Old argument, old ploy

This month Princeton gained a new student group. In a landscape that includes not one but two Indian dance troupes, the nation's oldest political society and a juggling club, you wouldn't think such a development would attract much notice.

But Students for Academic Freedom isn't an ordinary group. The "nonpartisan" organization was founded by controversial conservative David Horowitz and was brought to Princeton by the former editor-in-chief of "The Tory." The group seeks to stop the one-sided discussion they allege is being had on college campuses and to expose incidents of ideological abuse, such as partisan reading lists and politicized grading practices. The national organization has taken heat for creating a web-based blacklist, where students from colleges all across the country can post the names of left-leaning professors.

The new president of the Princeton chapter was careful to distance himself from Horowitz in a 'Prince' article on Monday, calling him "a bit radical." Still, the national organization has recognized and endorsed Princeton's chapter of SAF, and Princeton students should not let the use of words like diversity and freedom keep them from scrutinizing an organization with suspect motives and hidden goals.

If the idea of the people who bring you the fact-free, biased-for-the-fun-of-it "Tory" promoting intellectual diversity seems counterintuitive, you're right to be concerned. The real goal of Students for Academic Freedom is to expose academia as the liberal bastion conservatives have always believed it to be.

Their argument is hackneyed at best: University professors overwhelmingly vote for Democratic candidates and give money to liberal causes, therefore they must be indoctrinating America's students with left-wing ideas and excluding all points of view not their own. The jump in logic seems obvious. University professors are intelligent people who have devoted their lives to academic inquiry. The notion that their own liberalism stops them from being fair and balanced professors is both insulting and absurd.

Even the founder of the Princeton chapter of SAF concedes that Princeton's faculty is "more likely to be open minded and willing to entertain ideas of all kinds."

One wonders, then, what pattern of abuses against conservative students triggered the formation of this group? I am a liberal with conservative friends (like our professors, I have managed to be both ideological and open-minded), and I have never heard one of them complain of mistreatment or lack of representation. I have also never taken a class in which my professor did not demand that we address counterarguments, read a range of literature, and understand all sides of an issue.

Using words like freedom and fairness as a cloak, the Princeton chapter of Students for Academic Freedom is looking not to create ideological balance but to promote conservatism on a campus whose political leanings are generally moderate. Princeton students should see this trick for what it really is. When the founder of SAF talks about examining University practices towards hiring and admission, we cannot forget "Tory" comments on returning Princeton to the good old days when only white men were admitted and hired. When students organize to "gather information" on the teaching practices of liberal professors, we cannot forget the national black list compiled by SAF and the resulting stifling of the free thought the group claims to encourage. We must be wary of balance promoted from only one side of the political spectrum.

At Princeton, students and professors alike have a variety of views. We do not just peacefully coexist. We argue, debate and refine our ideas.

Students for Academic Freedom claims to be about promoting this kind of discussion. Let us hope that they remain true to their stated mission, promoting rather than discouraging the expression of views both liberal and conservative. Precedent tells us to expect otherwise, both from the national and the Princeton founders. Fortunately, our professors, both liberal and conservative, have taught us to be inquisitive and skeptical and to ask difficult questions.

The education we have received at Princeton will ensure that we not only continue to examine both sides of ideological debates, but that we will know when even the newest and most innocent-sounding groups fail to give us the whole story. Katherine Reilly is a Wilson School major from Short Hills, N.J. Her column runs on alternate Fridays. She can be reached at kcreilly@princeton.edu.