It seemed true enough: After all, our Princeton population is known to be both diverse and smart. So about three weeks after I moved in, I put on my frog pajamas at 2:04 a.m. (who ever heard of a good conversation taking place at decent hour?), perched myself awkwardly on the desk in my common room (the chair created too formal a setting), carefully arranged myself in an academically stimulating pose (one leg crossed over the other, forward lean, chin resting causally on hand) and adopted a thoughtful expression (glasses instead of contact lenses, eyes widened in avid intellectual curiosity). Having set the stage so efficiently for this quintessential Princetonian conversation, I then peered solemnly at my roommate and waited expectantly for her to say something fascinating.
I will forever be grateful to her for not running away, but there is a more important lesson here than “How not to terrify your roommate: Lesson 1.” There is, to some degree, an absence of intellectual conversation on this campus.
There are different reasons for the void, also discussed on this page in columns by history professor Anthony Grafton and Timothy Nunan ’08: the Orange Bubble syndrome; sleep deprivation; trying too hard — as I did — to orchestrate these conversations when the very source of their honest character is in the fact that they are unexpected and, thus, that their participants are unguarded. All are true, to a certain extent. But as I see it, our biggest barrier to having these conversations is an unnecessarily compelling desire to be politically correct. We place a great deal of emphasis on being open to other cultural experiences, religious practices, ideals, opinions and principles. This is, of course, a good thing — but in moderation.
Let me explain what I mean by an intellectual conversation. It is not simply the transfer of interesting or unusual pieces of information between two or more people. It is the exchanging of ideas; then, the exchanging of opinions on those ideas; then, suggestions for how those ideas could be edited and improved upon; and finally, either a resultant conclusion, or a respectful decision to disagree that comes after having considered the other’s side thoroughly.
I recently participated in an event called “Speed Faithing” organized by the Religious Life Council, designed to provide a five-minute introduction to different faiths. Zoroastrian funeral rites are one of the more contentious aspects of my faith. Our bodies are disposed of in what we call “Towers of Silence” to either be eaten by carrion or to decay naturally. A friend later approached me and asked, quite succinctly, “I mean, aren’t you scared? Don’t you find it a little — weird?” It doesn’t matter that this could have been interpreted as offensive. If he hadn’t asked, I would not have been able to explain that it comes from a desire to perform “a last act of charity” and to avoid polluting the elements. He would have continued to regard me as mildly eccentric at best (and, dare I say it, barbaric at worst). There would have been no intellectual exchange.
If we are too politically correct in our interactions with each other, we will not push each other hard enough, and we will not ask the right questions, for fear of offending. Listening to a Muslim friend tell you that she wears a burqa at home is not an intellectual conversation, even if the narration itself is interesting. Asking her what she thinks of France’s ban on the garment; asking her whether she wears it because of a personal preference or because of pressure from her family; asking her what her take is on the sexist connotation that some attach to the wearing of it — these would be.
I do not mean to propose a free-for-all environment where anything can be said, however insulting, blasphemous or incorrect. But we don’t need to be so afraid of challenging someone, either. A student in one of my classes once remarked that we always “apologize” for our opinions in precepts. If we disagree with someone, we preface our argument for doing so with, “I’m sorry, but I actually think that —” Why the apology? It is our right to disagree with someone else’s opinion. We should not forget that fact in deference to niceties.
The truth is that we let each other off the hook far too easily. We cut each other too much slack: We do not demand satisfactory defenses from the people that we disagree with, and we do not challenge them, for fear of offending them. We do not take risks. Such an environment is not conducive to the healthy and vibrant intellectual life that Princeton has the potential for.
We need to understand that meaningful intellectual experiences — the kind that we would want to talk about on a Princeton brochure — will not simply happen to us. We have to actively go after them and pursue them with a vengeance.
Camille Framroze is a sophomore from Bombay, India. She can be reached at framroze@princeton.edu.
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.