A shortage of righteous indignation

For the sake of my school, my country, and my faith in humankind, I hope the entire Pride Alliance had the flu.

This source of debilitation is the only way I can explain the group's apparent impotence when, as the 'Prince' reported, its gay-themed Valentine's Day fliers were pulled last week. According to the 'Prince' ("Administration pulls 'Love' posters," Feb.18), the group's 1,000 posters were removed at the behest of a few students.

The only complainant named, John Andrews '05 — who the 'Prince' classified as "an outspoken conservative and former editor of the Princeton Tory" — invoked an obscure Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities excerpt that "encourag[es]" fliers to carry the name of their "sponsoring organization or individual member of the University community." He claimed he was offended not by the posters' content but by their lack of attribution, calling his complaint "an issue of procedural fairness."

The ulterior motives for Andrews' legalism are a no-brainer. But I'm not terribly shocked by the Tory lot's free-speech-for-me-but-none-for-thee-ness; I tend to have low expectations of any publication that bandies about the term "un-American."

No, Andrews' fussy vigilantism is too banal to set me a-frettin'. What outrages me about this episode is the Pride Alliance's response, or apparent lack thereof.

First, I'm not entirely convinced the group's posters actually violated the cited rule, which allows students to request removal of fliers posted "anonymous[ly . . . without sponsorship of a registered University organization." While the Pride Alliance had carelessly not credited themselves on their fliers, they touted the poster campaign on their website. Anonymity implies intentionality; given their gleeful online description of the campaign, their lack of self-attribution was likely due to sloppiness, not secrecy. In any case, Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Students Thomas Dunne said the posters could remain if the group modified them accordingly. According to the 'Prince,' the group chose instead to submit to the removal request.

Why no outrage? Why did they just comply?

As a marginalized social group, the LGBT community has some of the biggest grievances on campus, and the Pride Alliance purports to address those grievances. Its website says the Alliance's purpose is to "be active in campus politics in order to promote the cause of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning members of the University community." The Valentine's Day fliers were presumably meant to further these interests. This group, spotlighted as the victim of arbitrary rule enforcement and bullying, had the perfect opportunity to display its activist wares by fighting for its cause either within the system or outside of it. Instead, supporting "The Organization Kid's" allegations of a Princetonian reluctance to challenge authority, the Pride Alliance neither charged forward nor maintained its ground. Instead, it shrugged.

By conceding that its posters were really "anonymous" and "without sponsorship of a registered University organization," the group discredited its commitment to the campaign's intended message. Though the Pride Alliance told the 'Prince' it would wait for "another opportunity" before it takes action, the best "opportunity" to demonstrate the merits of one's cause, whether it be liberal or conservative, is when that cause is challenged. By not fighting back, by not even taking the minor step to sustain its original efforts within the system, the group is implying a lukewarm investment in its own agenda.

At least when the Tory is attacked, its leadership fights back. A search for "Tory" in the dailyprincetonian.com archives reveals an interesting phenomenon. About half of the editorial hits are complaints about the Tory — including, incidentally, frustrations with articles left unsigned. The other half are rebuttals from the Tory. Over the last decade, Tory representatives have enthusiastically fought fire with fire, consistently and passionately defending their writings and their beliefs.

The Princeton experience, which blesses undergrads with academic and political resources beyond their wildest dreams, is supposed to cultivate the future movers-and-shakers of the world. Perhaps the relatively un-oppressed lot of mostly white and male Tory staffers, which seems to have little motive for compulsive defensiveness, can teach its relatively oppressed LGBT counterparts a little something about righteous indignation. Catherine Rampell is a sophomore from Palm Beach, Fla. She can be reached at crampell@princeton.edu.