With two Yalies and a Princetonian duking it out for the White House this year, the nature of an Ivy-League education could arguably be considered a matter of national importance and security with significant geopolitical implications. I am not joking (and hopefully I do not sound like a total prick either).
If our colleges (Ivy or not) educate students in a fashion which hinders genuine debate, critical thought, and/or creativity,; the students, and thus the presidents, they produce will be lacking. Furthermore, colleges which shelter and isolate students from the greater community and societal issues outside their gates are committing a grave disservice to the nation.
On Monday, the 'Prince' ran an ad by the (non-Princeton-related) Independent Women's Forum, raising questions about the nature of college educations. The IWF's believes position is that our "liberal" professors are "skewing" us regularly. Between the ambiguity and inconsistency of the supposed troubling stats, it's hard to see what they really take issue with.
For instance, the IWF reports that "more than one third of students describe their professors as either somewhat or extremely liberal." This seems pretty consistent with trends in greater society. Perhaps the IWF doesn't like that students are aware of their professors' opinions? This must be incorrect though as the IWF later suggests, "professors should welcome debate, not stifle it."
Perhaps the IWF wants professors to encourage debate without actually speaking themselves? This might be true since the IWF draws no distinction between "expressing" and "pushing" views. It also takes issue with the facts that only 24 percent of students believe their professors "have the same viewpoints on issues as they do," and that the ratio of Democrat to Republican registered faculty at elite schools is 10 to one.
Evidently the IWF prefers to have students only taught by professors that share their viewpoints, are registered with the same political party, do not express their views, and yet still manage to welcome debate. If students were only taught by professors who share their opinions, classes would have to be segregated along partisan and ideological lines as well.
Clearly this is the antithesis of what our country needs.
The IWF does bring up a valid consideration though: Does the nature of professors' personal viewpoints limit debate, confine optimal learning, or possibly even disadvantage students who disagree? Regardless of whether the viewpoints are liberal or conservative (or possibly something else that does not fit neatly into this dichotomy), they should not obstruct the educational process. The IWF and similar groups too quickly assume that they inherently do.
Professors at elite schools being 10 times more likely to be Democrats is not a priori problematic. Concerns should arise when professors (or students alike) use their views to indoctrinate, stifle or destructively undermine others.
American college students have recently come "out of the closet" to publicly confirm their identities as conservatives and demand tolerance for their viewpoints. One would think that conservative students at Princeton have no more reason to be "in the closet" than homosexuals in San Francisco, but the Tory et al. seem to suggest otherwise.
Do campus conservatives really want "liberal" professors to never express personal opinions? Part of the problem in the United States is that political engagement has been deemed taboo. Adults and students alike too often hide their political viewpoints and personal beliefs — to the detriment of society.
The college experience should be one of questioning, debate, disagreement, discomfort, triumph and openness. Students should learn to defend their positions and test their faith. We should actively acknowledge the difference between "expressing" and "pushing" viewpoints.
Princeton has a responsibility, as does every college, to the nation and her people. We must bring speakers to campus who challenge our faith, oppose our beliefs and frankly, piss us off. We should hunt out those we disagree and always be willing to reevaluate our own positions.
If the current White House and increasingly ugly presidential campaigns have taught us anything, it should be the inherent danger and futility of closed-room meetings, one-sided debate and political and intellectual isolation that lead to extremism. They should also highlight the void that quickly arises absent critical thinking and constructive debate.
Princeton should step forward once again as the nation's leader, and mold students who make not only great presidents, but citizens as well.
Robin Williams is a Wilson School major from Greensboro, N.C.
You can reach him at awilliam@princeton.edu.
Read More
The CPUC must not gut its Judicial Committee
Bill HewittEnding the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Ending the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
What is a Princeton degree really for?
Joel IbabaoSo what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
So what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.