Editorial: Not time for a chastity center

have drawn comment from this board

Advocates of the center’s creation have argued that by providing condoms and counseling — and by supporting the LGBT and Women’s centers — the University has already entered the realm of sexual ethics. From this, it is argued that fairness requires Princeton to equally recognize and endorse the beliefs of those who abstain from sex. In this board’s opinion, however, the University has never entered the realm of sexual ethics, nor has it endorsed any sexual choices — and it should not do so now. In providing condoms and counseling, Princeton acts not to endorse any viewpoint but rather to respond to vital and inevitable health concerns. In this regard, claiming that the provision of such services endorses a sexual ethos is akin to claiming that the provision of antibiotics endorses getting sick. Moreover, and contrary to the assertions of the Anscombe Society, the LGBT and Women’s centers do not represent commitments to any one view of sexual ethics. Instead, what unites these centers is the need to reach out to students whose inherent, unchanging identities might otherwise isolate them from the campus community — regardless of their sexual ethos. The pressures facing abstinent students might be significant, but they are qualitatively different and less severe than the campus, national, international and historical discrimination that justifies Princeton’s existing campus centers. But by establishing a chastity center with the stated aim of advocating for an abstinent lifestyle, Princeton would, for the first time, provide explicit institutional endorsement to a particular sexual ethic. This is not the University’s place.

Of course, as we have noted in the past, it is crucial that all students are adequately supported during their time at the University. This board acknowledges and respects the Anscombe Society’s commitment to ensuring that students receive the support, counseling and information they need when making crucial life choices. Ultimately, however, we think that Princeton’s existing infrastructure can meet these concerns. Through rigorous examination of how the needs of chaste students are or are not being met, institutions and groups like the Women’s Center, the LGBT Center, SHARE and University Health Services can modify their services as necessary to effectively support those who choose abstinent lifestyles. The University should consider gathering real data — rather than the anecdotal evidence currently being offered — to measure the demand for such services. And given the potentially small number of chaste students who cannot find support through existing religious and cultural channels, an approach modeled around modification of existing services is a better strategy than the wholesale creation of a new University institution.

As we confront the crucial challenge of ensuring no Princeton student feels alone, we must look not to inflammatory and divisive gestures, but instead toward the substantive changes that will build a stronger University community. This board joins President Tilghman in her assessment that a Center for Abstinence and Chastity should not be part of our community at this time.

- Shivani Radhakrishnan recused herself from participating in this vote. Matthew Butler and Oliver Palmer abstained.