By now, everyone has either read or knows about the most recent piece published by The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board, and most everyone probably has an opinion on it. Therefore, I do not wish to persuade anyone one way or the other about the editorial specifically. Instead, my aim here is to comment on the responses to the editorial as they pertain to Princeton Pro-Life in my capacity as president of that organization. In addition, I hope to put forth a view of diversity and inclusion within the Women*s Center and elsewhere that might bridge the gaps between the seemingly opposing sides in the debate over the editorial.
Over the past couple days many have argued, whether on social media or in this publication, that in contrast to what the Editorial Board might suggest, the Women*s Center is in fact inclusive because it has helped host events with a wide array of campus groups. The paradigmatic example that has been used in such responses is Princeton Pro-Life’s “Pro-Woman, Pro-Life Open House,” which was held at the Women*s Center last Friday. As part of the organization in question, I, too, am thankful that the Women*s Center opened its doors for us to host an event about a controversial topic like abortion that people might otherwise hesitate to discuss. As Aparna Raghu ’18 rightly suggests: “If the Women*s Center cannot hold programs and host student groups that take stances on contentious issues, these important discussions will remain undiscussed.”
Additionally, in a separate response, Sarah Sakha ’18 points out that politicizing the issues that the Women*s Center seeks to address is harmful and only gets in the way of a more robust understanding of the issues themselves. She explains that the “harmful politicization of basic questions of human dignity and identity” doesn’t get us anywhere and actually undermines the project of the Women*s Center. Her argument appears to suggest that the Women*s Center’s hosting of the pro-life open house was praiseworthy because it addressed a contentious issue without the politicization that the issue often receives.
I could not agree more. And I am thrilled that the campus generally seems to agree with me and these writers that open discussion and hosting events like the pro-life open house —and not politicizing these events — is only beneficial to the Women*s Center and campus in general.
Unfortunately, what hasn’t been mentioned is that Friday’s pro-life open house was only the first pro-life event that has been hosted at the Women*s Center (at least while I have attended Princeton) while events with different viewpoints on that topic have been held much more frequently, as the Editorial Board points out. Further, Princeton Pro-Life pitched the idea of the open house to the Women*s Center precisely because we sensed a need for a different perspective to be presented there. Since we can all agree that hosting the pro-life event was commendable, it is a bit disappointing that similar events do not happen much more often.
So, where do we go from here? Since hosting the pro-life open house was a positive and praiseworthy example of diversity and inclusion within the Women*s Center, and since there is harm in politicizing issues dealing with “dignity and identity,” it seems that the logical step moving forward is to host more events like the pro-life open house. As we all know, there exists a wide array of women’s issues that are often harmfully politicized or stigmatized, only a handful of which fall under the umbrella of Princeton Pro-Life. So far, the Women*s Center has been making great efforts to address such topics. It is my belief — and consistent with the student’s responses mentioned above — that the Women*s Center should continue to host events on such topics that present diverse (and potentially opposing) viewpoints in a depoliticized way — just as they did with the pro-life open house.
Perhaps it is this sense of diversity that the Editorial Board seeks to support. If so, it seems like we can all get behind it.
Elly Brown is a junior and president of Princeton Pro-Life. She can be reached at eabrown@princeton.edu.Read More
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
We need to keep breaking the glass ceiling of the ivory tower
Maria Luisa Vieira Parada“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
Reactions: Guests respond to Eisgruber and Calhoun’s statements on protesting
Zeke DouglasRosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt BrowneGuests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
Guests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
