By Devon Naftzger & Josh Zuckerman
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Last month, a group of student protesters led by an
organization called the Black Justice League occupied Princeton University
president Christopher Eisgruber’s office for 32 hours and refused to leave
until he had signed a watered-down version of their demands. These demands
included instituting a “safe space” on campus, renaming the Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs and the Wilson residential college
because of President Wilson’s racist beliefs, mandating “cultural competency”
training for faculty, instituting a distribution requirement that would force
students to take a course on “marginalized peoples,” and providing de facto
racially segregated “affinity housing” (disguised as housing for students
interested in black culture).
There has been lots of controversy on campus about
whether the protesters can be credited with promoting dialogue or stifling it.
While the group stated publicly that it supports free speech, some members’
words and actions contradict this claim. Protesters purport to seek diversity,
but what they really want is conformity.
For example, some protesters publicly shame and
stigmatize those who question their demands and methods, thus promoting a
campus culture of intimidation. Many non-black students who opposed the protest
refrained from voicing their criticism out of fear of being labeled as racists
and subjected to ad hominem attacks. Some students resorted to an anonymous
forum called Yik-Yak to post statements like, “It’s alarming how few people
publicly oppose BJL [protesters] even though I’ve gotten the impression that
most people don’t support them,” to which another person replied, “If you
publicly speak out against BJL people fear being labeled as a racist.”
Many students have witnessed that detrimental labeling
firsthand. After attending the protest, I (Devon) was so shocked by what I saw
that I felt compelled to speak out against their demands and tactics. In an
op-ed in Princeton’s student newspaper, titled “We can do better,” I point out
the hypocrisy of anti-racism protesters’ making race-based judgments: “As a
fundamental principle of equality, the weight of a person’s opinions should not
be a function of their skin color but rather the quality of their arguments.”
This article alone caused a group of protesters to scream profanities at me
while accusing me of being racist and request that I not be allowed to attend
an open forum to voice my opinion. A Black Justice League leader reinforced
this fear when she responded to another student’s article by writing that
because of his “white privilege” his opinion was “moot” and “of miniscule
value.” By focusing on the race of an opponent or portraying him or her as racist,
protesters seek to shut down debate rather than engage them with legitimate
points of disagreement.
Minority students are also subjected to this racially
divisive and stigmatizing rhetoric. For instance, after posting a Facebook
status questioning protesters’ demands, a dissenting black sophomore was told
by a protest leader to suppress his opinion and instead “stand in solidarity”
and support “your people.” He was told that white people did not care about him
and that his black peers would pray for him — as if his free thought were a
mortal sin. It is appalling that anyone in our nation, let alone a college
student who cherishes academic debate, is treated like a traitor or “white
sympathizer” for simply expressing thoughts contrary to those of other students
of his race. Similarly, Hispanic and black students who oppose the protesters
have been called “tokens” of their white peers. The message is clear:
Conformity to the protesters’ worldview is required; there is no room for
diversity of thought.
In response to this toxic campus culture, we helped found
the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) to protect diversity of thought and
promote the right of all students to advance their academic and personal
convictions in a manner free from intimidation. We seek to counteract the
politically correct culture on college campuses that victimizes both liberal
and conservative students by pressuring them to hold certain beliefs depending
on their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, or other demographic traits.
A key element of the protesters’ strategy is to
“reeducate” minority students who do not think of themselves as victims. A
black POCC member was told at a public debate that her well-reasoned opposition
to the protesters’ tactics and demands was simply “a result of internalized
oppression.” This is an underhanded attempt to avoid meaningful engagement with
her ideas by attempting to create a victim complex within a student who does not
believe that she has been discriminated against or persecuted at Princeton on
account of her race.
Students on Princeton’s campus, and any campus for that
matter, should have the intellectual freedom to espouse whatever idea they
choose, especially if it is
controversial or uncharacteristic, for it is controversial ideas that tend to
generate the most robust and productive debate. As POCC wrote in our letter to
President Eisgruber, “there should be no space at a university in which any
member of the community, student or faculty, is ‘safe’ from having his or her
most cherished and even identity-forming values challenged.”
Yet protesters request insulation from controversial and
potentially offensive conversations by demanding affinity housing and a “safe
space” where they can seek shelter from the “danger” posed by ideas. This
insularity contradicts the core mission of the university. A Black Justice
League leader’s opinion piece argued:
If your freedom of thought means that I, a Black student, do not have
the luxury of feeling safe on a campus that I have worked my entire life to get
to, it should have no place in universities or any other beloved institution.
She appears to be arguing that allegedly offensive
thoughts somehow threaten the physical safety of minorities. Never mind that
she ignores the difference between feeling threatened and being threatened.
Never mind that she cannot cite a single instance of actual racial violence at
Princeton, or even a credible threat thereof. While we certainly respect the
author’s right to voice her opinion, her call to purge Princeton of “freedom of
thought” is antithetical to the mission of the university and anathematic to
its search for truth and wisdom.
It’s clear that a call for the subjugation of, or genuine
violence towards, minorities at Princeton or any other mainstream American
university would be met with forceful and near-unanimous condemnation. Those
who believe otherwise and claim that offensive or un-p.c. views at Princeton
actually jeopardize students’ safety are employing hyperbole in an attempt to
demonize dissent.
In shying away from sharing opinions on “touchy subjects”
such as this that may offend other students, we do a disservice to students who
came to Princeton to improve their intellects and be exposed to diverse
perspectives — which includes having their ideas scrutinized.
We also worked our entire lives to get into Princeton,
and we, unlike some of our peers, came here to think and to have our ideas
challenged, not to be coddled and protected from those who blaspheme against
the postmodern orthodoxies of the sort protesters are seeking to enforce at
Princeton and across the nation.
The Black Justice League has indeed done a service to
Princeton by raising the issue of President Wilson’s racism and inspiring a
passionate philosophical debate about veneration. As a precursor to student
debates on issues like this, however, the right to exercise freedom of thought
and expression must first be protected for all students. No group should
dictate what student traits (especially demographic ones) are prerequisites for
debate participation; instead, all opinions should be invited, considered, and
challenged in a civil manner.
When all students, regardless of race or ideology, feel
welcome to participate in the campus conversation, arguments will inevitably be
advanced that make most people uncomfortable. Good. Offense and discomfort are
signs that one’s preconceived notions are being challenged. That is what is
supposed to happen in a university worthy of the name.
No comments:
Post a Comment