THE ONES COVERING THEIR FACES ARE SELDOM THE GOOD GUYS: How Campus Politicization Fed Today’s Hatred.
Universities are supposed to be places of truth-seeking and open debate. When they enforce dogmas instead, they do a disservice by intimidating students who disagree and by absolving those who agree from the responsibility to defend their views.
In January 2022, the dean of Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, Amaney Jamal, wrote in a memo to students that Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal set “a dangerous precedent” and that “we . . . know without a doubt” that “there are racial inequities in nearly every strand of the American fabric.” After the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, Princeton’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center announced on its Instagram page that it “actively resists sexism, cissexism, heteronormativity and other intersecting forms of oppression” and that “abortion is an essential and fundamental right that needs to be protected.”
These opinions can be defended, but they weren’t. Princeton administrators instead classified the topics as outside the realm of debate. That discourages students from thinking critically about their own opinions and prejudices and stifles the free exchange of ideas, even on campuses that don’t directly punish speech.
That leaves students intellectually unprepared. If administrators stepped back and encouraged students to debate, students would subject their ideas to the rigor of the intellectual marketplace and be more apt to reject those that failed. Reasonable arguments can be made for or against a two-state solution—but not for mass murder.
Students sometimes seem to have an inkling that they’re defending the indefensible. When Princeton’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine held an outdoor vigil for “Occupied Palestine, Gaza and the West Bank,” it told attendees masks were mandatory. Friends of ours who tried to film the vigil were harassed into putting down their cameras. SJP sent an email to all Princeton students on campus with a statement that listed no individual signers and was linked to an anonymous Google account under the name “River Sea.”
Similarly at Brown, pro-Hamas protesters were told not to “wear identifiable clothing” and that photographs were strictly prohibited. At Arizona State, students were told to “bring signs, flags, water, and please wear a mask.” At Harvard Law School, a statement that held “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all the unfolding violence” listed 31 student groups as signatories. But as soon as members’ identities were revealed, many groups revoked their support, in part because students feared for their employment prospects. Apparently the desire for lucrative jobs outweighs these activists’ commitment to the Palestinian cause.
I think the admissions departments should rethink their approach, and all entering students should be taught traditional American principles of civics and free speech. But can we trust universities to do this, and do it honestly?