The Princeton Tory 34.4

T H E

A

TORY

JOURNAL

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

OF

W A Y

CONSERVATIVE

T O

PRINCETON

VOLUME

AND

K N O W

MODERATE

M O R E

UNIVERSITY

XXXIV

--

ISSUE

IN

4

THOUGHT

T R U T H

2018

PUBLISHER'S NOTE Dear Reader,

Princeton is itself trapped between thousands of conflicting perspectives. It cannot possibly

Happy New Year! It’s been awhile since we’ve

promote a single truth in academic fora without

last published. For those of you who follow the Tory

seeming “biased” and, as a result, ends up engaged

regularly, I apologize for the hiatus.

in a sort of aimless deconstruction. Its students are

While we’ve been inactive in print, however, all has not been quiet at the Tory. I encourage you to check out the new website, for instance. We’ve (at

left with possible truths strewn about – equally possible, equally justifiable.

It is my experience that students have one of

long last, perhaps) introduced a system for online

two responses to the multitude of possible but

donation through PayPal, as well as an online

conflicting truths they are left with. Either they stay

subscription system. If you have ever wanted to sign a

attached to the truths they came into the school

friend up for the magazine, now you can!

with, resisting adaptation, or they discard truth as a

In other news, we’ve started a new(s)

concept entirely, preferring to dwell in the moral

department at the Tory. Our news team will be tasked

morass suggested to be “the real truth” by the

with filling in the holes in campus reporting that our

indecisiveness they’ve learned in class.

(big) sister publication, the Princetonian, either

Neither philosophy, unfortunately, seems to be

missed or wrongly didn’t deem newsworthy. We’ll

all that amenable to “realizing there is a modicum of

also focus on making sure conservative perspectives

truth in conservatism.” Consequently, the Tory and

on events are covered when they are not. These

conservatives who share in the Tory’s “reasonable

articles will often be first published online, and then

evangelism” fight an uphill, and perhaps unwinnable

later in print.

battle. This issue is about their story, and their own

This is the last issue of the Tory that I’ll publish.

fight for truth in the void. We come to university to

Come February, the Tory will be under new

know more, but it seems like knowing more is itself

management. That, unsurprisingly, makes this issue

no more. I wish the Tory, its staff, and its readers all

pretty bittersweet for me. Under my tenure, I’ve done

the best. We will keep pursuing the truth, whatever it

my best to take the Tory in a new direction, focusing it

is. Dei sub numine viget,

less on pandering to conservative audiences but rather to convincing liberals that conservatism does have a modicum of truth underlying it.

Christian Schmidt ‘20

Unfortunately, this new mission hasn’t been

Publisher, 2018

without its detractors. Perhaps most immediately are its conservative detractors, who believe that the left

Editor's Note:

cannot be reasoned with. But more disappointingly, in

Christian Schmidt, the publisher of the Tory in 2018

my opinion, is the lack of success that the mission has

recused himself from his publishing duties for Jeff

had with the new target audience, liberals.

Zymeri's Whig-Clio article. Schmidt elected to do so

Mind, I do not necessarily think this is a problem

because he is an executive of Whig-Clio who

with the liberals on campus who I, from my personal

commented for the story. Not only is Schmidt Whig-

experience, have understood to be people willing to

Clio's President of the Senate but he is also the

listen, reason, and give the benefit of the doubt to

society's President-elect. Consequently, I assumed

those who disagree with them. Rather, I believe it to

any and all oversight he would have exercised.

be a problem with the university itself.

- Joaquim Brooks, EiC

i | The Princeton Tory | 2019

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

TORY VOLUMEÂ XXXIV

--

ISSUE

4

01

A LESSON LEARNED AT PRINCETON Nicholas Sileo

02

WHIG-CLIO: STRUGGLES TO GRAPPLE WITH INTERNAL DISSENSION Jeff Zymeri

10

COMPROMISED: INADEQUACY OF BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS TO ABORTION Noelia Carbajal

12

THE CARBON TAX: A CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION Jivahn Moradian

14

PRINCETON ELECTION CONSORTIUM: REACTION TO MIDTERMS Jeff Zymeri

17

WHY FEDERALISM STILL MATTERS Jacob Brown

19

CREATING DISBELIEF: A REPORT ON THE CREATION MUSEUM Liam O'Connor

21

IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY Will Nolan

ii | The Princeton Tory | 2019

PUBLISHER Christian Schmidt '20

EDITOR - IN - CHIEF Joaquim Brooks '20

BUSINESS MANAGER Daniel Schwarzhoff '20

NEWS EDITOR Jeff Zymeri '20

TORY DESIGN Sonya Isenberg '20

MANAGING EDITORS Jack Whelan '18 Michael Smilek '20 Stephen Phillips '20 Jacob Brown '20

COPY EDITOR Nicholas Wooldridge '21

TREASURER Will Crawford '20

EVENTS MANAGER Hassan Ahmad '21

DISTRIBUTION MANAGER Chris Ren '19

STAFF WRITERS Will Nolan '19 Nicholas Sileo '20 Robbie Freeman '20 Liam O'Connor '20 Anne Marie Wright '20 Jason Qu '21 Daniel Bracho '21 Gabriel Duguay '22

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Jivahn Moradian '20 Noelia Carbajal '22

BOARD OF TRUSTEES Anna Bray Duff '92 Peter Heinecke '87 Ira Leeds '06 Brian Tvenstrup '95 Timothy Webster '99 James Haynes '18

iii | The Princeton Tory | 2019

A LESSON LEARNED AT PRINCETON Nicholas Sileo

Opinion

After my first year at Princeton, I was lucky enough to be invited to attend Reunions to help Whig-Clio put on the James Madison Award Ceremony—that year being given to former Clio Chairman Ted Cruz. At that point, I was a bit mixed up myself with regards to the Princeton experience. Within that short time, it had already been an incredible ride. I remember writing home about my world class professors, the masterpieces in our collection at the art museum, school sponsored trips to Broadway, and a heaping handful of opportunities that a younger me could not have even dreamed of. Whether I had any right to or not however, I also felt a certain amount of frustration. Of course, there was the typical shock with regards to challenging courses that any freshman here will be able recount—yet that was only a small part of a bigger trial. The real frustration came from the fact that I had to reconcile my beliefs about Princeton with its reality. The gap between these two was large enough to leave me at least somewhat malcontent and one of the larger discrepancies hinged on my deeply held political beliefs.

Since I was young, I have been interested in politics. Back home I would often get into debates and discussion with my peers and was eager to dive into the political scene here, too. As a conservative and a card-carrying Republican (that is just not an expression either) I quickly joined Clio, College Republicans, and signed up for the Tory. Within a few weeks I was debating in Whig Hall and attending event gearing up for the 2016 election. For the most part of it, I was having a ball. I relished the opportunity to be a part of the nation’s oldest debating society, I was meeting good people on both sides of the aisle, and I was unabashedly giving it my all. Yet, as the year went on, my warm glow began to fade and as the election heated up and the Trump administration began. I became a bit disillusioned in small part with my university and in large part with my peers.

I believed then, and believe now, that people of good will can differ when it comes to politics. I had always tried to extend this belief to those with whom I argued and believed that the same was extended to me. Princeton was the first place where I did not find this goodwill reciprocated. This was the first place that I realized the person I am looking at does not see me as a peer with differing views, but truly sees me as evil with hate in my heart. This shook me more than I care to admit. I stand by my beliefs because I think they are the best way to help decent people by providing liberty, property, and justice. To have someone disagree with your methods or even your objectives is one thing, but to realize that they see no goodwill in you whatsoever is a harrowing experience.

For the first time, I found that some people refused to associate with me because of my political beliefs. I got scowls and dirty looks from people I never met. Fellow students would accost me and question where my “guilt” or “shame” was. I have been excluded or nearly excluded from various groups as a result of my beliefs. I saw a stranger post a quote of mine in the Prince and only wrote the caption “Kill Yourself.” I remember one time trying to introduce myself to someone on the Street only for her to demand that I leave because I was a Trump supporter. Although I shouldn’t, I still get a twinge of resentment whenever I see this person around campus. A series of events just like this began to become a growing part of my experience here. For all the talks, trainings, and seminars that the university put on to foster a sense of inclusion, I felt isolated.

As with my other frustrations with Princeton, I was able to come to terms with this reality and reconcile it with my previous beliefs. I was able to realize how many good people I had met on both side of the aisle, appreciate the variety of speakers that came here, be thankful for the general civility of the student body, and observe the university administration truly act in a non-partisan way that sought the best interest of all students. I have realized that there’s no other college I would rather be at across the country and that we have it so incredibly good in nearly every respect—political climate included.

As a conservative college student today, this is the best damn place of all. Princeton is a world class institution, but in addition to that it has a level-headed administration, great conservative programs and student groups, and a student body that is widely civil and respectful. Because of all this, I have been able to put away my initial frustrations and see past them for all the good that is around us.

Yet, realizing that some people view me as pure evil for my beliefs and best intentions is something that still weighs heavy on me. I take no pleasure in this fact, and, if it is true, I find it deeply saddening. My optimism for our future as a nation has been tarnished as a result of this and, for better or worse, that is a lesson I have learned being a conservative at Princeton.

Nicholas Sileo is a junior from Annapolis, Maryland, concentrating in Economics.

1 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

WHIG-CLIO

STRUGGLES TO GRAPPLE WITH INTERNAL DISSENSION

Jeff Zymeri

News

Since the beginning of 2018, the American Whig-Cliosophic Society (Whig-Clio) has struggled to grapple with internal strife as well as charges of anti-conservative bias. The society, founded in 1765 by students like James Madison and Aaron Burr, is the oldest collegiate political union and debating society in the country. However, during the tenure of the current co-presidents, tension has continued to build over the society’s basic mission and its events program, especially as it relates to conservative speakers and controversial topics, such as abortion.

Disapproval All-Round

“Is this a hoax?” replied Amy Wax, the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, when she received an “URGENT” email from Whig-Clio’s leadership announcing that the free speech event she was headlining alongside Princeton University Politics Professor Keith Whittington was not going to be held the following day. The original email from Whig-Clio co-presidents Lena Hu ’20 and Justin Wittekind ’21 was sent at 7:13 p.m. on Sept. 14, 2018, less than 20 hours from the time the free speech event was supposed to be held.

“I am headed to Princeton first thing in the morning so please reply right away,” continued a confused Wax in her first emailed reply to Hu and Wittekind. Nothing of the sort had happened the last time Wax spoke at the University in 2015, when she had participated on a panel during a James Madison Program conference entitled “The Moynihan Report at 50: Reflections, Realities, and Prospects.” The free speech event, scheduled for Sept. 15, 2018 at 3 p.m., was organized by Whig-Clio’s Director of Programming Thomas Koenig ’20.

Koenig had originally invited Wax and Whittington via email to participate in an event “in light of [the two professors’] recent publications regarding the importance of free speech, especially on college campuses.” The invitation went out in March of 2018, six months before the event was scheduled to be held. Koenig explained in another email that he hoped “attendees of the talk will leave with a greater appreciation for free speech.” Koenig proceeded to hash out a format for the event in a series of emails with Wax and Whittington, establish a schedule for the day, recruit fellow Whig-Clio Governing Council member Shanon FitzGerald ’20 to co-moderate the discussion alongside himself, and write nine follow-up questions for the opening remarks Wax and Whittington were slated to give.

In an interview with the Tory, Koenig explained that he had invited Professor Whittington because of the publication of his most recent book, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech, later selected by University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 as the official Pre-read for the Class of 2022. Copies of Speak Freely were made for all members of the University community.

Koenig invited Wax, a tenured expert on social welfare law and policy among other things, because of a recent freedom of speech controversy she had been embroiled in after the publication of an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer entitled “Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture.” In an interview with the Tory, Wax described herself as a classical liberal and emphasized “reasoned discourse regarding contestable political and social issues over which people in a democratic society can reasonably disagree” as a central value of hers. Wax would later write an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled “What Can’t Be Debated on Campus,” detailing how her Inquirer piece had led to a condemnatory response in the Daily Pennsylvanian signed by five of her colleagues, followed by a condemnatory open letter also in the Pennsylvanian signed by 33 of her colleagues. The Inquirer piece also led the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School to ask her to cease teaching a mandatory first-year law course.

Koenig explained that he was familiar with the Journal piece. He also planned to ask Wax about it at the free speech event planned for September 15. Two days before the event was supposed to be held, Koenig received a phone call from Wittekind in which Wittekind explained that he and Hu were thinking of calling off the event. Koenig expressed disapproval with the plan to do so. Koenig would later be informed of Hu and Wittekind’s final decision the next day, before Hu and Wittekind informed Wax of their decision.

“I just thought it looked bad inviting someone to campus and then having to restructure the event so late - that’s common sense, it doesn’t look good,” explained Koenig said to the Tory. However, Koenig decided he would not pursue the issue further. He did so because Whig-Clio is a small part of his life. According to Koenig, he has only planned 10 percent of the society’s speakers during his tenure, leaving most of the events to Wittekind, whom Koenig believes has generally done a good job. Koenig did not bring up the matter at the next meeting of the Whig-Clio Governing Council, which includes the eight students tasked with voting on issues of great importance for the organization, most of whom did not learn of the happenings related to the Wax-Whittington discussion until much later. Nor did he pursue it at other meetings, explaining that he deferred to Hu and Wittekind.

2 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

The first member of the administration to hear of Hu and Wittekind’s plans to not hold the event was Alison Nabatoff, the Program Coordinator for Whig, who promptly looped in her boss, Deputy Dean of Undergraduate Students Thomas Dunne, into the discussion.

Dunne is also on Whig-Clio’s Board of Trustees. The reason Nabatoff and Dunne were looped in is because Whig-Clio is a registered student organization, obligated to follow Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities. Whig-Clio has been a registered student organization ever since 1999, when Dunne first came to the University. Dunne speculated that it has had this status for a much longer period of time.

ODUS makes all of Whig-Clio’s funds available to them, signs contracts on their behalf, and advises the student leadership on logistical concerns. In addition to Dunne, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students and Director of Student Agencies Jarrett Fisher sits on Whig-Clio’s Board of Trustees. So do three professors, including Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Cecilia Rouse and even Professor Whittington himself. As to Nabatoff, a member of the administration who focuses solely on Whig-Clio and its subsidiaries, Dunne explained that “the reason that position was created was that the breadth and depth of the program sponsored through Whig-Clio needed some additional administrative support [sic] than we could essentially handle in the office.” No other student organization has a member of the administration providing logistical support in this fashion.

In an interview with the Tory, Whittington described Whig-Clio as a quasi-autonomous organization, though he did emphasize that the decisions made by the student leaders are autonomous. Thus, on that Friday, before the event cancellation email was sent to Wax, Nabatoff and Dunne as well as Hu and Wittekind, all gathered in Whittington’s office in Fisher Hall. The Tory could not confirm whether the individuals mentioned above had other conversations with one another before the meeting in Whittington’s office. However, it could confirm that at one point, all five individuals were in the same room.Both Dunne and Nabatoff clarified that they uphold the University’s commitment to academic freedom as well as freedom of speech and that they make a point of communicating this to students. At the meeting, Dunne explained that he was there to logistically support whatever decision Hu and Wittekind made. Dunne added that he communicated his disapproval about not holding the event.

“I think it’s hard for students [on] campus to think about making a decision with very short notice because not everyone is right here,” Dunne explained, adding that for him, the best course of action would have been for Hu and Wittekind “to honor [their] commitments and have the event even if it leads to a low audience turnout or blowback.” “I do expect and hope for students to uphold their obligations,” Dunne asserted. However, he made clear that he would only step in if their decision was a violation of Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities. In this case, he decided to respect the autonomy of a student organization to conduct its own affairs. Whittington broadly painted what the pair’s reasoning was in an interview with the Tory. At the meeting, “it was not clear to me then what their concerns were and why it was affecting the timing and nature of the event,” said Whittington. “I think they were fairly resolved that they didn’t want this to be [the event at] the start of the semester and they were trying to figure out what to do about it.” “Certainly Prof.

Wax’s participation in it was the thing that set them off...it wasn’t about the format per se,” Whittington added. Whittington also asserted that he communicated to Hu and Wittekind that he had concerns with their plan. Whittington said during the meeting that, “We ought to have the event as scheduled and certainly we shouldn’t be moving events out of concerns that speakers were controversial.”

Though Hu and Wittekind explained that Koenig and Dunne had indeed made their concerns known to them, they deny that Whittington did the same. “I want the record to reflect that neither [Hu] nor I walked out of that meeting thinking that [Whittington] was against our decision,” explained Wittekind. “What he says he sa[id] in the meeting, he just didn’t say to us - quite plainly, his position has changed 180 degrees.” Hu agreed with Wittekind. “[Whittington] seems to move back and forth on his views. When we talked to him at the initial discussions, he was totally on board with [the proposal to move the event], and supportive of the idea.” Whittington denies Hu and Wittekind’s characterization, asserting that he was never fully supportive of the idea and that his position has not changed 180 degrees. “I was merely willing to go along with it,” Whittington explained. Wittekind also explained that Whittington told them the following: “When I saw that [Koenig] had invited her, I knew I should have red-flagged her.” Whittington explained that this only meant he wished he had pointed out the controversiality of Wax to Koenig, something Hu and Wittekind have suggested Koenig did not know.

He said that this did not mean he wanted Koenig not to invite Wax. Wax expressed deep disapproval when she learned of the meeting between the five above individuals. “Why were they meeting at the 11th hour about this event? When you invite speakers five months ahead of time, they put in on their calendar, they forego other things they might be doing on the same date, they arrange to travel from wherever they are, they carve out time in their schedule, they forego time with family and friends, and they set up their lives to meet their commitments,” asserted Wax. “And there’s a meeting at the last minute to decide whether to call it off? That’s nutso.” Thus, after the original cancellation email and Wax’s response to the pair, Koenig replied all in the email chain, explaining that “over [his] protests, the presidents of [his] society [-Hu and Wittekind-] have decided to cancel the event for now.” “Despite my best efforts to proceed with the event, I have no power to change this decision,” Koenig continued, adding that he apologizes for “all the inconvenience that this will cause for you, and I find it deeply ironic and disturbing that the controlling officers of our political society are doing this on the eve of an event dedicated to free speech.”

Shortly thereafter, Koenig replied all again, explaining that his previous email had been a draft sent mistakenly. Nevertheless, in his second email, Koenig reiterated that “with regards to what happened, [his] commanding officers told [him] that they were cancelling the event since they were uncomfortable.”

3 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

In their original email to Wax, Hu and Wittekind had explained that their intention was not to disinvite Wax and that they wanted to hold the event at a different time. They also planned to reimburse Wax. “Lena and I have concluded that the society [was] not equipped at the moment to host the best event possible given how early in the year it is,” wrote Wittekind in an email to Wax. “We do not believe that, so early in the school year, we are prepared for the logistical complications that may arise.” Wittekind continued by saying that he and Hu felt it was important to amend the format to provide stronger programmatic content and that the event “could either be dramatically under-attended...or dramatically over-attended.” Wax replied that she found the message disturbing and contradictory.

“The event has been planned for five months and should not be called off now,” she added, in another email. Dean Dunne, who was also copied to the email chain, responded that he understood “where A[my] Wax finds the message contradictory,” referring to Hu and Wittekind’s citing of both low and high attendance as a concern. Dunne confirmed this in a subsequent interview with the Tory.

The email chain continued two days later, with Wax writing forcefully to Hu and Wittekind on Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018.“It was incredibly rude and heedless to cancel with less than 24 hours notice (and much less than that for my planned departure to Princeton), and there is absolutely no excuse for it – none whatsoever,” wrote Wax. “In other words, your reasons are inadequate, and your behavior is irresponsible and disrespectful.” Hu and Wittekind apologized in a final September email to Wax and called their decision to not hold the event a “postponement.”

However, this would not be the last the University community would hear of Hu and Wittekind’s decision. Not only would it cause controversy within Whig-Clio’s student leadership, but it would also engage some of the University’s most powerful figures, who, when they became aware of the situation, expressed disapproval with the decision Hu and Wittekind had made. According to Whittington, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 called him and expressed disapproval with the decision. So did Skip Rankin ’72, President of the Whig-Clio Board of Trustees. Eisgruber did not confirm the phone call with Whittington or its contents. However, he did comment on the Wax-Whittington situation. “I believe that when campus organizations issue an invitation to a speaker, they have an ethical obligation to honor that invitation,” Eisgruber explained. Rankin did not respond to request for comment as of the publication of this article.

Professor Robert George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and head of the James Madison Program having learned of the situation from Wax, feared that the motivations of Whig-Clio’s leadership constituted bias against Wax’s views. “Because it was last minute, of course it raised the question of whether it was cancelled for some legitimate reason or whether it was cancelled because some people didn't want to hear [Wax’s] point of view expressed,” said George. “Of course I don’t regard [the latter] as a legitimate reason.” George proceeded to email Koenig and noted his dissatisfaction with the decision. Koenig directed George to Hu and Wittekind. George explained that his communications with Whig-Clio leadership did not ameliorate his fears that the event being moved constituted bias against Wax’s conservative viewpoints.

The first time other members of Governing Council aside from Hu, Wittekind, and Koenig were made aware of the Wax-Whittington situation was when Nabatoff vaguely communicated on Sept. 20, 2018 that “some decisions were made...unilaterally [recently] and it caused challenges.” In this recording of a phone call obtained by the Tory, Nabatoff goes on to say that the trustees were very concerned with this unilateral decision and that they wanted processes and procedures to be instituted that would prevent this in the future. The Tory learned from Hu and Wittekind that the processes and procedures Nabatoff refers to in the recording are those concerning speakers. The Tory has interviewed several senior members of Governing Council – namely, Hassan Ahmad ’21, Christian Schmidt ’20, and Brent Kibbey ’21 – all of whom expressed disapproval with the decision once they had been clued in on all the major details. They also wished that they had been clued in much sooner so that something like this could have been prevented.

Justified Reasoning?

The reasoning Hu and Wittekind provided for their decision not to hold the event was multifaceted. However, it has been challenged by a number of people every step of the way. Hu and Wittekind explained that their concerns about the format of the event, which they cite in the original email, was one of the primary reasons they decided to move the event. They wanted the event to be restructured. The last-minute nature of their decision to not go forward with the event is, according to Hu and Wittekind, a function of not being fully informed on Wax’s views until very late in the game. “A couple of days before the event, we were looking her up and then we found that she had made some statements during her time at Penn Law School about black students not graduating at the top of their class ever,” Hu explained. “About white culture being supreme,” Wittekind added. “Our concern was not the political valence of [these statements] but the racial valence.” According to Wittekind, the charge associated with this type of speech needs to be counterbalanced in a public forum “and especially in a space where we’re in the first semester...and we want people to realize that this speech uncontested is probably not what we want to seem like it’s being represented.”

Hu and Wittekind expressed concern that Whittington was not the best person to counter such statements and that someone from the African American Studies Department would be better suited to do so. Wittekind also explained that he thought it “unquestionable, given [Wax’s] statements, that a reasonable person would say she is racist.”

4 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

However, he took pains to separate this personal view of his with the institutional concerns that were motivating his decisions.

Neither Wax nor Whittington thought that these concerns were reason enough to move the event at the last minute. “They should thought of that long ago,” explained Wax. “As my dear departed father used to say, they should’ve thought of that before they had the baby.” “I think you gotta do your homework before you extend the invitation,” asserted Whittington. “You live by your invitation...in hindsight you might think ‘well, maybe that was a mistake’ - [however, you ought to] learn from your mistakes and move on, you don’t at that stage of the game retract the invitation.” On the topic of her purportedly racist statements, Wax questioned the degree to which Hu and Wittekind were familiar with the scholarship she has produced. “Racist is such a totally ill-defined, protean term,” Wax explained.

“He’s just running scared because this label has been attached to me and it’s almost like a religious form of contamination that he’s associated [the word] with,” said Wax. “There’s this kind of very primitive reaction.” On the question of whether there needed to be someone there to counter Wax, Whittington responded that it was a peripheral concern. An event in which Wax’s past statements would be the primary topic of discussion was neither the event Whittington had signed up for nor the event Koenig had planned.

Wax had another angle on this question. “This is a common pattern that I have noticed for the 20 years I have been in academia….when someone is from the left that person is a freestanding speaker. They don’t feel the need to bring in any balance or any counter-opinions,” Wax asserted. “When I published an article on discrimination and unconscious bias years ago, they said: ‘well we have to get someone to answer this article.’ I said: ‘Why? Other law review articles are published without getting a point - counterpoint in print.’ That’s completely unprecedented and aberrational,” Wax said. “Absolutely it’s something that’s done only to conservatives by and large. It’s obvious,” Wax continued.

Senior Governing Council member and current chair of the Clio Party Hassan Ahmad ’21 concurred with Wax, explaining that Hu and Wittekind’s reasoning is ludicrous when one considers the fact that the far-left speakers Wittekind brings regularly are never countered. “No, I don’t remember anyone there to counter DeRay McKesson’s beliefs, or Chapo Trap House, or the communist Angela Davis,” Ahmad explained. “I don’t think that’s a sufficient justification because that’s not the ongoing practice.” “The implication is that you’re only inviting conservatives when you can have a ‘no - but actually’ left wing speaker there,” Ahmad added. Ahmad noted that one group of speakers Wittekind invited – Chapo Trap House, a group of podcasters well-known for their far-left commentary – are so against the idea of free speech that when they got to campus, they tore down posters for an American Enterprise Institute event. Chapo Trap House did not have anyone there to counter them. Nevertheless, Hu and Wittekind were reportedly pleased with the Chapo Trap House event. When asked why he and Hu had not explained to Wax that they were concerned about her past statements, Wittekind explained that it would have been uncivil to do so. In response, Wax put to them the following question: “Is it not the height of incivility to disinvite someone with 11 hours notice without offering an honest explanation. Does that not define incivility?”

Hu and Wittekind were also motivated by concerns that there would be low attendance or high attendance at the event, something which both Wax and Dunne explained was contradictory in the email chain. “That sort of covers the territory, doesn’t it,” noted Wax. “We’ve got the whole logical space taken care of here. Good for them.” However, Hu asserted that this reasoning is not contradictory.

“Either this goes under people’s radar and no one is even aware that this event is going on and it’s reflected in the Facebook event attendance [with] 3 to 7 people show[ing] up, explained Hu. “The alternative is that like one person googles her and sees all these very inflammatory statements made specifically toward black students...it blows up and then a ton of people come out and we’re not necessarily prepared for that either.”

However, when it comes to the transparency of this statement, Whittington denies that Hu and Wittekind discussed turnout at the meeting in his office. It was a justification that they only cited in the email. On Hu’s first claim – namely that the event might be poorly attended – the Tory has discovered that no email was sent to the official Whig-Clio list-serv promoting the event, something regarded to be a common practice according to Kibbey. An email sent out to the Whig-Clio list-serv on or before Sept. 14, 2018, would have reached all Whig-Clio members who are currently sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

When asked how to read this information, Dunne responded that it is within the realm of possibility that this could have constituted suppression of the event. “One way [to read this] is to say that there wasn’t a sufficient backing of the program...the other probably more likely example [is that]...people don’t do a very good job of advertising events,” Dunne explained. Though Wittekind claimed in an interview that events are not always promoted on the Whig-Clio list-serv, the Tory has discovered that every event advertised on the Facebook page, which includes all the events hosted this semester, has also been promoted on the Whig-Clio list-serv. The exception is the Wax-Whittington event. The Political Activities Fair was also not advertised on the list-serv. However, according to Governing Council member Brent Kibbey, the Political Activities Fair is geared towards freshmen, who were not on the list-serv at the time. The decision not to hold the event was included in an email to the Whig-Clio list-serv. However, according to Governing Council member Brent Kibbey ’21, it was “in this tiny little clip at the bottom of a Whig-Clio information email.” No other emails were sent, no explanation was given, Kibbey explained. “I think they were deliberately downplaying it in order to not bring it up to our attention,” Kibbey added, referring to the Wax-Whittington event more broadly.

5 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

According to Hu and Wittekind, posters were made and distributed on campus and at the Political Activities Fair. The Tory has not managed to get its hands on one of these posters. As to Hu’s assertion that there was little interest in the Facebook event created, the Tory cannot confirm or deny the Facebook event’s existence. The Facebook event has since been deleted, and the Tory cannot find physical evidence of it. Dean Dunne also spoke on the history that Whig-Clio has with low turnout events. According to Dunne, who joined the University's administration in 1999, there isn’t an instance he can remember of an event being cancelled due to low turnout.

Wax noted that she didn’t consider low turnout to be a salient concern. “Even if there are 7 or 8 people, you can have a great event...I know because I’ve had events with 150 people and with 10 people and they have different dynamics..it’s a whole different experience but the small events can be terrific because people actually get to speak and express their thoughts,” said Wax. “There’s a real interaction and discussion. If it somehow influences those 10 people, then that’s terrific and they’ll often talk to their friends about it.”

Hu also mentions a concern for high turnout in the above quote. The same concern is also mentioned the email exchange. When Wax first read this, she emailed back: “Is the import here that you expect some kind of protest[?] I wouldn’t worry about that. Just notify the police and make sure there is a police presence there.” Dunne emailed back that “the university has absolutely no reason to believe that this event would be protested should it be held as planned tomorrow.” Wittekind then replied in the same email chain saying that “there have been no indications whatsoever about a protest planned for tomorrow’s lecture, and the precautions you advise don’t seem to be a necessary logistical element for our event.” However, Whittington explained that Hu and Wittekind did in fact mention a concern about protesters in the meeting they attended alongside Whittington, Nabatoff, and Dunne. “I think they were concerned there might even be protesters in which case you’d need some crowd control to manage it,” explained Whittington. “I think presumably it would be possible to make such arrangements if it came to that.” Whittington further reiterated: “I think there was a concern that if there [were] protesters it would require particular crowd control that simply having a lot of attendees wouldn’t...it wasn’t a function of there’s so many people the building would be swamped and therefore we can’t do it.” High profile speakers at the Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs and even Whig-Clio itself have handled large crowds without any significant police presence. That was the case for the recent Angela Davis event hosted at Whig-Clio, which, according to the Facebook event created, 113 students indicated that they attended, with another 369 students indicating that they were interested.

When asked to reconcile many of the contradictions between what was said in the meeting and what was said in the email exchange, Whittington explained that the pair’s emailed explanation probably did not contain the full extent of their concern for the event. Though they were adamant that this was a “postponement” and not a “cancellation,” Hu and Wittekind did not send another email to Wax until Thursday, Dec. 13, 2018. Hu and Wittekind defended this action by pointing to the line in their final email to Wax which read: “we reiterate that we do want to host this event at another time this semester, and we hope you will respond with dates that work for you.” Wax commented forcefully when asked why she didn’t respond. “I don’t remember if they asked me for dates. It was all very vague and open-ended. I think frankly it was pro-forma. They were very, very vague and evasive about what they wanted to do differently, what their objections were, what their problems were,” explained Wax. “They weren’t candid with me, they weren’t honest with me, they didn’t tell me the real reasons...that’s not civility, that’s a lack of forthrightness. They were resoundingly uncivil in many ways.” Wittekind also explained that the tone of the last email Wax sent to him and Hu did not, in his view, merit a response. “The way that she responded was not conducive to me re-inviting her or Lena or anyone [else re-inviting her],” Wittekind explained. For his part, Whittington understood Wax’s anger and the fact that she took Hu and Wittekind’s actions personally. When asked to comment on whether he believed Hu and Wittekind had made attempts to reschedule the event in a way commensurate with their emphasis of the word “postponement,” Whittington explained that “it’s clear not a lot of effort has been made to reschedule.”

On Thursday, Dec. 13, three days after the Tory interviewed Hu and Wittekind and almost three months after the original email exchange, Hu and Wittekind extended another speaking invitation to Wax for the spring semester. Wax explained that she had no way of knowing for sure but added that “one could put the interpretation...that they’re sending the email just to kind of make themselves look better and to back up their assertion that’s it’s not really a ‘cancellation’ but a ‘postponement’ and all of that. One could interpret it that way but how are we supposed to know?”

Wax continued by asking: “At the end of the day what difference does it make?” “[Hu and Wittekind] are more obsessed with whether I can be regarded as a racist than with actually hearing what I have to say and getting a new or a different perspective on things,” explained Wax. “If that’s the game they want to play then let them play it - that’s the game that’s being played everywhere across all the universities and as far as I’m concerned it’s not an education.”

When it came to Whittington specifically, Wax was deeply disappointed that Whittington never reached out to her following the event. “I can only tell you that I am very disappointed in him. He spends an entire book exploring the high-minded topic of free speech and intellectual integrity but from my experience, which is a resounding silence on his part, he did not display any integrity with respect to me and I find that to be a problem that is endemic to academia which is people who pretend to virtue but don’t display basic fundamental virtues of honor, of integrity, of following through on your promises and commitments to others,” Wax explained.

6 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

“We’re talking about basic stuff here. It continually amazes me how these simple elements of socialization have been completely lost.” Informed of Wax’s disapproval, Whittington stated that it never occurred to him that reaching out would improve the situation. “If she would have felt better if I had sent her an email, then I wish I would have sent her an email...it didn’t occur to me that me reaching out to her would make a difference one way or another,” Whittington explained. The Tory also learned that Wax contacted the Daily Princetonian in September and offered to be a source with regards to the Wax-Whittington event. Hu and Wittekind explained that they had been interviewed by this student newspaper. However, the ‘Prince’ did not pursue the story. “I think there’s a cover-up mentality,” explained Wax. “Nobody wants to rat out on other students even when the students behave very badly. Otherwise I can’t explain it.”

Daily Princetonian Editor-in-Chief Marcia Brown ’19 declined to comment.

Abortion: Too Controversial?

“As a woman on this campus and also the friend of many other women on campus I legitimately HATE THE IDEA OF A BUNCH OF CONSERVATIVE MEN DEBATING THE RIGHTS TO FEMALE BODIES,” wrote Hu in a Oct. 9th Facebook message to Christian Schmidt ’20, Whig-Clio’s President of the Senate, who has jurisdiction over events such as senate debates between Whig and Clio members and congressional caucuses, where Whig and Clio members attempt to reach a compromise on a given issue. Schmidt is Publisher of The Princeton Tory and also President-elect of Whig-Clio. Hu’s comments were made in regards to an abortion caucus Schmidt had organized and promoted on the campus list-servs a few hours before. The rhetoric included in the message above, alongside Hu and Wittekind’s subsequent decision to cancel the caucus, led several senior members of Governing Council – namely, Schmidt, Kibbey, and Ahmad – to assert that the pair’s decision-making process was tinged with anti-conservative bias.

According to Schmidt and Brent Kibbey ’21, who works alongside Schmidt as Senate Program Coordinator, the way that the abortion caucus was organized and promoted was entirely appropriate. In the Facebook event created for the abortion caucus, Schmidt included the following line to clarify what the object of the discussion would be: Stopping Abortion and Ensuring a Woman’s Right to Choose Don’t Have to be Mutually Exclusive. Schmidt expanded further in the promotional material sent out to various list-servs. “Think the country's too polarized? Can't believe how crazy the other side is? Come dissuade yourself of both of these notions and make a deal nobody thinks can be made: Bipartisan Abortion Rights Policy,” Schmidt wrote.

Kibbey explained that in preparing the promotional material above, Schmidt had talked to students on opposing sides of the abortion issue in order to ensure that the event was construed moderately. However, Hu and Wittekind did not see it that way. In other Facebook messages to Schmidt, Hu speculated that Schmidt had not talked to any women in wording and creating the promotional material for the event. Schmidt explained that he had talked to current members of the governing board of the Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice (PSRJ), an abortion rights-focused student group. Hu proceeded to forcefully ask Schmidt for a meeting later that day which was also to include Wittekind and Kibbey.

Before the meeting, audio of which was obtained by the Tory, Schmidt was removed as an administrator on the Facebook page, and the abortion caucus Facebook event was deleted. When 8 p.m. finally rolled around and all four gathered in Frist Campus Center, Hu and Wittekind chastised Schmidt for not discussing the caucus extensively with them beforehand. Wittekind explained that the two would be cancelling the event. He also explained that part of the reasoning behind the decision to do so was because of careless timing on Schmidt’s part, with the last Kavanaugh hearing having been held only two weeks earlier. Wittekind expanded further on this point, saying that “the way [the promotional material] was phrased - we frankly felt like it was basically saying to any pro-choice activist: ‘compromise now - we have the power’...which [is] a very aggressive message.” Hu also questioned whether an abortion debate was worth having at all in the Frist meeting. “Ignore the fact that I’m a woman, there’s like an objective truth in this and it’s that...I don’t want to have a debate where we’re debating whether or not women should have the right to choose...I think that’s a terrible thing to do on this campus,” Hu asserted.

Kibbey explained that Hu and Wittekind’s aggressive rhetoric against the caucus and decision to cancel it were unprecedented.

“They were just really against it and I’m not sure if it was because of the nature of the event or the way it was brought forward but there was nothing different from the way we brought this forward [sic] than we would have any other Senate event,” Kibbey explained. “It seemed like a pretty ridiculous thing for the co-presidents to come in and push their authority to have it cancelled,” added Kibbey. “All the other caucuses - no big commotion was raised about them.” Clio chair Ahmad defended the abortion caucus as a debate worth having. “Whether or not abortion is a right or whether or not abortion is murder falls under the realm of legitimate debate seeing as there is a legitimate debate in our legislatures and public life about this,” explained Ahmad. “I don’t think [Hu and Wittekind’s] reaction was warranted.” Ahmad added that “in my experience there hasn’t been a better format to getting compromise in terms of political activities on campus than the congressional caucus.”

When asked to interpret the statements she made in person as well as on Messenger, Kibbey explained that Hu had made judgements about the event based on who she thought would show up. “She did feel that due to the more conservative interest in the matter, it wasn’t going to be a good discussion,” Kibbey explained.

7 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

Though Kibbey agrees with Hu on the substance, he didn’t agree with her rhetoric not to have the debate at all. “From everything I’ve gathered [Hu is] pro-women rights and pro having unrestricted abortions...which I’m not against but it didn’t seem [like] she wanted to have it debated at all...she was pretty hotheaded,” Kibbey explained. “I agree with her [on the substance] but I think we should have a debate about it,” Kibbey reiterated.

The day after the meeting, Schmidt and Kibbey met with Nabatoff and asked her to talk to Hu and Wittekind. Nabatoff agreed. After sitting down with Nabatoff, Hu and Wittekind agreed to allow Schmidt to move forward with the event. The abortion caucus was eventually held on Oct. 18, 2018. Hu explained that she regretted how she handled the initial interactions with Schmidt and Kibbey. “I shouldn’t have been so angry about it but it was so frustrating to me that Christian hadn’t really proposed it before,” Hu explained. “I was operating with the information at the time that no women’s groups on campus were involved in the planning or organization of this at all,” explained Hu. “My assumption at the time was that it was only Christian Schmidt and Brent Kibbey who [were] going to run this abortion caucus.” Hu explained that her vision of what was going to transpire was Schmidt and Kibbey and their friends “debating whether or not women should be able to abort children they do not want.” “To me that is just abhorrent,” explained Hu. “If you want to have a discussion like that, you must reach out to the stakeholders on campus and if you’ve created the event in such a way that those stakeholders have no interest in co-sponsoring it then I think it’s problematic because you’re cutting out people.”

However, the Tory discovered that Schmidt had originally reached out to PSRJ to co-sponsor the event. These efforts were rebuffed due to PSRJ following Planned Parenthood’s policy of not engaging with the opposition. “We work super closely with PP and trust that the non-engagement approach is the best course of action for the types of advocates we are,” explained Co-President of PSRJ Tamar Willis ’19 in an email to Schmidt. The recording of the Frist meeting makes clear that Schmidt communicated this information to Hu and Wittekind. The recording also makes clear that in lieu of PSRJ’s participation, Schmidt had made plans to speak to a representative of the Women*s Center. In the same meeting that Hu and Wittekind cancelled the original abortion caucus, the pair also expressed their desire for Schmidt not to reach out to the Women*s Center. Schmidt decided not to listen to them and proceeded with the meeting and secured the Women*s Center as a co-sponsor. Hu admits that it was at this point that she decided to jump on board as well.

Ahmad explained that if this had not occurred, the push to salvage the abortion caucus may not have worked. “I think [Schmidt] showed that there was interest from the left which helped mitigate a lot of [Hu and Wittekind’s] concerns,” Ahmad explained. However, Ahmad speculated that there may never have been such a problem if the situation were reversed and too many liberal students were interested in the event. The rules were only such for conservatives.

Ethos Woes

“I want us to get into a situation where people who do subscribe to campus orthodoxies feel about being challenged from critics of those orthodoxies the way I feel about being challenged by for example Professor Singer where I think not that he should be silenced but rather that he is doing me a favor by forcing me to think more deeply about whether I’m right or wrong and if I’m right to articulate more clearly and more intelligently the case for the view I hold,” explained Prof. Robert George. According to him, the University’s ethos is one that promotes academic freedom and freedom of speech. The University’s ethos is one that demands that students be unsettled as part of a liberal arts education. It demands that their fundamental beliefs be challenged – whether they’re ethical beliefs or religious beliefs or the identity-forming beliefs which give someone a sense of who they are. George is adamant in saying that the top members of the administration agree with this ethos wholeheartedly, making Princeton University different from many other institutions of higher education.

In the many interviews the Tory conducted for this story, most were reluctant to draw a connection between a perceived black eye on the part of the co-presidents and the society at large all the way to the University proper. “I’m only distrustful of the people I dealt with at [Whig-Clio] and lowered my estimation of them considerably,” explained Wax, declining to draw that broader connection.

George did the same.

All followed this pattern but Keith Whittington. “It has proved that giving students that kind of autonomy has real risks for universities because students will sometimes use that freedom in problematic ways and it will necessarily reflect on the University in public,” explained Whittington. “But that’s part of the risk you run by trying to have student organizations that have a fair amount of freedom to make their own decisions on a university campus.” “If you tightly control a lot of stuff maybe you avoid some of those mistakes and as a consequence maybe you avoid some negative PR that might affect the University's own public image,” continued Whittington. “But on the other hand then you’re giving students fewer opportunities to make decisions, learn from those decisions, and hopefully grow and develop as a consequence of that.”

The students who remain deeply involved in Whig-Clio are not able to speak of mistakes and their lessons in the abstract, as Whittington does. They are, after all, tasked with steering the path forward. Ahmad, who represents the conservatives in Whig-Clio, is discouraged by the events which transpired under Hu and Wittekind’s leadership. “I think this year there’s definitely a feeling amongst Clios that conservatism or anything that isn’t left has been ignored by the administration,” explained Ahmad.

8 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

According to him, the speakers that Hu and Wittekind have brought have not failed to be progressive par excellence. Ahmad explained that the speakers Tom Koenig brought, such as author David Kaplan, could not be characterized in the same way. “I can understand there being a little bit more liberal speakers just because if you look at the demand that campus or Whig-Clio has it does lean left,” said Ahmad. “I can understand but I expect the proportions to be maybe be 60-40 or 70-30, in that area....ideally 5050.”Ahmad noted that it was sad to see the Wax-Whittington event not held since it included the only true right-oriented speaker Hu and Wittekind would have brought.

The Tory did learn that, at one point, Senator Jeff Flake came to speak at Whig-Clio. However, further reporting confirmed Ahmad’s assertion. According to Millie Goldrup ’20, Co-President of the Latter-Day Saints Student Association, Flake came to speak as part of a conference organized entirely by Mormon students on campus. Whig-Clio, alongside ODUS and the Office of Religious Life, provided some funding, but it was “definitely not the majority,” Goldrup said. Aside from that contribution, the extent of Hu and Wittekind’s involvement was to organize chairs and to allow the conference attendees to use Whig Hall for the entire weekend. “[Flake] was in town for this religious conference that he was already going to be at so that kind of fell into their lap,” explained Ahmad. “But other than that they didn’t make much of an effort to get conservative speakers.”

This is despite the fact that Whig-Clio has a history of bringing high-profile conservative speakers in the past. The year before Hu and Wittekind’s tenure, senior fellow at the National Review Institute David French came to campus. The year before that, an event featuring former Senator Rick Santorum was hosted by the society. Hu and Wittekind did note that they have their own biases which invariably affect their decisions to a certain degree. “The idea that people don’t have political biases within institutions is fatally flawed...I think it’s a talking point that means nothing,” Wittekind asserted. “Very frankly people privilege in their invites - in the energy that they give even if that’s a slight privilege - a small bias - 1-2% - which I think in this case it reasonably can be said it is - any human being has a bias - they invite who they like,” Wittekind continued. Wittekind also explained that, in his experience, conservative speakers are much more expensive when it comes to honoraria, or speaking fees. The Tory was not able to confirm or deny this assertion, other than confirming that Wax did not charge one.

However, Ahmad was entirely unsympathetic to this viewpoint. “I feel like when you make an effort there are conservative speakers who are willing to come whether it be some congressman or some senator,” explained Ahmad. “You don’t need to get the Ben Shapiros and Jordan Petersons all the time but just like other right of center or maybe not leftists orthodox speakers would have been nice.” The society has also seen senior Governing Council members clash about what Whig-Clio’s basic mission ought to be. According to current President-elect Christian Schmidt, Hu and Wittekind do not have a basic mission other than getting people in the door. Hu and Wittekind did not shy away from this alleged paradigm. “The overarching narrative of what we’ve done here at Whig-Clio is good programming,” Wittekind explained. “We’re hitting a pretty good spot where people are generally happy with the way our programming is going. It’s also reflected in our attendance,” Hu added.

For Schmidt, this meant that “[Hu and Wittekind’s] main priority was making sure that Whig-Clio sort of fit in to the average campus perspective and tried to get as many people in the door as possible...it led to them making some decisions based on that. If an event wasn’t set to be popular, they would cancel it rather than let it go.” According to Schmidt, conservative events would have been perceived as less popular by the pair. However, Schmidt went even further in reading their actions this year. “I think [Hu and Wittekind’s] primary purpose in not having large conservative events was more that they just felt that bringing those speakers to campus would be immoral because they think the speakers are intolerant,” explained Schmidt.

His own vision is decidedly different from that espoused by Hu and Wittekind. “It is better to have good events and less attendance than it is to have high attendance and bad events,” Schmidt added. In line with this thinking, Schmidt has no problem with controversial events. In fact, Schmidt explained that “it’s important for controversial ideas to be discussed because controversial ideas have very real and relevant implications for policy and society in general and if you’re ignoring the controversial ideas then you’re ignoring a certain group of ideas that people do actually think and sort of dismissing them.”

Looking at the year in its totality, Ahmad reiterated a sense of deflation. “I think it’s one of those years that’s gonna be looked at as not the best year for Whig-Clio conservatives, or even discourse in general,” Ahmad explained. Ahmad took solace in the University’s ethos, which George had emphasized so strongly. Ahmad hopes that the ship can be righted and that Whig-Clio can once again become an important contributor to this ethos.

The tension brewing within Whig-Clio is best exemplified in its architecture. Though both Whig Hall and its counterpart, Clio Hall, were remodeled in the neo-classical style to look like Greek temples in the 1890s, much of Whig, excluding its facade, has changed significantly. A 1969 fire led a New York architectural firm to shoehorn a four-story Modernist building into Whig-Clio’s surviving walls.

The inherent tension between the Modernist and the neo-classical, which together form Whig’s structure, resembles the tension which competing views of Whig-Clio’s basic mission necessarily brings. Concern of anti-conservative bias only adds fuel to the fire. Whether today’s or tomorrow’s leadership will be able to dissipate this tension remains to be seen.

Jeff Zymeri is is a junior from Warren, Michigan, concentrating in Classics.

9 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

COMPROMISED:

INADEQUACY OF BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS TO ABORTION

Noelia Carbajal

Opinion

Earlier this year, the American Whig-Cliosophic Society

But at its core, the Pro-life Club’s mission, much like

hosted a caucus at the Whig Senate Chamber to craft

the Women’s Alliance’s, demands much more than

bipartisan abortion rights policies. In more ways than one,

settling for specific restrictions on abortion. The fight for

the event proved timely. Increasing concerns, especially

life is one present at all stages of development. If that is

leading up to and following the recent changes that were

the case, why do we still disagree over the start to life?

made to the Supreme Court, over the future of Roe v. Wade,

Of all the policies proposed, the disagreement over

were showing that the landmark ruling made back in 1973

mandatory ultrasound viewings was most illuminating, as

had never truly settled the abortion debate. In fact, like

it revealed the underlying reasons behind choosing to

Americans everywhere today, students on campus still

protect a woman’s right to her body over the rights of the

identify themselves as either pro-life or pro-choice. This

body developing inside her womb. Opponents of the

divisive, political issue called for a peaceable meeting

policy refuted by saying that anything outside of

between Princeton’s Pro-Life Club and Women’s Alliance to

traditional doctor-patient services is an infringement of

come together and devise a compromise acceptable to

the right to privacy and freedom.

While it is true that there is no medical justification

both.

Although the caucus simply simulated what real voting

for showing an ultrasound to a woman who has

bodies might do to legislate important laws, its discussion-

prearranged terminating a pregnancy, perhaps one of the

based structure still led participants to deliberate with one

more interesting reasons I heard against the policy is that

another. Both groups not only convened as a large body to

it is a form of “guilt tripping.” If the start of life is truly

take turns proposing policies but also had the opportunity

arbitrary, how can one feel guilty about ending it,

to independently agree on their respective policy positions.

especially after seeing a meaningless ultrasound?

When the time came to present, however, policies from

Perhaps pro-choicers are mistaken about the

one side were met with objections from the other. These

intention behind the policy. The purpose of the medical

disagreements were not the result of minor particulars. On

procedure is not to shame women into making a specific

the contrary, major ideological differences led to the

decision but actually to empower them. How can they be

constant creation of incompatible policies. Pro-lifers and

expected to make the best decision for their bodies and

pro-choicers were implicitly broaching the question that the

families if they are not presented with all of the

effort to reach compromise had been avoiding all evening:

information necessary for understanding the available

when does life begin? More than anything, the caucus was

options and their ramifications? How can they be qualified

effective in starting a conversation about an issue that is

to make decisions in advance? There still is no medical

part of an ongoing debate today.

justification to show an ultrasound for a woman set on

As a participant on the pro-life side, I learned that

terminating a pregnancy, but there certainly is an ethical

completely banning a well-established medical practice

one. It would be a disservice—a deception—to not show a

with backing from all sides of the political spectrum is an

woman her ultrasound.

unfeasible goal. Instead, ensuring well-liked regulations

In general, the caucus was helpful in opening an

required that we first imagine the best-case scenario for all

important dialogue about opposing ideas. As we continue

life: a world in which human worth is neither defined by

to address abortion in the real world, however, let us not

one’s circumstances nor one’s expressed capacity for

simply settle for compromises that oftentimes leave little

humanness but by one’s intrinsic potential to live life to its

room for other relevant issues. Many of the policies

fullest. Moreover, it required discerning which features of

brought up by the pro-life group, for instance, conveyed

such a life we were willing to concede and which were non-

the impression that pregnancy only concerns women. But

negotiable to us. Doing this made our policies offer an

what about men? In an age of contraception—an age that

alternative-to-abortion message rather than an anti-abortion

separates the pleasures of sex with its procreative

one.

responsibilities—are we minimizing the importance of fatherhood?

10 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

Compromise is nothing more than a temporary solution, and sometimes it can even be a gateway to further complications. Besides ultrasound viewings, other points of contention during the caucus included figuring out at what point in a pregnancy abortion is permissible and whether to increase research for the viability of children outside the womb. Only a few policies, such as the implementation of safe haven laws, comprehensive sex education in schools, and the approval to abort in special cases of young pregnancy, rape, or medical threats, were unanimously agreed upon right off the bat. We must continue probing our opponents on the reasons upon which they base their convictions so that we address the real source of the abortion dilemma, argue on true premises, and propose effective solutions.

Noelia Carbajal is a freshman from the Bronx in New York City, New York.

11 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

THE CARBON TAX:

A CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION

Jivahn Moradian

Opinion

In today’s polarized politics, few liberals would expect

It seems obvious that we have a moral duty to do

a Republican to care about the environment. However

what we can to mitigate climate change. The responsible

people often forget that conservatism and conservation

course of action is to change our behavior now to reduce

have a tightly woven past. The Environmental Protection

the burden placed on our children. As a society, we

Agency owes a debt of thanks to President Nixon; the

should and ought to prioritize long-term solutions over

Climate Stewardship Acts of 2003 that promoted a carbon

short-term quick fixes; however blindly focusing on future

regulating cap-and-trade system were pushed for by

well-being without considering the effect on the present

Senator John McCain, and the Republican Party’s Platform

is hardly a wise solution. We should strive towards cost-

in 2000 explicitly voiced the need for science-based, result-

efficient, practical policies that minimize carbon

oriented environmental policy. Conservative

emissions, without disproportionately destabilizing

conservationists are not an oddity of nature. Why is it then

employment, energy supply and the economy.

that so few conservative politicians today are closely aligned with environmentalist movements?

An important question we should ask ourselves is, if carbon emissions have negative effects on society, then

The answer is a pragmatic one. Many green programs

why hasn’t the free market system responded to limit

are focused on improving the quality of the environment,

them? Most economists agree that free markets tend to

but often neglect the social and economic costs of doing so.

be the most simple and efficient system to regulate

Few conservatives would argue that one should not take

production; however, even the most ardent supporter of

care of the environment; it is logical, however, and even

free markets will acknowledge that there are situations in

commendable, to take into account the consequences of

which they fail to yield efficient, or desirable, outcomes.

doing so. It is vital that our nation’s environmental policies

One example of this is a negative externality: this is when

take the big picture into consideration.

producing or consuming a good has negative external

Unfortunately, the best scientific estimates paint a

impacts that are neither paid for by the producer nor by

bleak picture of the state of today’s environment. Many

the consumer. A rational, profit-maximizing company in a

argue that one of the most pressing challenges facing our

competitive market should, in theory, produce an efficient

society is that of global warming. Historical data shows a

amount of the good; however with a negative externality,

disconcertingly close correlation between the atmospheric

the company does not bear the true social cost of

concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature levels

production, and consequently will sell a greater quantity

worldwide. The recently released IPCC Report estimates

of the good and at a lower price than is socially optimal.

that human carbon emissions have caused global

Carbon emissions are a perfect example of such a

temperatures to rise by 1℃ compared to the pre-industrial

negative externality, which explains why the free market

era, and that this is likely to reach 1.5℃ between 2030 and

has produced too large a quantity of carbon emissions at

2052. The sea-level rise associated with such a temperature

too low a price.

increase will significantly harm coastal communities (in

How then can one resolve the inefficiency caused by

particular large coastal cities like New York City and Miami),

a negative externality? An economist’s standard remedy

which face property damage and likely evacuations. In

is to impose a Pigouvian tax, which is a tax scaled to

addition, the most accurate climate models show that

reflect the true social cost of the product. Such a tax

higher temperatures are also expected to cause increased

reduces demand and increases the price closer to the

extreme weather events such as hurricanes, reduced crop

socially optimal levels. In the case of carbon emissions,

yields, and increased rates of disease, all of which would

numerous economists and environmentalists alike have

hurt our nation both economically and socially. Although

voiced support for a carbon tax, which is essentially a

these models have high levels of uncertainty (which is often

Pigouvian tax on carbon emissions. A carbon tax would

not stressed by climate activists), they remain our best

increase the cost of carbon-intensive fuels relative to that

predictors of the consequences of failing to curb

of cleaner ones, thus reducing demand for fossil fuels and

greenhouse gas emissions.

incentivizing renewables, and is likely to reduce carbon

12 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

emissions in the long-run. The revenue from such a tax

The argument against a carbon tax I find most

could be used for numerous purposes: it could be returned

compelling is that taking action to combat climate change

to households as a dividend or as a tax rebate, or used to

will only be effective if other nations follow suit. In other

replace other taxes, or implemented as an additional source

words, should the United States institute a carbon tax but

of revenue for the government.

other nations fail to take comparable measures, our efforts

There are several features which make a carbon tax

would be wasted. Here I lay down my economist’s hat, and

more attractive than other environmental solutions like cap

instead turn to a simple, moral argument: that the United

and trade or regulations. First of all, it is relatively simple to

States ought to play its part in tackling the world’s

implement: it requires few administrative costs and

problems. How can we expect nations like China or India to

regulatory constraints, and still offers companies the ability

take extensive action to combat climate change when we

to determine how much carbon to produce according to

refuse to do so ourselves? Indeed, the US is responsible for

ordinary market mechanisms. Why implement complex rules

a disproportionate 15% of the world’s carbon emissions

when simple solutions can work just as well, or possibly

from fuel combustion, despite representing less than 5% of

better? Secondly, a carbon tax doesn’t excessively penalize

the world’s population.

or villainize fossil fuels: instead of banning them or

Instead of waiting for other nations to take the lead,

significantly restricting their usage, the tax represents the

the United States should seize the reins of opportunity as it

social cost of carbon, and simply corrects for uncounted

has in the past. When Europe was in ruins after the Second

costs. Of course, estimating this optimal tax rate may well be

World War, the Marshall Plan’s aid enabled an entire

impossible; however, we can get a close estimate. Finally,

continent to rebuild itself, and solidified an international

because carbon taxes strategically adjust the price instead

alliance that has lasted over half a century. When the World

of fixing the quantity, carbon taxes allow more flexibility and

Health Organization was taken by surprise during the 2014

thus are more in line with a free market system. This

Ebola Outbreak in West Africa, the CDC provided its medical

prevents year-to-year supply shocks from having an undue

expertise to contain what almost became a global health

effect on the market.

catastrophe. A similar leadership vacuum exists in the fight

One common concern about implementing a carbon

against climate change; the US is a pivotal world player,

tax is its effect on consumer prices. In effect, because fuel is

capable of efficiently instigating positive change, and

a relatively inelastic good, companies can shift much of

should step up to the challenge as we have numerous times

their tax burden onto consumers by raising fuel prices.

in the past.

Although it might be more fair for people to pay the true

A carbon tax is a socially, fiscally, and morally

social cost of what they are consuming, a fuel price increase

responsible policy I think our country should implement.

would significantly impact a large number of households:

Doing so is likely to inspire other nations to take similar

quite understandably, no one is yearning for higher prices.

actions, and would fulfill our basic duty towards future

One possible solution to mitigate this in the short-run is to

generations of Americans.

redistribute the tax revenue as a rebate to households to help them adapt to the slightly higher prices.

Overall, the advantages of a carbon tax are that it is a simple and pragmatic market-based mechanism to correct

Another important consideration is the effect on

the price of carbon and thus reduce a market failure. The

employment. Many people are rightfully concerned that a

subsequent reduced carbon emissions would reduce the

carbon tax would harm fossil-fuel-intensive industries and

potential impacts of global warming on future generations,

cause them to lay off workers, thus increasing

and cement the United States as a leader in responsible

unemployment. Fortunately, most studies conclude that a

environmental management.

carbon tax would have a negligible effect on employment. A 2014 REMI study of a national carbon fee-and-dividend tax projected that implementing such a policy could actually create 2.1 million additional jobs by 2025, while

Jivahn Moradian is a junior from Paris, France,

simultaneously reducing carbon emissions by 33%. In

concentrating in Economics.

practice, the employment impact of carbon taxes implemented in British Columbia, Denmark and Ireland has been either neutral or slightly positive. Despite this positive outlook, emerging industries should be developed and supported in tandem with a carbon tax to provide an appealing alternative to any potentially affected workers.

13 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

REACTION TO MIDTERMS

PRINCETON ELECTION CONSORTIUM Jeff Zymeri

News

The 2018 midterms, continuing to evolve some three

Commentators have noted endlessly that the new

weeks after election day, drew varied reactions from

Democratic majority is built upon suburban districts of a

members of the University community. It became clear on

Republican tilt swinging to the Democrats in 2018. The gold

election night that the Republican Party would hold and

standard is Orange County, California, which President

expand their majority in the Senate while losing control of

Ronald Reagan famously referred to as the place “where

the House, the result most political pundits predicted in the

good Republicans go to die.” The county notably swung to

months leading up to the election. An estimated 113 million

the Democrats this cycle, with Republicans losing four

people voted in the 2018 midterms, making this election the

Orange County districts. Other notable suburban losses

first midterm in history to exceed 100 million votes. Forty-

included seats in deep red districts in Oklahoma and New

nine percent of eligible voters participated in this election.

York. Acknowledging the problems Republicans are now

The historic numbers coincided with increased efforts

facing in suburbia, College Republicans president Will

made by campus organizations to expand student turnout.

Crawford ‘20 looked to the future, explaining that

One such group was Vote100, which according to its

“Republicans need to focus suburban messaging on GOP

website, is “an intentional campus campaign aspiring for

winners there, most obviously the good economy.”

100% of the undergraduate student body to engage civically

Crawford added, “They also need to run more viable and

in the 2018 midterms.” Though it wasn’t able to meet its full

attractive candidates such as veterans, which I think was a

campus participation goal, Vote100 did manage to get 30%

strong point in many Democratic congressional candidates

of the student body to take a pledge to participate in this

this year.”

and all future elections.

Elizabeth Wahlstedt ’20 had another take, concurring

University Professor of Neuroscience Sam Wang,

that these suburban voters can be won back but arguing

founder of the Princeton Election Consortium, explained that

that “there needs to be a fundamental transformation within

in popular-vote terms, Democrats had a wave election. “Their

the Republican Party itself. Many Republican voters placed

popular-vote margin in the House races is heading for 8

an enormous effort in getting President Trump elected as

points,” he said. Wang echoed an Associated Press report

well as many other Republican candidates. However,

which held that Democrats received 8.6 million votes more

candidates did not hold to their platforms and utilized their

than their Republican opponents, a margin north of 7.9

new found positions to become members of the so-called

percent. Wang also noted that Democrats “didn’t win as

Washington elite,” Wahlstedt explained, advocating that

many seats as Republicans with a smaller margin in

Republicans return to fundamental principles and distance

2010...because of partisan gerrymandering.” However, Wang

themselves from the Washington swamp.

continued, “this does not change the fact that it was the

Democratic gains were heightened by their ability to

largest margin for either party since 2008, another

capture seven governorships from Republicans, who have

Democratic wave.” The margin in 2008 was about 10.6

certainly created a “red wall” in many state governments.

percent in favor of Democrats, which continues to be the

Examples included key 2020 states like Michigan and

largest since the early eighties.

Wisconsin, which were crucial to Trump’s 2016 election win.

As it currently stands, with Republicans leading in two

Republicans did, however, manage to hold on to

House races yet to be called and Democrats leading in one

governorships in other key states like Florida and Ohio, and

other, the Democratic gain stands at 39 seats. This gives the

even gained a governorship in Alaska, putting a hamper on

future Democratic speaker a narrow but secure margin of 16

Democratic enthusiasm regarding state-level gains.

seats. College Democrats president Sebastian Quiroz ’20

When it came to state legislatures, Democrats made

explained that the 2018 midterms showed that the

up ground lost during the Obama presidency by re-taking

Democratic Party has what it takes to win. “We won in places

both chambers in New Hampshire and one chamber in

that were considered Republican strongholds, like Orange

Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Maine. Minnesota’s

County, California,” said Quiroz. “We were also close to

legislature constitutes the only example of divided

winning in places we were told we had no business trying to

government in the U.S.

compete in, like Texas and Georgia.”

14 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

When governorships are taken into account, states

adding that he would like to see “automatic voter

with Republican trifectas (governorship plus legislature

registration, a repairing of the Voting Rights Act, and an

control) number 25, down from 31, while states with

infrastructure bill.” He added, “The possibility of

Democratic trifectas number 14, up from 8. Thirteen states

bipartisanship is always available." Crawford concurred on

now have divided trifectas, down from 16. The ability to

the bipartisanship point but laid out a very different path

keep and expand their majority in the Senate has been a

Democrats could take. “I see two strains coming from the

major consolation prize for Republicans. If the runoff in

House Democrats in the aftermath of the election: Pelosi's

Mississippi is won by Republicans, the party will be

putative position, which is to cooperate in the divided

heading for a 53 to 47 seat majority. The situation looked

government where there is common ground such as

even better on election night but it soon became clear that

infrastructure and criminal justice reform and what you

Republicans would lose the seat vacated by Sen. Jeff Flake

might call the Maxine Waters position, which is to begin a

in Arizona and fail to unseat Sen. Jon Tester in Montana.

deluge of gratuitous subpoenas and hearings to attack the

Republicans scored major victories in Florida, Indiana,

president and his administration,” Crawford said. “I am

Missouri, and North Dakota, where they were able to unseat

cautiously optimistic that the chambers of Congress can

Democratic incumbents.

work with each other and with the president,” Crawford

Both Wang and Quiroz acknowledged that it would always be difficult for Democrats to win the upper chamber, given an unfavorable map. “The results in states like

continued, adding that he “doubts the better angels in the Democratic Party will prevail.”

A final important consequence to come out of the

Arizona are fantastic...but there was always going to be a

midterm elections is an increase in Democratic rhetoric

higher likelihood the Senate was going to stay in GOP

charging that there are serious structural and electoral

hands,” Quiroz said. Quiroz also did not give up hope for

problems with how Americans elect their representatives.

the Senate seat in Mississippi, where both candidates have

The increase in this rhetoric coincides with the backdrop of

been dogged with missteps. “The Democratic Party knows

voting and redistricting reforms at the state level. Earlier

how to craft a winning message and I am sure Mike Espy

this year, courts declared congressional districts in

has what it takes to bring it home,” Quiroz explained.

Pennsylvania and North Carolina to be unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith remains

However, Pennsylvania had to redraw its lines,

the frontrunner in a state Trump won by 18 points.

consequently experiencing a major shift in its

The biggest news to emerge from election night was

congressional delegation, moving from solid Republican

that divided government was returning to Washington.

control to an even split. North Carolina did not see much of

Crawford echoed the view that Trump’s public approval

a shift. Voting reforms also appeared on the ballot in many

rating had to do with the American people sending a mixed

states. An example is Michigan’s Proposal 2, which passed

message, saying that “Trump’s favorability in different

and will amend Michigan’s constitution to create a 13-

areas of the country is complicated.” Crawford added, “I

member independent citizens’ redistricting commission.

think the Republican Party needs to reckon with him as a messenger in some areas."

However, many on the right have pointed out that Democrats have gone much further than this, charging that

Wahlstedt explained that “the divided nature of the

elections were stolen and the system is inherently unfair.

country means that there is a fundamental base of support

RNC chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel cited

for Republicans. This is why they held the Senate. But

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown’s comments on the

[midterm losses] indicate a certain...very present disdain for

Georgia gubernatorial race as an extreme example of this

politics felt by moderate Republican voters.” Wahlstedt

rhetoric. “If Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, [the

also noted that this was heightened by the fact that

Republicans] stole it,” Brown said. “It’s clear. I say it

Congress “struggled to accomplish some key goals...even

publicly.”

under [unified Republican] government.”

While he explained that he agrees with Democratic

The disparity between Republican and Democratic

complaints that there are structural disadvantages

visions for America portends serious governing challenges.

affecting the party, Quiroz noted that the most important

Both Crawford and Quiroz acknowledged that the most

takeaway from this election is that “the Democratic party

consequential task the Senate would pursue is that of

has a winning message, focused on helping all Americans.”

confirming Trump’s judicial nominations, respectively

“Of all the divisive rhetoric in this country,” added Quiroz, “

expressing approval and disapproval. Regarding the

talking about the structures of how our elections are run is

House, Quiroz expressed hope that “the Democrats [there]

among the least harmful.”

will push for the progressive change this country needs,”

15 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

Wahlstedt disagreed with Quiroz, explaining that Brown’s comments and other similar complaints “can be seen as deliberate attempts to disrupt the voting process.”

Crawford agreed, first taking issue with the specifics of Brown’s comments, saying that Stacey Abrams refusing to concede for as long as she did is “political smoke being blown to score points for the party or, in Abrams' case, for her 2020 Senate campaign.” He asserted that any actions Governor-elect Brian Kemp took while Secretary of State to supervise Georgia elections were actions required of him by state and federal law.

“The other issue is that of so-called representation,” Crawford said. “The most obvious case of Democrats bloviating about this is Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat despite the fact that she won the popular vote.” Crawford added that “cosmopolitan Democrats complain ad nauseam about the outsize power the Senate gives to states with much smaller populations. [They] seem to forget that this is a feature, not a bug, of our republic. It was the result of compromise among the Framers to prevent exactly the sort of majoritarian tyranny the modern left now advocates.”

Crawford concluded that this “rhetoric isn’t dangerous so much as it is misguided and a reflection of the general contempt Democrats have for American traditions.”

On Tuesday, November 27, Mississippi voters chose to send Republican incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith back to Washington, cementing a 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate. The race proved closer than usual for Mississippi but Democratic challenger Mike Espy was ultimately unable to overcome the state’s deep Republican lean. Three weeks after election night, the number of seats Democrats have gained in the House still remains uncertain. However, with results having solidified in two New York races, all attention has turned to California’s 21 District, where Democratic challenger TJ Cox took a 436 vote lead over Republican incumbent David Valadao.

According to Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, various plausible scenarios all augur well for Cox. If Cox does manage to unseat Valadao, the Democratic gain will stand at 40 seats instead of 39, further solidifying the Democratic majority.

Jeff Zymeri is a junior from Warren, Michigan, concentrating in Classics.

16 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

WHY FEDERALISM STILL MATTERS Jacob Brown

Opinion

We live in a country divided. And contrary to what pundits may say, this is the way it is meant to be. The United States is a large country with a geographically-dispersed population containing a diverse set of religious and ethnic groups. To say that such a population should be – or even could be – governed under a unitary government implies a certain amount of historical revisionism.

The name says it all: this is a country of United States, rather than one controlled by a homogenous governmental unit. Unfortunately, much of the public has forgotten the reason why this division of power between federal and state governments exists, letting state governments atrophy, while handing the federal government power over our daily lives. Through this perspective, many of the ills facing the country today are not grounded in irreconcilable divisions between left and right. They come from our willingness to permit one entity (the federal government) to use its substantial powers to infringe on the rights of those who did not elect the ruling majority of the day. Our political divisions are not permanently intractable: by resurrecting the ideal of a federalist system, we could solve many of our contemporary problems in a manner satisfying those of all political stripes.

Let’s start with the basics: why does the United States possess a federal system of government? The simple answer is because the Constitution says so! Since this document is the “supreme law” of the land, it follows that decision-makers should heed its words, even if there is disagreement over their exact interpretation. The document specifically mentions how jurisdiction is to be divided between the state and federal governments, while describing the structure of the federal institutions and listing the powers (such as the ability to raise a militia and regulate interstate commerce) which are possessed by the federal government.

Notably absent from the Constitution is a list of specific powers granted to states. Why is this? The idea was that the federal government would be one of delegated and enumerated powers that held jurisdiction over certain governmental functions essential to maintaining a cohesive nation, such as internal free trade and a common defense – but that the states would be governments of general jurisdiction which would possess all governmental powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, as mentioned in the Tenth Amendment. The Framers of the Constitution often talked about how states would have complete control over “police powers” – an archaic term for governmental actions involving the “health, safety, welfare, and morality” of the people. Though the Bill of Rights (later explicitly applied to state governments through the 14th Amendment) was meant to protect certain fundamental rights from governmental interference, it was still up to each state to determine the laws it best saw fit for governing its own people. The idea was that the best way to both protect individual liberties and promote better governance was by decentralizing power into entities closer to the people – the states – which were more responsive to the problems and desires of their local population than a centralized federal government ever could be.

And for the most part, the system worked. While certain states infringed on fundamental liberties (with slavery being the most egregious example), the United States still enjoyed unprecedented prosperity and religious tolerance that was completely absent from Western Europe at the time. The United States’ federal system was so successful that other countries began to adopt variants of it, including many current and former monarchies such as Germany, Canada, Australia and ironically, the United Kingdom itself! It is hard to imagine today, but most pre-industrial governments were conceived as unitary entities under the rule of one monarch or emperor, or as quasi-democratic entities (such as the Roman Republic) whose ultimate power rested in a capital-city elite. The Framers understood the problems caused by such systems and were prescient enough to realize that empires fell when a central elite became “out-of-touch” with the desires of citizens in far-away lands – and that governments would need to be responsive to the people in order to adapt to contemporary realities, which would occur by having governments “close to the people.” Such a federal system has been able to guarantee individual freedom and economic success in a way no governmental system has done before – when implemented as originally conceived.

But today, this system is in crisis. Executive power has replaced state legislative power as the primary means of drafting rules, with federal agencies (under the auspices of the Executive Branch) creating the bulk of regulations governing healthcare, welfare, and public safety. Today, the federal government receives over 60% of the nation’s total tax revenue, with the remaining 40% being collected by states and municipalities. Other countries do just the reverse: for example, in Canada (a country with a federal system very similar to the United States) only about 40% of total spending is attributed to the federal government. While tax revenue is not a perfect indicator of how much power a certain level of government possesses, it is clear that individual states are not fully exercising their constitutional right to be entities of “general jurisdiction” with its concomitant spending and regulatory powers – and that citizens have permitted this gross transfer of power from the local level to the elites in Washington without much of a second thought.

17 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

A quasi-centralized government lacks the benefits of a federal system while still carrying the baggage of a unitary system. The first drawback is the ability for a muscular federal government to trample on the rights of a minority which did not elect it. This is evident not just in Congress and the Executive branches, but also in the Courts: Democrats and Republicans clamor to appoint justices because they both want to exert power long after their governing mandates have evaporated. The flip side to this is that the party out of power always seem to advocate for “state rights” – and then hypocritically change its mind once they have gained power.

It is a vicious feedback cycle which fuels the narrative that federal politics is about exerting your (and your party’s will) on a helpless minority, rather than collectively solving problems for the good of the country.

But if the federal government did not possess the power to control healthcare, welfare, or local policing – as the Constitution suggests it should not – then the federal government would lack the ability to exert undue influence over the daily lives of everyday citizens, and voters would change their attitudes towards electing federal politicians because much less would be at stake. This would particularly change the role of the Supreme Court, because it is now commonly accepted among people of all political persuasions that the Court possesses judicial supremacy, a doctrine that permits the Court to strike down any state law it views as unconstitutional.

For both Democrats and Republicans, the Supreme Court is the ultimate prize – and their ultimate peril, should the other side gain control. While having a Supreme Court is necessary to give a final opinion on claims relating to federal jurisdiction, it alone should not be tasked with preserving the rights of minorities, nor providing a final ruling on matters of “general jurisdiction” that are constitutionally delegated to the states.

Instead of having a group of unelected, unaccountable jurists decide controversial issues on which reasonable people could disagree, states could enact legislation that reflects their population’s unique view on the subject. This would help to diffuse the “culture wars” about particularly divisive issues like abortion. In this way, having a federalist system of government is actually antimajoritarian, because a minority of states could decide to enact different rules than the majority of states. Even if there were to be a situation where a certain state was to enact an unfair or discriminatory law, citizens would (hopefully) be able to move to a different state where such a law would not be in force. But if the federal government or the Supreme Court enacted such a law, the affected minorities would have nowhere to run, because the law would encompass the whole nation. In short, a federal system reduces the risk of widespread minority repression, increases the democratic legitimacy of the federal government, and would also make the country much less polarized.

But states don’t just exist to protect minority rights – they are also meant to serve as “laboratories of democracy.” By giving states wide latitude to enact laws and regulations as they see fit, some states will inevitably approach social and economic issues differently than other states. Many will inevitably fail, but others will succeed – and in turn provide a model that other states could follow. However, under our current model of government, such experimentation is often impossible: when the federal government has a near-monopoly over food and drugs regulation, healthcare policy, environmental protection, welfare distribution, and technology policy, it is difficult for states to try a different approach that may be more successful. In this time of rapid technological change, it is imperative that we permit differential regulation at both the local and state level in order to permit innovation to flourish. This experimentation on a grand scale is what has given America its competitive edge in the past, and what will continue to do so in the future.

This is not to say that the federal government is completely unnecessary. Certain functions essential to operating a cohesive country must be performed by a national body, and there must be certain fundamental rights (including equality rights and freedom of movement) which are upheld universally. But this does not imply that the federal government should be allowed (or encouraged) to enact regulation that infringes on a state’s general jurisdiction. The best way to permit both protect minority rights and promote good government policy is through a federal system in which states are given broad discretion to enact laws as they see fit. Returning to the Framer’s intended vision of government would dramatically reduce political polarization, and force voters to think more concretely at the local level, rather than deal with vitriolic abstractions at the federal level. And the best part of it all? A framework for such a system of government already exists in the Constitution. All that is missing is the popular will – and some long-term strategic thought from partisans who prize short-term gain over long-term success.

Jacob Brown is a junior from Toronto, Ontario, concentrating in Electrical Engineering.

18 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

CREATING DISBELIEF:

A REPORT ON THE CREATION MUSEUM

Liam O'Connor

News

Along the highways of southwestern Ohio, backyard crosses and church steeples blaze brightly at night. In the heartland of America — where nearly three quarters of adults are Christians — religion is a public matter, influencing politics and civil affairs.

Twenty minutes outside of Cincinnati, the Creation Museum is a $27 million world-class attraction that teaches visitors about the Old Testament’s account of creation. Behind its doors, dinosaurs walk with humans, and supercontinents break apart under a global flood.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) — the Young Earth Creationist ministry that constructed the museum — emphasizes that one’s beliefs on creation have real-world impacts. While science’s explanation of the universe’s origin constantly changes with new discoveries, AiG’s message remains the same: The Book of Genesis says that God created the world in six 24-hour days less than ten thousand years ago.

Nearly 40 percent of Americans agree with this view, according to a recent Gallup poll. The Tory dispatched a reporter to investigate the Creation Museum and later interviewed Nathaniel Jeanson — a Harvard-trained biologist who works for AiG — to explain its features.

The Creation Museum began with a video exhibit of two scientists excavating dinosaur bones. One gregarious paleontologist in a Stetson hat said, “Today, we study the same fossils, we use the same techniques. But that doesn’t mean that we agree on what happened here.” Although his colleague believed that the bones were fossilized over a long period of time, the first paleontologist explained that the Bible proves most dinosaurs died quickly during Noah’s Flood. “We come to different conclusions because we’re at different starting points,” he said, “I start with the Bible. My colleague does not.”

Posters in the following room contrasted conclusions reached when starting with “Man’s Word” versus “God’s Word” on subjects ranging from astrophysics to archaeology. “The Creation Museum was designed for people who know that the Bible is true but do not know what to do about science,” Nathaniel Jeanson said. AiG’s speakers have brought their message to audiences across the world and often encounter similar questions, such as “Where does racism come from?” and “How did Cain get his wife?” The museum also provides biblical answers to these common queries. Ultimately, though, the Creation Museum argues why people should adopt a literal interpretation of Genesis. “Questions in morals and politics,” Jeanson said, “all of it goes back to Genesis, and you can’t ignore it.” It’s impossible to resolve debates over social policies without considering deeper, more fundamental disagreements. Jeanson said, “The questions that we need to answer are ‘Does truth exist?’ and, if so, ‘Is that truth in the Bible?’”

The museum’s next exhibit foreshadowed urban decadence in an American society that abandons scripture. Television screens showed the problems of an areligious world: the proliferation of drugs, envy, pornography, and teenage pregnancy. A flat voice in the background listed statistics indicating that society is on the verge of a breakdown. “Over 1.1 million marriages end in divorce,” it said ominously. One diorama featured a life-sized wrecking ball labeled “Millions of Years” crashing into a church’s foundation. “If you’re dealing with two worlds — one based on scripture and one that’s not,” Jeanson said, “which one does society want to live in?”

AiG is primarily concerned about the worldviews to which people adhere. To them, science doesn’t necessarily conflict with religion. Instead, they believe science supports Young Earth Creationism. The problem, in their view, is that people are unaware of creationists’ findings. Jeanson said, “If you go through the public school system, you’ll never hear these hypotheses.” The remainder of the museum told Genesis’ story of creation and displayed scientific evidence that allegedly supports it. Nude figures of Adam and Eve relaxed in the Garden of Eden with animals from around the planet and dinosaurs. One sign read, “Before man’s Fall, animals were vegetarians. In a ‘very good’ creation, no animal would die, so there were no carnivores.” After eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve appeared battered and clothed. The original sin caused conflict, carnivorism, and genetic mutations to enter the world.

Mankind’s further decline into sin lead to God’s judgement of the world in the form of a global cataclysm.

Noah’s Flood was a key component of the museum. Confirming its existence in the geologic record would refute many of science’s rejections of Young Earth Creationism. Following a walkthrough exhibit of Noah’s Ark — which the museum declared with unwavering certainty was 510 feet long and 51 feet tall — visitors looked at diagrams interpreting the presence of the Flood in geologic strata. There was even a real dinosaur skeleton. One sign explained that all dinosaurs — except for those on Noah’s Ark — died in the Flood. For those that survived, it said they eventually, “died out due to competition for food, a post-Flood Ice Age, or other post-Flood catastrophes, or maybe even because people killed them for food or sport.” Other signs around the museum asserted that cultures around the world had legends of dragons that resembled dinosaurs; therefore, they must be one and the same, giving further evidence of Noah’s Flood. Among those who fought dinosaurs were Roman armies, Saint George, and cowboys.

19 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

According to creationists, Genesis must be

“So many people are not aware of this whole scientific

understood literally — including the presence of dinosaurs

enterprise,” he said, “we’re making new advancements and

on the Ark — to avoid greater inconsistencies. Jeanson

new strategies.” In some ways, the Origins Debate has

said, “If someone takes a different view of Genesis, you run

greatly evolved since the days of Darwin. Creationists have

into other problems textually, theologically, and

realized that they must engage with science rather than

philosophically.” Jeanson’s own research uses

sidestep it. But, to secular scientists, Jeanson and the

mitochondrial mutation rates to determine a timescale for

Creation Museum are simply creating disbelief in their work.

modern humans’ divergence from a common Homo sapien genetic ancestor. The question is whether a mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 years ago or further back in time as indicated by the evolutionary model. His recent book,

Liam O'Connor is a junior from Wyoming, Delaware,

“Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species,” walks

concentrating in Geology.

readers through his calculations that verified a young age for the world.

Not everyone agrees with him. Several scientists have written lengthy reviews in which they describe his research’s flaws. Evolutionary biology Ph.D. student Steve Sterley wrote, “Jeanson was using a mutation rate which was 35 times greater than [the] observed value.” At the end of his book review, Dr. Stefan Frello asked, “Would you trust an Atheist to teach your children about Christianity? If not — don’t trust a creationist to tell them about evolution!”

Despite frequent criticism, Jeanson does not capitulate. He said that Frello’s review actually bolstered his original claims, and that Young Earth Creationist, “literature thrive[s] in the face of criticism from well-qualified critics.

The Creation Museum’s final room illustrated how an evolutionary worldview causes suffering in the world. After people abandoned God’s Word, one sign read, “Human reason can be used to justify evil of every sort.”

Consequently, Social Darwinism and moral relativism flourished, leading to racism, genocide, abortion, and euthanasia. A caption to a picture of a cemetery lamented of aborted babies, “Rather than protecting the helpless, we murder them.”

Contrastingly, another exhibit argued that a biblical worldview promotes love. “God’s Word says that all people after the Flood descended from Noah’s three sons,” a sign read. Differences in skin color and cultures were the result of the Tower of Babel splitting the human gene pool.

Regardless of these superficial features, the museum maintained, “Every human is fully human, from conception to the end of life.” AiG’s claims that evidence supports Young Earth Creationism have not gained traction in the scientific community. “You say 6,000 years in today’s culture, and you are vilified,” Jeanson said. He believes that strong stereotypes of creationists prevent people from fairly evaluating their views.

20 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY Will Nolan

Opinion

An academic seems no more obtuse and irrelevant

So crucial, however, to the first task of pursuing

than when he questions the very purpose of academia. If

knowledge is freedom from narrow-minded dogmatism

he himself is unable to explain why he applies himself to

that he believes a check should be in place on the moral

vague and outlandish lines of inquiry, then his cause must

commands of which he himself is convicted. The benefits

be hopeless, for there certainly is no one else who can

of this picture, broadly construed, are such that the

provide him with a ready answer. But in this lies the plight

University has freedom in its opinions but simultaneously

of the scholar, for part of his task is itself to understand the

holds constituents who aim for the common end of

content of his own vocation. For not only is he the only one

knowledge.

equipped to grapple with the question of the meaning of

Princeton fails to uphold such a positive vision on

scholarly pursuit, but outsourcing this question will

several accounts. First and foremost, mere preservation of

immediately precipitate an impoverishment of his calling.

knowledge is not enough for Princeton. The operative term

One part of the scholar’s aim is achievable only in the

in this arena is production. In the non-humanities

society of other people undertaking similar pursuits.

disciplines, ever encroaching upon that shrinking minority,

Because of this reliance of the academic on other

the goal is new knowledge never before seen upon the

academics, context and habitat serve as crucial

planet. Science and engineering, in particular, are

determinants of the kind of work that can be accomplished

concerned with the possible applications of their

at a given institution. I contend, in what brief space

discoveries. This prerogative for newness is not content to

remains, not only that certain environments are more

remain in the disciplines of its genesis, but also migrates

conducive than others to harmonious intellectual inquiry,

across fields to create such oxymorons as “digital

but likewise that Oxford University has achieved a setting

humanities.”

more suitable for such inquiry than has our own institution.

Now, social context is an amorphous entity whose

This approach favors the external production possible through education as opposed to the

sources and causes are not clearly discernible. As a result,

improvement of the individual. The downside of holding

it will be helpful to offer the brief caveat that (most likely),

up novelty as the modus operandi is that understanding

the sin of no particular actor is responsible for the faults

the world for its own sake becomes an outmoded and

that may exist in one educational context or another. The

valueless exercise. In a sense, as external (and hopefully

comparison of these two institutions, then, is not for the

useful) knowledge become the goal, the individual gets

sake of casting blame upon one and salutations upon the

left out. In a world of impersonal information, the person

other, but rather to bring into focus those attributes that

must disappear. On Newman’s model, people are educated

contribute most to the flourishing conditions all scholars

so that we can better understand the world, our place in it,

desire.

our relationship to God, and hence know better how to

In his book, The Idea of the University, Cardinal John

navigate it in our mature lives. Education, on this account,

Henry Newman, himself a man of Oxford, lays out the

has to do first and foremost with the individual who is

contours of what he believes to constitute the best model

becoming educated. The process of learning will equip the

for a University not concerned with religious formation. It is

student not only to engage in abstract thinking, but teach

striking that he posits immediately that there should be a

him to apply these abstract principles in a well-lived life.

strict separation on the one hand between the attainment

Second, something I never thought I would say,

of knowledge in pursuit of truth and on the other hand, the

Princeton as an institution is too concerned with morality.

moral formation of students. He states that the university

Princeton’s morality—let’s call it Frenetic Careerism—

“is a place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies

tends to interfere with intellectual inquiry just as Newman

that its object is, on the one hand, intellectual, not moral.”

feared. It is frenetic, because many students pour more

It would seem that in a man so deeply religious and

energy into extra-curriculars than they do into their classes.

occupying the clerical ranks of first the Anglican and

The result of this arrangement is that the average student

eventually the Roman Catholic Church, he would maintain

gets less sleep than a new mom. Its morality also espouses

a stronger emphasis upon character formation.

careerism, an absolute allegiance to the production of a

21 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

successful trajectory in the working world. Such a motive is very often pursued for the sake of economic gain. The outcome of this pervasive morality is that intellectual inquiry becomes stilted and shallow. This effect on the

Will Nolan is a senior from Williamstown, Massachusetts, concentrating in Philosophy.

university’s aims says nothing about the validity of the morality per se, but rather illustrates the harmful influence of any dogmatism in the University context.

Against these unfortunate trends, I found a semester abroad at Oxford to offer a welcome breath of fresh air.

First, the structure of the tutorial system is such that class time is minimized to just a few hours each week, opening up time for organic discussion with peers and deeper engagement with readings. When the tutorial comes around, the student must be prepared to discuss the topic or thinker one-on-one at a level of depth not replicable in the seminar setting. As such, the system encouraged study for itself and not merely as an instrumental stepping-stone.

Second, academic theology is not taboo. Theology, as a real branch of knowledge, lives on in Oxford. Unlike religious studies, which has given up on the possibility that such an objective assessment of religious claims is possible, theology examines the intellectual foundations of bodies of religious doctrines. Oxford has not fallen prey to the myth, as expounded by Newman, that “Religion is not knowledge, has nothing whatever to do with knowledge, and is excluded from the University course of instruction, not simply because the exclusion cannot be helped, from political or social obstacles, but because it has not business there at all, because it is to be considered a taste, a sentiment, opinion.”

Between these two contexts there is one central and fundamental difference. Many specific differences between the two systems are only revealed in the light of this one important difference. Newman posits of the healthy academic mindset: “I am prepared to maintain that there is a knowledge worth possessing for what it is, and not merely for what it does.” One approach affirms the basic goodness of intellectual inquiry for its own sake and one does not. If this principle is denied, then academia can only be seen to be worthwhile inasmuch as it produces some kind of utility in the practical domain. But the moment it becomes a conduit towards something outside itself, it has abrogated its valid claim to intrinsic value.

Academic inquiry is a great human good when pursued for its own sake. At Oxford, I got a glimpse into a system, which, while imperfect, is closer to the ideal laid out by Newman than Princeton. While our institution serves an important duty in its own right, it is not the handmaiden of a Liberal Education.

22 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

I NTERESTED IN WRITING FOR AN AWARD-WINNING, NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED, POLITICAL PUBLICATION?

JOI N THE TORY! WE ARE LOOKING FOR WRITERS, DESIGNERS, AND ASPIRING BUSINESS MANAGERS TO JOIN OUR TEAM.

EMAI L IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, SEND AN EMAIL TO TORY@PRINCETON.EDU

The Princeton Tory is a journal of conservative and moderate political thought written, edited and produced by Princeton University students and delivered free of charge to all Princeton students and faculty. Issues can be found at www.princetontory.com. The Princeton Tory is a publication of The Princeton Tory, Inc. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the editors, trustees, Princeton University or The Princeton Tory, Inc. The Princeton Tory accepts letters to the editor. Direct correspondence to: P.O. Box 1499, Princeton, NJ 08542; or by e-mail: tory@princeton.edu. Advertisement rates for The Princeton Tory can be found on the magazine’s website at www.princetontory.com. Donations to The Princeton Tory are fully tax-deductible.

Please mail donations to: P.O. Box 1499, Princeton, NJ 08542. The Princeton Tory is a member of the Collegiate Network. The Princeton Tory, Inc. is a non-profit corporation registered in New Jersey. No part of this publication should be construed to promote any pending legislation or to support any candidate for office. No part of this publication may be reproduced without express written consent of the Publisher.

Copyright © 2018 The Princeton Tory

PRINCETON'S PREMIER MAGAZINE OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT.

CONTACT

US

TORY@PRINCETON.EDU AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE WWW.PRINCETONTORY.COM

DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED. CHECKS AND INQUIRIES ADDRESSED TO: THE PRINCETON TORY PO BOX 1499 PRINCETON, NJ 08542

THE PRINCETON TORY IS A 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATION