Defending the Faithful

CPST takes on University policy on tolerance

by Alexander Fulks

If even one person is made to feel uncomfortable or if even one person is forced to attend a meeting that offends their sensibilities, then university advocacy is wrong.

In practice the University has been advocating the positions of some interest groups in ways that distinctly disrespect and discriminate against the beliefs of others.

Any serious discussion of Princeton University's advocacy of certain political agendas must begin with a fundamental respect for the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of those involved in the discussion. Respect for the legitimate beliefs of those who may not necessarily agree with you is the only foundation for an atmosphere of tolerance and open debate. Indeed, it also happens to be the basis for Princeton University policy, as stated in Rights, Rules and Responsibilities.

I begin this discussion, then, with an underlying respect for the rationally voiced views of all parties involved. The focus of this piece is to clarify the argument presented by the Coalition of Princeton Students for Tolerance (CPST) that Princeton University is in violation of its own policy of tolerance as stated in Rights, Rules and should stop advocating the agendas of certain special interest groups.

A section in Rights. Rules entitled "Respect for Others" states that "Princeton University strives to be an intellectual and residential community in which all members can participate fully and equally, in an atmosphere free from all manifestations of bias and from all forms of harassment, exploitation, or intimidation." The University intends to create an open marketplace of ideas where people can rationally express their views free from harassment and intimidation. This is tolerance for all views, be they conservative or liberal, traditional or contemporary.

In practice, however, the University has been advocating the positions of some interest groups in ways that distinctly disrespect and discriminate against the beliefs of others, specifically those of religious students. Although anyone would grant that certain organizations, such as the LGBA and SECH, represent viewpoints with which some students and faculty on campus might disagree, these organizations have a definite right to exist in an atmosphere of tolerance. When the University actively advocates them over and above basic student group recognition and funding, however, it lends an official stamp of credence to their side of the issue. When one view is supported in an official capacity more so than its opposing view, we are no longer living in a community of tolerance where all views are respected equally by the University. This imbalance is now alienating individuals on campus who hold views other than the views advocated by the University, and it is this imbalance that the CPST wishes to remove. All we ask for is a level playing field.

One example of University advocacy is SECH, an organization that supports the use of contraception and provides information on abortion options. This is a perfectly legitimate view to hold, but I submit that a view supporting abstinence and pro-life issues is also legitimate. However, when the University mandates and allows SECH to have small meetings in the Resident Advisor the setting, the University is giving SECH holds. In a truly tolerant community, SECH should be given no more support than any other group, so that those who take exception to SECH's view that community. If even one person is made to feel uncomfortable or if one person is forced to attend a meeting that offends his sensibilities, then University advocacy is wrong.

Another event that raises questions of University advocacy is Gay Jeans Day. The original intent of the event is a good one, since it attempts to create an open atmosphere of dialogue about the issue of homosexuality. While this is a completely legitimate view to hold, I submit that a religious view that holds sodomy to be immoral is equally valid. University advocacy is wrong because it impairs the open debate of the issue, forcing students into a situation in which their actions overtly hostile toward homosexuals which in most cases is untrue. This imbalance forces students into compliance with a University-sponsored event through pressure from their peers their Resident Advisors, and the community. Consequently, students who do not participate are labeled homophobia, prejudiced, and bigoted, causing them to feel discriminated against and ostracized from the residential college and University communities because of their religious beliefs.

A further example of official University advocacy appears in a letter to the Daily Princetonian written by Dean of Student Life Janina Montero. In her letter, Dean Montero reprimands a student for voicing a legitimate religious belief and, in doing so, uses the name of her office to stifle any opposition to her opinion. This action seems hypocritical, considering that a Dean of Student Life should be supportive of open dialogue and religious expression.

Further evidence that the University has moved beyond tolerance to advocacy appears in another letter to the Prince this one written by LGBA Coordinator Handler. First, it seems to me that the actual position of LGBA Coordinator is itself an indication of official advocacy. (Why isn't there a Pro-Life coordinator?) In her letter Ms. Handler uses words such as "homophobia," "ignorant," and "hateful" to vilify the legitimate opinions of religious students on campus. These students have a right to express their beliefs, since they are commenting on the behavior of a group of people, not the characteristics or beliefs of any one person, and thus are not violating University policy. People often disagree with other people's behavior all the time, whether it is because of smoking, crudeness, or drinking. but it does not mean that there exists any less may be construed as respect for that person or his beliefs. Just as it is acceptable to comment on these previously mentioned behaviors, so too should it be acceptable to comment on a person's sexual behavior, be it promiscuity or sodomy. Thus, the University and the administration's advocacy of this issue discriminates against religious students and directly violates the stated University policy of tolerance.

The University has also stepped beyond tolerance to advocacy in its discrimination against students with expressed conservative beliefs in the Resident Advisor selection process. This discrimination is based on the assumption that conservative students would not make good RA's because they disagree with the socio-political message that the University advocates during Freshman Week and the peer education sessions. Some students were even told that they could not be RA's because of their association with various religious and political groups.

Several students who have felt discriminated against, including one who was told she could not be an RA because of her membership in Princeton Evangelical Fellowship, decided to present their case and their concerns to the University at the U-council meeting on February 12. The U-council, however, ignored the students and failed to pass a resolution. In dismissing these students' concerns, the U-Council delivered a message that the interests of conservative and religious students are not important. I could only imagine the uproar that would have occurred had a student complained of discrimination due to his sexual orientation or gender.

As a result of University indifference, these students formed the CPST, a group dedicated to stopping University advocacy that discriminates against students and to helping Princeton return to its policy of tolerance as stated in Rights, Rules. To this end, the CPST wants the University to stop its advocacy of subtly discriminatory views. The University can demonstrate its dedication to this goal at once by immediately launching a legitimate investigation into all the previously discussed complaints of discrimination.

The goal of the CPST is not to institute University advocacy of conservative beliefs. The CPST does not wish to promote any one political ideology, because University advocacy of any political belief is inherently discriminatory and, thus, wrong. Nor does the CPST wish to alter the wording of Rights, Rules. University policy, as written, is perfectly correct. We seek a reconciliation between a fair University policy with the unjust University practice of advocacy and favoritism. The CPST would like a return to University policy so that all legitimate beliefs and opinions can be voiced, without fear of being excluded or ostracized from the community. The University should return to a practice of tolerance for all ideas and beliefs. Instead of being an opponent of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion, the University should be the champion of it.