Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Continuing the push for inclusive debate

Advertisements for the lecture given by Ryan Anderson '04 about traditional marriage caused a lot of backlash on campus this month, particularly on the residential college listservs. Calls for open discourse were often met with disdain. On WilsonWire, for example, a student invited the listserv to “hear arguments for traditional marriage” and to attend a “lively” Q&A session with Anderson. The listserv responded by criticizing those who share Anderson’s views and even condemning the lecture's existence.

Princeton's Rights, Rules, Responsibilities claims that “the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” Moreover, Princeton’s ‘Many voices, one future’ initiative works “to make the University a place where everyone's perspectives are welcomed and valued.” Some of the listserv responders championed these values and the importance of open discourse. One student reminded his peers that “the mere promotion (or existence) of this event does not merit absolute dismissal and can in no way be said to threaten discourse by promoting exclusion.”

ADVERTISEMENT

But the overwhelming majority of student responses contradicted these University ideals, with these respondents fiercely criticizing and seeking to silence the minority views in support of Anderson. Beyond this specific incident, general campus culture at Princeton perpetuates a notion that conservative ideas are out of fashion. Popular rhetoric and discourse distinguishes an acceptable opinion from all other views.

I hesitate to contribute to conversations, academic and casual, when I feel my views differ from popular liberal opinions. My pause is not fueled by a fear of conflicting with friends or even inciting an argument. Instead, I resist sharing my perspective in fear of being classified as ethically and intellectually wrong – objectively immoral and ignorant. And I am not alone. In precept, I watched a peer awkwardly struggle with the topic of abortion. She tried to bring pro-life controversies to the discussion, but feared being associated with this perspective. Because she didn’t feel comfortable outlining this minority opinion (even though she did not hold the view personally), an entire way of thought was absent from our academic discussion.

The problem runs beyond precepts. The polarizing political climate in November 2016 highlighted the hypocrisy in campus rhetoric. While students lamented the prejudice and alienation fueled by our new president, many liberal students isolated and patronized their Trump-voting peers. 'Prince' contributor Haneul Ryoo ’20 warned in November 2016 to her fellow liberals, “[W]e are causing Trump supporters to feel unwelcome, just as Trump and his campaign have caused minority communities to feel unwelcome.”

But to the community’s credit, students quickly called for a change in rhetoric and perspective. In December 2016, contributor Ryan Born ’19 described liberals’ problematic “refusal to understand, and a willingness to blame” Trump voters, who have been caricatured as “ignorant racist sexist misanthropes who have a passionate hatred for progress and rights.” He called for a changed attitude of progress and cooperation, rather than blame and anger. Contributor Matthew Martinez ’19 also called upon his peers “to converse with conservatives” rather than “simply label all Trump supporters as racists and expect things to get better.”

These students’ calls to action show that there is a lot to be proud of in terms of Princeton’s inclusivity and diversity of thought. We responded to confusing times with a teach-in at the Day of Action, rather than polarizing protests. A disappointing administrative decision regarding private prison investments was met with peaceful discussion. Even some students on WilsonWire who joined the conversation about Anderson's talk championed free expression and respectful discourse.

Our campus is generally supportive of open dialogue between opposing views – especially in formal settings. But in more casual discussion – precepts, dinners, banter between friends – our campus culture discourages peers from voicing conservative opinions. We still have room to improve to personify the University’s core values.

ADVERTISEMENT

The pressure to adopt liberal opinions or to hide opposing views is rooted in subtler peer influence. Not only do liberal perspectives the boisterous majority on campus, but conservative opinions are also regularly ridiculed. With Trump’s election, it has become more acceptable to tease and to dismiss the conservative agenda. Trump is an easy target for ridicule and a difficult character to defend.

But in constantly belittling conservative perspectives in general, students discourage their peers from sharing personal opinions for fear of ridicule. Not only does this culture make students feel inferior or isolated, but it also deprives our academic environment from important discussions and debates.

Columnist Hayley Siegel ’20 describes her experiences falling into the liberal expectations on campus in her article “Don’t Tear Up the Tory.” She describes the “caveman logic” of “Trump is bad and Obama is good” that is ubiquitous on campus, and she calls upon students to be more conscious of their own personal opinions and motivations. Siegel also observes the tendency of students to express contempt for conservative ideals, almost by default. She notes that positive and supportive responses to controversy show that we can make inclusion our default instead.

While our campus is outwardly inclusive and open to diversity of thought, student rhetoric ridicules and belittles minority perspectives in less formal settings. The listserv that criticized Anderson’s lecture should by no means be censored, just as the Anderson lecture should not be prohibited. This is not a recommendation that the administration regulate our discourse or work to create a “safe space” by actively protecting all minority perspectives from ridicule. This is not a call for preceptors to issue more disclaimers regarding controversial discussion etiquette. Our casual and academic rhetoric alike determine our campus’s potential for open and diverse discourse. As Princeton students, we have a choicewhat kind of intellectual community do we want to create?

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

Jessica Nyquist is a computer science major from Houston, Texas. She can be reached at jnyquist@princeton.edu.