Do you know what's going on behind closed doors?
On March 30, the university hosted the “Second Annual Peer Education Conference,” a one-day program for prospective peer educators held in Robertson Hall. Although the conference's stated aim is to train students to become effective counselors, several events at the conference raise new questions about the administration’s advocacy of a political agenda.
In particular, the conference included a session entitled “Overcoming Resistance to Peer Education,” in which administrators identified specific student organizations as “resistance groups” and taught peer educators about ways to “overcome” their opposition. The targeted groups included a large number of campus religious and conservative organizations.
“The session set out to attack many different groups of students, including males, athletes, fraternities/sororities, the Campus Crusade for Christ, the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship, the Coalition of Princeton Students for Tolerance (CPST), people who abstain from sex, and myself in particular,” said Alex Fulks ’98, who is chairman of the CPST and who attended the conference.
Fulks said that administrators instructed peer educators to ridicule and illegitimize the views of students who disagreed with them.
“They were telling peer educators that anyone who disagreed with them was obviously wrong and that they should be discredited,” Fulks said. “They taught peer educators to mock these organizations and try to make them look irrational. The session degenerated into a lot of name calling, which was encouraged by the administration. They even referred to students in the CPST as fascists.”
In a May 6 memo to Assistant Dean of Student Life Marianne Waterbury, however, SHARE Counselor Katharine Imhof-Struve denied Fulks' charge, writing that it was “inaccurate” that student groups were “attacked.” She explained that the conference taught students “to deal effectively with resistance to peer education programming,” and noted that some participants even “gave examples of positive experiences they had with with (sic) some of the elicited ‘resistant’ groups.”
Still, other events lend credibility to the claim that the session attacked certain student organizations. On March 10, conference organizer and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual (LGB) Coordinator Jen Handler distributed an e-mail openly attacking the CPST and conservative alumnus Robert Pyle ’76. She descibed her reaction to a CPST petition asking university President Harold Shapiro to form a committee to investigate university advocacy: “I am very concerned by the tone, rhetoric, and vigilance of these developments and its (sic) similarity to the tactics and discourse deployed by the right wing across the nation.” She added that the “CPST’s agenda goes well beyond deep intolerance -- yes, intolerance! -- of the queer community on campus.” She concluded by calling for the LGB community to respond “forcefully and unequivocally” to the “actions of Pyle and the CPST.”
Fulks, one of the founding members of the CPST, decided to attend the conference to try to "learn more about the peer education process." At the time, he said, the CPST was working to organize a new peer education group to “address the issue of tolerance of religious and traditional beliefs.” The CPST had announced the formation of this group – a “conservative” alternative to preexisting peer education – in a Daily Princetonian article published on March 12.
On the basis of these efforts, Fulks assumed that the CPST would be encouraged to attend the conference. “I had heard that the conference was free and open for anyone who was interested in becoming a peer educator – which I was,” Fulks said.
Fulks called conference organizer and SHARE program director Janet Waronker for permission to attend the conference, which he said she gave him: “If you are interested in seeing a little bit of what is going on . . . come there to Woodrow Wilson.”
In a conversation the day before the conference, however, Waronker and Health Education director Karen Gorden instructed Fulks not to attend the conference. In fact, they seemed to be unusually concerned about the possibility of his attendance. An internal memo that the Sentinel has obtained states that on the day before the conference Gordon “called [Assistant Dean of Student Life] Kathleen Diegan and discussed strategies for how to deal with Mr. Fulks at the conference.” In the same memo, Waronker writes that she warned “most of the presenters, coordinators, and student presenters about ways to handle potential problems” she anticipated would be caused by “an uninvited student.”
The conference organizers – SHARE Program Director Janet Waronker and Health Education Director Karen Gordon – refused to comment specifically about this incident.
It is unclear why the organizers were so concerned about Fulks’ presence. He insists that his attendance at the conference was not only appropriate, but mandatory if he wished to become a peer educator. A notice published in the Gaily Princetonian, the newsletter of the LGBA, stated that conference attendance was required for “those interested in becoming peer educators next year.” A widely distributed e-mail from Handler likewise stated that prospective peer educators “are expected to attend.”
It is also true, however, that the conference was not open to the general university community. Administration sources claim that this is due to the sensitive nature of the proceedings, which involve interaction between prospective peer educators on an emotional level. According to an administrator, attendance at a series of previous meetings was required to gain admission to the conference. Fulks did not attend these meetings. When Fulks arrived at the conference, he was again told that he was not invited. Gordon “told him directly that the conference as (sic) only for the above mentioned groups” and that “it was not appropriate for him to attend the conference,” according to the same memo. Throughout the conference, Gordon, Waronker, and Imhof-Struve approached Fulks more than a half a dozen times to ask him to leave.
“Karen Gordon came to me and told me that I was not invited,” Fulks said. “I told her that I was just going to watch and that I didn’t have a problem with being excluded from her discussions if she was worried that I might influence what she was trying to teach."
He believes that he was excluded from the conference because the administration was biased towards the CPST. He states that he behaved unobtrusively and cites a memo from Waronker which makes two references to how he “sat quietly.” While sources at the conference allege that Fulks tried to tape record the sessions -- an action which may have made students uncomfortable -- Fulks insists that he turned off the tape recorder as soon as he was asked to, a statement which is corroborated by other sources who attended the session. Fulks believes that the only difference between himself and the other students was ideological; the CPST peer education group possessed a conservative viewpoint and intended to advocate traditional moral values. He argues that the administration required tacit allegiance to their political agenda as a prerequisite for participation.
Fulks also contends that the organizers used inappropriate tactics to isolate him from other students and make him feel uncomfortable at the conference. Administrators apparently approached conference presenters and asked them to “either ask the participants what groups they represented or reinforce that the conference is only for the designated groups.” In at least one instance, Fulks said, administrators attempted to dissuade peer educators from even speaking to him or answering his questions.
“An alumna who was attending the conference – Stephanie Ching ’94 – approached me at one of the sessions and we began talking about peer education,” Fulks said. “At one point, I mentioned to her that the coordinators of the program didn’t want me to be here and that they had told me to leave. She was amazed, and told me that they shouldn’t be saying that to me and that I was allowed to be here. She said ‘You should bring this up with Karen Gorden. If you have a problem and people are telling you that you shouldn’t be here, you should go to Karen and say ‘people are harassing me.” To which I replied, ‘Karen is the one doing it!’
“After the conference broke for lunch, I ran into that alumna again and I tried to initiate a conversation. This time she formally responded: “I cannot take part in any political discussion here at Princeton.” It was a complete mood change. Whereas before she had been friendly to me, now she was almost angry. It was obvious that someone had talked to her. I received the same reaction from other students who had been friendly to me beforehand.”
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
A few weeks after the conference, Fulks received a letter from Forbes Director of Studies John Hodgson to inform him that he was being charged by the Residential College Disciplinary Board with two “breaches of university guidelines.” The letter asked him to provide a written account of his version of the events on March 30.
Fulks met with Hodgson a few days later and learned that he had been accused of “unauthorized access to a university activity” and “misrepresenting himself to a university official.” He was also informed about the residential college disciplinary process.
According to Hodgson, Fulks’ guilt or innocence would be determined in a private meeting which Fulks could not attend. His only opportunity to defend himself would be through a written statement submitted to the group of administrators overseeing his case.
“I asked Hodgson if I could face my accusers or at least get a copy of the minutes,” Fulks said. “He said ‘We don’t keep a copy of the minutes or the agenda, Alex.’ I asked him how he could possibly get away with that, if this was a meeting where people were being brought up on charges of disciplinary action. He said something to the effect that ‘Alex, this is just a bunch of old men sitting around the table, drinking beer, and pissing around. We don’t really keep track of what happens.’ I was understandably amazed.”
Hodgson did not return any calls from the Sentinel.
On May 7, Fulks was found guilty of the charges and issued a Dean’s Warning. Though the warning does not affect his standing at the University, he feels that the effect of the punishment was to place him in a state of disciplinary limbo, hindering him from "investigating and criticizing the university."
Fulks also asserts that the Dean's Warning will have a sort of "chilling effect," discouraging other students who disagree with the University's "political agenda" from challenging the administration. He concedes, though, that the administration has been keeping the matter quiet so far. To "prevent establishing a negative precedent regarding free speech," Fulks filed an appeal with the university. After consultation with his "parents, a couple of outside attorneys, and a noted professor," however, he decided to drop the attempt, mainly because the university's policy allows for increased penalties in the case of an unsuccessful appeal. Fulks and his advisors believed that the same bias which had excluded him from the conference would also land him a stiffer punishment should he appeal. Furthermore, it would be difficult for Fulks to argue with the conference organizers insistence that they have the prerogative to prevent anyone they wish from attending the session.
The more important issue for most people, however, is the organizers' rationale for excluding Fulks from the conference. The statements of Handler and other conference organizers, along with the well-documented bias of many administrators towards conservative students, suggests that ideology played a major role in Fulks being barred from the conference. In the campus climate of today, it is not implausible that a more politically correct student might have been admitted if he were in a similar situation.
It seems as if the conference organizers have something to hide. As we have seen, one session at the conference was highly controversial, offensive to some students, and probably inappropriate for a university-sponsored function. At the same time, the excessive preparations on the part of the conference organizers, in anticipation of Fulks' arrival, suggests that they had particular reason to worry about the presence of a conservative student. This behavior is also consistent with the unwillingness of several administrators to speak about this matter with the Sentinel.
Even if Fulks' exclusion was not based on ideology, however, the mere fact that anyone could be excluded raises troubling questions about the policies of the conference organizers. The university argues that the conferences must be private so that the peer educators can learn to empathize with other students. It somehow seems odd that the university would require the exclusion of students as a precondition for learning how to communicate with those same students. Furthemore, all students should have a basic right to know what the university is teaching the counselors who will be teaching them. As sophomore Brian Kei stated, "It bothers me that members of the university community can be excluded from a conference whose sole purpose is to train students to counsel and advise members of the university community."
(George Mastoris contributed to this article)