Threats undermine discussion

Princeton has a student body oozing with diverse opinions. Everyday we attend classes in one of the most exciting intellectual forums that America has to offer. Many of us love the debate. Many love to stir up reactions and incite vibrant discussions. Many have chosen Princeton for the very diversity of the dialogue, one that boasts truly global viewpoints. And yet there are some who choose to bypass any form of intellectual debate, there are some who choose to overlook the option of an educated discussion, there are some who choose to skip the entire process and instead threaten. As you read I hope you have adopted a rather quizzical expression. I hope you are thinking that this cannot be. Who at Princeton would threaten another person's well being? Who at Princeton would choose to engage in a bout of derogatory and offensive language in response to another's opinion? Sadly I kid you not. What we are witnessing here, at a university that is revered as a center for civility and intellectual integrity, a place where everyday we are taught to use man's greatest tool to its capacity, is a complete abandonment of morality to resort to violent threats.

Last week Niraj Bhatt a senior MAA in Butler College found himself in a difficult situation after posting some controversial articles on the Princeton network. In the few hours after these links were posted on the web page gank.princeton.edu, Niraj's mailbox was filled with not only Princeton students voicing their opinion but messages that posed direct threats to his safety. I am not writing to try and judge whether what Niraj did was right or wrong, that's for someone else's column. The fact is he did it, and thus my point is not to be a judge or jury, it is merely to stand back in somewhat stupefied disbelief to the fact that Niraj actually feared for his safety as result of what he did, so much so that the McCosh Counseling center asked Niraj if he felt that he needed a public safety officer to accompany him around campus. While Niraj did decline this courtesy, it does, in light of the threatening emails, seem that there was cause for precaution. Where did this come from? Did we simply turn barbaric overnight or did I miss something? One letter Niraj received said that if he ever wanted to take the debate "outside," all he had to do was "name the time and place." In addition a website was set up that targeted Niraj with derogatory racial comments against his native India and threats with a baseball bat. At what point did we move from civility and constructive dialogue to name calling and threats? Did I somehow overlook the "Screw debating let's fight" class on SCORE when I registered?

We are at a school considered by many to be the height of academia, and yet instead of replying to opinions in an educated manner some resort to brutal threats. Although a constructive discussion did occur between the Asian American Student Association and Niraj, it was deemed necessary that members of the administration should be present to maintain some civility. We have the right to get mad and to disagree and above all to debate other people's opinions, that is one of the beauties of democracy; what we don't have, however, is the right to take that to another level and threaten individuals. This is simply unacceptable. Intimidation should never be a factor in determining whether voices are heard or silenced. The minute that these threats go unrecognized and unnoticed our campus politics slowly shift; freedom of expression becomes tempered by the fear of retribution. Then what, a campus of sycophants?

Chris Berger is a freshman from London.