Don't expect too much from the USG
Regarding ‘Wag the pet project,' (Monday, March 10, 2008):
You know, I nearly laughed out loud when I read the editorial over breakfast. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the USG is. ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
New Direction: I repeat for the final time--institutional support for abstinent students was not the subject of our op-ed. The subject of our op-ed was free and equal access to contraceptives on college campuses. In our op-ed we also mentioned recent op-eds by Anscombe members attacking University efforts to make contraception affordable and accessible. So if you would like to debate the chastity center, let's do that outside of this comments thread so that we don't take up more space here on an issue that really is tangential to the original argument put forth by me and Sierra. Please feel free to email me. You know who I am and how to contact me because I have consistently identified myself here.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"...But in a morally and religiously pluralistic society, like Princeton, students with different normative viewpoints should be able to live their lives as they see fit and have free access to the protections that the university can reasonably provide for them..." I couldn't agree with you more, especially in view of the principles that guide modern liberal democracy. What's being discussed, as we have gone over and over again, is whether institutionalized support for abstinent students is reasonable, and whether such support would amount to a more egalitarian treatment of students. We still haven't cleared up the issues surrounding the U's endorsement of the hookup scene, no matter how good the football analogy can be made to look. In the case of students who hook up, the University takes action. In the case of abstinent students, the University takes no action whatsoever. To me this seems a bit unfairl
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
New Direction, once again you are going off-topic. It sounds like you're asking for a chastity center. If that's what you're up to, just say so. But don't conflate the issue of the university offering subsidized or free contraceptives with your perceived lack of abstinence support. I am aquainted and I am close friends with several students who do not currently wish to have sex and are not in favor of a chastity center. But, once again, this is not the subject of the op-ed I wrote with Sierra. As for the football analogy... obviously football does not equal sex. That's why it's an analogy and not an identity. Analogies are useful, however, in reminding us of how these analogous situations are handled by the university. Football is actually extremely dangerous if you care about long-term brain damage. Studies are mounting demonstrating just how severe the head trauma can be and how many years of brain function can be shaved off from playing football as a youth. Does this mean we should ban football? No. Does this mean that we should stop providing helmets? Of course not. Now, I contend that if sex were not a morally-charged issue, we would agree with respect to providing condoms to those who choose to be sexually active. But according to your religious or secular ethical beliefs, I am assuming that you believe premarital sex is wrong. And this, I am willing to bet, is the reason that you have a problem with reduced cost condoms and contraceptives at UHS. This is what the football analogy reveals for us quite nicely. In football, a less morally-charged issue, I assume you are in favor of providing supplies to reduce health and safety risks. So why not for sex? Because, I can only guess, you believe it is morally wrong. Now, you have every right to believe that and act on that belief and you certainly have a right to advocate a lifestyle of abstinence to your fellow students. But in a morally and religiously pluralistic society, like Princeton, students with different normative viewpoints should be able to live their lives as they see fit and have free access to the protections that the university can reasonably provide for them.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Good clarification, but the main part of the analogy still doesn't work. The problem lies in the fact that football is not analogous to sexuality. You have assumed that the desire to play football and the desire to have sex are found in equal proportion in every student, and that those desires serve similar social functions. You're also assuming that the U's approval of sex is no more controversial than its approval of football-playing. This is obviously nonsensical, since sex and football play fundamentally different roles in our lives, and have vastly different consequences. I completely agree that abstinent students do not feel the desire to wear condoms or take contraceptive pills despite not being sexually active. That *is* nonsense. But that has never been an object of contention: what is debated here is whether the University's tacit approval of sex and hookups sends an inappropriate message to the half of the student body that isn't having sex, and even still to those who are. No one would make the claim that the U is acting inappropriately by promoting football--there's simply nothing seriously controversial about it, at least compared to the risks of sex. And as far as I know, despite there being a football team at Princeton, there is no varsity sex team. The fact that you think that "...all it takes to be abstinent is desire...and will-power..." makes me think you have very few abstinent friends, or even a basic acquaintance with what abstinence means. We all know that someone who wishes to quit smoking cannot, except in extraordinary cases, simply be told to employ will-power to cease smoking immediately. It also takes social support, and not the occasional variety mustered together by student groups.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
New Direction, though I think this back-and-forth is approaching the point of futility, I need to make a clarification. In the football analogy, "football players" are to "sexually active students" as "nonfootball players" are to "abstinent students." You rightly claim that helmets have no purpose for nonfootball players. The analogy, then, is that condoms have no purpose for abstinent students. Everyone is *capable* of sexual activity, just as everyone is *capable* of playing football (maybe not equally well, but everyone without a serious disability can do both). So my analogy works fine. The question is not, does the University's pro-football-helmet policy encourage nonfootball players to wear helmets *when playing football* (because then those students would now be in the category of football players). The question is does the university's pro-football-helmet policy encourage nonfootball players to wear helmets when *not* playing football, which of course is nonsense. Now, the university provides condoms to those who request them, presumably sexually active students. And it provides helmets to those who request them, presumably football players. But the key question is in what respect do you believe abstinent students are being unfairly deprived of the necessary resources to remain abstinent? Most of us think that all it takes to be abstinent is desire to be abstinent and will-power. You don't need protective devices, as far as I know. You have a number of supportive student groups on campus already. In what way are you being deprived of your equal rights?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Well, the analogy has serious problems, since helmet use is mandatory, and contraception is not. Additionally, football players have a written contract with the U that they'll play football, but students need make no contract with the U in order to engage in sexual activity. And it doesn't follow from your analogy that non-football players would feel pressured to wear helmets, since helmets have no use to whatever non-football-related activities they do. Contraception, unlike football helmets, applies to everyone capable of having sex, while football helmets only apply to football players. If my local football team is made to wear helmets, I'm going to think twice about not wearing one the next time I play a contact sport. But these concerns aside, I think the analogy still works in my favor. The U does require football players to wear helmets, even if the players disagree with the rationale behind the rule. So the U takes away from them some of their freedom to make choices, because of the contractual agreement they have to play football. As to whether this encourages other students to wear helmets when they play football, I'd say it does. If it turns out *not* to influence non-football players, there's one major reason: the University supports the lifestyle choices of those who don't play football. I hope I wasn't making it unclear in my last post, that what I'm calling for is not necessarily a banishing of condoms wholesale, but a call for equal treatment. Just as the U gives support to both football players and non-football players with their respective needs, so should it give support both to sexually active and to abstinent students.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Well, look, the university promotes helmet-use by football players. Does that mean that non-football players are feeling pressured into wearing helmets and by extension to play football? I don't think so. If Univ. sponsored efforts, such as SHA are promoting condom use for *sexually active students* it is in no way promoting condom use for the general student body that is not having sex. You don't receive a year's supply of condoms on your pillow when you move in in the beginning of the year. You have to approach UHS and deliberately request condoms. If that's the policy you're objecting to then I'm not sure you're at the right school. Princeton is a place where a pluralistic community of individual autonomous students are allowed to make a wide variety of decisions, from whether to dye their hair, to whether to engage in sex. If you're looking for a more restrictive community, you need to look elsewhere.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
So we're back to the beginning of the discussion again: does the U promote sex by promoting contraception? I think it does.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
New Direction, the University maintains a position of neutrality on sex by saying it's ok if you do and it's ok if you don't. To either promote sex or denounce sex would by a violation of neutrality, but the university does neither. As for your most recent post, I have read the Tory's piece on the matter but have not seen any nonpartisan reporting on it and I don't have any inside information. So at this point, I reserve judgment.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
And by the way, what do you think about the investigation of UHS for cover-ups/underreporting of STD statistics?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Perhaps, then, what's being forced here is a contraceptive mentality. I think what's being imposed, as opposed to presented in a series of other options, is the view that it's ok to be sexually active while in college. The reason I disagree with this view being put forth by the University is that I think the administration should be completely neutral with respect to sex.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
New Direction, I don't think you understand the process by which students obtain contraception and condoms at UHS. For condoms, students approach the front desk and request condoms. For the pill, students must make a gynecological appointment, undergo a routine exam and obtain a prescription. Neither of these scenarios are forced on anyone. To say that abstinent students are being forced into being presented with the option of condoms and the pill is really silly. It sounds like what you're really concerned about are the freshman week activitied of SHA, and Sex on a Sat. Night, etc. I would point out that, while I whole-heartedly support those programs, they are separate from the issue of whether the University should provide low cost contraception and free condoms to individual students who independently request them from UHS.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, I think there’s a small error of logic in your post. The definition is not mine, but in the article in which the definition is found, the clause, “against their will” covers a wide variety of things, including “without their knowledge” or “without their explicit consent.” But I’m just nitpicking. Sticking with the strict interpretation of the definition, I think it still works for my point of view. In terms of the folks who oppose condom distribution at Princeton, it’s clearly against their will that they are subjected to mandatory ideological presentations (esp. freshmen) on sex, contraception, and related issues. And the reason what you described sounds so “ridiculous” to you is that it is ridiculous! You’re presenting wildly false alternatives with regard to the condom issue: what’s at stake here is not that abstinent students want to pay full price for contraception…for why would abstinent students need them? They’re not having sex! The debate is about whether providing contraception is paternalistic as such. I think it clearly is. I also think the opposing opinion is paternalistic. So again, the question is not which opinion is paternalistic, but whose is more reasonable. I think we should also open up the discussion to the lack of credibility UHS has on sexual health matters, especially in view of the recent Tory article, exposing the government regulatory investigation of financial conflicts of interest and cover-ups of STD statistics at Princeton.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
By your definition, "New Direction," the current policies for free condoms and subsidized contraception cannot be considered paternalistic. The key phrase in your uncited quote is "the interference of a state or an individual with another person, **against their will.**" In the case we are currently discussing the "state" is university health services and the "person" is the student wishing to obtain condoms or contraception. Now in order for subsidization of condoms or the pill to be construed as paternalistic, you would have to establish that students want to pay full price for these items but are being forced to pay a lower price *against their will.* I don't know about you, but that seems pretty ridiculous to me. On a side note, "New Direction," I share your frustration with the fact that people have become quite caught up with our use of the word "paternalism" in our op-ed. I hope people read it for what it is, an informative piece arguing for equal and fair access to reproductive health care on college campuses.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Yeah, I agree with New Direction. Sara is using paternalism as an evaluative term. Both sides of this debate are paternalistic, and what we should be debating is which position is rationally superior. She's also fusing the definitions of moral-paternalism and welfare-paternalism. The first, of course, is when the state protects the moral well-being of a person (e.g., incest is morally wrong) and the second is protection of a person's well-being (e.g., incest causes genetic abnormalities).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Here’s a rather authoritative definition, from which I paraphrase: “…Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and justified by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm...” The preceding posts have already established that there are many paternalistic institutions whose prudence we don’t dispute, covering matters like seat belts, social security, the FDA, illegal drugs, involuntary commitment to psychiatric care, academic distribution requirements, and yes, the distribution of condoms, as it currently stands. But I think the conversation below is going in the wrong direction. Instead of debating whose position on condoms is somehow “more” paternalistic, we should discuss which position on the use of condoms is more reasonable, and thus worthy of being implemented in a paternalistic way.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"Paternalism" as I defined it below has nothing to do with gender. Rather it has to do with power, a power that women can (and do) exercise as much as men. I really don't understand what your argument is here, Matt.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, I am afraid we view pregnancy too differently for there to be a full discussion here. I do not think your car-wreck analogy is wholly invalid, but I think it's implication is repellent. On the latter point I wished to point out to both sides that it's nonsense to speak of a University mostly run by women as being 'paternalistic', whatever course it pursues.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Dear Matt, Thanks for the response. I consider unintended pregnancy to be a public health concern. Recently we saw a rise in teen pregnancy for the first time in 14 years. I'd say that is absolutely a public health concern. Approximately half of all unintended pregnancies result in abortions, which should be enough to alert "pro-life" advocates to the importance of preventing unintended pregnancies. It's important to know that the Guttmacher Institute (well-respected by pro-choice and pro-life advocates for its unbiased research) reports that the best way to reduce abortion rates by far is to provide better contraception education and availability (while making abortion illegal does absolutely nothing to reduce abortion rates). I would note that pregnancy is a risky process... abortion remains far safer than carrying a fetus to term. I'm not sure what to make of your last point. In what way do you believe Pres. Tilghman is or is not being maternalistic and how would you define maternalism? As for motherhood, there's nothing objectionable about it. I'm thankful that my own mother decided to become a mother. But the important point is that it was a decision she made freely and willingly.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara: I agree that we should provide access to condoms & otherwise promote public health. However, I find it alarming that pregnancy can be called a public health problem that is analogized--however loosely--to getting in a car wreck. Now certainly pregnancy is sometimes undesirable, but I doubt that getting in an accident is ever the opposite. I would also say that the University is supposed to provide some degree of paternalism, hence the term 'in loco parentis'. Whether that paternalism is good or bad is another question entirely. In discussing this question it may be helpful to realize that our school is by and large run by women: Shirley Tilghman, the Janets Dickerson and Finnie, Hillary Herbold, Kathleen Deignan, etc. Is maternalism also objectionable, or just motherhood?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Just because you know a latin term doesn't mean you know anything about logic. Try being less condescending and more thoughtful in the future.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Let's try a more realistic example: Driving. A lot of people like driving. But they don't really need to drive. We have good enough public transportation around here with buses going to the mall and trains going to New York, Philly, and beyond. But people seem to want to drive a lot even though its really dangerous (25% of all injury-related deaths are the result of driving). So we should really stop people from driving, right? Well, instead, the government requires all car manufacturers to put seatbelts in their cars. But in most states you can't be stopped for not wearing your seatbelt. So the government is ensuring that everyone has equal access to this protective device and allows us to take this (huge) risk. But by your (and Anscombe's) logic, we should remove seatbelts from cars, thereby taking away this device that "provides a false sense of security." According to your (and Anscombe's logic) we need to make dangerous activities even more dangerous in order to prevent people from doing it. Now, this driving example is an imperfect analogy, but it's a lot better than yours. Not a lot of people have a strong desire to jump off of fine hall, and therefore it is not a public health or safety concern, so much as a serious individual mental health problem. But, activities become the concern of public health and safety officials when a lot of people participate in those activities. So it's not so much a philosophical question as a practical public policy question.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You said that "It seems to me that if there's something risky out there that a lot of people really want to do and we have an easy way to limit those risks, we ought to do that." Jumping off of Fine Hall is pretty risky behavior - but hey, getting that adrenaline rush right before I hit the ground (this is a hypothetical situation) is the only way I can fulfill my "pursuit of happiness." By your logic, the University, because it has the money, is then in fact obliged to pay for my safety equipment and all my medical bills, and if it doesn't, that's paternalism because it's limiting my choices. In my book, that's quite the non sequitur. Since when does "I can" automatically become "I should?" And last time I checked, the fact that "lot of people really want to do" it has absolutely nothing to do with logical justification, and it is in fact a logical fallacy. Perhaps you know it by another name: argumentum ad populum.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To Sara: Wow, that's just sad. I had no idea that we are so fortunate here. On one hand, it makes me grateful that the only thing I have to worry about is getting a little annoyed by anti-birth control voices in the Prince, but on the other hand, it makes me realize what a danger they represent.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To Rick Astley: Actually, on other college campuses they're still paying full price (see our oped last tuesday titled "Good public (and campus) policy"). And they're pretty upset about it, needless to say. To "Contraception Will Save the World": I don't think anyone in their right mind would make that claim. I certainly did not. But clearly you understand that sex is risky. It seems to me that if there's something risky out there that a lot of people really want to do and we have an easy way to limit those risks, we ought to do that. Remember, there are also a lot of people using birth control in committed relationships. But even if it was all just an anonymous sex "hook-up" culture--ESPECIALLY if that were the case--the University should support equal access to contraception for all students. Otherwise you will see a safe-sex disparity based on wealth as I have described earlier in this comments thread.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You're an idiot. Read Hal's comment, and then try again.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Just a quick note for Hal - Victimization is not, nor was it ever, the argument for a center of conservative familial and sexual ethics. Even if we all wish it were unbiased, the LGBT center exhibits an obvious ideological slant towards a progressive and libertine post-gender understanding of sexuality on its calendar and at its events. The university, in all fairness, should not institutionalize such an ideology (which it has, in reality, done) without providing a counterpoint for those who reasonably disagree. If you think the conservative morality is so unreasonable as to be institutionally silenced while a center of the opposite persuasion persists, then by all means make that argument. At least that would address the actual issues on the table.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The "argument" was never that Nava is the definitive picture of conservatism at Princeton. This is Ernst's own bizarre misreading for which he -- not I -- bears full responsibility. The argument was that conservatives face nothing at Princeton comparable to the historical and contemporary oppression faced by homosexuals. Nava seemed to provide a shockingly conspicuous counterexample. He represented himself as the target of a vicious liberal conspiracy which demanded silence and threatened violence. Needless to say, it was a bunch of BS -- there was no physical liberal conspiracy. Likewise, there is no objective need for a Fortress Chastity. The type of oppression which would justify such a center simply does not exist.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Fact Check: Before castigating Ernst for saying that Francisco was mentally ill, take a look at the Prince itself, which called in a psychiatrist who had never even met the Nava to speculate about his mental health. Irresponsible reporting, anyone? Hal Parker was invoking this incident not only to say conservatives have only been attacked by Francisco Nava, but to imply (as he and almost every other anti-Anscombe Center writer has) that Nava, who even if not mentally ill obviously had some issues, is representative of the conservatives on campus, something that isn't true. Neither, by the way, is Nunan's claim that the "Princeton Right" is Brandon McGinley. I don't remember hearing about the meeting held by Princeton's conservatives in which they elected McGinley their spokesperson. Parker and Nunan (the Princeton Left, then?) should stop repeating these tired and obviously faulty arguments.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Let us throw free pills to the crowd. Distribute condoms like largesse to the poor, helpless masses of potential parents who just want to have sex without the committment a child brings. Utopia awaits! STD's and unloved children will be no more. Except, of course, when facts suddenly enter the conversation and reveal the destruction that ensues from a culture of condoms, cheap pills, and hookups. http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I see absolutely nothing in Adam Ernst's letter that reduces homosexuality to a mental illness, despite the claims of Client 9 and Tim Nunan -- nor can I even see any way in which that conclusion could be reached. Rather, I think Ernst is saying (and rightly so) that LGBT center supporters shouldn't continue to insult one unfortunately disturbed individual in an effort to make their case seem stronger. It isn't a successful tactic -- rather, it sounds vindictive and petty, and betrays a lack of any real reasoning that could and should have taken the place of that unnecessary line. Perhaps Hal, Nunan & Co. should develop actual arguments instead of simply insulting the other side.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Are people at other college campuses disturbed that their health centers provide reasonably priced birth control, or is that just a Princeton thing?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
We need to stop talking about Francisco Nava '09's alleged mental illness. He may be Googled by future employers, who will discover that he is alleged to be mentally ill. Also, please refrain from his not-quite-just-alleged self-battery and subsequent filing of a false police report in order to smear liberals on Princeton's campus.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I'm confused - how is Ernst's letter equating homosexuality with mental disorder? Unless I'm reading it wrong, it's Nava he's calling mentally ill, not homosexuals. I am also confused as to why people like Hal Parker and Nunan insist on saying that because McGinley or Nava did/said something, then clearly all of the "Princeton Right" or all conservatives must feel the EXACT same way (OMG! It's like they're in each other's heads or something!), and that therefore all their past claims and arguments are invalid. It may be tempting to assign the characteristics of the one to the whole, but if you're going to fight, fight with reason, not generalizations.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Beg to differ: I'm completely baffled as to how subsidizing birth control could be construed as "paternalistic." Does cheaper contraception imply that people are being forced to buy it against their preferences, just because it's good for them? To anticipate one retort: while it's true that just because something isn't paternalistic doesn't mean it's good, no one here (or in the other comments section) has offered any convincing argument against an initiative that improves student health and cuts down on economic stratification. I'd love to see one.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I will spell out my earlier contention, since I think it was glossed over: Paternalism, as I understand it, entails a position or policy that is meant to limit individual choice because someone deems individuals incapable of making a good choice without outside limitations. To subsidize birth control is not paternalistic because it is not meant to coerce or limit individual choice, rather expand it by making all options affordable for everyone. I charged that Anscombers were paternalistic because they asked that the University limit birth control access, thereby limiting individual choice. I hope that's clear.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, just because you think subsidization is a good idea does not automatically make it un-paternalistic. You say, " I would hate to be on a campus where there is a safe sex disparity." Well, so would I, but whether or not I think subsidization is a "smart move" has nothing to do with whether or not it is instrinsically paternalistic. Something may actually contribute to an individual's or a community's freedom or 'good' (whatever that means)and still be paternalistic, which is a distinction I think you're unwilling to accept.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Very good point, Confused. Either, Adam Ernst is privy to Nava's private medical records and unethically revealed his diagnosis, or he is playing doctor. Either way, it's wrong. And Hal's point is simply that no one has ever targeted conservatives on this campus except their fellow conservative, Francisco Nava.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Francisco Nava is clearly very troubled. But has he been formally diagnosed with any form of mental illness? Or is that just conjecture?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Adam Ernst's letter, which is the first I have ever seen in the Prince that has attempted to reduce homosexuality to a mental illness, is proof enough of the need for and LGBT center and the obsession of the Princeton Right with gay sex. Remember, the Princeton Right (McGinley) held Nava up as a martyr before they discarded him as a headcase.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Dear Patricia, I appreciate your interest. However, I think you can understand that many students here don't have enough income to purchase $45 per month contraception on top of all their other expenses. Under the current policy, students still pay $6 per month out of pocket, but this fee is small enough that students can afford it. I would hate to be on a campus where there is a safe sex disparity, in which those who can afford contraception could have safe sex and those who cannot afford contraception could not. Considering that the University has an interest in reducing the effects of wealth disparities among students (re: increased financial aid for eating clubs) this is a smart move for the University. It's not paternalistic when there's no effort to force anyone to use contraception.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"Since when is taking cheap shots at the mentally ill acceptable for LGBT Center supporters?" Just as acceptable as taking equating homosexuality to a mental disorder, apparently.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Adam, you're right about this. What Hal Parker wrote was extremely offensive. I've no clue why he's expressing so much vitriol, why he's journalistically obsessed with Anscombe, and why he thinks it's acceptable to express predjudice against people with psychological disorders. And to think that he associates Nava with all conservatives. That sure makes his job easy! Hal needs to stop preaching to the choir and actually figure out what conservatives think, instead of debating with straw men.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!