Not what, but how

Recent outcry over the 'Gank' search engine posting, which condemned "self-segregation" among a group of Asian students drawing into Spelman, highlights important campus issues. To many, the posting seemed, at the very least, unnecessarily inflammatory, and possibly even racist. To others, the remarks appear to be a legitimate, if tactless, addition to the ongoing dialogue regarding race relations at Princeton. Now, questions abound regarding an appropriate University reaction to the posting made by gank.princeton.edu's webmaster, a Butler College Minority Affairs Advisor.

The Prince believes the posting was inappropriate in any context, but was made particularly inexcusable by the webmaster's MAA status. Self-segregation among minority students on campus has been an issue of concern for some time; indeed, members of the University community at all levels have worked to understand and improve race relations in all aspects of student life. Various campus groups have sponsored forums and discussions on the issue, and the Prince believes that these are the best channels for change. Offending minority students — whose involvement is, obviously, most central to improved race relations — is patently counterproductive. Additionally, the webmaster's inclusion of the list of specific student names in the draw group makes the act appear all the more harmful.

Implementing the MAA program in residential colleges is one tangible change that has already been made as part of the overall effort to improve Princeton's minority student experience. When a student agrees to become an MAA, he takes on, as a duty, the improvement of race relations and agrees to lead discussion in the residential college regarding race. More than all else, he should be approachable to any student with minority affairs concerns. We have a very hard time imagining that any Asian student would feel comfortable addressing concerns with an MAA who has made public views such as these. — The Daily Princetonian Opinion Board

Dissent: Wrong, but not unforgivable

Niraj Bhatt made a mistake. In an effort to spark discussion of what he considers to be a frustrating and often-unspoken problem, he put a tactlessly worded, offensive message on his web site.

I don't agree with Bhatt's most basic claim — that Asian students at Princeton have a problematic tendency to self-segregate. Like my fellow editors, I also think he could have made his point in a manner much less hurtful to other students. Particularly as an MAA, someone who is supposed to set an example for how to talk about race, I think he could and should have done better.

So does he. In public and private conversations, postings and emails, he has profusely and repeatedly apologized over the last few days for the offense he provoked.

I believe Bhatt is genuinely contrite. The offensive nature of his posting was a product of thoughtlessness, not malice.

Some have suggested Bhatt should lose his MAA status, but I agree with Butler College's decision to let him keep his job. If we as a community were to make mistakes like his unforgivable, we would risk a "chilling effect" — a situation in which people are reluctant to say anything controversial or potentially provocative, for fear of the possible response. Bhatt's comments were needlessly insensitive, but they have stimulated a much-needed discussion on campus. Bhatt's contrition, coupled with his continued service as an MAA, strikes a good balance, encouraging sensitivity without deterring frank discussion. — David Robinson Opinion Editor