Taking sides

First things first: I want to thank President Tilghman and Matt Margolin. Tilghman's office confirmed Tuesday that she will hold a USG-organized open meeting with students, along the lines I suggested in my last column, some time soon — the exact logistics are still being ironed out.

This week, I want to suggest a new way of thinking about the administration's role in political debate. Rather than claiming that it is or should be neutral, we need to admit that the administration can't help but take sides in controversies. It's time to focus on deciding which side we think it should take.

Nassau Hall doesn't restrict discussion in any of the outrageous ways that tend to pique the interest of civil libertarians. We've escaped the speech codes and oppressive air of political correctness that have plagued other campuses. When the Wilson School organizes a forum on free speech, students are sanguine enough about the issue that only a handful show up. (Believe me: It was tried last Wednesday.)

Nonetheless, not all viewpoints are equal at Princeton. Take homosexuality: Gay rights activists have one stance on this issue, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has another. The University hasn't officially taken a position, but it isn't really neutral between the two sides, either. There is an office of LGBT student services in West College, dedicated, its web site says, to "creating an open and affirming environment void of homophobia, heterosexism and gender bias." If you ask the Catholic bishops about it, they'll argue that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, and ought not be "affirmed." This puts them at odds with the University. We should all recognize that by sponsoring this office, the University endorses a controversial political and moral agenda.

Princeton's admissions policies, too, reflect value choices. The stated interest in "diversity" means we want a representative racial mix, and lots of different sports abilities, but it doesn't seem to include the full range of religious views. An October Zogby poll found that 61 percent of Americans think religion should influence public policy. What percent of Princeton undergrads do you think would agree? I'd bet a lot less than 61.

Am I arguing against the LGBT office, or in favor of affirmative action for religious students? No. But we all ought to be honest: When the University sets policy, it inevitably imposes its values on us. A decision to support students of different sexual preferences does represent a controversial value judgment. But so too would a decision against providing support. There's nowhere neutral for the University to stand, because even the decision not to act would involve taking a side.

Liberals sometimes talk about "neutrality," but it's no secret that most of the University's substantive commitments today — racial diversity, openness to a wide range of "lifestyle choices," gender-neutralized hymnals in the chapel and so on — are decidedly left-of-center. Conservatives can respond to this in two ways. First, they can argue that the University should return to favoring conservative values in much the same way as it now favors liberal ones. Bring back masculine references to God, they might suggest, or move to a race-blind admissions policy.

Second, they can argue against the University taking any view at all. This is becoming a trend, with a new and regrettable movement afoot on the right in favor of "intellectual diversity" in professorial hiring, curricula and even choice of guest speakers. An "Academic Bill of Rights," favored by unpredictable arch-conservative David Horowitz, would require public colleges to declare that "no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors" and that "this protection includes students."

This idea — that a university can stand above political debates and limit itself to evenhandedly promoting a "diversity" of views — makes just as little sense coming from the right as it does from the left. Opening the campus to a wide range of views can and should be the norm, but it's impossible even in principle for any university to maintain strict neutrality among them. Every university's policies will reflect controversial values. No one really wins by pretending that the University is, or could possibly be, strictly neutral. Instead, we need to have an open and honest debate about exactly which values the University should choose to promote. David Robinson is a philosophy major from Potomac, Md. His column appears on alternate Thursdays. He can be reached at dgr@princeton.edu.