Letters to the Editor

No 'gratuitous diversity' at this University

After reading the Publisher's note on the inside of the front cover of this month's Tory, I was upset to find that there are certain people on this campus who believe Princeton concentrates too much on diversity while ignoring more important Western values.

Pete Hegseth '03, the writer of this piece, acknowledges that "Diversity is a note-worthy discussion topic, yet highly overvalued at this University." After reading this sentence I went back to check to make sure Pete Hegseth actually attended Princeton, a school which in my mind is lacking in its development of a diverse environment. Hegseth goes on to write, "This University represents my only experience with gratuitous glorification of diversity but it is a problem that plagues most of Academia today."

First of all, I think that it is rather sad that Princeton, a school that only accepted women in 1969 and continued to have all-male eating clubs until 10 years ago, is Pete Hegseth's only experience with gratuitous diversity. Secondly, I don't see how Princeton is plagued by a problem of gratuitous glorification of diversity. Hegseth goes on to argue that western values such as "consent of the governed, rule of law, human rights, capitalism, equal opportunity, religious faith and respect for innocent life" deserve "far more undergraduate study than they receive." I am not trying to say that such topics do not deserve intense study here at Princeton, but merely that one can see from a brief glance at the Course Catalog or the Princeton Weekly Bulletin that such topics are far from neglected at our University. In addition, why does Hegseth assume that these values are exclusively western? I cannot imagine what courses Hegseth has taken as an undergraduate here for three years that would make him feel that Princeton ignores these issues. I encourage Princeton to continue discussing and promoting diversity and I challenge Pete Hegseth, if he so desires, to embark on his noble crusade "As publisher of the Tory" to "defend the pillars of Western civilization against the distractions of diversity." Caroline Bone '03

Homophobia on the 'Street' panel constructive for students

Pete Hegseth's article about the Homophobia on the Street panel in the February-March issue of Tory appalled me. Unlike most of the readers of the piece, I was actually in attendance for the panel's entirety. And unlike me, Hegseth was not. His rant wouldn't have had quite the same gusto had he mentioned that he got up and left less than an hour into a discussion that carried on for two hours plus.

He criticized the panelists for "whining about how bad their Princeton University lives are" rather than "making the meeting a productive session where problems were announced and solutions discussed." That whole productive part happened after he left. New ICC President Dan Hantman '03 introduced himself and his position to the group, made it clear that discrimination issues at the Street would be a priority during his tenure, and asked specifically for suggestions that could advance the issue in the form of concrete legislation. I would have thought it would be hard to critique that discussion when you're not in the room, but Hegseth seemed to think otherwise.

Or what about when a straight student attending his first LGBT event stood up and constructively explained to the group that everyone in attendance agreed that acts of homophobia are a bad thing and that if members really wanted to effect change on campus, the LGBT must go out of its way to reach out to those who are less aware of the problem? Just think, what if each person in attendance had brought one person who had never been to such an event?

Sounds like a constructive solution. Sounds like something with which Hegseth just might agree. But he didn't even stick around long enough to hear it. His most constructive problem-solving efforts that align with his view that "any harassment of a homosexual based solely on his/her sexual choice is unjust" result in his embarrassingly ignorant rant.

In his "Notes from the Publisher" on page two, Hegseth embraces the virtues of the "timeless exchange of ideas." He even participated in a debate about American foreign policy with a good friend of mine earlier in the year and exalted afterwards about how great Princeton is because we can exchange these ideas. Next time, Hegseth should sit in his chair until the meeting ends before he chooses to exchange his ideas. Jason Extein '03