The April issue of the Princeton Tory, entitled "Killing Feminism: OWL sabotages the women's movement" is on your doorstep and I sincerely hope you have perused the issue. Yet I fear that some Princetonians have judged the issue merely based on its cover. I've already had a few people ask me the same two questions: "what exactly is the Tory trying to do? And why is it so aggressive?" These are both legitimate questions — and their answers lie in the stated mission of the magazine.
In 1984, the founders of the Tory wrote a Statement of Principles which sums up our mission well: "Our objective is to legitimate conservatism as a philosophy and as an approach for those reformers who seek to ameliorate our social and political problems. We present our views as a challenge to those who would build their new world by destroying many of those very qualities which we value in our civilization." We believe that oftentimes students and professors find it attractive to solve today's problems by abandoning all things associated with the past. At the Tory, we take a different approach. History mustn't haunt us, but instead it can provide us with answers to many of today's social ills. This doesn't mean we seek a return to the feudal system or that we support slavery — it simply means that we hope to resuscitate many of history's fading ethics, like traditional family values and strong religious faith.
We also want to change the way Princetonians approach certain topics. For example, I've received a great deal of criticism for my comments on diversity in this issue. While my words were meant to be provocative, they have been grossly misunderstood. When the University talks about diversity, it talks about skin color; when I talk about diversity, I talk about differing opinions, ideologies and belief systems. Therefore, when I make a criticism of "diversity," it is not out of a dislike for racial minorities, but instead is a criticism of the rampant moral relativism that dominates modern academia.
Princetonians need to stop making race the deciding factor. Race can be a legitimate part of what makes up a diverse campus — but it also doesn't define anyone. Alan Keyes is a black man, but if Princeton hired him as a professor, his skin color alone would add nothing to the "diversity" of this campus. His intelligent conservative viewpoints, on the other hand, would be a blast of fresh air.
Similarly, another one of the Tory editors wrote a strong critique of OWL and the neo-feminist movement. Many people have been quick to cry foul based on the aggressive nature of the cover photo. However, if people would take the time to actually read the piece they would find that it is extremely well argued and provides constructive criticism. At the Tory, we are trying to make people see topics from a different perspective. In doing so, we face criticism from people who refuse to even fairly examine the conservative viewpoint. By falsely characterizing our position, some people try to paint us as intolerant. But these are the people who truly stifle campus "diversity."
As to the question of the Tory's aggressive nature, the answer is simple: readership. The Tory has had a reputation for being a boring publication. I firmly believe it has always been well produced, but an unwillingness to be bold has led to a sharp decline in readership. It is our hope that through controversial cover stories and bold headlines, Princetonians will actually read the articles and come to understand, and maybe even be swayed by, the conservative position.
Please don't just read the title of the magazine and huck it in the trash. By doing so, you are probably just refusing to entertain ideas that are different than yours. Princetonians claim to cherish open-mindedness and diversity, but when it comes to the conservative viewpoint, students and professors often turn a cold shoulder. Ultimately, our goal is to facilitate a two-sided campus debate and we hope you will join us. Pete Hegseth is a politics major from Forest Lake, Minn. He is the publisher of the Princeton Tory. He can be reached at phegseth@princeton.edu.
Read More
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
Why student protests shouldn’t use ‘intifada’ as a rallying cry
Sydney Eck“As we actively criticize Princeton, media focus on the happenings of elite college campuses amplifies our voices. As our words are carried further from McCosh courtyard, the risk that our words are truncated, distorted, and used for hate grows.”
“As we actively criticize Princeton, media focus on the happenings of elite college campuses amplifies our voices. As our words are carried further from McCosh courtyard, the risk that our words are truncated, distorted, and used for hate grows.”
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
