Double standards on a divided campus

In his Feb. 13 column, Jacob Denz ’10 took advantage of tragic events in the recent history of the University and the Anscombe Society, twisting them to score political points. I would like to respond to some of Denz’s more extravagant claims and present a case — based on reasoned argument rather than thinly veiled personal accusations — for the larger goals of the Anscombe Society.

At this point, complaints about the accuracy of my Dec. 14, 2007 op-ed “Open Season” are moot. Published the first day after winter break, my follow-up piece, “Timeline of a Tragedy,” presented a formal apology and acknowledged, as Denz admits, that “almost every word of [‘Open Season’] turned out to be untrue.” I further acknowledged that the story about the Whitman incident came from Nava, certainly implying that its truthfulness was questionable. I will not dispute Denz’s account of the incident at Whitman.

But this does not undermine my broader point: that Princeton harbors a double standard on important issues of morality and sexuality.

This University is home to extraordinarily diverse opinions, beliefs and lifestyles. The University’s noble goal is to show equal respect for all the varied individuals and groups who step inside FitzRandolph Gate. To that end, the University established the LGBT Center, the Fields Center, the International Center and the Women’s Center — each important arms of the administration under the umbrella of the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students. These centers provide personal services to students who identify with various campus communities with histories of marginalization.

What happens, however, when morally traditional students want educational and social support? What happens when students feel that their academic status is threatened by professors and fellow students who are unfriendly to their beliefs? And what about students with same-sex attractions whose beliefs lead them to a life of chastity? If the LGBT Center’s programming, with panels like “The Religious Right’s Obsession with Gay Sex” and “The Joys and Toys of Gay Sex,” is any indication, it would not provide the personal support necessary for such difficult circumstances. Perhaps friends, a few professors or some student groups could be helpful. But just as the previous centers were established because the collection of campus services emanating from chaplaincies and residential colleges was not considered sufficient for the particular needs of some students on campus, so too should we regard the current disjointed support structure for morally traditional students as insufficient.

And so I write today not to condemn the LGBT Center and its counterparts but to recommend that a new campus center be established to provide for the needs of those students who have traditional but equally sincere (and countercultural) beliefs and lifestyles. For in founding these centers, the University has conferred legitimacy — and rightly so — on the issues and concerns that each represents. This, however, has only intensified the political marginalization felt by morally traditional students, who find it difficult to live out their commitments and properly defend them when faced with this unnecessary hurdle of legitimacy that the administration has removed from other interest groups.

Denz’s article is a symptom of this problem. His article, like that of Jason Sheltzer ’08, which prompted the letters from the Anscombe Society in December, attempts to take advantage of this imbalance of legitimacy. Rather than engaging morally traditional arguments, Denz hides behind catchwords such as “heterosexism” and “intolerance,” hoping to dispatch his opponents with insults rather than reasons.

Later in his article, he ominously but vaguely mentions the “extraordinary lengths to which some individuals and groups have recently gone to further insult and stigmatize members of our community.” Given the context, it is fair to assume that this is meant to implicate the Anscombe Society and morally traditional students, thus perpetuating a fallacy that a more even playing field for discourse could correct.

Denz conflates legitimate views about the morality of certain acts with intolerance of or fundamental disrespect for people. The two are crucially different, though blurring the distinction is certainly politically expedient (if intellectually dishonest). The philosophical arguments put forth are not against members of the LGBT community; indeed, morally traditional principles affirm that no one’s inherent dignity can be mitigated simply by inclinations or choices. Sophisticated intellectual arguments are available rather for the immorality of certain activities, and they deserve to be responded to in kind, rather than with epithets.

Here we see the final result of University recognition of only certain moral viewpoints: the disintegration of intellectual dialogue and its replacement with crude demagoguery. Denz, just like Sheltzer, never felt obligated to give a defense of his important and certainly legitimate moral and philosophical outlook because his particular set of beliefs has received the Princeton seal of approval.

The solution is not to remove this mark of legitimacy, but to apply it more evenly. And the means to that end is a University-sponsored center for guidance and support for morally traditional students, so that they might enjoy the same institutional support and recognition as others who have been on the margins of collegiate life.

Brandon McGinley is a sophomore from Pittsburgh, Pa. He can be reached at bmcginle@princeton.edu.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Author's Note

The title "divided campus" was not in my original title and describes a campus atmosphere that I do not think is accurate. As I wrote in the article, we are a wonderfully diverse student body, but I do not think we are fundamentally politically divided nor do I wish to foster such an atmosphere. The proposal put forth in the article is an initiative that is designed to be and would be a unifying force on this campus. Thanks for reading. -Brandon