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

In defense of the Pre-read

A response to the open letter to the President on the 2017 Pre-read

Any current Princetonian has probably seen the open letter addressed to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, appealing for (political, though it never says so directly) diversity in the selection of books assigned as Pre-reads to incoming first-years. The author bemoans the “tediousness” and “aridity” of recent selections, and posits what she describes as unfamiliar views, to be beneficial not only to “the free debate of diverse perspectives,” but also to stimulating discussion during and beyond the orientation discussion of these texts. While I am often reluctant to wade into public political discussions as I am not American, nor am I usually inclined to action, I found the author’s argument interesting and impulsively began to pen a response. I found her claim that the Pre-read is a good opportunity to introduce diverse texts to be misplaced, and laced with the unfounded accusation that this tradition serves as a channel through which readers are fed biased information. And while I agree with many of the author’s premises, I disagree with her about replacing the “dry” Pre-reads with more exciting texts simply to stimulate conversation.

The Pre-read, as far as Princeton traditions go, is remarkably young, having made its entry only four years ago into the life of a 271-year-old institution to “[introduce] incoming freshmen to Princeton’s intellectual life.” Since 2013, works have been assigned from fields as diverse as philosophy (Kwame Anthony Appiah’s “The Honor Code”) and social psychology (Claude Steele’s “Whistling Vivaldi”). These texts have not been without their critics. A piece published in 2015 criticized how unreadably high-brow Susan Wolf’s “Meaning in Life and Why It Matters” was. Another from the same year lampooned “Whistling Vivaldi” for its repetitiveness. Thus, this letter follows a long line of complaints. Yet, no other piece has questioned the partisanship of the texts — until now.

ADVERTISEMENT

But a look at the selection lineup over the years will quickly refute that claim. I cannot speak to the political affiliations of the authors, but the texts selected have no political bent. Indeed, the texts only started becoming relevant to present-day politics in 2015, with the assignment of “Whistling Vivaldi," a monograph on stereotypes. The text afterwards was a reading of the Declaration of Independence in terms of equality and freedom. This year, the incoming first-years will be fortunate enough to enjoy Jan-Werner Müller’s “What is Populism?", which is rather pertinent. Although I agree with the letter’s author that it is important to introduce people to all sides of an argument, I think it is also important to be exposed to non-partisan texts that articulate fundamental concepts, not as given truths, but as foundations for developing nuanced opinions. Such a foundation cannot be contained in texts propounding opposing views, which the author suggests as an alternative, as it can be in texts on social commentary, much akin to Plato’s “Republic” or Rawls’ “Theory of Justice.”

I would be remiss not to point out that the concern in the open letter is rooted in the current criticism of liberal biases on college campuses. While I share that concern as a solid supporter of free speech, the Pre-read is not the arena for this tussle. Is it accurate to characterize the texts as implicitly partisan, as the letter does? I say no. Let’s look at the recent assignments. The body of evidence from the scientific community overwhelmingly supports stereotypes as heuristics, and their harmful effects are indisputable. To assign to an entire class a book that suggests the opposite is tantamount to assigning a book on climate change denial in a climate science class.

To label Steele’s work partisan is to claim that she was attempting a revisionist reading of the Declaration (to which, I would ask, what is wrong with reading a text as to foster inclusion?). Certainly, inclusion is beneficial. Besides, originalism is not just reserved for the right, as the news might have you believe.

As for the present Pre-read, Melenchon (and perhaps Sanders) and populist illiberal democracies are proof that populism spans both wings. If the texts have no partisan bent, then is there a need for balance with an “engaging, scholarly book that argues for a non-liberal position”?

Pre-reads are given with the expectation that first-years come in the fall prepared to discuss themes of the text with their peers under student leaders. The author of this letter argues that these accompanying small group discussions are unstimulating “not because students are “intellectually incurious ... but because many students find the texts tedious and arid.” Even ignoring the false dichotomy that students do not engage with texts either because the text is boring or because they are uninterested, this claim is still replete with much to discuss.

I assume that the author describes the discussions as boring without evidence because she expects it to be common knowledge. However, this lack of evidence means I cannot engage with this claim beyond drawing from my personal experience. I led a Community Action trip last fall, and I learned from leading one of these discussions that the texts are meant to guide conversation and serve as a fulcrum, not as the entire body. I learned that conversations are richer when we encourage students to draw from their personal experiences and perspectives as well. The conversations depend on so much more than the book, and the people leading the conversation matter. My co-leader was phenomenal, and our conversation lasted hours. We may be outliers, but our group was certainly not assembled based on our ability to discuss the Pre-read. It is therefore not unbelievable to suggest that the experience was not unique, or that it can be recreated.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now to the texts themselves, which the author describes as “tedious and arid.” One would wonder, then, what text would qualify as non-tedious and non-arid. Fortunately, the author does not leave us in suspense: “By assigning a reading that challenges students to consider views strikingly unlike their own, Princeton could induct students into a culture in which they are expected to engage openly and rigorously with the best arguments for views they reject.”

So, a not-tedious and not-arid text is one that contains views strikingly unlike one’s own. If Princeton is full of people who believe that stereotypes are heuristics that people draw on to make decisions and that they have to be aware of them, then it must be a great place for minorities! If Princeton’s student body consists of people who do not just pay lip service to equality and freedom, but actually believe they are fundamental to this country’s success, then the admissions committee is doing superb work! What a magnificent cohort they have drawn from all corners of the world! Alas, we know the truth, that truth must be constantly drummed, lest the tune be forgotten.

I appreciate the concern of the author, and the conservative in me even sympathizes with it, to some extent. However, I question whether taking on the Pre-read is the way to go, when it does not present any partisan views, implicitly or explicitly. Furthermore, if a text is “boring,” the core issue should be how to better present the concepts, rather than replace them with more contestable ones. I personally look forward to reading Müller’s text, agreeing and disagreeing where I have to, and discussing it in any core groups I find myself. And if in the future, a partisan text is assigned as a Pre-read, I can assure the author that they will be seeing a letter penned by yours faithfully.

Blaykyi Kenyah is a sophomore from Sekondi, Ghana. He can be reached at bkenyah@princeton.edu.

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