RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceAfter receiving a considerable amount of flak for the last column I wrote, it would have been tempting to retreat to the security of popular opinion. I could devote this space to any number of "safe" topics, such as elitism ...(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.
I absolutely agree with you that dissent should be encouraged. Part of the problem though lies with would-be dissenters; fear of ostracism should never stop one from voicing one's opinion. I find it interesting though that you think "the vital center" is being eroded in America, which arguably has the most similar (and increasingly so) major political parties in the Western world. Many other European countries have real socialists or real fascists, dissenting groups which add legitimate diversity to the political discourse. There is also an important distinction to be made between discussing/debating differing viewpoints and merely accepting all viewpoints as valid. The former is essential at a university; the later is entirely harmful.
Seems like you did go for a safe topic...
Thanks for the nice column. Yes, it's "safe" in a way, but Sam Norton is right, at least up to a point, that "[d]issent should not be discouraged but embraced." In my very first column for the "Prince," back in September 2006, I wrote, "Whoever you are and whatever your interests, I urge you to show your prejudices by joining and reveling in groups of like-minded people. At the same time, though, I urge you to consider actively what others are thinking and doing." Surely most Princetonians agree with Norton and me that it would be good if more people did not always act like sheep--but there is a difference between assent and action. One thing to add: Norton calls the figure $67,143 (average salary for '08 Classics majors) "valid information." It is valid in the sense that the University reported it, and I do not doubt that it reflects the numbers that graduating seniors submitted. But it would be good to know the median and the mode as well as the mean; it would be good to know what percentage of the (not huge number of) seniors in Classics participated in the survey and exactly why some are not included or may not have chosen to participate; and it would be good to know how this figure compares to figures from prior years, both the absolute changes in the mean salary of the so-called average Classics major and the changes vis-à-vis other majors.
I am the publisher of the Princeton Progressive Nation, and formerly its editor-in-chief. I would like to quote from my editor's note in the last issue of PPN in order to demonstrate some of the holes in Sam Norton's claim that we "openly flaunt their ideological affiliations, thus turning off potential readers" I will soon have a more complete response to the article:
"Yet after talking in person to Joel [the publisher of the Tory], I realize he is still willing to criticize specific elements of the Religious Right and that we share many of the same views about global warming...we both agree that government must support promising low-carbon technologies and contests are a useful way to spur innovation. My extensive discussion with him furthers my belief that conservatives will be capable of working with liberals and moderates on policy issues, although it will require significant dialogue and commitment from both parties. Ultimately, I believe supporters of Obama and McCain can make joint statements in support of specific policies. Such columns or articles would have much more power and legitimacy because they would demonstrate the unity of opinion regardless of political orientation."
(PPN articles and this note are available at www.princetonprog.com)
Respectfully, Sam, your last column was blasted by people because you presented your view as 100% absolutely correct. It wasn't written in a way that suggested that it was part of a broader ideological conversation (nobody is really discussing whether Princeton should effectively give up the idea of a liberal arts education altogether), but instead in a way that came off as arrogant and all-knowing. Your point in this column is valid, but your first column hardly is a good example of respectful intellectual discourse.
I should start by saying I agree with most of the arguments written in this column. I feel it is absolutely necessary that I would feel comfortable saying what I write about Sam's article to him directly. (In fact, I have just sent him an e-mail with the information in this comment. And given that he agreed to play Sarah Palin for a debate I helped organize, I have respect for this guy and do not want to unfairly critique him). So to Sam, I begin -
Sam, you argue that "Magazines such as The Tory and Princeton Progressive Nation openly flaunt their ideological affiliations, thus turning off potential readers." At some level, I agree that each magazine has an ideological bent; the PPN is more liberal and the Tory is more conservative. I also understand how someone looking at the PPN magazine's cover may have jumped to the conclusion that the messages in our magazine would be entirely liberal in orientation and would belittle any conservative ideas in the process. On our cover, we had the phrase "Tomorrow's Focus" along with pictures that represent issues with quite strong liberal/progressive valences like health care, poverty, and global warming.
However, as my editor's note in my previous comment indicates, the PPN is committed to consensus-building, including with conservatives. One of our writers for the first issue, Dan May, is a conservative Republican (who also played McCain in the Mathey mock debate in which you were Palin). And while I stand by my statement from my editor's note that "Quite a few of the articles [in the Tory] were angry in tone rather than calmly expressing debatable opinions," at least its article about the financial crisis recognized the importance of some degree of financial regulation. That statement could be a jumping-off point for discussion between liberals and conservatives as government decides how to regulate the financial industry.
I would be happy to talk about solutions if you believe a problem still exists. Harvard has its Harvard Political Review, which has no ideological orientation. However, when I went to an HPR party last year at Harvard and asked if there were any Republicans on staff, nobody seemed to know of any. HPR, at least in its current format, may be very liberal but simply cloak its alignment. It may be an example in which, in your words "one position usually quickly becomes the consensus. Anyone who wishes to offer an alternative is held back by fear of being ostracized by the majority, thus leading to an atmosphere of groupthink." I also believe we must live with the 2-party left-right dynamic in the United States. There may have been specific articles in the PPN that bothered you, and we should discuss them so we at the PPN do not make any similar mistakes concerning our tone or rhetoric in the future.
Freshmen are so cute.
Re:James D. Coan '09
"However, as my editor's note in my previous comment indicates, the PPN is committed to consensus-building, including with conservatives. One of our writers for the first issue, Dan May, is a conservative Republican"
Reliable and trustworthy news won't come from simply creating a balance of two politically biased viewpoints. Would anybody consider the politically balanced show "Hannity and Combs" reliable? I believe that you are exactly the type of person Sam's article was complaining about both from that comment and this one:
"I also believe we must live with the 2-party left-right dynamic in the United States."
Why "must" we live with two parties? Why do only democrats and republicans matter in your mind? What about Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists and, of course, free thinkers that are independent of party affiliation?