High Tolerance

Defending University policy

by Julie Bush

The University understands that for certain communities it has needed to develop both symbolic and substantive forms of support.

Princeton University does attempt to inculcate values of respect and unbiased exchange in its students as part of their education

Within the first two weeks of school this year, first­year student Patrick Horn unleashed a campus­wide debate on Princeton University policy by writing a letter the Daily Princetonian, in which he outlined his concerns about an article published on the presence of homophobia on campus. Horn's letter asserts that "the gay 'lifestyle' cannot be elevated to the status of a natural or acceptable trait" and claims that "by characterizing those of us who are sickened by homosexual behavior as prudish or afraid, your report on homophobia discriminates against our opinions."

Janina Montero, She Dean of Student Life, responded to Horn's letter by quoting directly from Rights, Rules and Responsibilities, reminding the University community that "all human experience—regardless of individual value judgments—is worthy of study, reflection and discussion in a climate of respect" She invited "all members of the University community to join with [her] in a reaffirmation of our support of She lesbian, gay and bisexual community and au of our campus communities" (The Daily Princetonian Sep. 26, 1995 ). Some students and faculty have rejected Dean Montero's call for support of the LGB community, claiming chat her action intimidates those opposed to homosexuality and officially encourages them to suppress their beliefs. Thomas Pyle '76. a member of the University Council who has become involved in this controversy, writes in a February 12 statement of his concern in the University's "subtle and self­righteous advocacy that may have exceeded the acceptable bounds of tolerance and become, even if unintended, a bias against certain people of faith."

The debate, however, has not remained bound to the issue of Horn's letter and the right , to free speech on campus, but rather has escalated into a huge, vague controversy over whether or not the University is going against its own policy by advocating certain groups or ideologies and thereby discriminating against other, dissenting groups. Alex Fulks, the chairman of the newly created Coalition of Princeton Students for Tolerance (CPST), wrote in a letter to the Prince on March 4 that "by advocating the homosexual, feminist and multicultural ideologies, Princeton has turned away from University policy which requires tolerance for all beliefs and opinions." Where does University policy require tolerance for all beliefs and opinions? Nowhere in my copy of Rights, Rules. The word tolerance occurs only once in Rights, Rules "Making tolerance of such [discriminatory] behavior or submission to it a condition of employment, evaluation, compensation or advancement an especially serious offense," (p.4 Rights, Rules). In a letter addressed to President Shapiro, Michelle Amt. a graduate student points out that "tolerance is defined in terms of the word endure, which is defined as 'to bear a hardship.' A position of tolerance, then, by definition would mean that the university endures a plague of homosexuals . . . If one were to extend this interpretation to the groups cited in Rights, Rules, the University would also endure a plague of women, international students, minority students, disabled students and Jewish students Princeton would strictly be a place of academics, and no 'support' would be offered by the university on any level—psychological, financial, social, political, or religious." Although the CPST and Pyle are calling for the University to tolerate students expressing any opinion, Dean Montero expressly states in her later to incoming first­year students that "disrespect for other persons—particularly when based on gender, roe or other personal characteristics simply will not be tolerated. Dean Montero holds that Princeton University does

attempt to inculcate values of respect and unbiased exchange in its students as part of their education, explaining why students are "expected" to attend such events as the Orientation Week "Reflections on Diversity" Lecture. Students are in no way, however, expected to change their beliefs, but rather to be exposed to a variety of experiences and opinions to enrich their own education as well as the learning environment Princeton fosters.

In response to the controversy over tolerance vs. advocacy, Dean Montero writes "the documents [Rights, Rules and the "Statement on Diversity and Community"] present an ideal: that all students share an equal sense of ownership of the campus, of access to the broad educational environment and professional resources, and that the University be perceived by all as hospitable. In order to achieve this ideal, the University understands that for certain communities those that do not have a history of access to or recognition on this campus—it has needed to develop both symbolic and substantive forms of support . . although Princeton's approach is essentially one of support, the University recognizes that on some occasions advocacy may be appropriate." However, in a letter dated Mar. 12, Pyle asks "unless our admissions office isn't selecting the best and the brightest, why in this day and age does any Princeton student need the University 's official support or advocacy?" Since from the start this debate has centered on questions of semantics, I will throw a few words out for consideration in response to Pyle: Minorities. Prejudice. Discrimination. Harassment. Bias. Intolerance. All of these are reasons why certain groups may need support or advocacy in order to guarantee them their rights under University policy. In his February 12 statement, Pyle himself defines advocacy as "a recommendation and a defense—an intercession." That the University may intercede on the behalf of certain threatened, underprivileged or unique groups of students does not necessarily mean that in doing so it discriminates against students who do not agree with the behavior or defining characteristics of those groups. If the University were to abolish support of all groups with which certain conservative or religious groups might not agree, it would be adopting the conservative agenda and thereby unfairly favoring or advocating their views at the expense of and detriment to other groups. The University does not seek to undermine any of its students' beliefs but rather support and enable certain students to express their beliefs if they might not otherwise be able to do so. All students are entitled to university support of their freedom to express their personal beliefs if the expression of those beliefs does not conflict with university policy as stated in Rights, Rules. Similarly, every student group is entitled to receive university support in its existence and protection as long as the basis for its existence does not undermine any pan of the university's mission to create an open, non­threatening atmosphere (such as in cases of groups formed solely in the hatred or derision of other groups).

For any institution or society to simultaneously accept opposing viewpoints would be impossible. The most the University can do is to foster an environment in which as many voices as possible are heard. And if that means having to advocate or support certain groups that ordinarily would not be heard, then the University must do so to guarantee us the expansive, inclusive variety and diversity from which we presumably have come here to learn.

As outlined by Rights, Rules and Responsibilities, Princeton University does hold a specific set of values in its policy and its implementation of that policy. If these values of mutual respect, freedom of expression and vigorous debate in an atmosphere free from all forms of harassment, exploitation, or intimidation constitute a "liberal agenda," then Princeton University should be willing to admit to such publicly. As Professor Robert George of the Politics Department notes, "No university should pretend that its policies do not embody moral judgments about morally controversial activities.... The important thing is for the University to be honest about moral commitments it is making the basis of its policies." Princeton's current policy enables it to encompass, encourage and support students and groups of all backgrounds and beliefs (including conservative or religious ones) and thereby fulfill its educational mission.

This piece represents sophomore Julie Bush's second contribution to the Nassau Weekly.

[The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the Nassau.

Page 8, Nassau, April 4, 1996