George responds to Wilentz, clarifies 'Prince' conversations
In his letter in Tuesday's 'Prince,' Professor Sean Wilentz suggests that I lied ("told a false story") to The Wall Street Journal. Wilentz cites no evidence for his allegation, nor could he have adduced any. It is false.
The "story" I told the Journal and others about the 'Prince's decision not to print my column on the day of President Clinton's visit was based entirely on a conversation I had with the 'Prince' editor who was handling my piece. Expressly to make sure that I did not disseminate inaccurate information, I spelled out my understanding of the 'Prince's position in an e-mail message to the same editor that evening. I asked twice — once at the beginning and again at the end — to be corrected if anything did not square with what the editor meant to tell me.
No corrections ever came. The next day I did receive a message from the Editor-in-Chief informing me that he was responsible for the decision not to run my column, and asking me to write to him if I had any questions about his decision. I wrote back immediately to say that I was giving my piece to the Journal. I began my message by praising him for taking personal responsibility for the decision, but I also stated my opinion that he should not "have taken account of the conference planners' objections to running my piece (or any other piece) on the day of the [Clinton] visit." "Nor," I wrote, "do I think that Professor Wilentz's saying he would not permit his piece to be printed if mine ran on that day (or on the same day as his) should have made any difference."
Had I been told by anyone at the 'Prince' that the paper differed with anything in my understanding of what I had been told, I would have been happy to convey the information to the Journal. The 'Prince' takes the perfectly reasonable position that the Journal itself should have called the 'Prince.' However that may be, I have a complete documentary record to show that I did everything in my power to ensure that the 'Prince's account of the facts was accurately presented. My understanding from the 'Prince's recent editorial, and from private conversations with the editor, is that the 'Prince,' while critical of the Journal, is not accusing me of failing to do what I should have done to get their story right.
On the day my column appeared, it came to my attention that the online edition of The Wall Street Journal was running a "teaser" for it that was inaccurate and unfair to the 'Prince.' On my own initiative, I phoned and e-mailed the editors to demand immediate rectification. Again, I have the documentary record.
I am happy to make all the documents to which I refer available to any member of the Princeton University community who wishes to inspect them.
As for Wilentz, I never questioned his right to decline to have his column published if mine appeared alongside it or at all. My issue was not with him, but with the 'Prince.' My view was, and is, that inasmuch as the paper's publication agreement with me was not conditional upon Wilentz or anyone else agreeing to be published (on this point, too, I have a complete documentary record), my piece should have been published as agreed. I had been told that Wilentz was also intending to write a piece to coincide with the Clinton visit, and I did not in the slightest object to my piece appearing in the paper with his. On the contrary, I welcome the publication of different views. I was never told that it was supposed to be a formal ("point-counterpoint") debate. (Again, there is a documentary record.)
The 'Prince' believes it was necessary to exclude my piece from publication as planned because Wilentz refused to let his column appear if mine was published. Though I am confident that the editors did not intend it, this effectively gave Wilentz a veto over whether criticism of the president would appear in the campus newspaper on the day of the conference he was running. This struck me as very bad journalistic practice, though as I told the editor, I am content to respectfully "agree to disagree" on the point.
Because I declined (politely) an invitation to attend his conference, Wilentz took the occasion of his letter to say that I "eschewed open scholarly debate on my own campus." Baloney. People at Princeton and elsewhere in public law and moral and political philosophy will be amused by Wilentz's sly insinuation that I am afraid or unwilling to engage in "open scholarly debate." In fact, while President Clinton was speaking, I was engaged in open scholarly debate as the commentator on Christopher Eisgruber's paper on constitutional law at a Program in Ethics and Public Affairs seminar in the University Center for Human Values. (On campus.)
As I have said publicly when we have crossed swords before, I like Sean Wilentz and respect him as a scholar. We have many differences. I am delighted to engage in open scholarly debate with him on any subject within our mutual competence.
Why did I politely decline Professor Wilentz's invitation to attend the President's speech and stay for the other conference sessions? I had intended to keep my reasons within my breast. The question whether Clinton should have been invited to campus, particularly on the terms of honor on which he was invited, is one on which reasonable people can disagree. I do not condemn Wilentz and others involved in the decision, nor had I intended to subject them to any public criticism. I do so now, and only briefly at that, solely because Wilentz's letter explicitly questions my motives for not attending his conference.
The central aim of a university is the pursuit of knowledge. In consequence, respect for the truth is the queen of the virtues on campus. It is what honesty with money is to the banking business. Those of us who have dedicated our lives to teaching and scholarship must scrupulously practice honesty with words and teach this virtue to our students by both precept and example. Intellectual honesty and truth-telling should be supremely honored among us, and we should offer no honor of the University to anyone — irrespective of office — who persistently practices mendacity. Small failings and occasional lapses, of course, can and should be forgiven. We are all human. Perfection is a standard that few could meet. But it is not right, in my opinion, to welcome into our company, and cheer and honor as a keynote speaker, someone whose offenses against truth are persistent and egregious. Robert George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Editor's Note: Professor Robert George points out that a conversation with The Daily Princetonian last week led him to believe that organizers of President Clinton's visit had prevailed upon our editorial board not to run his column last Thursday. He then correctly states that he e-mailed us to confirm his understanding of events, and that we failed to e-mail him back. It was an oversight not to reply to George's e-mail, and for that we apologize.
However, George never told us he was planning to pass along to The Wall Street Journal for publication the information he was asking us to confirm. Though he did inform us that he was planning to submit his column to The Wall Street Journal, none of his e-mails stated that he was submitting his column along with his understanding of what had happened. If he had, we would have e-mailed both him and The Wall Street Journal to correct their erroneous impression that our decision not to run the column was dictated by the conference organizers.
None of this changes the fact that The Wall Street Journal should have spoken to us before publishing the introduction to George's article — and we continue to believe that the Journal's irresponsible behavior unnecessarily inflamed the entire episode.
We continue to stand by our decision to run neither the column by Professor Sean Wilentz nor the column by George. The Daily Princetonian has never allowed outside influence to affect our editorial decisions. Our conduct during this episode has adhered strictly to that standard, and we pledge to our readers that it will continue to guide all our actions in the future.
Read More
Sitting in at Princeton: proud past, shameful present
Keith Wailoo“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
The ‘fun’ model just isn’t sustainable: a plea against hookup culture
Julianna Lee“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
Faculty letter to U. admin calling for VP Calhoun’s resignation
Guest Contributors“We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community.”
"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
