To shy away from controversial issues, however, would be a mistake. I had an English teacher in high school who was fond of telling his students "life is too short to write boring essays." The same maxim ought to apply whenever we engage in discourse. Students should air unpopular ideas on important matters even when doing so clashes with their peers' opinions. And their colleagues ought to reward them with admiration for their bold willingness to challenge convention, rather than reflexively responding with derision.
From personal experience, I can say that the vast majority of students and professors here are very tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Take the inspiring example of Robert George and Cornel West GS '80, who adhere to different political philosophies but have a collegial relationship and even co-teach classes. Similar unions of left and right occur among students every day. Most people are willing to accept that disagreements are inevitable among individuals of varied backgrounds and can appreciate an argument so long as it is well reasoned.
Unfortunately, there will always be a few who abrogate these basic standards of civility. This tendency is aggravated when one perspective is more prevalent than the other. Whenever a question comes up in a lecture, a precept or even in an informal setting such as a dining hall conversation, one position usually quickly becomes the consensus. Anyone who wishes to offer an alternative is held back by fear of being ostracized by the majority, thus leading to an atmosphere of groupthink that is anathema to the flourishing intellectual climate Princeton strives to maintain.
The criticism I've received regarding my column illustrates this duality. Every time I've had individual, face-to-face talks about my ideas, the interaction has been extremely polite and focused more on understanding my beliefs and finding common ground than on holding a self-righteous shouting match. I've gotten the chance to hear valid information that I had not originally been aware of. For instance, in Monday's edition of The Daily Princetonian, classics professor Joshua Katz noted that, according to new data, the average salary for classics majors is $67,143, which is far higher than I had originally assumed. By identifying himself and writing in a critical but friendly tone, Katz demonstrated a willingness to carry on a serious conversation instead of lobbing anonymous insults.
The flip side of these positive encounters is the comments that have been posted online. Many of them were angry and poorly written and ignored the substance of my article. I was not bothered by the attacks themselves, but rather by the disturbing inclination that they indicate in American society at large. The rise of partisan media sources - especially blogs, cable news and talk radio - has served to exacerbate our differences and turn equally well-intended and patriotic citizens against one another, as Barry Caro '09 pointed out in his column last Tuesday. Lies, rumors and slander become much easier to disseminate because there is no protesting voice. We've watched in the past year as smears against political candidates managed to gain a level of legitimacy that would have been unthinkable if there were more interparty dialogue.
On campus, there is also a declining interest in hearing opposing points of view. Magazines such as The Tory and Princeton Progressive Nation openly flaunt their ideological affiliations, thus turning off potential readers. Noteworthy speakers find themselves preaching to the choir, as numerous authors, including Alan Bloom and Susan Jacoby, have described. Very few students will attend a lecture with an open mind if they already oppose the speaker, whether it is a conservative like John Bolton or a liberal such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The result is group polarization, whereby adherents of different schools of thought become intolerant of any view that contradicts their own, leading to the erosion of what historian Arthur Schlesinger once dubbed "the Vital Center." In light of these circumstances, it is no wonder that the students who condemned my column conveyed their sentiments in such a harsh and uncompromising fashion.
Can any policy serve to reverse this trend? Probably not. The burden should fall on each and every one of us to seek out sources that question our most basic assumptions and treat those who disagree with fairness. Dissent should not be discouraged but embraced, or Princeton will become a monolithic place devoid of the intellectual diversity that makes it great.
Sam Norton is a freshman from Falmouth, Me. He can be reached at snorton@princeton.edu.
Read More
A guide to the upcoming divestment and dissociation inquiry related to Israel
John T. Groves"Whether short or long, I can promise you that we will run a process that allows all perspectives and views to be carefully considered by our committee."
"Whether short or long, I can promise you that we will run a process that allows all perspectives and views to be carefully considered by our committee."
Calls for VP Calhoun's resignation mislead on free expression
Bill Hewitt“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
