The Princeton Tory 35.5

V O L U M E

T H E

A

X X X V

- -

I S S U E

5

P R I N C E T O N

TORY

JOURNAL

OF

CONSERVATIVE

AND

MODERATE

THOUGHT

C O N S E R V A T I S M :

A N

A P O L O G Y

PUBLISHER'S NOTE Dear Tories,

It’s my absolute pleasure to usher this publication into

piece with Akhil Rajasekar’s Lawsplainer column, in

another decade. Throughout the past thirty-five years,

which Akhil returns to Chief Justice John Marshall and

Princeton students have decided over and over again to invest

examines his account of “the judicial power of the

countless hours into the Tory. The collective willpower of

United States.” Additionally, Bianca Ortiz-Miskimen

these Princetonians has kept this magazine going longer than

interviews author of The Diversity Delusion Heather Mac

anyone could have imagined. The Tory has even been

Donald about the state of American universities.

transformed into a mainstay of Princeton’s conservative scene and I am proud to have played a role in this.

As I write this note now, the feeling is rather bittersweet.

Proving that conservatism is most concerned with the individual and the family, three of the pieces included here are lifestyle and relationship related. In a guest

This is the last issue of my term as publisher. However, I

contribution, Sarah Hirschfield polemicizes against

pass on a revitalized publication to the next managing board.

pornography, arguing that it is partly to blame for the

Our look is crisper, our reach is extended, and our content is

#MeToo problem. Hunter Campbell, also a guest

diversified. I look forward to seeing how the next board will

contributor, sheds light on state efforts to promote free-

build upon this.

range parenting — efforts which prevent unnecessary

All of the pieces in this issue are united in form. They are

governmental infringements on families. The Anscombe

all defenses of some aspect of conservatism and they are all

team ends the issue by assessing the conceptual utility of

defiant of campus orthodoxy. Our writers have consistently

“virginity.” They argue that “chastity” is a better

proven that they have the courage of their convictions. They

alternative.

aren’t governed by fear of backlash and they refuse to engage in self-censorship. Let that be a lesson to us all.

Two of our graduating seniors argue for constancy amid

We live at a time when the left is exercising immense cultural power and the situation is no different at Princeton. It often feels as though those who dissent face

political turmoil. The ever-insightful Jacob Brown starts off

an insurmountable wave. If you’re to take one thing from

the issue by asserting that the survival of liberal democracy

this issue, let it be this: refuse to let others intimidate

depends upon the continuing existence of center-right parties.

you into silence. Take courage and defend your most

Later on, Daniel Schwarzhoff explains that efforts to jettison

cherished views. Take courage and defend the truth.

the Electoral College are wrongheaded — by preventing a popularity contest, the Electoral College works exactly as it should. Freshman staff writer Allyssa Noone examines how national controversies trickle down to our campus. According to her, the ongoing fight over Woodrow Wilson’s legacy continues to be a rush to judgement. Both nuance and moderation are called for.

Our news team continues to carve out a place for itself on campus. In this issue, Christopher Kane travels to Washington D.C. and covers the most recent Supreme Court trip sponsored by the James Madison Program. Complement this

Sincerely, Jeff Zymeri '20 Publisher of The Princeton Tory jzymeri@princeton.edu

i | The Princeton Tory | 2020

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

TORY VOLUME XXXV

01

--

ISSUE

5

IN THE BALANCE: WHY DEMOCRACIES NEED CONSERVATIVE PARTIES Jacob Brown

03

THE SATURDAY ESSAY: AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY

05

U. STUDENTS ATTEND SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS WITH THE JAMES MADISON PROGRAM

Sarah Hirschfield

Christopher Kane

07

STOP GOVERNMENTAL INFRINGEMENTS ON FAMILIES AND SUPPORT FREE-RANGE PARENTING LAWS Hunter Campbell

09

PREVENTING A POPULARITY CONTEST: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS EXACTLY THE WAY IT SHOULD Daniel Schwarzhoff

11

DON’T JUDGE HISTORICAL FIGURES THROUGH A MODERN MORAL LENS Allyssa Noone

13

Q&A WITH AUTHOR OF THE DIVERSITY DELUSION HEATHER MAC DONALD Bianca Ortiz-Miskimen

15

THE LAWSPLAINER: THE DEFINITIVE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER Akhil Rajasekar

18

ASK ANSCOMBE: IS VIRGINITY A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT?

ii | The Princeton Tory | 2020

PUBLISHER Jeff Zymeri '20

EDITOR - IN - CHIEF Akhil Rajasekar '21

OPINION EDITORS Joaquim Brooks '20 Max Parsons '20

ASSISTANT OPINION EDITOR Adam Hoffman '23

NEWS EDITORS Bianca Ortiz-Miskimen '22 Andrew Tufillaro '22

COPY CHIEF Robert Doar '22

COPY EDITORS Abigail Anthony '23 Nishant Kumar Singhal '23

DESIGN & CARTOON EDITOR Grace Koh '20

FINANCIAL MANAGER Will Crawford '20

EVENTS MANAGER Nick Sileo '20

DISTRIBUTION MANAGER Jeb Banavige '20

OPINION WRITERS Jacob Brown '20 Tyler Eddy '21 Allyssa Noone '23

NEWS WRITER Christopher Kane '23

GUEST CONTRIBUTORS Hunter Campbell '20 Sarah Hirschfield '20

BOARD OF TRUSTEES Anna Bray Duff '92 James Haynes '18 Peter Hegseth '03 Peter Heinecke '87 Ira Leeds '06 Brian Tvenstrup '95 Timothy Webster '99

iii | The Princeton Tory | 2020

IN THE BALANCE: Jacob Brown Sometimes, it seems that the left would just like conservatives to disapp-

WHY DEMOCRACIES NEED CONSERVATIVE PARTIES

Opinion sort are essential to the functioning of

and humiliation of those who hold non-

every democratic nation.

conforming views.

In order to understand why a strong

To many of you, this description may

turned into toxic ideological struggles,

center-right is necessary, let us imagine a

sound oddly familiar, because this is the

with many partisans believing that the

country where conservative ideas – and

world in which we now live. Be it the

other side will impose their cultural val-

the people who hold them – were shamed

“deplorables” in the U.S., the “backwards

ues on an unwilling population with unc-

into

a

Brexiteers” in Britain, or the plethora of

ompromising zeal. In the view of much of

predominantly

government

subtler insults and insinuations made by

the electorate, people espousing opposing

and

would

leftist or center-left parties elsewhere, it

views shouldn’t just be defeated in the

happen? In normal circumstances, peop-

has become socially acceptable in liberal

arena of public debate, but utterly crush-

le whose preferences are not represented

democracies to publicly shame and scold

ed, removed from the halls of power and

in government are compelled to advocate

those who do not share the views of those

publicly shamed into the margins of

for them, working with candidates and

in

ear. Traditional inter-party rivalries have

cultural

irrelevance center-left

mainstream

media.

by

What

nothing

acceptable public discourse.

This attitude is gravely mistaken. Not only is it ethically questionable, but this vengeful approach is also incompatible with the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy. Successful governance requires political leaders to represent the interests of the majority, but it also requires an effective opposition. Without an opposing party to point out the overreach

charge.

By being unable to separate people from their ideas, the left has created a class of permanently aggrieved individuals who have little recourse but to channel their anger through political movements designed for vengeance.

Ad

new

hominem

in

the

attacks

messy

are

world

of

politics, but the extent to which modern leftist upon

political hatred

of

movements the

other

are

rather

based than

a

propositional ideology is unprecedented.

This

phenomenon

partisanship, force

on

and

both

is has

sides

called been of

negative

a

growing

the

political

spectrum over the past several decades.

However,

until

recently,

its

outward

expression has been more visible on the

of the majority, ruling parties can engage in their worst impulses, becoming succes-

causes that advance their viewpoints with

left,

sively more extreme in their politics wh-

the

left-leaning cultural and media instituti-

ile radicalizing the minority opposition.

them.

As Bret Stephens mentioned in his

goal

of

persuading

others

to

join

mostly

due

to

the

overwhelmingly

ons that shape public discourse in most

But in this twisted universe, the ped-

western countries.

recent talk at Princeton, which was co-

antic tone of the left – and in particular,

In the U.K., Germany, and even the

sponsored by the Tory, “every country

the oft-implied sentiment that the prob-

United States, we are now beginning to

has a conservative party – like it or not.”

lem is not so much center-right views but

see the political effects of years of dis-

The reasons for this are manifold: people

the people who hold them – changes the

dain and humiliation, with both tradition-

may believe in limited government, the

calculus of the situation. Human psychol-

al

importance of traditional values, or simp-

ogy suggests that people who are backed

fringe

ly dislike the policies of leftist parties.

into a corner will lash out; when the dom-

the politics of resentment. By being un-

These justifications may differ between

inant side deems that certain viewpoints

able to separate people from their ideas,

different countries, and even within the

are not acceptable in the public sphere,

the left has created a class of permanently

same center-right party. However, the

what

The

aggrieved individuals who have little rec-

essence of conservatism is not the topic

suppressive

not

ourse but to channel their anger through

of discussion today. Instead, we will exa-

make radical ideologies justified, but they

political

mine how conservative parties of any

do provide credence to the resentment

vengeance.

else

should tactics

we of

the

expect? left

do

1 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

conservative elements

parties

and

becoming

movements

right-wing

consumed

designed

by

for

Academic research bears this out.

Daniel

Ziblatt,

Harvard

compare

the

British

example

they may have otherwise taken aggressive

with any number of other nations like Ge-

government, provides persuasive eviden-

rmany, whose weak right-leaning parties

ce

center-right

in the Weimar parliament failed to disarm

upset

party is the best indicator of a country’s

the radical right. Ziblatt argues that stro-

the belief systems of even moderate center-

success

ng center-right parties have acted as “the

right

democracy. He argues that the so-called

hinge

existence

permanently aggrieved class of voters who

traditional

being the key factor for the survival of

have become radicalized against its excess-

democracy.

es

possessing

in

a

professor

can

of

that

a

You

strong

adopting

and

maintaining

(conservative)

forces

in

a

society – which include the religious and aristocratic elite, as well as their middleclass

subordinates

This is just as true today as it was last

and

utions

Germany’s

of

created

a

democratic

right-leaning

more

likely

to

Americans support

a

are

13

political

democracies began to take hold and flou-

are in danger of losing their core voter

decisions without interference from parlia-

rish in 19th and 20th century Europe. In

base to radical parties on the far right. As

ment

Ziblatt’s view, conservative parties serve

with center-right parties in other countr-

poll shows that 45% of right-leaning Ame-

two

for

ies, the CDU has moved towards the left

ricans are in favor of “giving the govern-

true democratic competition by facilitat-

on many issues in order to maintain their

ment power to shut down ‘biased or inacc-

ing a broadly popular alternative to prog-

popular

urate’ media outlets” – a clear violation of

ressive

to

From a political competition perspective,

the press freedom provisions of the 1st

serve as a spoiler to radical right parties

appealing to the median voter is not nece-

Amendment.

that

ssarily a bad strategy, but it has left a

ween the right and left has been growing

large portion of the population – one that

for a number of years, indicating that dis-

Two historical examples can help us

is more “nationalist” but not necessarily

trust for democracy is primarily rooted in

illustrate his argument. Contrary to pop-

neo-fascist – politically homeless. At the

those who have been left behind in main-

ular belief, Britain’s parliament was not a

same time, the party is being squeezed by

stream cultural discourse. As the left-wing

fully democratic entity in the early 19th

parties on the left, many of whom appeal

institutions

century, with landed aristocrats and other

to a younger cohort by portraying CDU-

right views from acceptable political tho-

members

of

controlling

supporters

ught, we can only expect our democracy to

the

plurality

It

not

“backwards” and “out of touch.” This is

preordained that Britain would adopt an

not an enviable position to be in, and is

American-style democratic system, where

representative of the struggles conservat-

invite

every “free man” was permitted a vote.

ive parties face across the Western world.

mainstream before it is too late. Even if

forces,

seek

but

to

to

more

usurp

provide

importantly

democracy

and

individual liberty.

great

When

the

the

bourgeoisie of

electoral

votes.

franchise

was

was

grad-

legitimacy

As

(and

not

Ziblatt

Democrats

as

critical

has

system in which “a strong leader can make

functions:

Christian

such

left

marginalizing

(CDU)

essential

when

parties

By

institutions. One Pew Research poll sugg-

points

conservative

the

extremely

venerable

parties)

status

their

equilibrium.

individuals,

quo – were needed to create strong institpolitical

the

with

this

ests that

as

in

history,”

Unfortunately, the left of today has

century. Across the Western world, once-

(such

vested

of

action.

and

win

just

notes,

the

a

elections.

party)

as

conservative

or

the

courts.”

This

Another

“skepticism

continue

to

YouGov

gap”

exclude

bet-

center-

suffer further.

But not all hope is lost. There is time to right-leaning

left-leaning

parties

voters

give

up

back

on

into

the

attracting

ually expanded in the late 19th century, it

party’s ability to have “broad tent” appeal

right-leaning voters to the polls, they can

was

was

to both the center and the right is crucial

at least tone down the polarizing rhetoric

best able to link the interests of the elite

to the success of democracy. The countr-

and

with

population.

ies with the most stable democratic syst-

human beings. Though it may not be easy,

Unlike every other major European coun-

ems have conservative parties which do

it can be done. Our future as citizens of

try which experimented with a popularly-

not co-opt the far right’s ideology as mu-

democratic nations depends on it.

elected parliament, Britain did not colla-

ch as tempt into moderation people who

pse into revolution or counter-revolution,

would

ensuring

parties. It is in this way that voters with

the

Conservative

those

of

that

government

the

its

Party

general

democratic

remained

stable

which

system through

century of rapid technological change.

of a

otherwise

authoritarian

vote

for

tendencies

more

come

to

radical

accept

as unfavorable democratic result, when

2 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

treat

center-right

people

as

normal

Jacob Brown is a Senior in the Electrical Engineering Department. He can be contacted at jambrown@princeton.edu.

THE SATURDAY ESSAY: AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY Sarah Hirschfield

Opinion

The #MeToo movement exposed a

prurient interest of the average person, 2)

towards women: misogynistic.

number of liberal Hollywood executives

If you care about the women in your

depict sexual conduct in a “patently offe-

and actors as sex criminals. This should

life, the one in five women who is the

nsive way,” and 3) lack “serious literary,

come

victim of rape or attempted rape in her

artistic, political, or scientific value.”

as

degrading

no

surprise.

media

The

that

is

obscene

and

pornography—

lifetime,

join

the stuff of “empowerment,” according to

content

that

many leftists—is partly to blame for the

violence towards women.

#MeToo problem.

me

in

calling

sexualizes

Recently,

to

ban

A better standard is to adopt what

the

gender-based

radical

feminists

Catharine

four

Republican

Andrea

MacKinnon

Anti-Pornography

Dworkin

proposed

Ordinance

in

in

and their

1983.

congressmen penned a letter to Attorney

They defined pornography more object-

steins of the world, you should be against

General

ively and narrowly: as the graphic, sex-

the content that enables them. I’m talking

“declare

about pornography, 88% of which cont-

pornography a criminal justice priority”

which must contain one of a number of

ains violence against women, according

and enforce existing obscenity laws.

elements, including: women presented as

If you are against the Harvey Wein-

William the

Barr,

urging

prosecution

him

of

to

obscene

Porn sexualizes the assault of women and threatens women’s free speech. All of us — from the left to the right, from pro-sex feminists to the most ardent defenders of free speech — should be united in the fight to regulate this type of media.

Pornography is bad for us. Exposure to pornography is linked to greater callousness towards women, lesser compass-

If you are against the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, you should be against the content that enables them. I’m talking about pornography, 88% of which contains violence against women.

is

a

pornography

trivial

has

subordination

of

women,

offense.

also

Watching

been linked to

marital unhappiness, extramarital affairs,

Enforcing the laws on the books is

Someone who gets off to “spanking,

shown

First,

the

in

current

the

1973

legal

standard,

Supreme

Court

inferior,

bleeding,

The

Ordinance,

which

received

strong support from conservatives, defines

pornography

explicit

exactly

sexualized not

in

what

violence

rely

a

on

way is

that

makes

objectionable:

towards

women.

hand-wavy

terms

by

As

the

“contemporary

like

MacKinnon

writes,

community.” “obscenity

is

abstract; pornography is concrete.”

Third, obscenity laws make speech a criminal offense. This should give pause

ey

is

the average person, applying contempor-

to

wide range of violence in pornography,

ary community standards would find that

government interfering with speech.

some acts worse than others. But none of

the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the

this

prurient

There

It

“prurient interest” or precarious standards

It defines obscene

in-the-making.

“whether

or

gagging, and slapping” women is a HarvWeinstein

asking

filthy

these conditions sexual.”

case Miller v. California, is relativistic. by

as

bruised, or hurt in a context that makes

set

a start. But I have a few reservations.

articulated

and divorce.

scenarios of degradation, injury, torture,

does

ion towards rape victims, and the belief rape

explicit

enjoying rape, as whores by nature, or “in

to a recent study.

that

ually

any

conservative

worried

about

the

The Ordinance avoids the problems

as

with obscenity laws in two ways. First, it

sexual context. When a man spanks, gags,

morally permissible according to “conte-

is a civil, not criminal law. No one will

and slaps a woman in the streets, we are

mporary

be going to prison for making pornogra-

rightfully outraged. But when it happens

ridiculous—and

in the sheets, we turn a blind eye — or

immoral.

conduct

is

tolerated

outside

of

a

worse: we say it’s “hot.”

I have a different word for works that depict acts of physical aggression

interest.”

But

community

what

passes

standards”

sometimes

is

often

patently

Second, the law as it pertains to obsc-

phy.

Second,

enough

to

Ordinance

pornography

mount

a

requires the

a

is

claim.

concrete

not The

injury

enity is overbroad. The current standard

resulting

targets works that 1) appeal to the

proven. The causes of action include:

3 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

from

legal

itself

pornography

be

coercing someone into making pornogr-

The

most

ardent

free

conservatives

repressed or oppressed.

speech

and

We should take these concerns seriou-

and

radical feminists in the fight to regulate

sly. 98% of men and 73% of women have

pornography.

watched

trafficking.

Because

it

req-

uires proof of an injury, the Ordinance is not an attack on speech per se.

join

of

aphy, forcing pornography on a person, human

should

defender

Defenders of pornography often rem-

online

sexual

six months—some

of

media which

in

the

might

past have

Free speech absolutists may still feel

ind us that the conduct is consensual, for

uncomfortable passing such a law. They

example, that the woman agreed to being

But we shouldn’t let the egalitarian

are right that pornography is a free speec-

whipped by her lesbian lover. To the porn

become the enemy of the good. The fact

h issue—but not in the way they might

apologists, I ask: how do you know the

that

think.

actors were not coerced into performing?

there shouldn’t stop us from preventing the

How do you know they were not being

harms done by violent pornography.

The existence of pornography is an assault

on

women’s

is

equitable

sexual

media

out

trafficked? How do you know they wer-

To the extent that erotica doesn’t depict

sopher Rae Langton argues that pornogr-

en’t 15? In the absence of that knowled-

the graphic, sexually explicit subordination

aphy

ge, how can you defend the work in good

of

conscience?

defines

silence

speech.

there

Philo-

can

free

been this more “egalitarian” porn.

women.

Here’s

how:

suppose Joe watches a lot of pornography in which a woman says “no” but really means “yes.” He’s seen hundreds of these videos.

One

day,

he

is

in

bed

with

iate sex. She says “no.” She is trying to refuse sex. But Joe has seen this scenario hundred

times

before.

As

far

as

he

knows, she means “yes.”

“Sometimes “no,” spoken by a woman, does not count as an act of refusal,” Langton explains, “something about her, something

about

the

role

she

as

that

the

Anti-Porn

pornography,

it

Ordinance

would

not

be

regulated by the Ordinance.

Pro-sex feminists who defend erotica

production and consumption of a more

a

potential sexual partner. He tries to init-

a

Many pro-sex feminists defend the

women

should join the rest of us who stand against

"You can be pro-sex and anti-porn in the same way you can be pro-sex and anti-rape.

The positions are not only compatible: they are complementary."

pornography. You can be pro-sex and antiporn in the same way you can be pro-sex and anti-rape. The positions are not only compatible: they are complementary.

As First Things senior editor Matthew Schmitz wrote in a recent opinion piece, “pornography’s enjoyments may be private, but its harms are inescapably public.”

If you were horrified by the abuses of

occupies,

prevents her from voicing refusal. Refu-

humane type of sexual media, sometimes

power

sal—in

called “erotica.” Erotica — sexually stim-

reporting, it’s time to rethink how we, too,

ulating content that is not pornographic

could be contributing to this problem.

that

context—has

become

unspeakable for her.”

How often does this happen? One

— comprises queer sexual media, sexual

study estimates that ten percent of wom-

media

en have been upset by someone attempt-

reciprocity,

ing to get them “to do what they’d seen in

women, for women.

pornographic pictures, movies, or books.”

And

the majority of

stay

silent—they’ve

rape

been

victims silenced

who by

a

society that sexualizes rape.

that

and

sexual

mutuality media

made

and by

enlightenment,”

those

it

and

“provides

who

—

meaning

“yes.”

If

her

for

whatever

sexual

partner.”

letting

concerns

refusal doesn’t count in porn, why should

witch

we think it counts in a court of law? Porn

marginalized. Erotica can be a tool of of

hurts the credibility of all women.

sexual expression for the sexually

hunt”

that

attacks

the

stand

up

to

the

so-

as an empowering freedom of expression

about pornography morph into a “moral

but

to

sexual

saying

about

time

a

They warn us

no

it’s

called feminists who defend pornography

watches pornography that depicts women “no”

of 5 women who is the victim of sexual

“good

reason

have

#MeToo

be

said with a straight face by anyone who

—

the

others.

solitary

for

by

think about how pornography can silence

assault,

outlet

light

If you care about speech, it’s time to

break stereotypes, serve as “a source of

because

to

If you are scared of becoming the 1 out

Defenders of erotica argue that it can

therapy”

Calls to “Believe Women” cannot be

emphasizes

brought

sexually

4 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

and sexuality.

The freedom to be whipped, beaten, and raped is no freedom at all: it’s misogyny.

Sarah Hirschfield is a Senior in the Philosophy Department. She can be reached at sarah.w.hirschfield@princeton.edu.

U. STUDENTS ATTEND SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS WITH THE JAMES MADISON PROGRAM News

Christopher Kane WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Monday, Dec. 9, University students affiliated with the James Madison Program (JMP) traveled to the capitol to listen to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP. The students attended as guests of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“The James Madison Program has sponsored undergraduate trips to the Supreme Court for over ten years,” explained Ch’nel Duke, who serves as the

Courtesy of Ch'nel Duke

program’s communications and undergraduate programs advisor. Duke added that each year, the seats are arranged through the chambers of one of the justices.

Founded in the summer of 2000 as part of the University’s Department of Politics, the James Madison Program “is dedicated to exploring enduring questions of American constitutional law and Western political thought.” For undergraduate fellows, the Supreme Court trip has become an opportunity like no other to see this mission in action, allowing them to explore one of the nation’s most enduring institutions.

The students left early Monday morning, arriving in time for the 10:00 session. While half of the students attended the first oral argument, the other half explored the Court’s other offerings, which include a museum, a movie theatre, and a gift shop. They then exchanged places for the second oral argument.

The exterior and interior architecture of the Court was the first thing to elicit reactions of astonishment from students.

“When I first walked in the room, I

Lasprilla v. Barr, the justices considered

was surprised by the size and grandeur

statutory limits on the authority of federal

and adornment of the courtroom,” Joshua

appellate

Latham ’20 explained.

the Board of Immigration Appeals. The

“The gigantic pillars behind the

courts

to

review

decisions

of

second case, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call

justices are quite imposing, and I wasn’t

Technologies, LP, concerned the extent to

expecting such a powerful statement in

which the Patent and Trademark Office

the layout and setup of the room,”

has

Latham added.

administrative

Nothing could top the oral arguments

unreviewable

discretion

reviews

of

in

granting

previously

issued patents.

however. After all, the trip’s purpose,

“What

could

have

been

a

simple

according to Duke, was “to enable

discussion

students to experience the drama of a

debate

about

Supreme Court argument where lawyers

review

and

on opposing sides face the daunting

concerns,” explained Daniel Schwarzhoff

challenge of being closely questioned by

’20,

the justices in the highest court of the

argument. “It was terrific seeing Justices

land.”

Breyer, Gorsuch, and the others grilling

“It’s one thing to read opinions and

between advocates and justices, which

turned

the

even

into

essence

of

separation

listened

to

the

of

a

lively

judicial powers

first

oral

the lawyers.”

transcripts of oral arguments, but another thing to witness the give and take

who

quickly

Schwarzhoff is an opinion writer for the Tory.

Despite the intense questioning, there

helps to demystify the idealized image of

were lighter moments throughout. Accor-

the Supreme Court,” Duke continued.

ding

Both cases were concerned with the scope of judicial review of agency decisions. In the first case, Guerrero-

5 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

to

Liam

O’Connor

’20,

“Justice

Breyer used a healthy dosage of sarcasm in his questions.”

“It’s great to see that our highest

judges can go about their solemn daily

The trip also encouraged some to rethink

“Some of the undergraduate fellows may

work yet still inject some humor into it,”

their career plans.

be considering following in the footsteps

O’Connor, who is a news writer for the Tory, added.

When one lawyer, arguing on behalf of

Click-To-Call

the

importance

owners,

Chief

Technologies, of

Justice

protecting Roberts

“I came in feeling solid in my career

of former students who have gone on to

path, but attending the session made me

law school and lower court clerkships and

think

have

that

being

a

lawyer

would

be

a

even

made

it

all

the

way

to

the

stressed

really cool job, so I might just be looking

Supreme Court,” Duke explained. Three

patent

into that as a possible career,” Mujtuba

alumni of the University currently sit on

Yousufi ’23 explained.

the

replied:

“Well, but, I mean, I don’t think it’s what

Duke also pointed to the utility of the

we were fighting over at Yorktown.” The

trip for students in the process of career

quip was met with raucous laughter.

discernment.

Court:

Samuel

Alito

’72,

Sonia

Sotomayor ’76, and Elena Kagan ’81.

Christopher Kane is a Freshman. He can be reached at cbkane@princeton.edu.

“When I first walked in the room, I was surprised by the size and grandeur and adornment of the courtroom.”

- Joshua Latham ’20

“What could have been a simple discussion quickly turned into a lively debate about the essence of judicial review and even separation of powers concerns.”

- Daniel Schwarzhoff ’20

“It’s one thing to read opinions and transcripts of oral arguments, but another thing to witness the give and take between advocates and justices, which helps to demystify the idealized image of the Supreme Court.”

- Ch'nel Duke

6 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

STOP GOVERNMENTAL INFRINGEMENTS ON FAMILIES AND SUPPORT FREE-RANGE PARENTING LAWS

Opinion

Hunter Campbell nearby their home. Yet, by the end of the

ridiculous fashion. While there is no easy

block our society. They intertwine multi-

day a parent had dragged the child back

way to prevent people from attempting to

ple generations into a unit that not only

to the home because he was by himself,

misuse

works to preserve and better itself, but to

and a police officer arrived at the door to

frivolously

project its values into the rest of the com-

investigate

already taken steps to prevent CPS and

munity and lift up neighbors and friends.

time excursion. Several days later, acc-

police

Families are where we make our first

ording to an interview with Roy, memb-

families in the event that a complaint is

bonds, and are hopefully places we can

ers of CPS came to ask her children ques-

filed.

go for refuge during the hardest of times.

tions such as “Have you taken drugs or

Unfortunately, what should be a safe

alcohol? ‘Have you seen movies of naked

free-range

haven can become a nightmare when

people? Has anybody touched you?” This

protect

parents

parents abdicate on their natural oblig-

is just one of a plethora of easily search-

against

the

ations and mistreat their children. Beca-

able news stories involving government

rose

Families exist as a core building

seemingly

wholesome

play-

the government have a system in place that can hold accountable these parents who fail at their duties. However, if Child Protective Services (CPS) and the government at large is to have the power to remove children from homes, and to prosecute parents for their choices in how to raise and nurture their children, then it is critical that we have robust standards

enforcing

contacting

from

resources

them,

by

Utah

unnecessarily

has

disrupting

In 2018, Utah passed the nation’s first

to

parenting who

bill, are

helicopter

prominence

designed pushing

parenting

over

the

to

back which

last

few

decades. The bill specifically allows for

use of the reality that is child abuse and parental negligence, it is necessary that

law

The government should be empowering parents to raise their children to be independent thinkers who the community at large can trust to later take on critical roles.

“a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities.” The bill goes on to mention playing outside, staying

home

alone,

staying

in

a

car

alone, or walking to school as examples of what constitutes a protected activity.

This

bill,

had

it

been

in

place

in

the

respective jurisdictions of Laura Browder and Kari Anne Roy, would have spared

to check this power. We must prevent unnecessary infringements on families

employees misusing the power intended

those

whenever possible, because their import-

to help children by instead traumatizing

and feelings of violation that come from

ance to a functioning community is best

these kids for simple acts such as sitting

the government prying itself into one of

respected when they can achieve their

30 feet away from their mother while she

the

goals on their own.

had an interview in a food court. This is

person can have: the relationship between

the example of Laura Browder, who was

a parent and child.

There are numerous regrettable instances of CPS overreaching into normal

arrested for child abandonment. Her kids

familial affairs, and of normal citizens

were 6 and 12 at the time.

mothers

most

and

intimate

children

the

relations

trauma

which

a

Without laws like that which passed in Utah, the government is encouraging

taking it upon themselves to initiate this

There are two separate issues occurr-

parents around the country – especially

overreaching by contacting law enforce-

ing in these abuses of power. One is the

those who are lacking in the means nece-

ment over what should be quotidian acts

fact that certain government bureaucrats

ssary to acquire adequate legal represen-

of parenting. In September 2014, Texas

have a warped conception of what consti-

tation

mother Kari Anne Roy was letting her six

tutes neglect or mistreatment of a child.

Families have reason to fear returning to

year old son play outside by himself for

The other is the fact that normal citizens

tried and true parenting techniques out of

several minutes, with the rule in place

are enabling this behavior by involving

fear

that he was not to walk beyond the hill

law enforcement in an arbitrary and

some

–

that

to

enter

the

a

wrong

children

state

of

mediocrity.

individual

playing

will

unattended

see

in

yard and will alert the authorities. Even

7 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

a

if a family has the means to resist the

the

encroachment by CPS, the investigations

neighbors,

will no doubt scar the child. The govern-

would

ment

should

doing

raise

their

be

empowering

children

to

be

parents

to

independent

potential

be

to

as

dilute

they

most

activities

trust

are

likely

the to

amongst

amongst

ones

see

-ships

between

neighbors,

and

the

who

relationships between children and their

children

parents. If we are to believe that families

themselves.

If

are the core unit of a nation, then they

there is a lack of trust in neighborhoods,

must

thinkers who the community at large can

then

losing

respect, and this means trusting in their

trust to later take on critical roles.

access to one of the societal units that

capacity to raise responsible children who

they should be able to trust in the most.

can do tasks as simple as bike down the

All of this has the chance to occur simply

street unattended.

It does not only harm families when CPS

is

willing

to

make

such

egregious

children

may

risk

large. The overcorrecting seen by helico-

anxious at the thought of children being

pter parenting promotes a culture of fear

unsupervised even for a few minutes, and

in which familial units will be reluctant

because

to

fear through their incompetence.

on

their

local

government

–

get

of

because

certain

people

at

overreaches, it also harms our nation at

rely

some

be

bureaucrats

enable

this

More states should choose to adopt

to worry that even the most benign choice

laws like the one found in Utah. This will

in a child’s playtime activity can lead to

improve

the family’s destruction. This panic has

enforcement and citizens, the relation-

relationships

the

utmost

support

unjustifiably

including law enforcement – if they have

the

receive

between

law

Courtsey of Pixabay

8 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

Hunter Campbell is a Senior in the Politics Department. He can be reached at hunterc@princeton.edu.

and

PREVENTING A POPULARITY CONTEST: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS EXACTLY THE WAY IT SHOULD

Opinion

Daniel Schwarzhoff Fifteen states plus Washington, D.C.

ion)

plus

the

number

of

senators

(two)

Proponents of the compact argue that the

have adopted the National Popular Vote

per state. Such a design invokes the same

current system “decreases the political

Interstate Compact, a promise to award

reasoning

clout of small states,” shifting power

all of a state’s electors in a presidential

1787,

election to the winner of the popular vote.

ions

The compact does not go into effect until

be proportionate to the population of each

states have more representation in the

states comprising 270 electoral votes (a

state,

while

for

Electoral College than they would in a

majority of the total 538 electors) sign on

equal

representation.

bicameral

popular vote. While they are correct in

to it.

Congress, our Founders ensured that both

that the smallest states usually have less

individual

campaign events than some of the larger

However, the Electoral College is not

as

where

the

Great

states

demanded

Compromise

with

House

smaller

interests

larger

of

populat-

representation

states With

as

fought a

well

as

to

state

from small states to larger ones. However, this is contradictory — smaller

a broken system, and this upheaval isn’t

interests would be taken into considerat-

ones, they admit that “the small states are

nonpartisan. It’s not a benevolent, over-

ion during the lawmaking process. This is

not ignored because of their low populat-

due

also true when it comes to determining

ion, but because they are not closely

update

And

it

unfair. not

to

isn’t

our

democratic

fixing

what’s

Large-scale

fair.

It

direct

results

in

process.

outdated

democracy

tyranny

of

divided battleground states.” And of

or is the

majority. With such a high concentration of

citizens

cities, locked

the

residing interests

states

with

in of

liberal, citizens

completely

coastal in

land-

different

backgrounds, jobs, and ways of life are weakened. And that’s the goal.

All 15 of the states that have passed the

compact

Democrat

in

are the

blue past

and three

have

course, the three most populous states,

Large-scale direct democracy is not fair. It results in tyranny of the majority.

voted

California, Texas, and New York, receive hardly any events for the same reason.

Furthermore, advocates of the compact

attention

importance

and

with

media

unpredictability.

Just

because a state’s electoral votes are foreseeably

cast

toward

a

certain

candidate

doesn’t make them any less powerful or important than the votes of a less decidedly conservative or liberal state. It just

presidential

elections. The only way to reach the 270-

conflate

means

who will be president.

vote threshold is for a red or swing state

As James Madison noted, smaller

the

state’s

voters

have

already

made up their minds.

Additionally, states considered to be

to join blue states in adopting this legisl-

states

ation.

“the interests of the little states might be

“red,” “blue,” or “swing” are always

neglected or sacrificed.” The compromise

changing. From 1968 to 1992, California

balanced both large and small state inter-

— currently one of the most important

cases to be in favor of the Democratic

ests.

blue states — cast its electoral votes for

candidate — 2000, when George W. Bush

Federalist 68 that “talents for low intrig-

the Republican presidential candidate. In

beat Al Gore, and 2016, when Donald J.

ue, and the little arts of popularity, may

the 2016 election, Donald Trump camp-

Trump beat Hillary Clinton. It’s designed

alone suffice to elevate a man to the first

aigned heavily in Wisconsin, Michigan,

to

nominee

honors in a single State; but it will req-

and Pennsylvania — all blue states —

from winning the general election with-

uire other talents, and a different kind of

leading up to election day. As a result, he

out the popular vote.

merit, to establish him in the esteem and

successfully turned them red, helping him

confidence

win. To call the Electoral College stale

The compact would’ve changed the results

in

prevent

two

recent

another

elections,

Republican

in

both

The number of electoral votes allocat-

feared

that

Alexander

of

with

popular

vote,

Hamilton explains in

the

whole

ed to each state is equal to the number of

Electoral

representatives (determined by populat-

the power of popularity.

College

a

was

Union.”

designed

to

The curb

9 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

and outdated is to ignore that such dramatic shifts in public opinion within any

state are possible and can influence the

-ats who advocate changing our electoral

Electoral

College

outcome of an election.

process

tempering

the

This also reveals how shortsighted Democrats are for trying to eliminate the Electoral

College.

not

to

be

hoisted with their own petard.

In 53 of the 58 presidential elections

popular vote has also won a majority of

resulted

electoral

Democractic

sentiments

among

victory, voters

votes.

The

not

a

incongruity

reason

to

of

popular

opinion,

that

of individual states.

Daniel Schwarzhoff is a Senior in the Economics Department.. He can be reached at djs7@princeton.edu.

occurs 9% of the time between these two is

power

successfully

the will of the majority, with the interests

2016 a popular vote system would have

everchanging

2000

careful

in our nation’s history, the winner of the

a

in

be

and

in

While

should

works,

could bring about an election in which a

measures

boost

the

Republican, who may lose the Electoral

weight of liberal voters in cities on the

College, wins the popular vote. Democr-

coasts. In fact, it’s proof that the

"HOW IT SHOULD BE" Grace Koh '20

10 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

DON’T JUDGE HISTORICAL FIGURES THROUGH A MODERN MORAL LENS

Opinion

Allyssa Noone degrees, to modify the university’s infor-

dangerous

le Sights,” an installation which recogn-

mal motto from “Princeton in the Natio-

that will be cited by future students who

izes Woodrow Wilson’s complex legacy,

n’s

All

seek to purge the past of those who fail to

placed outside of the school named after

Nations”

Nation’s

live up to modern standards of morality.”

him, the national debate over the legacy

Service and the Service of Humanity,” to

In other words, if we are to judge histor-

of historical figures has returned to the

establish

ical

center stage of campus. Many students

initiatives

argue that historical figures with a history

Wilson’s complex legacy (which included

from

of racist viewpoints should be judged

a

trials and errors. Unfortunately, morality

with the same harshness as racists today.

ation), and to diversify campus art and

is

However, when we attempt to erase from

iconography.

voices are loudest. And the loudest voices

With October’s dedication of “Doub-

history those who adhered to the moral

Service to

and

the

Service

“Princeton

education to

fuel

recommendation

in

the

and

of

transparency

conversations

for

the

new

about

install-

Wilson’s name with the assurance "that

“In other words, if we are to judge historical figures through a modern lens of morality, we lose an opportunity to learn from thousands of years of humanity’s trials and errors.”

while also celebrating any positive achievements they may have had.

Wilson’s legacy was first reexamined in 2015, when the Black Justice League participated in a sit-in located in PresidEisgruber’s

public

office.

They

acknowledgement

demanded

of

Wilson’s

racist legacy and the removal of his name from

the

Public

Woodrow

Policy

and

Wilson

School

International

through

a

slippery

modern

slope

lens

of

morality, we lose an opportunity to learn thousands

often

of

years

determined

of

by

humanity’s

those

whose

ning him. While this does not excuse his racist views, it is not fair to expect that

ortunity to learn from their mistakes

ent

figures

and

in Wilson’s time were not those condem-

The committee decided to maintain

standards of their time, we lose the opp-

precedent

of

he

would

have

lived

by

21st

century

moral standards.

The 2016 report also asserted that the Woodrow Wilson School was named for Wilson’s many contributions to make the University

a

more

intellectually

vibrant

community. Wilson established the residential

college

mental

system

requirements

and and

made

depart-

specifications

central to the curriculum. He also intro-

Affairs,

Wilson Residential College, and all other

the use of his name implies no endorse-

duced

buildings bearing his name. Further, they

ment of views and actions that conflict

independent work. Do these things sound

demanded “cultural competency” training

with

familiar?

for faculty and staff; a public conversat-

times,”

ion on the role of freedom of speech “in a

admission

way

anti-Black-

University; support for segregation in the

the

ness and xenophobia;” a distribution req-

workforce; and his support for the invas-

ation special, and that is something worth

uirement

ion of Latin America and the Caribbean

recognizing.

marginalized people; and a cultural space

in

views

contributions extended far beyond cam-

dedicated to black students.

should of course be condemned but the

pus. He established the Federal Reserve

complexity of the situation must also be

System and the Federal Trade Commiss-

recognized.

ion; passed child labor laws; fought for

that

does

not

centered

reinforce

on

the

history

of

In response to the demands of the Black Justice League, the University commissioned a report to establish a just

the

values notably

World

of

and

aspirations

of

our

his

opposition

to

the

African-Americans

War

I.

Wilson’s

racist

to

the

A statement released by students in in

response

senior

Princeton students today benefit from these

contributions.

things

that

These

make

a

However,

are

some

Princeton

his

of

educ-

positive

the Nineteenth Amendment; and appoin-

Justice

ted the first Jewish Supreme Court Just-

ated commitments to establish a program

League’s demands included a particularly

ice. Should we forget these contributions

to encourage more students from under-

salient

too?

represented groups to pursue doctoral

campus of its Wilsonian legacy creates a

steps

Black

established

2015

“any

the

and

course of action. The 2016 report articul-

point:

to

precepts

to

purge

this

11 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

An article condemned the University

administration’s decision to build the installation because it failed to explicitly denounce white supremacy. It also criticized the University for portraying Wilson as complex, rather than racist, and claimed that Wilson’s racism cannot be separated from his positive contributions. If we view his legacy as solely defined by his racism, how can we truly acknowledge his legacy in its entirety?

The fact of the matter is that history is complex, people are complex, and history often reflects that complexity. It seems ironic that those who would advocate revisiting history for the sake of acknowledging the unheard stories of the marginalized would advocate for a conversation

Woodrow Wilson School. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

that lacks complexity and nuance by excluding the entire truth. The history of

we lose the opportunity to study history

the

race, while indeed a large and important

as it should be studied – in its entirety.

truth.

part of our story, is not the only history

University’s

commitment

to

seek

We must always remember to context-

This issue is larger than statues or the

that has played a role in the stories of the

ualize history. Recognizing history is not

names of buildings. It reflects a national

University and the country.

necessarily

effort

To claim that it is, by disregarding the

glorifying

it.

Certainly

to

erase

legacy

the

complexity of historical figures and time

acknowledge

condemned. However, positive contribut-

periods, is antithetical to the idea of an

flawed

America

further

reinforce outdated standards of morality.

and

progress towards truth. A singular fixa-

For example, the statue of John Wither-

celebrate the contributions of those who

tion with negatives only serves to divide

spoon in front of East Pyne on Prince-

were previously marginalized and unrec-

us. While shedding light on the negative

ton’s campus can serve as both an ackno-

ognized

can

wledgment and condemnation of his sup-

these

achievements has the remarkable ability

port

that is conducive to holistic and nuanced

to unite us. Recognizing the complexity

marker of his contributions to the Univ-

learning,

of the situation allows us to see how far

ersity

higher

we have come in promoting equality for

Revolutionary War.

all

aid

constantly

progress,

people

and

striving

to

celebrating

how

positive

fundamentally

our

vision of equality has advanced.

With that being said, recognizing how

ideas

of

without

slavery

and

to

as

the

fraught allowing

well

nation

as

a

with it

to

historical

throughout

the

not

erected

to

celebrate his support of slavery. It was to recognize his contributions to the Univer-

widespread racism was in our past reinfo-

sity.

By

rces the necessity of separating these

can

better

views from those unrelated to race. While

ideas

that

it is essential to condemn racist views

time

periods,

themselves, if we allow all other ideas

insight to the present. If we try to change

held by those who are considered racist

history into what we wish it were, we will

by today’s standards to be disregarded,

misconstrue it in a way that undermines

his

entire

understand shaped and

the

historical we

can

legacy,

we

values

and

events

and

apply

this

and

ions, unrelated to race, should be studied celebrated.

at

steps

the will

We

can

same

time.

foster

something education

an

that in

do

this

12 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

and

Hope-fully, environment

Princeton

general

and

should

promote.

The statue was

studying

acknowledged

past.

Racism

history

be

of

Princeton students and all Americans can a

should

the

Allyssa Noone is a Freshman. She can be reached at anoone@princeton.edu.

Q&A WITH AUTHOR OF THE DIVERSITY DELUSION HEATHER MAC DONALD Q&A

Bianca Ortiz-Miskimen On Monday, Nov. 11, 2019, political commentator

and

Thomas

W.

Smith

Fellow at the Manhattan Institute Heather Mac Donald spoke to a packed room

in

McCosh

Hall.

The

talk

was

centered on her 2018 book The Diversity Delusion: Pandering

How

Race

Corrupt

and

the

Gender

University

and

Undermine our Culture.

After the talk, Mac Donald sat down with

The

questions

Princeton about

Tory

the

state

to of

answer

American

universities,

freedom

of

speech

campus,

how

left

has

and

the

on

shaped

both. This conversation has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

Heather Mac Donald. Courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Flickr.com now an industry that capitalizes on that. I

implication

with one of the comments you made in

would

discriminated against by his own faculty,

the beginning of your talk. You referred

seemed maybe 60 years ago – we have

he

to Princeton students as being “among the

eliminated

disservice.

most

and

institutions. And yet, there is an industry

PT: Are the faculties of elite universities

positive

that is determined to maintain the fiction

complicit in creating an environment in

descriptor. What is your view on today’s

that

which

use of the word “privilege”?

characteristic of American society.

are

Heather Mac Donald: I think it’s used as

PT: This comment was brought up during

certain identities indeed being oppressed?

a weapon. It’s used with ignorance. The

the

Mac

person wielding the term as a weapon is

politically left-of-center college students

absolutely complicit. They are complicit

usually blind to his own great fortune and

indoctrinated?

either

it

people

Mac Donald: Yes, because I think that

dialogue,

victim

they

violence.

The Princeton Tory:

you

privileged clarified

is

who

intended are

I

people

that

to

not

wanted

in

this

in

history”

was

usually

to

a

silence

preferred

start

argue

that

bias

is

session.

have

a

as

from

racism

Q&A

–

our

as

it

mainstream

the

In

very

unlikely

predominant

your

false

opinion,

perception

are

of

is

that

really

different

doing

politically

emboldened

Donald:

as

his

to

claim

active

that

the

there

were

two

are

faculty

even

a

students

participants

sometimes

are

institution

left-of-center

Yes,

There

groups

are

in

that

egging

on

professors

at

categories.

reality. So either they were blind from the

the University of California at Berkeley

PT: In your opinion, what do you think is

start

driving a lot of left-of-center sentiments

bigotry

that

cannot

would

“oppression”

use in

the an

language elite

of

university

or

barriers There

context?

they

have

where assert on are

it

been

does

enough a

no

not that

campus bigots

taught exist. there

like here

to

see

who – after the very, very violent riots

I

just

against Milo Yiannopoulos – sent around

are

no

Princeton. and

it

is

emails

to

its

strategic

incumbent on the president and others in

faculty

self-interest, because now it is high status

the administration to tell the truth about

discourse

to

the

silence,

be

To

oppressed.

a

certain

America

extent

has

a

it

lot

understandable racial guilt and there is

of

University’s

faculty.

To

the

extent

that President Eisgruber allows any kind

13 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

fellow

faculty

members

celebrating antifa and commending it for

is

Mac Donald:

their

are

use either

of

are

of

violence.

participating

victimhood

complicit

continue unchallenged.

by

or,

So

the

in

this

by

allowing

their it

to

PT:

Following

this

your

matter, preferences harm their beneficia-

talk you referenced a number of examples

ries. You are not doing anybody any fav-

differences are more visible and they prod-

of college students protesting university

ors by catapulting him into an academic

uce the stigma problem. Students I think

regulations and faculty conduct. Is there a

environment for which he is not compet-

are pretty aware of SAT gaps. My sense is

categorical distinction between obstructi-

itive. So my argument, which is based on

a lot of high school seniors are comparing

onist

or

something called mismatch theory, side-

their own SAT scores. And they know who

the

protests

violent

thread,

and

protests?

during

demonstrative

Is

one

better

than

One problem with race preferences is race

steps the question of equity and just looks

is getting into which schools with what sc-

other?

at whether preferences are actually in the

ores. So I think they are pretty aware of the

Mac Donald: I don’t know those terms.

interests of their alleged beneficiaries and

scope of racial preferences. And again that

Obstructionist versus demonstrative?

I don’t think that they are. If we want

means that there is going to be generalizat-

PT:

more minority STEM graduates, minority

ions made about why and how black stud-

students should go to schools where they

ents got into Princeton. So it’s something

are

more identifiable and it is a generalization

Obstructionist,

Amy

Wax

people

for

from

the disinvitation of

example, being

and

able

to

stopping talk

at

competitive

academically.

It’s

been

shown – there has been a study at Duke –

that is not always accurate and I don’t

violent protests.

that

think that’s helpful either.

Mac Donald: Well I think they are both

wanting to major in STEM at higher rates

universities,

versus

demonstrative,

black

male

freshmen

come

in

PT: You made the claim that on average,

and giving a different point of view that

"I think that to allow students to have [the right to obstruct certain speakers] sets a very bad precedent. Who should have the authority to decide which speech is acceptable?

It’s also a confession of weakness that you can’t defend your own position in the face of alternative views.”

- Heather Mac Donald

does not have the goal of shutting down

than white male freshmen, but by senior

curve on math skills that – on the high end

the person’s speech.

year, there aren’t that many black males

and the low end – males predominate. And

PT: And off of that, do you think college

still in the STEM fields because they had

this has been true for a very long time. Th-

students have a right to obstruct certain

been admitted with over a standard dev-

ere has been a huge amount of effort to

speakers that they find offensive or that

iation

change it. Chess is overwhelmingly male.

disagree with their political beliefs?

so they can’t keep up. So they switch out

There is one female in all of history who

Mac Donald: No I don’t. I think that to

of a STEM major and they end up major-

has come anywhere close to being a Gran-

allow students to have that right sets a

ing

gone

dmaster despite massive efforts to change

very bad precedent. Who should have the

instead to the University of North Carol-

it. I think that males and females are diff-

authority to decide which speech is acce-

ina at Chapel Hill, or another school for

erent hormonally and that that has an

ptable? It’s also a confession of weakness

which they were academically prepared,

effect.

that you can’t defend your own position

they

PT: Lastly, how has your experience at

in the face of alternative views.

chance of majoring in a STEM field.

Princeton compared to other places or

PT: What is your response to opponents,

PT: You were talking during the Q&A

universities you have spoken at?

many of whom were in the audience to-

about

Mac Donald: I think it was a very respect-

day, who would claim that racial and gen-

preferences. Are those types of preferen-

ful audience. I was grateful that they liste-

der minorities have historically been den-

ces

ned with care and attention and I thought

ied access to economic growth and acade-

and racial preferences?

mic pursuits and therefore deserve special

Mac Donald: [When it comes to athletic

consideration in terms of admissions?

preferences,] in some cases you’ve prob-

Mac Donald: I think, as an empirical

ably got as large a gap of incoming skills

violent, I mean obstructing someone from coming is violent and violence is violence. I would think the distinction would be trying to silence somebody from speaking either through disinvitation or being violent

when

that

person

is

on

campus

as

opposed to a protest that is demonstrative in the sense of silently protesting outside

below

in

in

black

would

academic

studies.

have

removing

categorically

had

qualifications

Had

a

athletic

different

they

much

and

from

greater

legacy

gender

14 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

males tend to gravitate towards mathoriented problems while females gravitate towards humanities-centered problems. Is bias not a sufficient answer for this gap?

Mac Donald: I think there are definitely biological explanations. I think males are biologically more oriented towards higher levels of risk, of competition, of aggression, and I think again there is a distribution

the questions were very productive.

Bianca Ortiz-Miskimen is a Sophomore. She can be reached at biancao@princeton.edu.

THE LAWSPLAINER THE DEFINITIVE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER

Akhil Rajasekar

Opinion

The Great Chief Justice, John Marsh- controversies of particular varieties. But, all, is so reverently titled for a variety of reasons. and

While

his

analytical

rigor

have

beyond establishing the skeletal form of essary and Proper” means into which its

fortitude the

intellectual

been

nearly

judicial power and the pursuit of “Nec-

national

certain

government

restrictions

on

and

the

placing effectuation

states,

the

constitutionally

Marshall’s

opinion

for

extended.

the

Court

in

unmatched in the centuries since his serv-

Constitution itself gave little guidance on Cohens answered a series of arguments

ice, his greatest impact on the Court is

the particulars of day-to-day governance presented

by

lawyers

for

the

state

of

not found in these qualities, but in the or the intricate, often messy, relationship Virginia — namely that the authority of most fundamental constitutional power he

among

the

established for his institution: the power government to

decide

cases

of

certain

character.

In levels.

the modern era, it is, as Marshall would

on

What

“Necessary

say, “a proposition not to be controvert- might ed” that the power of the federal judiciary

various

national

legislative

and

one

between

the

institutions

go

about

legislative

and

means

Proper?”

of

enterprise of deciding certain cases and controversies. But this seemingly obvious understanding

of

federal

judicial

power

was not always so, and the Court’s power to perform its core constitutional duties has

certainly

not

always

been

an

incontrovertible proposition.

Over the course of his 34 years on the Court,

Marshall

were courts,

Indeed,

judgments

even

how Marshall’s

distinguishing “powers”

did

on

not

extend

entered

matters

answers

of

by

state

federal

in

both

to

law. cases

amounted to a vigorous, constitutionally

and grounded

defense

of

federal

judicial

power.

"Whatever constitutional adventures he might have tolerated, Marshall could not abide the proposition that a state court had the final say on a matter of federal law."

Marshall’s opinion in Marbury is as widely

misunderstood

as

it

is

famous;

indeed, it is likely to its pervasive misconstruction that the opinion owes much of its fame in the first place. In exercising a power that has since come to be termed “judicial review,” Marshall ruled unconstitutional the portion of the Judiciary Act of

1789

that

expanded

the

Court’s

original jurisdiction to cases beyond the

many constitutional claims and argumen-

What was the nature of the “executive” kind enumerated in Article III, Section 2,

ts.

and “judicial” powers? With questions of

Clause 2. In expounding the constitution-

yet-to-be-expounded such import left open and unsettled, the

al and logical principles from which he

republic

largely

and

by

the

and

of

Court

adjudicated

Driven

heard

Supreme

state review

is vast, as to both form and substance, legislative “means” in the first place? when it is engaged in its constitutional

the

the

youth

of

the

nature of its foundational charter, many new of

these

claims

were

designed

nation

the pursuit

by

of

embarked answers.

on

The

an

energetic derived the Court’s authority to set aside

focus

of

this

such

a

congressional

litigants, often collaboratively, to test the essay is Marshall’s understanding of one

unconstitutional,

boundaries of the new national institut- of

great

ions

erected

by

the

Constitution.

these

great

constitutional

principles:

The the scope, in form and in substance, of

Power of the United States.”

province

States,

with

such

qualifications

as

view

of

federal

judicial

power

—

the and the view around which he coalesced

Constitution itself established. The feder- his

Court

—

are

his

opinions

for

the

al judiciary, sparsely described and left Court in Marbury v. Madison and Cohfor Congress to more fully establish, was ens given the authority to decide cases and

v.

Virginia.

In Marbury,

the

nature

forth of

a

this

and

duty

of

the

judicial

department to say what the law is.” This

to carry them into effect. In the President derive a holistic understanding of Marsh- province resided the executive power of the United all’s

of

set

It was, Marshall said, “emphatically the

The two nodes from which we can

to pursue all necessary and proper means

Marshall

as

power.

Constitution vested in Congress enumer- what the Constitution terms “the judicial ated legislative powers and the authority

deduction

enactment

was

not

the

Court’s

because

Marshall felt it should be or because it was

an

inventive

instance

of

judicial

assertion. Rather, as he went on to say in the

following

sentence,

judicial

review

Marshall was legitimate because it was a logically

expounded the fundamental nature of the

15 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

necessary step in the exercise of the

THE LAWSPLAINER Court’s most fundamental duty of decid- -itution

were

void

and

did

not

demand -ing

ing particular cases and controversies. To like allegiance. When an act of Congress

but

[could]

contradiction proceed.”

and

One

confusion

provision

of

know how the law applies to a particular conflicted with the Constitution, Marshall federal law would, in theory, end up with set of facts, one must necessarily interp- would consider himself obligated by the

as

ret the relevant body of law. But, what

there

latter to set aside the former. And so was

happens when two provisions of relevant established law, both equally applicable to the case at judicial hand, conflict?

the

routine

review

—

inevitability

an

many

meanings

were

and

states,

applications

and

this

as

would

of compromise the very foundations of the

unremarkable,

instituted national government. The first

deductively derivable necessity to which principle of federalism was, as Marshall

It is a longstanding canon of legal int-

the judiciary would sometimes be forced stated for the Court in Gibbons v. Ogden,

erpretation, derived from the great trad- to

resort

to

decide

itions of the English common law, that controversies recency controls in instances of statutory

then,

conflict.

sense

When

two

statutes

cannot

be

before

it.

that Marbury in “established”

reasonably reconciled as to avoid a mutu- established al contradiction, this canon teaches that

particular

concept

the

To

cases the

any

contemplated,

extent, limited to specified objects, is plenary as

review,

exercise

it the principle of national uniformity under

of

approved,

a federal

and, be

the more recent statute implicitly repeals indeed, required by the Constitution. the older, and therefore governs the case

that “the sovereignty of Congress, though

meaningful to those objects.” This sovereignty, and

judicial

mere

and

law

following

meaningless

if

therefrom, each

would

state

could

determine for itself the meaning of, and

If Marbury stood as a defense of the its obligations under, the binding mand-

at hand. Useful as it may seem, this can- federal judiciary’s substantive powers,

ates of another sovereign. For Marshall,

on is, by virtue of its common law orig-

the

ins,

premised

on

legislative

supremacy.

Since the English legal tradition is prem-

Cohens presented

a

question

of

form.

qualified

Perhaps courts could constitutionally set legislative aside

legislative

enactments,

but

could

supremacy

power

had

a

of

federal

judicial

cousin.

Just as Congress did not possess plenary

ised on the sovereignty of Parliament and

some cases be kept out of federal courts legislative

the

altogether? States, of course, had a vested legislate on any matter over which it had

equal

supremacy

of

its

mandates,

statutory conflicts could be resolved by this canon. In notable opposition to this premise

of

statutory

supremacy

is

the

power

could

It

Constitution, so too did the courts of the

the

interest

of

every

state

to

keep its cases in its own courts, where it Union

not

authority

possess

by

not

not

in

delegated

so

interest in testing these uncharted waters. was

been

and

plenary

the

judicial

written American constitution, the funda-

could be shielded by its sovereign imm- authority.

mental

unity, rather than be a party in the courts their jurisdiction that did not possess a

premise

of

which

is

that

it

is

supreme over all statutes. No statute or government action, however recent, can survive a conflict with the Constitution.

This leaves judges in a bind when the two do conflict. Marshall’s assertion, echoing Hamilton’s own in Federalist 78, was a simple one: “whenever a particular statute

contravenes

the

Constitution,

it

[would] be the duty of [his court] to adhere to the latter and disregard the form-

of

another

question what

sovereign.

came

the

before

modern

Court

has

case

properly

fell

under

this “federal” character set forth in Section 2

In Cohens, Marshall

No

through

of Article III. The federal government, in

to all its organs, was indeed a government

come

crudely term a “perfect factual vehicle.” of delegated and enumerated powers; but Did the Supreme Court have the authority

as to those powers delegated and enum-

to

erated, its supremacy would be unyield-

hear

appeals

from,

and

reverse

the

judgments and/or holdings of state courts ing and absolute. of last resort when questions of federal law

were

raised,

decided,

or

This strictly defined notion of federal-

otherwise ism, thought to best straddle the blurry line

involved?

between

essential

national

govern-

er.” Indeed, only federal laws “made in

Whatever constitutional adventures he ance and tyranny, would have been rend-

pursuance [of the Constitution]” — along

might have tolerated, Marshall could not ered structurally unsound if state courts

with authorized treaties and the Constitution

itself — were

proclaimed

by

the

Constitution to be the “supreme Law of the land.” It followed, then, that federal laws not made in pursuance of the Const-

abide

the

proposition

that

a

state

court had the final say over the meaning and

had the final say on a matter of federal

application

law. To accept such a proposition would

return

be to countenance what Hamilton called a

which it had only just rescued itself. The

“hydra in government, from which noth-

Articles of Confederation had been a

16 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

the

of

federal

Union

to

law.

the

This

would

disunion

from

THE LAWSPLAINER demonstrable because,

in

failure the

in

2

of

Article

VI

point of supremacy, as has come to be

shall

powers to which Marshall laid claim in

state became a nation unto itself. To the

and the Laws of the United States which

both

extent, then, that the Constitution of the

shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and

constitutional

United

union

all

has

union

made, under the Authority of the United

account of federal judicial power is, in

States.” If state judges had no jurisdiction

reality, a humble one — that the Court

over

make

lies just claim to no more, and no less

federalism. Fidelity to federalism meant

little sense to bind them by oath to the

power than is necessary for the perform-

not only denying the federal government

supremacy

ance

the

Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789,

deciding

have, but also accepting its supremacy as

which

when cases involve questions of federal

to those it did. In this regard, as Marshall

Court’s

appellate

stated

among

those

protective

of

depended

almost

stubborn

liberty,

for

it

to

did

his

national such

a

exclusively

fidelity

powers

national

Clause

government with necessary powers, each

a

a

Constitution.

misguidedly

formed

of

part

provided that “the Judges in every State

States

absence

large

the

not

Court

on

a

principle

of

constitutionally

in Cohens,

states

be

bound”

Treaties

“[the]

made,

federal

set

by

of

or

which

questions,

federal

forth

Constitution,

it

law.

details

shall

would

Furthermore,

concerning

jurisdiction,

instances

be

of

the

included appellate

alleged.

decisions

been

of

law, word.

The

While

institutional

grounded far

too

in

much

of Marbury, Marshall’s

core

cases

federal

firmly

text.

made

its

are

The

constitutional

and

duty

controversies.

courts

must

have

Marbury–Cohens

the

of

And

last

judicial

were “members of one great empire—for

jurisdiction cases in which state courts of

regime

some

some

last resort had found against a provision

today,

was

of federal law. All this evidence taken in

secures the independence of the judiciary,

sum,

ensures that a sovereign has the final say

purposes

purposes thus

sovereign:

subordinate.”

properly

for

Federalism

understood

as

a

two-way

it

is

yet

normative

appreciate sense.

It

system of constitutional government that

under

values

government Marshall, often

and

and

spoke

understood questions

between

the

on the

from

its

Court

its

own

that

laws,

great

and

tradition

guarantees

of

a

American

laws, or treaties. But, as Marshall’s Court

exceptionalism — the rule of law. All in

counterparts,

established in the name of the Constitut-

all,

ion, federal courts would have the final

affection for reason that defined Marshall

word on federal law.

define equally well his account of “the

for

which

constitutional jurisdiction being

federal

over

national

the

state

constitution,

hear

a

all

cases that raise federal questions, whether

relationship

indeed

in

must

all its lanes with equal attention.

federal

can

even

we

proposition

the

states

incontrovertible

one

street, and Marshall’s Court would police

Fully subscribing to this view of the

that

another

is

of

litigated

he

matters, federal in

From Marbury and Cohens we gain a

state

deep insight into how Marshall perceived

courts in the first place. But, as Marshall

his institution and the scope of its power.

rightly saw in Cohens, this was not the

He did not believe its power to be absol-

judicial regime established by the

ute — certainly not anywhere near the

the

humility,

analytical

rigor,

and

judicial Power of the United States.”

Akhil Rajasekar is a Junior in the Politics Department. He can be contacted at akhilr@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 © 2020 The Princeton Tory

17 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

ASK ANSCOMBE

Dear Anscombe, Is virginity a social construct?

It may on the outset seem reasonable to first establish a definition of virginity before answering the question. A widelyaccepted

definition

of

a

virgin

is

might

well-defined

concept.

There

are

numerous opinions as to what constitutes sex and thus a loss of virginity, hence the difficulty

of

arriving

at

an

airtight

definition of either term. Perhaps, then, the appropriate approach to this issue is not to search for clear definitions of sex

ask

why

virginity

as

an

idea

is

average

is

it

to

establish

only

that

ascribes

to

one’s

any

unique

first

sexual

marriage.

within

Under

the

that

confines

view,

of

which

we

so

the

may

commit

oneself,

then,

if

sex

isn’t

virginity

remains

subscribe to this view of sex would agree

reason, then, that virginity might matter

that it is virtuous to remain a virgin until

to us is if the first sexual encounter is

marriage,

somehow

that virtue. For example, someone who is a

but

virgin

Most

virginity

cannot

who

itself

be

not

virginity as a rite of passage and argue

resolved to stay abstinent until marriage

that

can

well

has

of

encounters. Some may point to the loss of

be

but

concept

people

understood

subsequently

as

living

have to be special. But this is to assert

virtuously in the relevant sense. On the

simply that the first sexual encounter has

other

to be different simply because it is the

definitions of virginity to remain a virgin

first. A better alternative to this approach

in a purely technical sense may fall short

hand,

one

who

uses

reserved

idea

of

for

necessarily

for

virginity

indeed

a

marriage,

altogether,

part

persons,

and

that

performing

by

of

regardless healthily

loose

great

it

that

reflects

that

act,

expressed

of

an

then

but is

is

not

marriage. on

that

by

a

This

the

the

fact

the

two

marital

whether

supported

emphasis

love,

love

stable

fact

first

is and

places

instance

a of

sex, which can unfortunately lead to the faulty

thinking

sexual

that

activity

there’s

no

once

outside

reason

not

one of

to

has

had

marriage,

continue

such

activity.

A far preferable concept to virginity (or “purity”) is the idea of chastity, an “active

virginity”

that

eschews

sexual

marriage,

regardless

activity of

continuously outside

what

may

of have

happened in the past. Ultimately, healthy sex is such an extreme act of love that there

must

partners

18 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

virginity

have

permanent

One

utility.

a

isn’t

reserved

Sex is the most intimate act between

However, even within this paradigm sex,

virginity

is

socially-constructed.

a

it

one

So

there

dubious

surrounding

physical

regardless of past transgressions.

the

sexual acts, and virginity is far too vague

circumstances

irreversible

in mind, it may be tempting to throw out

of

the

an

virginity shouldn’t matter at all. With this

such diseases is directly tied to specific

subsequent

ways,

persons

STI. However, determining one’s risk for

from

many

sex

"Of the numerous views on sex, the only one that ascribes any unique significance to one’s first sexual encounter is the view that sex should only take place within the confines of marriage."

permanent and unconditional love.

different

in

accurate indicator of sexual virtue, and if

good indicator that one does not have an

useful.

way that, say, chastity can. The former is,

sex is the highest level of physical union

marriage that that union is protected by

medically

determinable,

marriage,

Virginity could consequently serve as a

be

an

sex should be with one’s spouse, because

two people can achieve, and it is only in

to

somewhat

as

indicator or adjudicator of virtue in the

ourselves hold, one’s first experience of

STIs.

concept

yet

understood

which

place

prevent

to

best

take

sexual

especially

therefore,

occurrence; the latter is a way of life to

one’s

health,

monitor

is,

encounter is the view that sex should only

sexually active means one should begin closely

one

significance

One possible reason could be that being

more

some-thing

Of the numerous views on sex, the

moment at which one’s virginity is lost?

to

is

living a sexually virtuous life. Virginity

physical fact that cannot itself serve as an

American has seven

necessary

there

as

about one’s first sexual encounter.

sexual partners in his or her lifetime, so why

because

virginity

elusive,

prevalent in modern society.

The

understand

fundamentally and qualitatively different

and virginity where none may exist, but to

to

significant

“someone who has not had sex,” but this is a flawed one because sex itself is not a

be

be

more

connecting

the

ASK ANSCOMBE besides

a

mutual

gratification.

desire

Both

for

persons

sexual

must

be

indeed a social construct, and generally,

Virgin

this

leads

emphasis

is

unhelpful.

While

or to

not, a

saving

happiness

willing to enter into the marital union that

virginity is real in the sense that sex is

definitely

worth

sex

meant

abstinence.

Virginity

consummates,

and

virginity

exclusively

for

one’s

lifelong

recognizes the fact that having more than

spouse, it is often used as a blunt and

one

in

unnuanced description that fails to allow

sharing a physical level of intimacy with

for the possibility of sexual redemption –

someone without being able to share the

redemption of a person who realizes that

emotional

sex

sexual

partner

and

inevitably

spiritual

results

intimacy

marriage with that person.

Much of the emphasis on virginity is

of

This

is is

only why

fulfilling the

idea

within of

sex

the

for

that

marriage is

most

challenge

may

be

lost,

of but

chastity is never out of reach.

Sincerely,

marriage.

chastity

is

far

Anscombe

more useful than virginity.

If you'd like to ask a question about love, sex, relationships or anything of that type, email the Ask Anscombe team at anscombe@princeton.edu. Should you wish to stay anonymous, you can submit your question through the Tory's website.

"OLD=BAD...OLD=BAD" Christopher Huh '21

19 | The Princeton Tory | 2020

PRINCETON'S PREMIER MAGAZINE OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT.

C O N T A C T

U S

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