Vote 'no' on the Student Bill of Rights

Two weeks ago, the College Republicans introduced the Student Bill of Rights (SBOR) to the student body in the form of a referendum. Voting begins on April 23. As a board, we support the general values outlined by the SBOR because we strongly believe that students should actively affirm their desire for a fair and open classroom. But unless several substantial problems with the bill's language are corrected before voting begins, we strongly encourage Princeton students to vote down the bill.

First, the language of the bill is simply too vague. SBOR's second principle affirms the right of professors to teach their "subject as they see fit" but qualifies it by pointing out that this freedom should never reach "the point of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination" nor should it exclude "other opinions or viewpoints." This wording fails to distinguish, even broadly, between legitimate and illegitimate teaching choices. For example, a molecular biology professor might choose not to teach the theory of intelligent design in her class despite the fact that many proponents of that theory view it as scientifically valid. This professor is making a conscious decision to exclude "other opinions and viewpoints" and some might interpret this decision as "anti-religious indoctrination." Nevertheless, we feel that the professor's decision not to teach intelligent design is the right one.

On the other hand, an art history professor should not be able to spend 10 minutes of a class period lambasting the current presidential administration instead of teaching students about Italian Baroque sculpture. While situations like this may not be prevalent at Princeton, they certainly do exist. We support the idea of a SBOR that is opposed to this kind of classroom behavior. The current bill, however, is unable to distinguish between these two types of cases.

Second, University policy already deals with many of the actions that the SBOR purports to stop. For example, the fifth of SBOR's principles reads, "the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated." The University actually takes a stronger stance to protect a free and civil environment for campus debate than SBOR does. "Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities" makes it quite clear that any member of the campus community who "prevents, or willfully attempts to prevent, the orderly conduct of a University function or activity ... or blocks, or willfully attempts to block, the legitimate activities of any person on the campus or in any University building or facility" will be "subject to University discipline and/or arrest."

SBOR's fourth principle, which supports quality and diversity in the funding of campus speakers and events, is similarly correct and redundant given current University policy. The "USG Student Group Projects Board Charter," for instance, states explicitly that the Projects Board may have recourse to "neither political nor religious ideology" when making decisions about which speakers, publications and events to fund. While some might claim that redundancy is not a problem in itself, we believe that it sends the signal that the supporters of the bill are ignorant of current University policy.

Unlike politically-motivated opponents of the SBOR, we strongly support the formal inclusion of principles of academic fairness in University policy. Fortunately, the University recognized this need long ago and instituted many of the policies that SBOR advocates. SBOR extends these principals into a few more areas, but it does so using vague and confusing language.

A more clearly-articulated SBOR that is free of redundant sections would give students the opportunity to clarify what we see as essential to a fair learning environment that is free from unnecessary politicization. But the current bill proposed by the College Republicans is not this ideal bill. For this reason, we urge Princeton students to reject the bill at the polls.