RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceThe Coalition for Intellectual Liberty (CIL), a recently formed partnership of the Anscombe Society, the College Republicans, the Princeton Tory and individual students, is petitioning for a referendum on the upcoming USG election ballot that, if passed, would formally ask ...(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.
If passed, this referendum would in effect tell the University that the student body doesn't want it to take a stance on issues like affirmative action in admissions or pay equity for the women it employs. AS such, it will hamper the ability of this University to protect its rights and interests.
Vote this down.
As I explicitly told the writer of the article in an interview (and I don't fault him for not adding this, what with word count restrictions), this referendum pertains to national political and moral issues about which students and faculty can legitimately disagree. It will NOT affect issues of internal University policy, such as those listed above. The University may institute whatever controversial (or non-controversial) policies it would like internally, and it is the job of student activists to support or fight those policies. This presents, in fact, an opportunity for the vigorous debate we support and strive for. Matters of partisan national politics and morality external to the University, however, should not receive the explicit imprimatur of the administration or trustees so as not to alienate conscientious and intelligent students and faculty who disagree and stifle vibrant intellectual debate. In sum, the referendum will not, and is not designed in any way to affect internal policies, but is oriented toward preventing the "capture" of the University as a whole to further a national political or moral agenda of any stripe, thereby pitting the University against conscientious elements of a politically and religiously diverse student body and faculty. We like to think, and we trust the student body will agree, that asking the University administration and trustees, in their official capacities as representatives of the University, to remain nonpartisan is about as non-controversial as a referendum can be.
The question is not whether this prevents the university from making internal policy on controversial issues (e.g., affirmative action in admissions), but whether it prevents the university from taking external stances on public policy that might affect it (e.g., filing amicus briefs in federal cases on affirmative action in higher education). As discussed in the article, the referendum is unclear.
In response to McGinley's comment, I just don't see how you can separate "internal" from "external" issues so clearly. I take it that part of the argument in favor of the University filing a brief in support of gay marriage is that Princeton has gay students who are adversely affected by what is arguably an infringement of their civil rights. That makes it an "internal" issue. It's not like school is spouting off about Obama's cabinet appointments, you know?
The University generally has no business issuing formal statements on questions that are morally or politically contentious. Questions of civil rights or human rights must be exempt from this policy. The University had every right to speak out against apartheid, in favor of co-education and segregation, and against genocide.
Strongly held moral and political beliefs may have fueled the arguments on both sides, but fundamentally these were all questions of human and/or civil rights. In such cases the University must make it clear that it does not support discriminatory policies, practices, or beliefs.
Allow me to clarify first by posting the full language of the referendum, then by stating three points that I feel are clear in the text:
"The role of Princeton University, as the epitome of a vibrant intellectual community, is to provide a proper forum in which its members can engage each other on issues where people of goodwill can reasonably disagree. It would undermine the integrity of the community’s intellectual freedom for the University itself to officially take sides on profound questions about which its members reasonably disagree, causing those members who dissent from the “official” positions adopted by the University to be labeled as “outsiders” rather than full members of the community. Therefore, we urge University officials and trustees to refrain from creating a false impression of consensus, or imposing on those holding minority positions, by associating the University with particular points of view on disputed questions of morality, law, and policy."
First, the referendum, like others on the ballot, does not actually proscribe anything, but merely urges a course of action on behalf of the students. Second, the referendum will not in any way hamper the University's ability to speak out on issues about which people of goodwill CANNOT reasonably disagree, such as apartheid and genocide. Thus, I agree that, by the language of the referendum, issues of civil and human rights on which there is clear consensus in the community are, and should be exempt. One commenter hits the nail on the head when he or she says, in reference to same-sex marriage, that it is "ARGUABLY an infringement of their civil rights." This is exactly the type of legitimate debate that should not be stifled by an official University position on the matter, about which reasonable members of this intellectual community disagree. Third, this referendum does not, nor could any referendum reasonably, recommend against the University defending its own policies (e.g. affirmative action) in a court of law.
Brandon - could people of goodwill have reasonably disagreed about segregation in the 1950's? And if so, would it have been wrong of the university to make a statement against segregation?
This question is the natural progression of the discussion taking place here. First, it seems not entirely relevant, as the issue of segregation is settled and no issue quite like it grips the country at this moment, nor seems poised to in the near future. But I should still answer the question so that it might answer the concerns some might have. It seems to me that, broadly speaking, there were three points of view on the segregation question. 1) Segregation (Jim Crow) is moral and not only acceptable, but desirable. 2) Segregation is immoral, but it is not the place of the Supreme Court or the federal government to intervene in local issues. 3) Segregation is immoral, and the federal government must act to end it. Position 1 could only be sustained through racism or the veneer of pseudoscience. It has never been a position held by people of goodwill. Groups 2 and 3, however, have a political disagreement about the nature of federalism, and can certainly hold those positions in goodwill. Therefore, it would seem to me that, in taking a position on the immorality of Jim Crow, the University would be risking no alienation of legitimate points of view, but only of racists. The political question of how to deal with the problem, however, is a political question that should be left to individual activists. I hope this clears up any concerns. This referendum was not designed to be, nor should be construed to be, radical in any conceivable way. It is a moderate reaffirmation of our nonpartisan University.
First off, universities have long played a laudable role in the creation and promotion of progressive causes, and it should stay that way. Universities are dense concentrations of ideas at the forfront of human thought and are therefore the natural vanguard of movements, some of which might be moral or political in nature.
I disagree with Maya Angelou that Princeton should limit it's assertions to the realm of civil rights. Sure, public universities shouldn't meddle in political and moral affairs because they have the burden of speaking on behalf of the populace they derive from. But Princeton is a private institution and can and should represent itself as it sees fit. If a concensus of university employees develops a certain view, why not voice it? Because a small minority might disagree? Because nobody cares what Princeton has to say? Please.
The campus right is bitter with the reality that most modern campuses tend to overwhelmingly tilt toward progressive, secular ideals, so they are trying to stifle these viewpoints through the charade of 'promoting equal dialogue'. If thoughtful, modern, educated people tended to think that gay marriage was harmful, then perhaps Princeton might come down on the right's side. But they don't and that's not likely to change, so just get over it.
Brandon, what makes you think that you can decide which disagreements are "reasonable"? Those of us who believe that same sex marriage is a civil right required by the Constitution do not believe that you are "reasonably" disagreeing. In fact, we see you as a bigot (perhaps unaware of your own bigotry). But, I guarantee you, when you are old and gray you will be embarrassed to tell people that you were opposed to same sex marriage the same way those who supported Jim Crow would be embarrassed to admit that now. I'd be willing to bet my life's earnings on it.