office Endorses Abortion, Expresses Support For “People Who Can Get Pregnant”

Adam Hoffman

July 5, 2022

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that laws regulating abortion belong to individual states in, the University released a statement disapproving of the Court’s decision and supporting abortion as an “essential and fundamental right.” The statement was published in an email by the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and The Gender + Sexuality Resource Center. The expressed “dismay” that “people who can get pregnant…will no longer have that choice [of abortion].” The rejection of the term “women” to refer to individuals with uteruses has been to much debate on the progressive left. The statement called for special care for “Black and brown women” due to their “different intersections of identity.” The statement concluded by noting that The Gender + Sexuality Resource Center’s “actively resists sexism, cissexism, heteronormativity, and other intersecting forms of oppression on campus and beyond.” The statement did not clarify how the Center intends to resist the decision. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/university-office-endorses-abortion-expresses-support-for-people-who-can-get-pregnant/

What Does It Mean to Be a Princeton Student?

Benjamin Woodard

October 19, 2022

In the popular imagination and in that of its students, is about progress. Technological innovation and new ideas are the coins of the realm. Students come here to meet new people and move beyond old attachments and passively accept the near-universal advice that college is a time to try new things and escape old identities. The university itself pushes growth, new initiatives, and, for better or worse, new construction. Princeton’s fundraising campaign is even called “Venture Forward” – to where isn’t entirely clear. Traditionalism, beyond symbolic nods to mollify alumni donors, is shunned, and old ideas are discarded. As the sociologist Robert Nisbet , “The greatest intellectual and moral offense the modern intellectual can be found guilty of is that of seeming to think or act outside what is commonly held to be the linear progress of civilization.” As scholars, students challenge academic consensus. As activists, they challenge moral and political hegemonies. As people, they reexamine their inherited identities. However, none of these pursuits make sense abstracted from lasting truths and tradition. A university exists for a reason and cannot reinvent its fundamental purpose without self-destructing. It’s based on the value to humanity of free inquiry and truth seeking. Should it care to survive, it must pass on to its students these values and the “love of unseen things that do not die,” as the poem over McCosh 50 puts it.Furthermore, just like the arts, academic disciplines are sets of rules and fundamental schemas used to explore a topic. To make a meaningful contribution to a discipline, a student must master both the discipline as a tradition in itself and the inheritance of the discipline as employed by scholars over the decades and centuries. As T. S. Eliot beautifully put it, “Someone said: ‘The dead writers are remote from us because we so much more than they did.’ Precisely, and they are that which we know.” Undergraduate students do not (or, at least, should not) study merely to delve their own inner depths and shape academic products in response. Instead, they come to universities to be challenged by the constraints of a discipline and by the questions and answers it poses. It has been said (as variously attributed to and the ) that one must master the rules so one can break them. Revolutionary scholarship, like revolutionary art, can be appreciated in its fullness only if one is aware of what came before.Regarding protest, students do not choose their moral and political priors in the abstract, nor can they approach the institutions they seek to reform as revolutionaries. Ethical traditions are not something we choose as unencumbered, state-of-nature individuals based on a rational calculus. They are , an inheritance our lives are shaped in accordance with before we’re even conscious of them. Abandoning one’s moral heritage without serious consideration invites chaos, a grasping for moral identity from whatever source is closest at hand. Moral traditions also keep us from pitfalls by leaving some questions settled; we need not spend our time relitigating every moral and practical issue of human existence and are instead free to focus on the future.The importance of tradition is similarly true regarding the institutions (political, academic, cultural, etc.) that students seek to change. Their membership in these institutions necessitates obligations to them. (This is most obvious regarding a political community, where residents are bound by the laws, few of which they had even indirect representation in making.) The moral force of these obligations stems from the shaping power these institutions have on their members. A political institution, like any other, shapes the character of its citizens through the incentive structures and the formative processes it establishes. Citizens thus have a moral obligation to engage in careful reform rather than revolution. Edmund Burke wisely , “Rage and [f]renzy will pull down more in half an hour, than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in an hundred years.”Finally, students’ pursuit of identity is rudderless without tradition. As Vincent Lloyd ’03 wrote in his “we are formed by the ways of the world, by our years of immersion in the words, ideas, and actions of our parents, community, and society. As we struggle to discern who we are, we strike out against falsities. But our struggle is expressed in the words, ideas, and practices of the same world we despise.” If we reject our inherited identity, we are left with solely our self. We are confronted with the task of defining our self in the abstract, making our selves out of nothing, choosing attributes and values without a fundamental standard of judgment and comparison. This is a terrifying existential burden. As Lloyd argued, when we are left with simply our self, the desire for “safe spaces” to protect that self is entirely understandable. Carl Trueman that psychological discomfort becomes equivalent to real violence when our expression of our inner selves is our existence. We need our traditions so we can know we are – so we can have some basis for progress, both within ourselves and in society.So, how can we live in a place that idolizes progress without becoming unmoored? Ultimately, we must recognize that everyone is a conservative about what they care about. No one would like it if they went home for winter break and their family had decided to change all its Christmas (or Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa) traditions simply because they’re arbitrary, burdensome, or without any directly obvious productive consequence. We appreciate the traditions (lowercase “t”) of our daily lives and our closest communities, whether our families or our clubs or our residential colleges, and we question change unsupported by good reasons. We value the places that matter to us and have shaped us, and we work to better them in a way that respects them as they were passed on to us. In , conservatism is a belief that every individual inherits and acquires values, rights, and duties from God, family, society, and the state and passes them on, and they should strive to live them out as best they can (including via reform) considering human imperfection and ignorance. It is a respect for old things not because they are old, but because they have made us.Our families and communities value us and the duties we have to them. As much as we might wish to, we cannot escape our parents and hometowns in college – they are who we are. And we should not desire to escape them. To paraphrase R. J. Snell, “Your hometown can’t be that bad – you came from there!” We pursue our duties to our family and community through respect, service, and refusal to abandon them for the “freedom” of rootless modernity. We can respect our faith tradition by continuing to gather with members of our religious community. We also have an obligation to Princeton as students and alumni. It is not a duty to donate or to force our offspring to apply. Instead, it’s a spirit of gratitude for and caring reform of a place that has shaped us. We must understand that just as we don’t exist for the university alone, the university doesn’t exist for us alone. For these four years, our individual tradition shares in another – one that goes back 275 years. We should be grateful.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-princeton-student/

Liberal Studies: An Apology

Santhosh Nadarajah

May 11, 2022

VergeriusFollowing this statement, the medieval Italian statesman and educational philosopher Vergerius went on to detail what studies he believed are “liberal” and “worthy of a free man.” They included history, moral philosophy, eloquence, letters, gymnastics, music, logic, rhetoric, poetry, and mathematics. These “liberal studies” had defined what a university education is since the era of the ancient Greeks, and they would continue to do so, for the most part, into the near future. Vergerius outlined how receiving a liberal education is an essential part of acquiring and developing virtue and wisdom. However, it is important to note the “for the most part” aspect of how these disciplines define university education, because throughout the past two centuries, liberal education has been in decline (replaced by vocational education and single-subject education) and seen as increasingly irrelevant in modern society. Education nowadays is seen as nothing more than a means to acquire a good job. I believe that although Princeton places some value on the importance of a liberal studies education and learning for the sake of learning, it too has been affected by the decline in liberal education and the rise of a consumerist view of the university as an institution, and these are concerns that should be addressed if liberal education is to survive.Princeton, like many American universities, offers a curriculum that attempts to combine liberal studies with single-subject education. Princeton’s ensure that students receive at least some breadth among the liberal studies and various ways of knowing, though the number of requirements is not large. Furthermore, distribution requirements are much more limited for engineering students, and the nature of departmental requirements for most majors means that in a student’s third and fourth years, most or all classes they’ll take are exclusively from a single department—the department they’re majoring in. Furthermore, the option to “P/D/F” distribution requirements defeats the purpose of having such requirements and treats the distribution requirements as nothing more than a checklist that needs to be completed. The mixture of liberal studies and single-subject education that Princeton believes it has is a facade, and Princeton must pick which approach it prefers.Admittedly, the liberal studies situation could be worse. At the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom, the concept of an education based around the liberal studies doesn’t exist. Instead, when high school students apply, they pick a major, and if they’re accepted and decide to attend, the classes they’ll take for the next three to four years are all from a . Having students focus on a single subject allows them to become experts in their field, but they miss out on the benefits that liberal studies could provide them: wisdom in multiple disciplines and virtue. The UK has A levels, but like AP classes in the United States, high school classes taught at a college level are different from college classes. Princeton’s retention of some aspects of liberal studies should be commended, but the liberal studies aspect is insufficient, compared to what the university may think.A key question arises from the modern lack of emphasis on a liberal education: why? Why have we abandoned the concept of a liberal education? I believe that the lack of emphasis on the liberal studies, especially at Oxford and Cambridge but also at American universities such as Princeton and Harvard, is due to the modern consumerist view of education, which stipulates that education is merely a means to acquiring a “good job,” whatever that means. Instead of learning about multiple disciplines and doing so for the sake of learning, students learn about a single discipline (or, in the case of Princeton with its distribution requirements, a single discipline with a sprinkling of liberal studies) and do so in order to become skilled at that discipline in the hope of getting a job in that field.In an essay entitled “On the Uses of a Liberal Education,” Mark Edmundson, an English professor at the University of Virginia, expressed my sentiment on the consumerist view of education and how it is most responsible for the decline in liberal studies education. Edmundson spent much of the first page of his essay describing his personal experiences with course evaluations, how they are one of many symptoms of consumerism’s steady takeover of higher education, and how consumerism is inherently at odds with liberal education. Many of the course evaluations for Edmundson’s Freud class featured comments about Edmundson’s personality as a teacher (his irony and jokes), as well as how certain topics within the class were exciting (such as the Oedipus complex). At Princeton, I’ve had to do course evaluations for my first-year fall semester classes, and something I noticed among my peers was that many of them commented on our professors’ personalities or how lenient in grading they are—just as Edmundson described. In an ideal world where knowledge for the sake of knowledge is valued more than consumerism, course evaluations would instead focus on topics that were taught and express appreciation for the opportunity to learn for the sake of learning.Consumerism remains at odds with liberal studies and learning for the sake of learning to this day; though Edmundson’s essay was written decades ago, the problems plaguing higher education that he described persist, as I’ve seen in my recent experiences at Princeton. As mentioned above, Princeton has some liberal studies education requirements—its distribution requirements—but the P/D/F option in addition to course evaluations defeat the purpose of such requirements. Students can either P/D/F a class—and given that the bar to earn a C-range grade for most classes at Princeton is very low they don’t have to do the assignments or attempt to learn—or they can look at a course evaluation to determine which classes are taught by professors who are lenient graders or have “fun” personalities.To conclude, it is my belief that while Princeton attempts to incorporate liberal education for its undergraduates, its efforts are insufficient and, as in most American universities, corrupted by consumerism. This state of affairs has led to an emphasis on single-subject disciplines that are illiberal but economically valuable instead of a well-rounded, liberal education. There are still opportunities for Princeton to revise its curriculum and save liberal education, but it will take time and effort to overcome American consumerism.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/liberal-studies-an-apology/

Princeton Offers “Black Queer BDSM” Course

Adam Hoffman

November 3, 2022

Princeton University will a course titled “Black + Queer in Leather: Black Leather/BDSM Material Culture” in the Spring 2023 semester. The course will study how Black Queer BDSM material culture resists contextualization in relationship to biographical narratives. “Black + Queer in Leather” will be taught by Tiona Nekkia McClodden, a . According to her personal website, McClodden was for two years at Clark Atlanta University but was not awarded a degree. Her website states that her work has won numerous awards at the Philadelphia Int’l Gay + Lesbian Film Festival and has been recognized by the Andy Warhol Foundation. McClodden’s work at Princeton is currently by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, David E. Kelley Society of Fellows in the Arts, and the Maurice R. Greenberg Scholarship Fund for “demonstrating extraordinary promise in any area of artistic practice and teaching.” This class fulfills undergraduate students’ Culture and Difference (CD) graduation requirement. The CD requirement was introduced for the entering Class of 2024 and beyond to learn about “groups who have historically been excluded from dominant cultural narratives or structures of social power.”A sample reading list for the course includes titles such as and . Mireille Miller-Young, the author of r, was for “grand theft, vandalism, and battery on a 16-year-old girl” in response to “triggered” by a pro-life poster the teenager was holding.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/princeton-offers-black-queer-bdsm-course/

USG Senate Passes Referendum Calling on Princeton to Make a Majority of Residential College Restrooms Gender-Neutral

Joe Tyson

December 4, 2022

On November 16, 2022, Princeton’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) approved a that seeks to convert the majority of residential campus restrooms to be gender-neutral. The referendum argues that this move will make residential campus restrooms more “safe, more accessible for all students, and affirmative of the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming students on the Princeton campus.”  Uma Fox ’26, the referendum’s sponsor, asserts that the nationwide legal and political threats against transgender and gender non-conforming students’ rights necessitate this referendum. In a statement to the , Fox argued that  “by establishing the Commission for the Development of Gender-Neutral Residential Facilities, Princeton can tangibly consider how to make its facilities inclusive and accessible to all students.”In the gender-neutral bathrooms in Princeton’s Yeh and New College West residential colleges, both genders share a washroom sink, but toilet and shower stalls are individualized with locked doors. The referendum argues that these newly constructed gender-neutral bathrooms prove the viability of installing them widely in other colleges.The referendum makes no mention of the possible cost of the transition. According to the latest conducted by , 1.4% of the class of 2026 identified as transgender and 3.4% identified as genderqueer or non-binary.  The discussion among USG Senators was largely favorable toward the referendum’s adoption. When the vote was tallied, approval was near-unanimous, with all Senators voting in favor, and only USG Treasurer Adam Hoffman ’23 voting against. Having exceeded the one-third approval required by the USG Senate, the question will now move to a full student-body vote as a Senate-initiated referendum. The question posed to the student body will be: “Shall the undergraduates call on the Office of the Provost to, in a timely manner, establish a commission to investigate and provide recommendations on how the University may convert the majority of residential campus restrooms to be gender-neutral?” This vote will take place during the first semester’s voting period, which begins on December 5 at noon. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/read-joe-tysons-26-coverage-of-a-new-usg-referendum-that-aims-to-make-a-majority-of-residential-college-bathrooms-gender-neutral/

Princeton’s Forbes Residential College Starts “Melanin Mondays” Race-Themed Study Breaks

Osamede Ogbomo

https://www.theprincetontory.com/princetons-forbes-residential-college-starts-melanin-mondays-race-themed-study-breaks/

How to Approach the Abortion Debate in a Productive Way

Micah Kittay

October 19, 2022

Recently, abortion retook center stage in the American political landscape with the overturning of . But most of the dialogue that swept the country was focused less on the constitutionality of a woman’s right to have an abortion and more on the morality of abortion generally. Too often, those who dare argue these issues with someone on the other side end up only fortifying their own beliefs. They leave the conversation with a hoarse voice and believing the other person doesn’t care about babies/women. These discussions about abortion don’t have to end this way. I’ve found that the best way to foster a fruitful debate is to devote the first part of the conversation to nothing more than identifying precisely where your views diverge from the other person’s. For example, the mainstream pro-choice movement is rooted in the idea that the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body. Much of the rhetoric one hears from the left is centered on this point. However, many on the pro-life side of the debate agree completely with that statement. They simply believe the baby is not a part of the mother’s body. So any argument that a pro-choice advocate makes on the grounds that the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body will not change the mind of any such pro-lifer. Furthermore, pro-abortion advocates agree with the pro-life community that killing children is abhorrent. They just don’t believe that the pre-born baby is a child. So, if the pro-life advocate’s base argument is that killing children is immoral, they will be utterly unconvincing because these pro-choice people don’t think they are killing children. Where these two sides diverge is at the issue of whether the fetus is a part of the mother’s body or a distinct human being. is the question that should be explored between a pro-bodily-autonomy pro-life advocate and an anti-killing-children pro-choice advocate. To explore this divide, you can ask each other a variety of fascinating, conversation-provoking questions: What are the requirements for something to be an independent life? Are those requirements flawed? (For example, if one of the requirements for life is no dependence on something/someone else, this would mean people with a pacemaker aren’t alive.) When does a developing fetus meet those requirements?Of course, there are other places where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can diverge. It’s possible that someone who is pro-life doesn’t think anyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own body. It’s also possible that someone who is pro-choice believes that abortion is still justified even if the fetus is a human being (e.g., Judith Thompson’s violinist allegory). But, to have a productive dialogue, you have to find precisely where the divergence is and customize your discussion/arguments to address point.It’s also important to understand what it would take to change your own mind. A common epistemological game is to determine your main argument for any given topic and then ask, “Would I still believe what I believe if that argument were perfectly rebutted?” If you say yes, then ask yourself the same question with your best remaining argument. Then keep going. If your best arguments were rebutted and you wouldn’t change your mind at all, then you should question why you believe what you believe and if it would even be possible for your opponent to change your mind. And, of course, you should hold your debate opponents to the same standard. If you make great arguments that rebuts their best points and the other person doesn’t change their mind at all, you most likely will not be able to convince them. Their beliefs aren’t reliant on the arguments they’re making, so rebutting their arguments won’t make them change their mind. This same principle applies to any controversial topic. Let’s say you’re advocating for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” by talking about their efficacy. You base your argument on statistics showing that these techniques often uncover critical national security information. Such an approach will be futile if your opponent’s main issue with torturing prisoners for information is that it’s immoral. Even if you make fantastic arguments that show the positive results of it, you will not have convinced your opponent of anything because what you’re saying doesn’t address the of torture, their primary concern. One must understand what makes the other person believe what they do.If you follow these guidelines, you will find that your debates will result in thought-provoking discussions rather than screaming matches. It’s easy to retreat into your strongest argument supported by bumper-sticker political slogans. The conversations that begin by identifying the point of divergence may be uncomfortable but are worth it in the pursuit of truth. The discomfort will result from both of you genuinely exploring your beliefs at a deeper level. Hopefully, your opponent will challenge you as much as you challenge them. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/how-to-approach-the-abortion-debate-in-a-productive-way/

In Defense of Bronze – and John Witherspoon

Zach Gardner

December 20, 2022

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”George Orwell, When I arrived on Princeton’s campus this fall, I was enthralled by the richness of its history and traditions. I was proud to start my journey at such an important American institution, and I cherished the opportunity to contribute to its legacy. During my first week, I found myself in Firestone Library poring over the works of Princeton’s sixth President, John Witherspoon. Over the summer, I had developed a deep interest in the role he played as a mentor to so many prominent Founders, and I wanted to steep myself in his teachings. During my first few weeks at Princeton, I read everything from his to his sermons “Christian Magnanimity” and “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men.” With each word, I felt a deeper connection to Princeton and its history, and I felt a growing sense of responsibility to continue his legacy. In the late 1990s, the University honored this legacy by commissioning an 18-foot-tall bronze statue of him to stand outside East Pyne. The statue would be a replica of one that had been installed at the University of Paisley in Scotland, Witherspoon’s home country, and it would signal a bond between the two nations he called home. At its 2001 unveiling, then-Vice President for Public Affairs Robert Durkee the statue would serve as “a tangible way to remind all who live, work and visit on this campus of the pivotal role Witherspoon played in shaping this University and this nation.” More than 20 years later, this physical manifestation of Witherspoon’s accomplishments is more important than ever. In our current era of cultural disaffection and self-flagellation, we need reminders of human greatness, and Witherspoon’s statue provides that reminder in great measure. The statue shows us that, despite our fallen nature, we can build things that outlive us, things that immeasurably contribute to those who have yet to be born. In representing the monumental legacy one man can leave, it inspires us to strive to leave a legacy of our own. To some members of the Princeton community, however, Witherspoon’s accomplishments are overshadowed by his moral failings, which , and his legacy cannot withstand the pressures of contemporary standards for remembrance. He is, in their view, wholly unworthy of praise. These members of the community conclude that his statue should be torn down or “contextualized” to comport with our modern moral scruples. Although I agree that it is , and necessary, to discuss the full story of Witherspoon’s life and legacy, it is to remove his statue and deprive future Princetonians of a tangible discussion point. Taking down the statue will shut down conversation entirely, including open dialogue about both the failings and accomplishments of great historical figures like Witherspoon. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize John Witherspoon for his participation in such a destructive institution. However, it is also necessary to revere him for the monumental impact he left on Princeton and the United States.As the statue’s sculptor Alexander “Sandy” Stoddart expressed in a , “the dead live in companionship with the yet to be born,” so it is up to us to maintain the dialogue between ourselves and the past for the benefit of the future. By creating monuments of those who came before us, we create impetuses for thought and reflection, tangible markers to spark interest, reverence, and debate. Just as bronze is covered over time by layers of green patina, the legacies of past figures are layered upon by evolving contributions and discussions of future generations. As each generation contemplates the measure of a person’s legacy, that legacy is strengthened and carried into the future. However, this can only be achieved if each generation stops and looks to those who came before. These retrospective moments will necessarily involved a discussion of the sins of past generations, including those as destructive as slavery. However, these are discussions that must be had, and they must be had with humility. Just as Witherspoon taught so many in the founding generation during his life, his legacy can give us profound insights after his death. Nothing can be learned through destruction, even of things which prove to be disconcerting for some.In a , Witherspoon wrote that the reputation of this college “should be decided by the conduct of those in general who have come out” of it, “for a tree is known by its fruits.” A tree is indeed known by its fruits, and the fruits of John Witherspoon’s tenure at the College of New Jersey were extraordinary. Even if the Princeton administration removes his statue, it can never erase these contributions, which are embedded in our national fabric. It can never erase the students he taught or the documents he signed. It can never erase James Madison, Aaron Burr, and Philip Freneau, and it can never erase the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. Apart from persisting in our nation, his legacy persists in the college he helped to strengthen and the students who today call it their alma mater.If a tree is entirely uprooted, it will cease to produce good fruits – or any fruits. If Princeton is deprived of its own history, it will sacrifice its identity and cease to serve its function as an institution. It will no longer be in “the nation’s service and the service of humanity”; it will be in service of Orwell’s “endless present,” a vain existence in which the past is completely irredeemable. Statues, in their permanence, play a crucial role in preventing this uprooting from happening. Ultimately, an institution which hates its history hates itself. Bronze outlives the hubris of modernity, and it forces us to remember those who planted the trees of the past which give us the fruits of the present. It forces us to have gratitude for those who built the paths upon which we now walk.When we one day exist in the pages of history, will we be remembered as sinless, or will we be criticized in the same way we now criticize our ancestors? To be intellectually honest is to recognize the truth in the latter. In order for us to properly learn from human experience, we must humble ourselves before the past and recognize our own capacity to do wrong. We must recognize the flaws inherent to human nature. As Witherspoon , “a cool and candid attention, either to the past history, or present state of the world… ought to humble us in the dust.” Just as those in past generations achieved greatness, so can we. However, just as past generations sinned deeply, we too will inevitably do so. Thus, an attitude of generational humility is greatly needed. If we are to be worthy of commemoration in bronze, we must honor the monuments that exist today. We should let John Witherspoon’s statue continue turning green. We should allow future Princetonians to contemplate his contributions, both positive and negative, to the University and the nation, not deprive them of this opportunity.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/in-defense-of-bronze-and-john-witherspoon/

Daily Princetonian Diversity Report Reveals Lack of Political Diversity

Ethan Hicks

February 22, 2023

On February 10th, its second ever annual Diversity, Equity, Belonging, and Inclusion Report. The report follows the first ever published last year. Less than 5 percent of the staff reported itself as conservative, similar to less than 3 percent in 2022. According to The, conservatives account for 11.4 percent of Princeton’s student body compared to the of Americans who identify as conservative. Despite having no stated political association, over 83 percent of the ’s staff identifies as left-of-center.  (Graph courtesy of the ’s DEIB Report)The DEIB report also detailed the home states of its writers, with no staff members from rural states like Utah, Missouri, Minnesota, and 16 other primarily rural states.  that in response to the results of last year’s survey, it implemented policies that would increase representation from diverse perspectives. The explains that the paper led initiatives like special issues on queerness, Blackness, and scientific research “with the hope of bringing coverage of these historically underrepresented communities to the forefront.” The also “identity-specific affinity spaces for marginalized staffers and laid the groundwork for increasing community engagement with various leaders on campus.” While the has undertaken many initiatives to increase racial and socioeconomic diversity, it made no mention of increasing political diversity in its goals.When asked to comment on the DEIB data Rohit Narayanan explained to the that the paper sees “diversity of all kinds — including ideological diversity — as an important aspect of our institutional values.” Narayanan further expressed: “We have pursued and are pursuing a variety of strategies to better reflect the diversity of all members of the Princeton community, including ideological diversity.” As of the writing of this piece, has not announced any specific initiatives aimed at promoting ideological diversity.(Featured image courtesy of Khürt Williams)

https://www.theprincetontory.com/daily-princetonian-diversity-report-reveals-lack-of-political-diversity/

My Own Philosophy of Race

Osamede Ogbomo

January 17, 2023

Last semester, I took an African American Studies Class called “The Philosophy of Race.” I’m glad I took the class – it offered me a new perspective and insight into the enslavement of black people in the United States and the current condition of black Americans. I read the best works of black literary giants such as Baldwin, DuBois, and Morrison, but I also read dense literature full of nominalizations and abstractions, intent on disguising radical assumptions in academic language.All in all, I learned – but I found myself unable to truly relate. I couldn’t place myself in the position of a black American slave; I couldn’t feel the lashes against my back or the shackles around my wrists. I certainly couldn’t embrace the moral nihilism espoused by the Afro-pessimist tradition. The course material characterized the present black experience as inextricably linked to the sin of slavery, but my personal experience felt so detached from it. When I walked into Robertson 100 for the first lecture, I hoped to receive answers to my many questions about the nature of blackness. As the semester ends, I’m leaving with even more questions than I had at the start. I was black. I am black. But am I really? How can I belong to that category, so marked by a sense of oppression and subjugation, pain, plight, and inferiority? After all, I come from a middle-class home. My parents paid my tuition and bought me my dream car for my 16th birthday. How can that belong to the academic and adversity-focused conception of blackness?I grew up in a household where drive and hard work were emphasized, not a sense of despondency and stagnation. My mom and dad came to the United States from Nigeria at the ages of 16 and 18, respectively, with nothing but hope and the determination to work hard. They chose not to believe those who told them they could not succeed. They overlooked jeers about the darkness of their skin, tuned out insults about their accents, neglected external doubt, and conjured up a powerful self-confidence. For years, I’ve struggled with the physical reality of my identity and what it means to be ‘African American,’ and this course prompted me to reflect even further on that struggle. I recall my time in grade school when I was plagued by insecurity. My earliest memories are of being told my skin was too dark, and that my nose and lips were too big. Kids hurtfully poked fun at my name Osamede (Oh-sah-meh-day), and referred to me as Osama Bin Laden instead. They told me my hairstyles were ugly and denigrated my Nigerian food. Interestingly, none of those insults came from white students (though they had their own biases); instead, they came from African American students. To this day, I’m not sure why. Perhaps it was internalized racism. Perhaps they mimicked the xenophobic speech they heard in their homes. Or, perhaps they were just bullies.Regardless of the answer, I’m not too surprised that the black kids were the ones who bullied other black kids. Hurt people hurt others to deflect their own pain. I was more surprised by the extent to which white students left me alone or, in some cases, initiated friendships with me. How is it that these white students (supposedly products and conduits of racism) treated me with kindness and dignity when my ‘fellow’ black students did not? The white kids never told me that my hair wasn’t blonde enough or that my eyes weren’t blue enough. They never said I was stupid because I was black, or that I didn’t belong in the gifted programs I was enrolled in for all my schooling. I was, however, told by black students that my shoes, the ones that were well within my parents’ budget, were unstylish and made me look poor. I vividly remember the era when KD sneakers were popular among the black groups in my school; it seemed that all of my black peers were somehow wearing these expensive accessories.The trend reflected a broader ‘sneaker culture’ that emerged from the amalgamation of basketball and fashion since the Air Jordan launch in 1985. Unfortunately for my social status, I wasn’t brought up in a cultural context that would facilitate my fitting in with the black community in that way.I remember being told I talkedbecause I didn’t use African American Vernacular English. Why would I, and how could I? I didn’t hear it in my home or in the African church I attended. How was I supposed to know I was meant to speak a certain way simply because I was black? And how was I to adopt this dialect so late in my development?In the Western world, we tend to refer to black people as a monolith. Black people are oppressed and at a socioeconomic disadvantage; black people are afforded fewer opportunities; black people are victims. To some extent, that perspective has validity. I am a black woman. When I walk into a class at Princeton, or into a grocery store, or an airport, or my church, people don’t look at me and distinguish me from African American descendants of slaves. They don’t narrow their focus to my high cheekbones and assume my Nigerian heritage. They don’t differentiate the melanated fibers on my head from those of any other dark-skinned American. They see black. And based on their perception of black, they may see inferior. Or stupid. Or undeserving. Or ghetto. Or uneducated. Or poor. Or victim.Yet black individuals vary in many ways: Nigerian Americans, for instance, have a median household income . Not all black people are poor.Nor are all black people uneducated. Twenty-nine percent of the Nigerian diaspora ages 25 and above , Ph.D., or an advanced professional degree, compared to 11% of the U.S. population overall. Having experienced the height of corruption in West African law enforcement, Nigerian immigrants trust American police far more than their ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) counterparts. Not all black people want to defund the police. So what is my identity? If blackness is irrevocably slaveness, as the Afro-pessimist movement contends, and I am not a descendant of slaves, am I black? Am I something else? Am I still a victim? Am I allowed to feel culturally appropriated when African Americans consume Nigerian cuisine for social credit and Tik Tok views? It’s easy to see oneself as a victim when popular culture compels you to perceive society through the lens of historical atrocity and pessimism. But when I think critically and assess the reality of my situation, I can’t help but chuckle at the irony of sitting in a classroom filled with intelligent and privileged black scholars at the highest-ranked university in this country, complaining about our positions in society. I tend to doubt that one’s lived experience is a direct product of race, or at least a product of race . One’s lived experience can be communicated in such a way that it satisfies mainstream racial stereotypes (especially those highlighting the prolonged oppression of historically marginalized groups). Through the popular (reductionist) racialized lens, the poorest white people are perpetually more privileged than black people because their skin color offers them nameless, shapeless opportunities that must be acknowledged but never seen. Meanwhile, the success of black billionaires like Kanye West is attributed to luck: he’s an exception. And when he makes blatantly racist and antisemitic comments, we may not refer to him as racist because he doesn’t meet the requirements of having that necessitate one’s characterization as racist – despite being one of the wealthiest Americans, having a personal relationship with a former President, and controlling much of the music and fashion industry. But the poor, white homeless men I encounter not too far outside of Princeton somehow possess this power and thus deserve the perennial title of “racist.” Perhaps “blackness” describes an ideological state more than a physical one.Racism exists. It is alive and well. I am in no way attempting to deny that fact. But it is not all-encompassing; it does not pervade aspect of our lives. When I stopped perceiving every ill-mannered peer as racist and started realizing that perhaps they were simply rude – to people of all races and sizes and temperaments – I was able to reorient myself from a position of victimhood to one of power and agency. Once I stopped assuming the racism of all white people, I could acknowledge the beauty of others, distinct from racial stereotypes and identity politics. I opened my eyes to the kindness and benevolence that exists through all facets of life when you choose to see it. When you don’t put every non-ideal behavior in the category of racism, you can see racism for what it is and call it out when it truly occurs. Too often do we forsake nuance and call any unfriendly or distasteful act racist, which makes it harder to sense the weight of actual racism.Interestingly, “The Philosophy of Race” has been one of my favorite Princeton courses. It has forced me to confront my biases and sift through my identity to discover how my appearance influences who I am. philosophy of race is that it is a socially constructed and tribalistic way we organize ourselves in society. Too many black scholars choose not to move forward because to do so would be to forfeit the social capital associated with victimhood and the outpouring of rage linked to dwelling on historical tragedy.James Baldwin wrote in one of the assigned readings, , “Colour is not a human or personal reality; it is a political reality.”Accordingly, to internalize and accept victimhood as your reality is to reproduce and wear a political label created to keep down the enslaved. The freedom fighters for racial justice fought to disentangle our color from our personhood, and we must continue to fight, clearing the path for the next generation.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/my-own-philosophy-of-race/

Office of Religious Life to Sponsor Spring Break Trip to George Floyd Square

Jaden Stewart

March 10, 2023

From March 11-16, 2023, Princeton University students will to George Floyd Square in Minneapolis, MN, as part of an “immersive learning opportunity” hosted by the Office of Religious Life (ORL). There, the trip participants will study “the sacred work of memorial preservation and protest” while engaging with community leaders to better understand their pursuit of racial justice. The ORL announced the trip following increased attempts to address “systemic racism” by the Princeton University faculty and administration. Such efforts include public denouncing the death of Floyd in its immediate aftermath and the of Woodrow Wilson’s name from both the School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College in 2020. The ORL itself has also presented racial justice-themed programming, including hosting Jeanelle Austin, the Executive Director and Co-Founder of the George Floyd Global Memorial in October of 2022., at the intersection of 38th and Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis, was created to memorialize Floyd and the social justice movements sparked by his death at the hands of a police officer in May 2020. In the aftermath of Floyd’s death, crowds of gathered around the police precinct in Minneapolis, and eventually a makeshift autonomous zone surrounded by barricades blocked off the area. This later became home to what is now known as George Floyd Square. The site features two memorials, specifically a sculpture of a raised fist which symbolizes the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, and the Say Their Names cemetery, composed of headstones for more than 100 Black individuals who were killed during interactions with police. is a social justice organization dedicated to fighting white supremacy and “acts of violence” against African Americans.When asked what led the ORL to create a trip to a site centered around political activism, Rev. Alison Boden, Dean of Religious Life and the Chapel for the ORL, wrote in an exclusive statement to the that she does not view this trip and its central site as “related to political activism.” Boden explained that the trip is meant to “educate students about the faith resources that have evolved at the very site of the death of George Floyd” and give them the resources to “marshal their faith as they reckon with racism.”She argued that George Floyd Square “has taken on great spiritual significance for many, as have other sites of suffering” and likened the location to “Auschwitz, Ground Zero in NYC, the dome in Hiroshima over which the atomic bomb was detonated, etc.”

https://www.theprincetontory.com/office-of-religious-life-to-sponsor-spring-break-trip-to-george-floyd-square/

Myles McKnight ’23 Discusses Princeton’s COVID Restrictions On Fox News And Fox Business

The Princeton Tory

January 3, 2022

https://www.theprincetontory.com/myles-mcknight-23-discusses-princeton-covid-restrictions-on-fox-news/

Critical Race Theory: Noble in Theory but Dangerous in Practice

Alexandra Orbuch

January 5, 2022

Critical Race Theory (CRT) promotes the idea that we should reexamine the role of race in American history and the current structures of power. There is no denying that racism has been a pernicious agent throughout human history and painfully remains so to this day. To claim otherwise is to look back at history with blinders. I see CRT as one of several attempts across time to take stock of what’s happened and slay the dragon once and for all. However, while I take no issue with addressing the reality of racism in this country, I do take issue with the way CRT has been put into practice. I see the discussion on race as taking one of two forms. The first stems from a belief that American history must be taught in a way that places racism front and center, with all other philosophic and historic happenings arising from that. It sees race as lens through which everything else must be understood. The second form highlights race and ongoing racism but acknowledges that race-based lenses are not the only ways to see the world. When the first viewpoint is adopted, race becomes part of every single discussion; it is brought to the forefront in an extreme move to compensate for the ethical failings of this country’s past. This application of CRT reflects an attempt to weave racial undertones into every aspect of the human experience. Look no further than the move to view math through a racial prism. defines itself as having an “integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students in grades 6-8, addresses barriers to math equity, and aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards…[its] toolkit “strides” serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism.”  This toolkit denies that mathematics is “a pure discipline, reflective of the natural world around us, universal” and urges readers to “consider other ways of doing mathematics.” My question is: what other way is there to do mathematics? By its very definition, mathematics is based upon rules of logic, yet the toolkit disparages mathematics in the US for favoring “.” Instead of viewing math as an objective pursuit, the toolkit blames underperformance by minorities on the “reinforcing stereotypes” of “Western mathematics” inherent in the subject. It views something like the name of the “Pythagorean Theorem” as an embodiment of “White supremacy culture” and urges teachers to pose the following question to their students: “Why do you think we call it the Pythagorean theorem when it was used before he was even born? What should we call it instead?” Parents send their children to school to learn the Pythagorean theorem and how to apply it to mathematical problems. They do not send them to school to question the standards of the name itself. There is a way to acknowledge racism without allowing it to seep into every subject area; we should champion the discussion of racism in history classrooms and policy discussions. However, it does not have a place in a sixth graders’ algebra homework.  adopted by the California Department of Education provides an example of an equitable mathematics lesson in which “a group of students explored their family’s immigration experiences through a measurement lesson on the topic of unit conversion.” Where is the link between unit conversions and immigration? Mathematics should be divorced from politics and race; it is unnecessary to discuss unit conversions and immigration, slavery in conjunction with derivatives, or white supremacy alongside L’Hôpital’s Rule.  Yet another example of the misguided application of CRT was the reeducation camp for white men called “” held by Sandia National Laboratories just two years ago. The event demonized concepts like self-confidence, bravery, and striving toward success as facets of white male culture that are “devastating” to minorities. In the training session, the men had to apologize for their privilege and write letters to women, African Americans, and other minority groups.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hosted a training session based on the teachings of psychologist Derald Sue, who has made the claim that “” are inherently racist. You read that correctly. If you are a person of faith, you–at your very core–are racist. If you work hard, you are racist. The session laid out examples of microaggressions, which they defined as “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults whether intentional, unintentional, that communicated hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.” The handout from the DHS session provides a chart with microaggression examples and the messages they send. Here are a few:Statement: “Where are you from or where were you born?” Hidden message: “You are not a true American.” Statement: “Wow. How did you become so good at math?” Hidden message: “People of color are generally not as intelligent as Whites.” Statement: “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” Hidden message: “People of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.” Statement: “America is a land of opportunity” Hidden message: “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.”While this may simply seem like a theoretical virtue-signaling exercise, it has grave consequences if applied practically; it would attach prejudiced undertones to every single word uttered by a non-minority. At its core, such a viewpoint sees race as imbued in every nook and cranny of society. On a personal note, I, myself, have felt CRT permeate aspects of Princeton that are only tangentially–if, at all–relevant. Like many of my fellow freshmen, I participated in Princeton’s Outdoor Action orientation program at the beginning of the year. Coming into the program, I imagined that I would be engaging with the outdoors and the beauty of nature. This was mostly true; our day trips included activities like kayaking and hiking. What I did not expect was to be confronted with race-based education. As one of the evening activities, my group was shown an REI commercial highlighting Brothers of Climbing, “an organization that seeks to make the rock climbing community more diverse.” That clip we watched, in conjunction with a handful of others, extended inequality to the outdoors. It made the claim that certain groups feel unwelcome in nature, and we must therefore work to improve equity in that arena. To that, I respond that public green spaces like parks are public: open to everyone, no matter their race, gender, or creed. We no longer live in a segregated America. I was astounded to see race injected into a non-policy, non-education-based freshman orientation program, and it further solidified my conviction that CRT is dangerous in the way it is being practiced. It breeds distrust between people who look different, shunts aside all other human traits in the service of a singular one, and demonizes core values such as aiming for success. Racism is very much a real and present threat in our society. There is no denying that. But race does not explain every single outcome or decision in our society, nor is it the only lens through which we can view our current institutions and policies. Race should be present in the classroom–when relevant and when age-appropriate–and in policy-making institutions. It should not be taught alongside sixth grade math or in freshman orientation programs. Nor should it be seen as the driving force behind every human interaction.  

https://www.theprincetontory.com/noble-in-theory-but-dangerous-in-practice/

Confronting Princeton’s Misconceptions on Critical Race Theory

Alexandra Orbuch

“I’ll be honest. I’ve only heard the narrative and speculation around it. I don’t quite know what it is,” Ahmad Higazy ‘23 told when asked to explain Critical Race Theory (CRT). Critical Race Theory promotes the notion that we must radically re-examine the role of race in American history, current structures of power, and governmental institutions. One of its central assumptions is that all people have underlying racist beliefs even if they do not act in explicitly racist ways.Higazy’s sentiment was echoed by a majority of Princeton students interviewed for this piece. The spoke to Princeton students to hear what they had to say about CRT and its presence on Princeton’s campus. Though almost all had heard of CRT, very few students could articulate a cogent definition of the concept. Despite this widespread lack of a factual foundation on the subject, many interviewees retracted their statements upon discovering that we wrote for , the journal for conservative thought on campus. Many defended their convictions despite not knowing the definition of the theory itself. We set out to clarify and respond to some of the statements and misconceptions we encountered. The most common misunderstanding was the assumption that CRT-associated controversy stemmed from a debate over whether teachers are qualified to teach what is deemed to be advanced academic material. While some aspects of Critical Race Theory are esoteric and best explained by historians and sociologists, parents who’ve taken issue with CRT have not done so in regards to the competency level of the teachers or whether they can accurately relay the information to students. In fact, many parents’ concern with CRT is that the material itself is . Fundamentally, Critical Race Theory promotes the belief that there are hierarchies of power where people push down others based on superficial characteristics. The confrontational framework through which CRT exists demands we see the world in a fashion quite contrary to the vision of celebrated Civil Rights leaders like , who advocated sizing up others, “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”Instead, Critical Race Theory teaches children to view their friends, family, country, and even themselves negatively. While American history certainly has a multiplicity of deep faults and failings to ponder along with heartbreaking atrocities to learn profound lessons from, today’s children are not personally liable for the ethical and moral failings of a past before their own births. Furthermore, many parents rightfully worry that the topic is a heavy one to be presented to young children in their formative years. We teach kindergarteners a very different story of Thanksgiving than the one understood as adults. For some reason, though, our society can’t seem to apply that model to the topic of race.A few students interviewed expressed the belief that those opposed to CRT feel the way that they do for one reason: opponents believe that the theory is an affront to white people and teaches children that white people are bad. However, this simplistic rationalization fails to consider the numerous complex arguments against CRT. In addition, CRT education weaves race into subjects where it is not relevant. Look no further than adopted by the California Department of Education, which claims that immigration experiences should be discussed in conjunction with the topic of unit conversion. For the sake of brevity, we will not include a lengthy polemic against CRT, but the above example makes it clear that people who are opposed to CRT are not doing it out of fear of so-called “white demonization.”Another common misconception expressed by several students interviewed is that Princeton is a “predominantly white institution.” The university, however, prides itself on its efforts to be “a truly community in which individuals of every gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status can flourish equally.” Princeton even goes so far as to publish its demographic statistics after each admissions cycle. Of the class of 2025 , 68% self-identified as people of color, placing the white population in the minority at 32%. This number shows an increase from from the year prior and in 2019. Not only is the claim that Princeton is a predominantly white institution false, but statistics show that Princeton is diverse than the United States as a whole. The United States’ population is white, compared to 39% at Princeton. Many CRT advocates have vaunted the institution of race-based affinity spaces, including segregated housing at the university level. While some interviewed students supported an affinity-based housing system, most were surprised that many of Princeton’s peer institutions have already implemented such a model in their dormitories. Notable examples include the at the University of Pennsylvania and the at George Washington University. Of US News’s top 30 universities in the United States, affinity housing exists at seven universities.When asked about how they believed that the institution of affinity housing would impact the Princeton freshman experience, a good portion of students interviewed could not come up with a definitive answer. Many expressed the belief that rooming is not the be-all-end-all of student interactions. Others felt that because there are so many ways to meet people on campus, reducing diversity in the roommate experience would not have significant ripple effects. Such arguments fail to consider the reality that living with someone is an entirely different experience than sitting five rows behind them for 50 minutes twice a week. Another argument students made concerning affinity housing was that the experience caters to white students at the expense of students of color; it puts students of color in the position to have to do the work to educate their white peers. I have been lucky enough to have the opportunity to room with someone who has a different background from my own. My roommate is the first-generation daughter of Indian immigrants. One of the most memorable experiences I have had since coming to Princeton was the night we stayed up for hours swapping stories about our heritage–Indian and Jewish–and how it has shaped our identities. Having grown up in the Jewish community and attended private Jewish schools for my entire life, I found that Princeton’s freshman random rooming policy gifted me perspective and a type of education that I could never receive in the classroom. It is a divisive and dangerous over-simplification to examine human interactions through the singular prism of race. Students carry with them identity-shaping experiences unrelated to race and often deeper-seated. For example, Danielle and I see our respective Jewish identities as defining facets of who we are and how we see the world. From the outside, however, we would both likely be described as ‘white.’ People cannot be defined by a superficial phenotype alone or lumped into a grouping at the expense of the individual identity. One’s hometown, personal relationships, hardships, education, and many other factors, coalesce into a unique individual identity. To ignore such complexities would be to diminish each of us to little more than an avatar of some larger identity not entirely of our own choosing.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/confronting-princetons-misconceptions-on-critical-race-theory/

The Unintended Effects of Conservative Speakers

Adam Hoffman

March 23, 2022

After de jure limitations on free speech on college campuses spurred corrective policies, University administrators and advocates of free speech must now construct protections against de facto limitations. My experience at Princeton hosting conservative intellectuals has taught me that official policies are not enough to defend a robust environment of open inquiry. Without sufficient administrative support, hosting heterodox speakers can have an unintended consequence: it can shut down debate. Last semester, in my capacity as publisher of , I invited conservative columnist and author of Abigail Shrier to Princeton. In hosting her, I hoped to widen campus discourse on contentious issues. I did not invite Shrier — nor have I invited any speaker — to be a provocateur. Shrier is an exceptionally sharp thinker and her message is an oft-heard but much needed one. In the first indication that I might receive pushback for the event, not a single University center responded to my inquiries about co-sponsoring or co-hosting Shrier’s lecture. This silence from University was just the canary in the coal mine of what was to come.Some time before Shrier’s scheduled visit, the event was made public to the Princeton community. It . Shrier was condemned with every hateful label under the sun. Social media feeds were flooded with attacks, some violent, targeted at Shrier, the , and me personally. Princeton-focused online forums became platforms for anti-conservative hate and several members of the were verbally harassed going about our daily routine on campus. To be associated with the Shrier event converted us to into persona non-gratas on campus. In modern parlance, we were “canceled.” Instead of standing by our side and affirming their commitment to free speech, the University proved derelict. Because of a series of bureaucratic hurdles, some related to Covid, and insufficient backing, including guarantees of our physical safety despite threats to the event, the event was hosted at a private, off-campus location secured by the town of Princeton police. Though Princeton is home to perhaps the greatest academic champions of free speech, including Professors Robert George and Keith Whittington among others, and adopted the laudable of free expression, the University does not effectively support an environment of open inquiry. Student attendees at our event were reasonably afraid to be seen or heard on the event video recording and requested assurance that their presence at the event — their willingness to hear a divergent opinion — would remain private. The concerns of Princeton students are not ones of students living in a free and open community. If this is Princeton, then what of other universities? For the average Princeton student, the lasting impression of Shrier’s lecture was likely not a new perspective on a political issue. This student likely came to a very different conclusion: if I share an unfashionable view, I will be canceled. Even if Shrier brought a student to reconsider his or her belief, that student would fear sharing it in social settings, class, or perhaps eventually, in the political arena. It could be that Shrier’s visit will lead to further limitations of political discourse on campus, precisely the opposite of the intended effect. While I am proud to have hosted Shrier and introduced her views into our college echo chamber, I recognize that the event’s full success could only have come with University support that was beyond my control.For the event to have been successful in expanding the conversation, the University ought to have taken a public stance in support of the event’s goal. For one, the University should have joined in co-hosting the event following our communication that we were being threatened for our belief in open inquiry. And this should be made a matter of policy. In addition to sponsoring and hosting a catered to “build a more inclusive campus community” for those offended by Shrier, as they did, the University should have also called for the inclusion of conservatives in the campus community. This move is not important because conservatives require the validation of their superiors — indeed, we should be wary of habituating victimization culture — but because of the message it sends to students. If the University actively stood up for free speech when it mattered, students would take the cue. University administrators must make use of their power to protect free speech if students are to genuinely enjoy an open environment. Let this be instructive to universities across the country. To be clear, I am not calling for limitations on criticism or a platform for every position. Certain opinions demand criticism and don’t deserve a platform, but that determination ought to come through a public hearing rather than groupthink. Invited speakers’ ideas should be challenged, not shut down.  It is when criticism becomes too uniform and consequences for dissent become too severe, that the line between criticism and censorship fades. And censorship belies the University’s purpose as a truth-seeking institution. To sustain a culture of free speech on campus, Universities must stand by minority voices and, in doing so, lower the costs of dissent. Our situation at Princeton is not unique. Whenever a speaker is “canceled,” as was the with Charles Murray at Middlebury in 2017, or a student is bullied for his or her beliefs, as has been at Harvard in 2020, free speech is undermined, irrespective what policies are on the books. Princeton and other universities must recognize that the Chicago principles and the occasional press release are not enough to uphold free speech on campus. Universities need to put their weight behind students and groups who hold minority opinions on campus. If university presidents and administrators do not become champions of free speech themselves in this late hour, they might soon find themselves in the same situation as Shrier found herself at Princeton: canceled. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/hoffman-free-speech/

Critical Race Theory and the National American Identity

Prince Takano

January 7, 2022

Critical Race Theory (CRT), which makes race the prism through which one analyzes every aspect of American life, has become increasingly pervasive in American culture, especially in academic curriculum. The core tenet of CRT maintains that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but something embedded in legal institutions, policies, and social systems. Proponents of CRT believe that in order to eliminate the historical consequences of racial inequality, you must elevate race in our institutions by, for example, creating race-centered policy intended to “uplift” those historically impacted by racism and by teaching an “anti-racist” curriculum. The prevalence of Critical Race Theory in so many aspects of American life should be concerning to Americans. CRT poses a great threat to American society because it intends to replace our national identity with values that are inherently antithetical to the American ethos of freedom and equality for all. It is for this reason that CRT must be abolished in our institutions, from schools to governments. Although it is true that CRT is classified as an intellectual movement, radical proponents of CRT have a much more national agenda: they believe that the only way to cure inequality of outcome is by replacing our institutions with new, “anti-racist” ones. They also intend to reframe the American narrative by placing slavery and its consequences at the center of American history, as evidenced by the 1619 Project from , instead of centering American history on the founders’ vision for a free and equal America. If America clings onto its grave sin, slavery, and allows it to be the definition of the American narrative, then we shall be forever bound to the past, unable to extricate ourselves from the consequences of America’s dark stain on history and unable to progress with genuine change.Although one can sympathize with the good-willed intentions of CRT to improve the lives of those who have been historically marginalized, we should not simply discard America’s historical efforts to achieve the idea that “All men are created equal” by creating institutions that intend to dismantle the very premises of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We cannot replace our national identity with one that tries to divide Americans by teaching them that the invisible, omnipresent “racist” forces exerted by our legal institutions and social systems are holding them back from flourishing in this country. CRT and its neo-Marxist tendency to focus on class conflict and distinctions between groups intend to reject equal opportunity and fairness under the law. A national identity rooted in unfairness and scorn for our values and ideals would not be sustainable and healthy for the well-being of our society. Academic curriculum needs to teach about America’s struggle to achieve the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, not the idea that every aspect of American life is riddled with systemic racism.  I must clarify that the abolition of CRT does not equate to abolishing discussions about racism in the classroom. Racism is America’s deep stain on history and every effort must be made to reconcile with America’s grave sins of slavery and its certain historical instances of systemic racism, such as the Jim Crow era South. America today, however, is no longer a systemically racist country. The founders’ vision of “All men are created equal,” Frederick Douglass’s hope that the promises of freedom and equality guaranteed by the Constitution are extended to all Americans, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream have all come true. While we are not, and never will be, a perfect nation, we have made noteworthy strides towards ensuring that the American Dream is available to all, regardless of race. Embracing CRT and accepting it as a valid school of thought simply discards everything our great forebears fought for: equality for all. Critical Race Theory has crept into many facets of life in America, straying us away from Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of an equal playing field for all Americans regardless of race. It is time for America to reconcile with the visions of the great men of the past, which includes Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, as well as the founders’ vision and intention for America to be a place where “All men are created equal.” The abolition of CRT is what all pioneers for equality should strive for. But, if we cannot forgive America’s past sins of racism and move on from our lessons of the evils of prejudice, then we are forever bound to the past. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/critical-race-theory-and-the-national-american-identity/

Religion, Truth-Seeking, and the University

Benjamin Woodard

May 7, 2022

Occurrences like Terrace Club explicitly mocking a or a prominent Princeton unfounded that Catholic Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barett happen far too often to be dismissed as random incidents. They indicate that many Princetonians graduate as religious illiterates – unfamiliar with major faith traditions and quick to mock and condemn any that strike them as odd or challenge their values. The result is not just bigotry against the religious, but (perhaps worse) closed-minded students without understanding of a key element of human experience. Students fervently proclaim and debate ideologies sourced from every other discipline to make arguments about how society should be ordered, necessarily “imposing their values” on others, but dismiss mere attempts at religious persuasion as rude and dangerous proselytizing. Princeton to “provide a liberal arts education to all undergraduates, broadening their outlooks, and helping form their characters and values.” But can it make this lofty claim when its core requirements ignore religious education – for centuries the peak of intellectual pursuit, the ? It reigned over the trivium and quadrivium of classical liberal arts education as the home for the most fundamental quandaries of human existence. Religion was perhaps key institution for forming character and values throughout the vast majority of world history.As Aquinas argues, religion was and is a “science,” both fit and necessary for academic study. He makes this case in the very first question of the magisterial . He lists astronomy and physics as examples of “means through which knowledge is obtained,” then goes on, “Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation.” He explains and defends the concept of religion, what he calls “sacred doctrine,” as a science, writing:“We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed.”Since it proceeds from these higher principles, religion is capable of answering the highest, most difficult questions facing humanity. Aquinas calls it the noblest science, since it “treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason’s grasp.” Religion is a legitimate way of knowing that is entirely unknown by huge numbers of Princeton undergraduates. University students should know what religion is, what questions it deals with, and its limits, just as they learn about any other field of study. Princeton claims to teach the basic disciplinary approaches of the liberal arts to every student, but it fails miserably when it comes to religion. And this discipline is exceedingly important; as Aquinas puts it, religious inquiry pursues “eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed.”Religion also remains eminently relevant. Despite popular belief, Enlightenment rationalism failed to completely topple religious understanding of the world as an important discipline. The very idea of individual freedom of conscience by Martin Luther and the Reformers, and, as Nietzsche realized (and abhorred), the moral values taken for granted by the secular West had their roots not in blunt reason, but . Without a firm grasp of religion, comprehension of the modern world is impossible.Regardless of the continuing philosophical importance of religion, even after the Enlightenment, there is a long tradition of theological scholarship, religiously-grounded inquiries in science and philosophy, and religious references in literature. Basic religious literacy is necessary to understand these disciplines and be an educated person. It is also necessary to understand the country and world that Princeton students will serve and lead. According to the, about 55 to 60 percent of Princeton students identify with some organized religion. On the other hand, in the United States claim a religion. These statistics reflect the late sociologist Peter Berger’s famous aphorism: “if the people of Sweden were the least religious people on earth, and the people of India were the most religious, then America was a country of Indians led by Swedes.” Berger also noted that this dichotomy has produced all kinds of social and political dysfunction. Perhaps better knowledge of the deeply-held beliefs and practices of the American populace on the part of the elite (which Princeton students undeniably are) would help temper the populist polarization rampant in our country today. Religious literacy would also help budding leaders better comprehend the intricacies of the American cultural patchwork. For example, the ruptures in my own religious-demographic community, white evangelicals, have been the fodder of countless by and in . These shifts have massive political and social impacts, but require a basic knowledge of religion to be understood and critiqued.Finally, exploring religious traditions can help students find truth, meaning, and purpose. Religious knowledge and tradition provide answers to profound questions. Many students are wrestling with these questions, and they should be given all the necessary disciplinary tools to seek answers. Some search for a higher meaning to existence, others to an objective standard for living a good life. These are questions religion is well suited to answer, as they transcend materialistic understandings of the world. Just like Princeton hopes to give students a background in different modes of understanding (say, quantitative and computational reasoning or historical analysis), religion should be required as well. This instruction should engage with the beliefs, practices, and claims of various faiths on their own terms as potential answers to human dilemmas, not just a historicist deconstruction of received tradition. Then all students can know how to approach religious issues and truly think for themselves, unhindered by ignorance.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/tory-religion-class-article/

The Boy Who Cried “Left-Wing Mob”: How Campus Free-Speech Rhetoric Must Change

Shane Patrick

May 9, 2022

“Beware of the left-wing mob.” It’s an oft-repeated slogan among proponents of free speech on college campuses around the country and certainly at Princeton. The Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC), the organization dedicated to the promotion of free speech on this campus, made it the focus of its signature event this year, “Mob Rule: The Illiberal Left’s Threat to Campus Discourse.” POCC brought in some high-profile speakers for an interesting panel discussion, but unfortunately the event’s headline performer—the so-called left-wing mob—failed to show. While one could view this as evidence of the success of the free-speech movement, given that the aforementioned enemies of free speech appear to have slunk into the shadows, I think that the event and the absence of the “mob” bring to light a key flaw in campus free-speech rhetoric: its dependence on enemies to legitimize itself. Boy-who-cried-wolf moments like these severely undermine the authority of free-speech proponents, as they help turn the “left-wing mob” into a mythological boogeyman, which most students will never see but will constantly hear war stories about. After enough retellings without an appearance from a dreaded left-wing mob, these war stories risk becoming fairy tales in the minds of listeners. If supporters of free speech (and I count myself among them) make themselves reliant on the existence of a tangible enemy to show free speech’s goodness, they will never be able to truly overcome objectors. Free-speech rhetoric runs the risk of becoming an eternal game of cat and mouse, where proponents of free speech decry the left-wing mob to the point of making themselves look like idiots, only for it to return and then retreat under renewed attack, continuing the never-ending cycle.Proponents of free speech (or “liberals,” in a broader sense of the word) must retool campus free-speech rhetoric so that it focuses on the positive goods associated with free speech and the ends to which free speech must be directed rather than constantly harping on the perilous dangers of the left-wing mob. They could, for example, spend more time arguing for the many goods associated with free speech, such as exposure to diverse ideas and the simple good of each student’s agency in their own education brought about through their dialectical expression of their beliefs and opinions. In addition to this more practical point, it is intellectually unsound for the primary argument for free speech to rest on a claim that “our enemies are bad”—which, again, makes free speech intellectually dependent on unfree speech. Free-speech proponents must be able to articulate positive arguments for free speech even in the absence of opposition, and, if they hope to preserve free speech at the university, this must be the rhetoric that they adopt and use more often. This rhetorical shift will be necessary to reach students who, like myself, have not had negative experiences with cancel culture on campus, and for whom “mob” rhetoric will not resonate.I’m not saying this to diminish anyone’s experiences with cancel culture. And by no means am I saying that we should not talk about free speech on this campus. I’m also not saying that the speech environment at Princeton is perfect. It’s not, and even if it were, discussion about the place of free speech on campus would still be necessary. There is an important place for groups like POCC on this campus. As the speech environment on campus improves, we must remember that if we do not intentionally conserve things like free speech, they will be easily imperiled or lost when challengers arise again. There is more work to be done to foster an environment where students feel comfortable sharing their opinions and experiences on all topics in a robust pursuit of truth. But this work cannot focus on vilifying a now-invisible enemy.In revamping free-speech rhetoric, we can look to movements that have successfully adjusted their rhetoric to restore their credibility and resonate with a wider audience. A strong example is the sustainability movement. Not too long ago, the sustainability movement’s rhetoric focused on issuing prophetic warnings about the woes that would befall our unsustainable society. A favorite was the “future U.S. map,” which showed the United States with Florida underwater and much of the coastal areas and lowlands submerged. The mantra  “Florida will be underwater in thirty years” began to lose traction with most people after about fifty years, and so the sustainability movement pivoted to rhetoric focused on the good of sustainability and stopped trying to position itself as a modern-day Noah. Similarly, the gun-rights movement has shifted from emphasizing the need to defend oneself against violent criminals toward arguing for the goodness of gun rights on their own merits. The free-speech movement likewise must grow beyond simple fearmongering, hyperfocused on a few extreme but rare cases, and talk more about the genuine goods of free speech. We can leave the “left-wing mob” events back in 2017. POCC could be the Cassandra of Princeton, shouting warnings at people like me as we welcome the Trojan horse through FitzRandolph Gate. But whether or not there is an imminent threat, I think the free-speech proponents would be well served to retool their rhetoric to focus more on the positive good of free speech than on fairy tale–style warnings about an invisible boogeyman. If they do not change, they risk becoming the of campus, constantly warning Princetonians to prepare their souls for the Second Coming of the Left-Wing Mob—and constantly making fools of themselves when the Day of Rapture passes by without any left-wing mobs appearing at their events.

https://www.theprincetontory.com/the-boy-who-cried-left-wing-mob-how-campus-free-speech-rhetoric-must-change/

Why I Would Send My Kids to Princeton

Billy Wade

May 10, 2022

A 2014 entitled by William Deresiewicz (an Ivy grad and faculty member) argued that “[o]ur system of elite education manufactures young people who are . . . great at what they’re doing but with no idea why they’re doing it.” Students at “prestigious institutions,” it claimed, are always concerned about the “return on investment” of their college education, yet few understand what the “return” is supposed to be. It concluded that parents should send their kids to second-tier schools that “have retained their allegiance to real educational values.”My personal observations validate Deresiewicz’s diagnosis. Princeton students are (generally) preoccupied with the “return on investment” of their education, excessively concerning themselves with internship interviews or the next P-Set. And yet, many intuitively understand that their “return” could be more, even much more, than just a job in finance or consulting. For instance, I’ve heard multiple students express their wish for extra time to absorb themselves in their readings rather than just skim enough pages to make a good comment or two in precept. They desire more from their time at Princeton than just getting the grades and the job.Princeton offers critical ingredients for a robust education but often does a poor job of empowering students to understand the “return” they can expect from their education. This is the consequence of providing a nonsectarian education while encouraging a culture that inhibits the development of an intellectual life. Because Princeton gives students access to world-renowned minds, generous financial aid, post-grad opportunities, state-of-the-art facilities, and rigorous courses, a technical analysis validates its annual ranking as the number one undergraduate university in the world. The low student-to–Nobel Laureate ratio is only one of Princeton’s unique offerings. Princeton students are treated like thoroughbreds and trained to be the fastest out of the gate.But however grand and wonderful Princeton’s student resources are, they don’t answer the question “to what end?” A Princeton education can be used for good or bad. For example, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Maria Rissa (class of 1986) and authoritarian dictator Syngman Rhee (class of 1910) used their Princeton educations in very different ways. Ultimately, an answer to this question is required for a student to feel a sense of fulfillment and direction. As human beings, we yearn for meaning, and where meaning is lacking, our personal fulfillment wanes and we’re prone to becoming directionless. For some, religion provides meaning through a rich moral code that, when followed, guarantees reward. Utilitarianism and other secular philosophies also provide guides for individual action. These moral frameworks do more than just provide meaning  – they provide direction. The Christian motivated by charity chooses to work in a refugee camp; the hedonistic utilitarian driven by a desire to maximize happiness chooses a career in public health. In contrast, the graduate who has not adopted a moral tradition is more likely to stumble into a profession – whether one of these or something else.  That’s not to say that religious or utilitarian students have their lives planned out and can describe exactly how they’ll use their Princeton education (I certainly couldn’t!), but these students may feel meaningful direction in their studies and career goals. As a nonsectarian university, Princeton doesn’t make religious or ideological demands of its students, who are allowed to choose to adopt a moral code or not. Therefore, students are left to their own devices to find direction that may have been otherwise provided had they attended a Catholic or Jewish university. I won’t attempt a lengthy discussion on the merits of a nonsectarian education, but it certainly puts more responsibility on the student to discern the meaning and end of their individual education. Unfortunately, Princeton’s academic culture, reinforced by the university itself, does not promote the personal discovery of direction; instead, it prioritizes the hustle for internships, fellowships, and prestige. A friend recently commented on how many businesses could have been started, inventions patented, and poetic stanzas written in the time Princeton students spend looking for summer internships. I can relate, having spent as much time working on securing my summer plans as on any single class. For most students, free time is spent networking, looking for internships, or making sure they’re doing something “productive”; summer plans are a central topic of conversation in the dining halls. For some, this is motivated by pressure from parents; for others the pressure is internal. Either way, certainly, the insatiable hustle for the next resume bullet permeates Princeton’s academic culture.While this may be the natural consequence of housing 4,700 high-achieving undergraduates in a small New Jersey town, Princeton does little to minimize the often corrosive effects of the hustle culture that has oversaturated our academic environment. Career-fair advertisements and resume workshops provided by the Career Development Center are the subjects of some of the first emails that incoming freshmen receive. And yet, for all the options presented to Princeton students, they’re not taught how to decide which path is right for them. Yes, Princeton prides itself on teaching its students how to think, but that “thinking” is usually attached to an assignment or a grade, the experience tainted by pressure from peers, professors, and parents. The university is quick to promote the practical uses of our education but slow to promote habits that build fulfillment and a sense of direction. For Princeton students to find these after graduation, they must learn and be encouraged to develop an intellectual life. In her book , Zena Hitz outlined the importance and fulfillment of developing what she calls an intellectual life. Hitz argued that a rich life is a life rich in thought. Human beings, she contended, long for something that exceeds the “merely material or the merely social.” The intellectual life provides meaning to education and direction to its application by creating a refuge from the world where you can consider your deepest thoughts and feelings, free from the “power plays and careless judgments of social life.”Before coming to Princeton or garnering international fame, Albert Einstein worked in a patent office. It was there, far from any laboratory, that Einstein wrote his seminal papers on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and the theory of special relativity. Those ideas turned the physics world on its head, and calling someone an Einstein has become a compliment of their intelligence. Einstein called the patent office “that worldly cloister where I hatched my most beautiful ideas.”Einstein’s “worldly cloister” gave him a refuge where he could pursue his natural curiosities without undue pressure from colleagues. Unless they frequent the eating club named Cloister Inn, for a Princeton student to find their own worldly cloisters where they routinely take refuge to deeply consider what they have read or learned can be difficult. Princeton students are typically overschedulers (that’s how they had the resumes to get in), and this tendency persists in their college lifestyles.Even for students who find direction in a moral tradition, a personal cloister is essential to the search for meaning amid the hustle of University life. The truth-seeking process, to which Princeton has been , requires both diligent effort in studying and intentional consideration of what’s been studied. Without the latter, the student becomes like an ice cream merchant who, despite buying and selling sweets all day, never tries the creamy dessert.Because of its personal nature, developing an intellectual life is something that Princeton cannot do for its students – but it certainly could encourage it. In my three years at Princeton, I have yet to see a poster for a “place to ponder” or even a simple reminder to feast upon the ideas around us. Instead, “study halls” and tips on how to read quickly are advertised on the bulletin board of every residential college. While these latter resources are helpful in the quest for good grades, they incentivize students to hustle on, forget what was already tested, and begin working on the next P-Set. Despite the hustle culture, it’s possible for students to develop a direction-giving intellectual life. For example, a friend of mine makes a habit of journaling at the Princeton battlefield. There he finds his worldly cloister, and he credits that habit with aiding his direction-seeking pursuits. Personally, I use walks from my dorm to class and the gym as quiet time to ponder.Once Princeton students understand that the university does not optimize for “meaning,” they can begin searching for their “return” in both moral codes (like religion) and the development of an intellectual life. For this reason, I break with Deresiewicz’s conclusion and would happily send my kids to Princeton . . . that is, if they understand what the university can, and cannot, offer. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/why-i-would-send-my-kids-to-princeton/

What Do I Do in College?

Adam Hoffman

May 8, 2022

What do I do in college? To answer that, I think we must first consider a more important question: what I be doing in classrooms and in my extracurriculars?Well, for one, I ought to be learning. In college, I ought to be engaging with texts and ideas that I know – or thought I knew – and exposing myself to new ones. In the liberal model of education, I am to challenge my most cherished beliefs and reexamine even those practices that define my identity. As Max Weber in “Science as a Vocation” would have it: “the primary task of a useful teacher is to teach his students to recognize ‘inconvenient facts’ – I mean facts that are inconvenient for their party option.” Under this model, no belief should be left unscathed, no view can be left triumphant. Fair enough. But to what end? Should there be a limit to this questioning? I argue yes. College, in my experience at Princeton, will push you to check your beliefs at the door and endorse a radical skepticism. As I have seen it, only lip service is paid towards true and open inquiry. With exceptions made for fashionable truths, belief itself is degraded as archaic or unenlightened. Belief in God? How could you be so silly?! Belief in the greatness of the American civilization? Well, that is a supremacist and hateful proposal. As I was told just this month, if I trust in America’s moral legitimacy, then I haven’t thought for myself.   How could the detractors of these ideas – the ideas that those of us who read the care about – be so certain that I am wrong if they are radical skeptics themselves? I think it is because they have their own epistemological position: yes, question your beliefs if they are your beliefs, but no, don’t question – in fact, you are forbidden to question – beliefs tied to your identity. Your skin color, for instance, will bestow upon you knowledge of certain sacred truth. So, there are those beliefs drawn from your tradition or reason – say, support of Israel – and then there are those beliefs that are inherent in your assigned identity – say, your oppression by Israel. Where is the line between the two? Which ideas get categorized as reasonable versus identity-determined? You’ll have to ask Twitter, and it will probably depend on the hour. Back to our question, what do I do in classes and extracurriculars? Moreover, can one navigate the challenges of college while still maintaining thought integrity? Yes and no. No: certain professors will grade based on your beliefs. There are political clubs – as I have experienced – that will let you take part in certain discussions only if you meet particular identity categories. Most recently, I was forbidden to join a conversation about the American criminal justice system because of my light skin. That’s the no. But there’s also a cheery yes. In 1921, Franz Rosenzweig wrote to Gershom Shalem on the nascent Wissenschaft des Judentums, academic Jewish studies: “In a sense, we are ourselves guests at our own table, we ourselves, I myself. So long as we speak German, we cannot avoid this detour that again and again leads us the hard way from what is alien back to our own.” Rosenzweig, I think, offers a model for the confident conservative in college today: recognize that we are not sitting at our own table. We are guests, and that means that we must come bearing a gift. Instead of undermining what our parents have bequeathed us upon matriculation, we can take that inheritance and share it with others. In my own case as a Jew, when possible, offer the unappreciated Jewish perspective during in-class discussions. In a recent seminar on global justice, I pushed back on suggestions for the same treatment of Americans and foreigners, family and strangers. As I know from my Jewish tradition, we can only learn to love the foreigner if we have a particular love for America, only love the stranger if we love our family. Do the same with your own tradition. College can be an occasion to upend your life, or it can be an occasion to celebrate the life you have been gifted. With the guidance of parents, college students can contribute to their communities for the benefit of all. What do I do in college? At the least, I try to learn from others and allow others to learn from my tradition. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/what-do-i-do-in-college/

Princeton University’s 2022 Constitution Day Lecture: An Echo Chamber of Anti-American Sentiment

Alexandra Orbuch

October 19, 2022

Lincoln once said that “we cannot escape history.” For that reason, I understand the instinct to delve into the imperfections of our Constitution and national past and recognize that our failings are part of our story just as much as our triumphs are. But to focus solely on imperfections is a form of the historical escapism that Lincoln warned against. In recent years, many critics, from to , have charged the Constitution of the United States with being irredeemably racist. Much of Princeton appears to subscribe to the historical escapist fad of the moment. On Wednesday, September 14, I attended Princeton’s annual Constitution Day Lecture, which was entitled “Citizenship and Its Discontents in Our Evolving Democratic Republic.” At this federally mandated event to commemorate the Constitution (required of colleges and universities receiving U.S. government funding), the panelists painted our founding document as inherently inequitable – irredeemably so – and made no mention of the qualities that make the Constitution revered by so many.Moderator and Princeton Professor of Sociology Patricia Fernández-Kelly opened the event with this assertion: “There is a debate in this country as to whether the Constitution should be abolished.” Princeton began its Constitution Day program with the claim that many want to overhaul the document in its entirety. I would have been open to an intellectually honest debate that highlighted both sides of the argument. But that is far from what occurred. The panelists framed a question, and all of them took the same side and ran with it.Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, sociology and Gender and Sexuality Studies professor at USC, debased the Constitution as “a tool of geopolitical gaslighting,” and political analyst Rich Benjamin charged “the fact and the dogma of the Constitution” with “further[ing] a racial crisis and a democratic crisis.”I acknowledge that the founders were imperfect, just as we today are imperfect. They were flawed people of their time, just as we are flawed people of ours. The original Constitution was exclusionary in ways reflecting the zeitgeist of the Enlightenment. “We the People” did not (yet) include all the people. As Jefferson aptly wrote, “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” Just as the clothing that fits a man as a youth will never suffice as an adult – to paraphrase Jefferson – such has been the case with our Constitution. The 13th and 14th Amendments abolished forever the debasing evil of slavery and gave African Americans citizenship rights, setting the stage for the 19th Amendment codifying women’s suffrage into law. We have come very far as a country, further than even the Founding Fathers could have imagined in the 18th century. The panelists appeared to believe that the injustices inherent in the founding era preclude anything fruitful from emerging out of our founding document; in other words, the Constitution is an inherently racist document that can produce only further racism. According to Benjamin, the Constitution is not “race-neutral”; many parts of it, including the Second and Fifth Amendments, are “coded as white” or “white-utopian rights.”  What Benjamin and his co-panelists failed to acknowledge is that despite its issues, the American constitutional project was revolutionary for its time. It created a government devoted to ideas of republicanism, federalism, and popular sovereignty; it instituted a unique system of checks and balances to prevent or at least contain the abuses of power that inevitably occur when any institution of person exercises unchecked authority; it laid out procedures to prevent tyranny of the majority and the excesses of passing passions. Its durability three centuries on is testimony to the wisdom of allowing for evolutionary changes within a framework of inviolable principles.I could go on and on about what makes the Constitution both special and unique, but that is not the point of this piece. What matters is that none of these ideas were referenced, let alone discussed, by the panelists; on Constitution Day, a day meant to promote and deepen understanding of our founding document, Princeton chose to have an event at which not a single voice was included to explain or explore the theory of the Constitution and shed light on the principles it sets forth and the institutions it creates.  At one point, Parreñas lamented to the audience, “It’s just kind of depressing. I don’t think we can get out of this.” To me, that line encapsulates the event well: we live in a country founded upon evil, hence our catastrophic modern condition – a condition that we can never escape. I found that to be a dangerous message to be giving students. Instead of discussing ways to bring our institutions and practices more fully into line with our constitutional ideals and to shore up the republican system of government bequeathed to us by our founders, the three speakers accented only how our society has failed – and, more than that, how the country itself is an irredeemable failure at its very core.The event also included some staggering partisan accusations. Parreñas said that she “would not put it past Congress – if they became a Republican majority – to appease white nationalists, those who wish to go back to the time when… only whites… could be citizens of this country, and to repeal the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” I was expecting a few jabs at the decision and perhaps some sniping at the notion of states’ rights – both of which I certainly got from the panel. What I was not expecting, perhaps naively, was the absurd notion that a good portion of the Republican party is so racist that it yearns to turn back the clock to a time in which only whites could be citizens and would do so if given the chance. In what can be characterized only as a classic case of psychological projection, Benjamin asserted that Republicans want to “disrupt the country for ideological ends” and they maintain “anti-democratic sentiments.”Alexis de Tocqueville recognized that “the greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” The panelists, however, seemed to live in a historical vacuum, where the cruelties and injustices of the entire human experience are to be foisted upon the United States and none of her virtues and achievements are to be acknowledged. They see the U.S. not as a great nation where the worst of human impulses have been tempered by a brilliant framework of balance but rather as an experiment in human governance forever marred by its original sins, a scarlet thread of shame permanently woven into its very fabric. 

https://www.theprincetontory.com/princeton-universitys-2022-constitution-day-lecture-an-echo-chamber-of-anti-american-sentiment/

President Eisgruber, Princeton Administrators Respond To The End of Affirmative Action

Ethan Hicks

June 30, 2023

On June 29th, the Supreme Court against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, declaring it unconstitutional to consider race in college admissions decisions. Following the Court’s landmark 6-3 decision, University President Christopher Eisgruber released a statement to the Princeton community denouncing the case’s outcome.   Eisgruber that the opinion is “unwelcome and disappointing” and a “regrettable decision.” He also affirmed his view that “diversity is essential to the excellence of this University and to the future of our country and the world,” promising that the University will continue to “pursue it with energy, persistence, and a determination to succeed despite the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court.” Portraying the decision as an impediment that will “make our work more difficult,” he expressed the University’s commitment to “work vigorously to preserve—and, indeed, grow—the diversity of our community while fully respecting the law as announced today.”Eisgruber’s words echo his January letter, in which he pledged that the University would “be creative and persistent in our efforts to preserve and build upon the diversity of our scholarly and educational community” if the court ultimately “imposes new restrictions upon us.” In his June 29 statement, Eisgruber did not disclose how the University will pursue diversity in the admissions process without violating the Court’s decision, but he relayed that “Princeton has been preparing for this possibility with assistance and advice from legal counsel” given that the Court’s opinion was “not unexpected.”Following Eisgruber’s statement, many Princeton-affiliated bodies shared statements of their own, affirming a commitment to diversity and denouncing the Court’s opinion. Dean Amaney Jamal of Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA) called the decision “disheartening” but told students and faculty to “rest assured” that “the School of Public and International Affairs remains committed to its mission of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion among the SPIA community.” Jamal also re-shared President Eisgruber’s remarks alongside her own to “underscore my support of the following message that President Christopher Eisgruber sent the campus community earlier this afternoon.” Dean Rodney Priestley of Princeton’s Graduate School sent a similar message to its students, writing: “I echo President Eisgruber’s disappointment in today’s opinion, and I applaud the University’s commitment to continue to vigorously pursue diversity while fully respecting the law as announced today.” Priestley went on to emphasize how “critical” the cultivation of a “diverse student body” is to the University, arguing that it is “necessary to the University’s mission.” The James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions voiced an alternate perspective to the public stances taken by many Princeton subsidiary bodies and in the wake of the decision. Professor Robert P. George, Princeton’s McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program, issued a affirming the importance of discourse and open dialogue. “Someone might ask: As an academic unit of Princeton University devoted to the study of American ideals and institutions, where does the James Madison Program stand on the matter? The answer is that the James Madison Program takes no stand,” George wrote. While he acknowledged that members of the program – including himself – have strong perspectives on the case and its surrounding issues, he emphasized that “All are welcome in the Madison Program irrespective of one’s beliefs about race-conscious admissions and hiring or other issues that divide honorable Americans. There are no orthodoxies and no heresies.” George encouraged readers to explore the decision and thoughtfully evaluate the merits of each side on their own, imploring the James Madison Program community not to “let this decision be yet another occasion for people to demonize those of their fellow citizens whose opinions do not square with their own—whatever their own may be.” George concluded his remarks with a call for unity, writing that “what unites us is not ideology or politics, but a shared desire to explore constitutional and other fundamental questions concerning our civic order in a truth-seeking spirit.” He concluded: “the [Court’s] opinions model vigorous—indeed passionate—yet civil and respectful disagreement…[our country] needs more of that today.”

https://www.theprincetontory.com/president-eisgruber-princeton-administrators-respond-to-the-end-of-affirmative-action/