In the aftermath of the Urban Congo fiasco and the Big Sean controversy, many of my fellow students have expressed disdain of a perceived boom of liberal sensitivity and outspokenness. It is true that our campus has become more divided, and somewhat chaotic. Since we've recently acquired the tenacity to cite names in public forums, I too feel less inhibited to be forthright in addressing a deplorable statement made by Julius Dixon '16on Facebook. Given the public status’ incredible response —receiving over 400 likes before it was removed by its author —it would not be too presumptuous of me to assume the reader is aware of it. For those who are not familiar, and for a reminder, the 264-word post commanded “Butthurt Princeton students” to stop over-policing perceived political incorrectness, and instructed members of our community to either stop being offended or stop voicing their offense.
The reason why I speak out now is not solely to berate Mr. Dixon, but primarily to address the student body at large, particularly those 400 likely well-intentioned, though empathetically-challenged peers who were so moved as to support his status with a like or an occasional “AMEN” comment. There were several issues within his statement, making it all the more worrying that so many students seem to endorse it.
First, it is a complete logical fallacy for the author to call for an end to voicing complaints, when he exercised the right to express his own discomfort through the posting of his tirade. How would we have imagined that the constant discomfort of others could be so incredibly trying for Mr. Dixon, and how could we possibly be considerate towards him in that regard, by learning to “deal with our own lives,” had he not publicly aired his opinion?
Secondly, and more importantly, the statements were entirely dismissive, redirecting the duty of mindfulness back onto those who reveal problematic actions in the first place. I understand that most students here propose to be moderate, removed from the Big Sean and Urban Congo debate, and as recent offenses have grown more salient and the battle between offenders and accusers grown more vitriolic, the “moderate” students sought a less confrontational voice to align with their indifference. Unfortunately, Dixon and the 400 supporters likely misinterpreted his message as more reasonable or relaxing than it came off. While under the guise of clearing the air, his comments did nothing more than exacerbate an already apathetic campus culture, stifle societal progress and undermine the very spirit of democracy in our community.
College is a place to become educated both academically and socially; this includes learning how peoples’ lives are different than our own, and how language and actions can be, unbeknownst to us, tools of oppression. We learn that there is no default disposition; what offends Dixon may not offend me, but that does not delegitimize his concern. Dixon and the 400 needn’t “walk around on eggshells trying not to say the wrong thing.” Sometimes you have to speak out to learn what is right and wrong. But when people demonstrate their disapproval or seek to educate you on their perspective, don’t be so defensive as to silence them. Is protecting your self-image more important than someone else’s feeling accepted in their identity? What compels you to censor yourself is your sense of morality, to which all humans must oblige. You don’t always have to agree with critiques, but at least have the decency to appreciate their forthrightness and perhaps try to understand how your actions can be perceived as problematic or harmful.
So the first level of a healthy community dialogue is the ability to voice oneself, a right that should be particularly protected for social critics. But does that then condone Urban Congo’s free speech or the spiteful comments against people like JoannaAnyanwu '15? As I see it, the second level of this system is compassion. To claim superiority implicitly or explicitly, engage in hate speech or marginalize a subset of people based on characteristics they cannot control, for nothing more than comfort and entertainment, is the antithesis of compassion.
Finally, for those who deal in reason, the third level is simply correctness: not political correctness, but correctness of fact. Are we not educated? Do we not value being informed? If someone perpetuates an idea that is inherently incorrect, or stems from a baseless ideological framework, should we not allow a voice of correction?
Within this framework, you can say or do whatever you want, but expect swift redress when your comments are both morally wrong (in relation to another person), and objectively wrong (in relation to a simple Google search or your standard encyclopedia). Oftentimes, due to our own limited knowledge and experience, we must humbly entrust others to highlight these wrongs.
To make a black student feel that he is not valued as a human being, or a woman feel objectified, is morally wrong. To excuse Congo as a style of drumming, or claim that Big Sean’s lyrics are not disparaging to women is literally wrong. We should be compassionate enough to respects our peers’ complaints on the first premise, and if not that, then educated enough to regard them on the second. The formula is simple: eschew misconceptions, particularly the offensive variety. Be wary of what is offensive, especially if it is also untrue. In my opinion, conjunction of these two types of wrongs, morally and factually, transforms “free speech” into something holistically offensive, and to attempt to silence those who cry foul would be a gross misunderstanding of who has misspoken.
So Julius Dixon, I thank you for removing your status, at the bequest of fellow students, and I entrust that you and those 400+ Princetonians in fact do not condone the trading of truth for comfort, or empathy for entertainment. As both gentlemen and scholars, or gentlewomen and scholars, we are better than this.
Kovey Coles is aWoodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs major fromFork Union, Va. He can be reached atkcoles@princeton.edu.
Read More
On encampments, free speech, and ‘time, place, and manner’ rules on university campuses
Christopher L. EisgruberPresident Christopher Eisgruber ’83 comments on encampments, free speech, and “time, place, and manner” rules.
President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 comments on encampments, free speech, and “time, place, and manner” rules.
Princeton needs to be a climate justice leader — emphasis on the ‘climate,’ emphasis on the ‘justice’
Alex Norbrook and Eleanor Clemans-Cope“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
