By Abigail Anthony
Friday, July 15, 2022
I arrived at Princeton University in
September 2019. I had looked at Princeton online and thought, “one
day . . .” Suddenly, I was experiencing day one. My eager arrival
on campus was emotionally amplified by bright smiles, copious pamphlets, and
dormitory supervisors dancing in tiger suits. Orientation innocently began with
introductions of names and hometowns — then descended into divisive lectures
and panels. The intention of these programs was not to assimilate us into our
new (and intimidating) surroundings, but rather to coerce students into
accepting and affirming a resident orthodoxy.
We often hear about how college students are
indoctrinated in the classroom. But the brainwashing begins on move-in day.
Ideally, freshman orientation should be a procedural,
social assimilation to familiarize students with the resources the university
offers and how to access them. However, Princeton University undertook a
mission to present incoming students with sexual, moral, and political
guidance, wholly omitting widely held perspectives and effectively insulating
progressive views from intellectual trial. Moreover, attendance at these events
was compulsory, thus constituting an ideological hazing.
The mandatory “Safer Sexpo” event series within
orientation provides condoms, lube, and other sexual products; in 2020, the
university provided unspecified “sex toys” to students and emphasized “solo sex.” Each year, freshmen are given a “You’re So Sexy
When You Aren’t Transmitting STI’s” comic book with crude pornographic
drawings, complete with a condom attached to the back; the author’s website
clarifies that “the ideal target audience for this book is college campuses and
sex positive organizations that are involved with young people and adults.”
Students are informed where they can obtain contraception, abortifacients, and
abortions, but there’s no mention of local pregnancy centers. There is a
mandatory LGBTQ+ panel, which provides flyers of “The
Genderbread Person” diagram. The Gender + Sexuality Resource Center Peer Ed Training
Terminology handouts include a “primer on trans inclusive feminism” which
explains that “trans women are women” and “there’s no ifs, ands or buts about
it.” The Way You Move play includes characters hooking
up without regret; meanwhile, an abstinent character is nonexistent.
Unsurprisingly, the university does not mandate an event
on marriage, chastity, and abstinence. Moreover, there was not even the
slightest acknowledgment of such views during the Safer Sexpo series. Whatever
one’s opinions on casual sex, they cannot conceal the obvious truth that one
perspective is wholly ignored by the institution. The choice to pursue sexual
integrity — perhaps due to a religious commitment, or because a previous
traumatic experience renders physical intimacy undesirable — is summarily
ignored and treated as illegitimate, invalid, even immoral. Orientation did not
engender a conversation but, rather, advanced a viewpoint that presented only
two options for dissenters: conformity or ostracization.
The 2021 freshman orientation included the session, “To Be Known and
Heard: Systemic Racism and Princeton University.” The learning module
dedicated to examining Princeton’s history of racism suspiciously ignored the
institution’s dark past of antisemitism, which included a quota-like system for
admitting Jews. The session was offered by the Carl A. Fields Center for
Equality and Cultural Understanding, whose recent events include “Decolonizing Black Sex, Love, Pleasure, and Relationships”
and “HIV and White Supremacy.”
During my freshman orientation, in 2019, all the new
students (totaling just over 1,300) filed into an auditorium for the “Reflections on
Diversity” presentation. A moderator announced statements relating to identity,
and students were prompted to stand whenever a given statement resonated with
them. Pronouncements related to socioeconomic status (“I am from an
owning-class family”) and sexuality (“I do not conform to a binary gender”).
The presenter said “this is your community” after every identity, as if
students of wealthier backgrounds inherently shared a community. As naïve
freshmen, we were pressured into revealing intimate details about our lives,
yet it was wholly impersonal because we were reduced to whatever categorical
boxes we fill by chance. It was public atonement for supposed sins.
It is disheartening that universities choose to introduce
new students to each other over intrusive, abrasive topics that have confined
many generations to eternal arguing. I suspect that, if granted the
opportunity, students would experience greater bonding over shared passions and
activities, as opposed to discussing sexual preferences and race. My friends
are inspiring and inspired. I am friends with them because of their insights,
which may (or may not) be influenced by their immutable characteristics and
experiences; I’m not friends with them because of their
immutable characteristics and experiences, nor do I preclude friendships on
such criteria.
I think controversial conversations should occur on
college campuses. Yet requiring students to discuss deeply personal, polarizing
topics upon their arrival does not foster a sense of connection or belonging.
The efforts to be “inclusive” are extraordinarily invasive and alienating. When
we meet strangers, we don’t inquire about their sexual preferences or parents’
annual income, so why is this required of nervous freshmen who may be
desperate for a single friend? Subjects like race, socioeconomic status, and
sexuality are awkward — perhaps even painful — and should not be the first
points of discussion.
I imagine some people will brush aside freshman
orientation as trivial. After all, it’s just boring events, and students will
(hopefully) find their social circles (eventually). But freshman orientation is
a lethal weapon causing the slow death of free speech: The diversity, equity,
and inclusion bureaucrats have designed a comprehensive ideological boot camp
that formally establishes what is morally acceptable, and this provides a
framework for permissible and proscribed speech in and outside the classroom
for the next four years.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that progressive views
be banned from campus. Rather, ideological events should not be mandatory,
at least if students are not similarly required to hear differing views. The
right to free expression does not guarantee the right to a captive audience.
So what can be done? The purpose of freshman orientation
should be to provide informational sessions that familiarize students with the
campus and the various centers, organizations, and resources. If the university
addresses controversial topics, it should present a broad range of perspectives
and arguments. Additionally, if the university maintains the mandatory status
of events, the compulsory attendance should be applied and enforced across the
ideological spectrum.
I hope that Princeton ends its freshman disorientation program, thereby letting students think for themselves. Instead of being divided by socioeconomic status, maybe students will begin their college experience by making some friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment