Political Correctness at Princeton - A Liberal Autocracy?

by Patrick Horn '99

"I submit that any academic regime which castigates its pupils for expressing "wayward views" is just as intolerant as the attitudes it seeks to discourage."

The volumes written this year on the tolerance­versus­advocacy dispute have not changed the nature of my political views but they have definitely given me a fresh distaste for politics.

I entered the fray early on as an enthusiastic proponent of the conservative cause; it did seem unfair that our beloved ivory tower so consistently espoused one side of the ideological spectrum. The faculty's leftist leanings seemed to taint the curriculum. as in my American history class, where conservatives became radical McCarthies to a one and were credited with the great depression and the AIDS epidemic. From a financial viewpoint, the school's disproportionate funding of the LGBA­ including a paid advisor of LGB affairs appeared far from neutral. Would a student group that promoted traditional lifestyles have received a permanent advisor?

Some spokespersons for the school flatly denied that any priority was given to students or organizations which espoused a particular point of view. This, in fact, was the official position of the University, as explained by Dean of Student Life, Janina Montero. The administration claimed that these obvious instances of discrimination were simply attempts to make certain minority groups, in particular lesbian, gay and bisexual students, feel "more comfortable" in an environment which threatened to be intolerant at times.

Defenders of the status quo acknowledged the institution's preferential treatment, contending that the purpose of the university should not be to advocate nothing. They believed it was Princeton's duty to ensure an environment of equal academic and social opportunity for every student, whatever means this required. To me this platform carried far more weight than the hollow claim that the administration was not supporting certain groups.

But if it were the school's prerogative to pursue said equality of opportunity, how could it allow applicants for RA positions to be screened for fundamentalist beliefs? Or, as was recently the case, how could university programs such as SECH turn away aspiring peer educators because of their political views?

Some replied that Princeton had historically favored conservative views or emanated conservative mores, and that preferential treatment was necessary to restore a fair balance of power. Of this argument I must ask: does the situation described above, which I found as a newcomer to this school, appear equally balanced? To me it sounds like the disingenuous logic that two wrongs can make a right­ a hypocritical attempt by groups that have experienced historical injustices to effectively turn the tables on their opposition.

The mandate to "affirm" certain groups, or to create a "comfortable" environment for certain types of individuals requires that Princeton impose a specific set of values on its student body in much the same way as the "intolerant right" has been said to do. It further requires that the university decide which position is "right" and which is "wrong"; which views are "acceptable" and which are "unacceptable". I submit that any academic regime which castigates its pupils for expressing "wayward views" is just as intolerant as the attitudes it seeks to discourage.

Unfortunately, the debate which had promised to provide solutions to the problem of institutional unfairness has degenerated into trench warfare, characterized adversarial tactics and intellectual stalemate. The situation is sadly reminiscent of American politics, with people of diverse views polarized by lack of legitimate communication.

If we truly wish to furnish every Princetonian with the opportunity to succeed and prosper, we must rise above the ideological egotism which seeks to silence one's critics rather than profit from different perspectives.

And Princeton should abandon small minded attempts to program its students rather than encouraging new ideas.