The Princeton Tory 38.4

THE PRINCETON TORY

journal of conservative thought

THE

UNIVERSITY

Dear Tories,

With the semester set to end shortly and reading period and finals upon us, one may feel particularly inclined to question the modern university’s role. Especially for conservatives in an at-times aggressively progressive environment, a university can be an uncomfortable place to exist.

However, attending university is a maturing experience, and it’s through this crucible that adult personalities are formed. Amid record-low college acceptance rates (with our own Princeton not even releasing its official rate), it becomes essential to reflect on what makes this experience unique or worthwhile.

What does a liberal education in the twenty-first century look like? How has Princeton fared in the battle for free speech? What is the status of campus discourse? How is religion treated on campus? And, ultimately, what role do modern universities play? We tackle these questions and more in our issue.

We also welcome comments, questions, and criticisms from students and alumni in the form of Letters to the Editor. Whether you agree or disagree with what we publish, we want you to think about and engage with our arguments and ideas. Whatever your opinion, if you pen an astutely argued letter, we’ll publish it. Email tory@princeton.edu and we’ll respond.

Christopher Kane ’24

OPINION

“Caterpillar Referendum Teach-In”: Debunking False Claims Alexandra Orbuch ’25 Liberal Studies: An Apology Santhosh Nadarajah ’25

Why I Would Send My Kids to Princeton Billy Wade ’23

The Boy Who Cried “Left-Wing Mob”: How Campus Free-Speech Rhetoric Must Change Shane Patrick ’24

NEWS

Princeton BDS-Aligned Referendum Fails to Pass, Is Rejected by Administration Darius Gross ’24

The Princeton Tory Vol. XXXIX | Issue No. 4

Publisher

Christopher Kane ’24 Editor-in-Chief Billy Wade ’23

Chief Copy Editor

Abigail Anthony ’23 Editors

Henry Koffler ’23 Cassy James ’23 Myles McKnight ’23 Logan Mundy ’23

Board of Trustees

Anna Bray Duff ’92

James Haynes ’18

Peter Heinecke ’87

Ira Leeds ’06 Brian Tvenstrup ’95 Timothy Webster ’99

Financial Manager

Nishant Kumar Singhal ’23

Distribution Manager Nolan Musslewhite ’25

Events Manager Adam Hoffman ’23

Read Orbuch’s ’25 take on exposing false claims

“Caterpillar Referendum Teach-In”: Debunking False Claims

Alexandra Orbuch ’25

On April 6, I attended the “Caterpillar Referendum Teach-In” event hosted by the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP) and Students for Prison Education, Abolition, and Reform (SPEAR). As a Jew, I was appalled. Appalled by the false claims. Appalled by the proclamation of “From the river to the sea” (an explicit call to erase the only Jewish state)–by a professor and invited speaker, no less. Appalled that attendees burst out into chants of “Free Palestine” upon the meeting’s end.

The President of PCP, Eric Periman ‘23, organized the event, bringing in Craig and Cindy Corrie, the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was killed by a Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza in 2003, as well as Rutgers Theatre professor David Letwin. Both Periman and PCP have been embroiled in antisemitic controversy on campus.

Cindy Corrie began the event by sharing some of Rachel’s childhood writings on the beauty of nature in her hometown of Olympia, Washington. Because the event began with a mother grieving her deceased daughter, I want to emphasize that I make no attempt to diminish a mother’s grief at the loss of a child, no matter the circumstances. I simply seek to temper the pacifist portrayal of Rachel provided at the event and debunk the false claims set forth as indisputable facts.

OPINION

Cindy Corrie characterized the group her daughter worked for in Gaza, International Solidarity Movement (ISM), as peace-loving. She described ISM as “a voice” for Palestinians advocating for “only non-violent means of resistance.” In reality, the organization–called “pro-terrorist” by the Washington Post–has knowingly cooperated with representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, groups designated by the U.S. State Department as foreign terrorist organizations.

ISM co-founder Asam Shapiro also wrote that “Palestinians…should use any means necessary” to fight Israelis, saying that non-violence does not work “without a concurrent violent movement.” Moreover, ISM strongly supports Palestinians pelting stones at Israeli civilians, calling the acts “a foundation for Palestinian resistance.”

Cindy said that her daughter was killed in Rafah, where “she chose to go because it was where she thought the need was greatest.” However, Cindy failed to mention that Rafah is documented by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as a major site of ammunition storage facilities and tunnels used to smuggle arms from Egypt.

The IDF destroys such tunnels to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza,

which is why Caterpillar bulldozers are used. Rafah was deemed a closed active military zone, off-limits to civilians, and clearly marked off as such. Simply put: Rachel Corrie was not permitted to be there and thus placed her life at risk by entering the area.

Further, the claim during the event that the bulldozer’s operator saw Corrie is not as cut-and-dry as it was presented. Cindy claimed the bulldozer driver deliberately ran her daughter over. This rumor stemmed from a photo disseminated by the Associated Press, which showed Rachel standing atop a mound and holding a megaphone, making it seem impossible for the driver to have missed her (Figure 1). Both CNN and The New York Times falsely claimed that this image “show[ed] the moments before she was killed.” In reality, the picture was taken hours before her death and even included a completely different bulldozer than the one that struck Rachel (Figure 2). According to testimony, Rachel was sitting on the ground, not standing, at the time of her death. Both publications later issued corrections following their misleading captions. After adjudication in Israeli courts, her death was deemed an accident.

Figure 1. Photo courtesy of ISM taken hours before Rachel’s death.

Figure 2.

Photo courtesy of ISM that shows Rachel Corrie being helped moments after being hit by the bulldozer.

Cindy claimed Israel is an “apartheid” state, and Professor David Letwin, who joined the event via Zoom, echoed this sentiment, calling Israel an “apartheid regime.” ‘Apartheid’ was thrown around repeatedly over the hour, absent of any evidence. Moreover, the information sheet provided to everyone in attendance had a photo of “Anti-South African apartheid protests at Princeton,” drawing a clear parallel to Apartheid South Africa. The Biden administration categorically rejects the ‘apartheid’ claim, declaring, “It is not the view of this administration that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid.” Apartheid is defined as “a former policy of segregation and political, social, and economic discrimination against the nonwhite majority in the Republic of South Africa.”

In Apartheid South Africa, nonwhites were subjected to segregation in public facilities, stripped of voting rights, and denied access to work in government. It was a society of institutionalized racism, subjugation, and oppression. In Israel,

every citizen has the right to vote, Arabs included. Moreover, Arabs not only belong to every major political party but have several of their own, participating in coalitions that constitute the Parliament. Arab Israelis serve on the Supreme Court, in the diplomatic corps, and in academia and volunteer for military service, some rising to the highest ranks.

As for the situation with Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel has offered almost total withdrawal from the area on multiple occasions, the last of which was in 2008, to no avail. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Omert offered Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas all but 6.3% of the West Bank and promised to recompense this loss by compensating the remaining few percent to the PA in another area: namely, the land linking the West Bank to Gaza. The Palestinians rejected the plan. Israel was open to peace; the Palestinians were the ones who refused to come to the table.

Moreover, the Palestinians held Gaza and the West Bank until 1967. Did they

make an effort to establish a Palestinian state then? The answer is a resounding no. If they were so keen on self-determination, then what was stopping them?

The fact remains that the offers were rejected; instead of negotiating, the Palestinian leadership resorted to suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. One of the most shocking moments–and that is saying something considering that I had my pick at Tuesday’s event–was when Craig offhandedly remarked that “when Rachel was killed, there were still suicide bombings going on,” the very real implication being that suicide bombing are no longer a reality. Craig, I really wish that were the case. I do. But the facts speak for themselves.

In 2008, Lyubov Razdolskaya was killed and 38 others were wounded in a suicide bombing at a Dimona shopping center. In 2016, Hamas claimed responsibility for Abdul Hamid Abu Srour’s suicide attack on a bus in Jerusalem, wounding 20. In 2019, 17-year-old Rina Shnerb was killed in a suicide bombing attack while hiking with her father and brother. Those are but a few in the ongoing litany of infamy.

Because the threat of violence clearly remains–despite the Corries’ attempt to deny it–Israel has in place checkpoints and roadblocks to ensure its citizenry’s safety. Cindy referred to “Jewish only roads” in the West Bank. Such roads do not exist.

Yes, there are roadblocks to keep terrorists from killing Israeli civilians–Christians, Jews, and Arabs alike–but there are no roads confined to only Jews. Most West Bank roads are open to everyone–Muslim, Jewish, and Christian citizens, foreigners, and Palestinians. A few select roads surrounding Israeli communities do prohibit Palestinians, but not all Arabs;

Arab-Israeli citizens are free to travel as they wish. And let it be noted that Israelis are prohibited from traveling on roads in the Palestinian-controlled area of the West Bank.

Continuing to construct the baseless ‘Apartheid’ narrative, Cindy Corrie criticized “the Apartheid wall, an illegal wall on Palestinian land.” The barrier she referred to–less than 3% of which is truly a wall, the rest being a small fence–was built as a counter-terrorism measure by Israel in 2003 following a devastating year of terrorism (over 5,301 attacks). There is no natural barrier along the demarcation line with the West Bank, so to stop the devastating wave of terror, the country exercised its legitimate authority to erect an obstacle. Doing otherwise, leaving itself wide-open to those interested in destroying Israel, and neglecting to stop homicide bombers would be tantamount to suicide, something no nation is obliged to do.

The Corries were not the only ones conveying falsehood. Letwin claimed that the Jewish state is “dependent on ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of human beings.” According to the U.N., ethnic cleansing is defined as “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.”

One in five Israeli citizens is a member of an ethnic group not Jewish; if ‘ethnic cleansing’ were indeed the goal, then Israel has failed. On the contrary, Israel offers Arab-Israeli citizens–and Muslim, Christian, Druze, Armenians, and many others–rights and opportunities typically exceeding those in neighboring countries. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly shown that it is willing to cede land to the Palestinians to arrive at a permanent conclusion to the conflict. Look no further than the

OPINION

compromise offers preferred in 2000 and 2008.

Israel is not a ‘colonial state’ founded upon the principles of ethnic cleansing. The fence–inappropriately referred to as the ‘Apartheid’ wall–was built for the safety of Israeli citizens. The checkpoints were constructed for the protection of Israeli citizens. Israel does not fire rockets at Gaza out of colonial ambition. It does so because rockets are shot at them first. And it has absolutely no ambition for the territory, having relinquished de facto and de jure control to its inhabitants.

Letwin dismissed the term ‘terrorism’ as a designation for Palestinian groups like

Hamas, saying that “terrorism is a word that was…simply invented to dismiss resistance of people in the face of power.” He went even further, calling the designating the entire State of Israel a terrorist entity. “Who are the terrorists? If you come to a land and ethnically cleanse it and set up an apartheid regime, is that not an act of terror?” he asked.

If random stabbings, incendiary balloons launched into civilian areas, or mass homicide bombings that instantaneously murder or dismember unsuspecting mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are not acts of terror, then what is? I genuinely want to know.

Liberal Studies: An Apology

Santhosh Nadarajah ’25

“We shall call those studies liberal which are worthy of a free man; those studies by which we attain and practise virtue and wisdom; that education which calls forth, trains, and develops those highest gifts of body and of mind, and which are rightly judged to rank next in dignity to virtue only.”

–Vergerius, On Manners and Studies

Read Nadarajah’s ‘25 take on liberal education on University

Following this statement, the medieval Italian statesman and educational philosopher Vergerius went on to detail what studies he believed are “liberal” and “worthy of a free man.” They included history, moral philosophy, eloquence, letters, gymnastics, music, logic, rhetoric, poetry, and mathematics. These “liberal studies” had defined what a university education is since the era of the ancient Greeks, and they would continue to do so, for the most part, into the near future. Vergerius outlined how receiving a liberal education is an essential part of acquiring and developing virtue and wisdom. However, it is important to note the “for the most part” aspect of how these disciplines define university education, because throughout the past two centuries, liberal education has been in decline (replaced by vocational education and single-subject education) and seen as increasingly irrelevant in modern society. Education nowadays is seen as nothing more than a means to acquire a good job. I believe that although Princeton places some value on the importance of a liberal

studies education and learning for the sake of learning, it too has been affected by the decline in liberal education and the rise of a consumerist view of the university as an institution, and these are concerns that should be addressed if liberal education is to survive.

Princeton, like many American universities, offers a curriculum that attempts to combine liberal studies with single-subject education. Princeton’s distribution requirements ensure that students receive at least some breadth among the liberal studies and various ways of knowing, though the number of requirements is not large. Furthermore, distribution requirements are much more limited for engineering students, and the nature of departmental requirements for most majors means that in a student’s third and fourth years, most or all classes they’ll take are exclusively from a single department—the department they’re majoring in. Furthermore, the option to “P/D/F” distribution requirements defeats the purpose of having such requirements and treats the distribution requirements as nothing more than a checklist that needs to be completed. The mixture of liberal studies and single-subject education that Princeton believes it has is a facade, and Princeton must pick which approach it prefers.

Admittedly, the liberal studies situation could be worse. At the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom, the concept of an education based around the liberal studies doesn’t exist. Instead, when high school students apply, they pick a major, and if they’re accepted and decide to attend, the classes they’ll take for the next three to four years are all from a single department. Having students focus on a single subject

allows them to become experts in their field, but they miss out on the benefits that liberal studies could provide them: wisdom in multiple disciplines and virtue. The UK has A levels, but like AP classes in the United States, high school classes taught at a college level are different from college classes. Princeton’s retention of some aspects of liberal studies should be commended, but the liberal studies aspect is insufficient, compared to what the University may think.

A key question arises from the modern lack of emphasis on a liberal education: why? Why have we abandoned the concept of a liberal education? I believe that the lack of emphasis on the liberal studies, especially at Oxford and Cambridge but also at American universities such as Princeton and Harvard, is due to the modern consumerist view of education, which stipulates that education is merely a means to acquiring a “good job,” whatever that means. Instead of learning about multiple disciplines and doing so for the sake of learning, students learn about a single discipline (or, in the case of Princeton with its distribution requirements, a single discipline with a sprinkling of liberal studies) and do so in order to become skilled at that discipline in the hope of getting a job in that field.

In an essay entitled “On the Uses of a Liberal Education,” Mark Edmundson, an English professor at the University of Virginia, expressed my sentiment on the consumerist view of education and how it is most responsible for the decline in liberal studies education. Edmundson spent much of the first page of his essay describing his personal experiences with course evaluations, how they are one of many symptoms of consumerism’s steady takeover of higher education, and how consumerism is inherently at odds with

OPINION

liberal education. Many of the course evaluations for Edmundson’s Freud class featured comments about Edmundson’s personality as a teacher (his irony and jokes), as well as how certain topics within the class were exciting (such as the Oedipus complex). At Princeton, I’ve had to do course evaluations for my first-year fall semester classes, and something I noticed among my peers was that many of them commented on our professors’ personalities or how lenient in grading they are—just as Edmundson described. In an ideal world where knowledge for the sake of knowledge is valued more than consumerism, course evaluations would instead focus on topics that were taught and express appreciation for the opportunity to learn for the sake of learning.

Consumerism remains at odds with liberal studies and learning for the sake of learning to this day; though Edmundson’s essay was written decades ago, the problems plaguing higher education that he described persist, as I’ve seen in my recent experiences at Princeton. As mentioned

above, Princeton has some liberal studies education requirements—its distribution requirements—but the P/D/F option in addition to course evaluations defeat the purpose of such requirements. Students can either P/D/F a class—and given that the bar to earn a C-range grade for most classes at Princeton is very low, they don’t have to do the assignments or attempt to learn— or they can look at a course evaluation to determine which classes are taught by professors who are lenient graders or have “fun” personalities.

To conclude, it is my belief that while Princeton attempts to incorporate liberal education for its undergraduates, its efforts are insufficient and, as in most American universities, corrupted by consumerism. This state of affairs has led to an emphasis on single-subject disciplines that are illiberal but economically valuable instead of a well-rounded, liberal education. There are still opportunities for Princeton to revise its curriculum and save liberal education, but it will take time and effort to overcome American consumerism.

Why I Would Send My Kids to Princeton

Billy Wade ’23

A2014 article entitled Don’t Send Your Kid to the Ivy League by William Deresiewicz (an Ivy grad and faculty member) argued that “[o]ur system of elite education manufactures young people who are . . . great at what they’re doing but with no idea why they’re doing it.” Students at “prestigious institutions,” he claimed, are always concerned about the “return on investment” of their college education, yet few understand what the “return” is supposed to be. He concluded that parents should send their kids to second-tier schools that “have retained their allegiance to real educational values.”

My personal observations validate Deresiewicz’s diagnosis. Princeton students are (generally) preoccupied with the “return on investment” of their education, excessively concerning themselves with internship interviews or the next P-Set. And yet, many intuitively understand that their “return” could be more, even much more, than just a job in finance or consulting. For instance, I’ve heard multiple students express their wish for extra time to absorb themselves in their readings rather than just skim enough pages to make a good comment or two in precept. They desire more from their time at Princeton than just getting the grades and the job.

Princeton offers critical ingredients for a robust education but often does a poor job of empowering students to understand the “return” they can expect from their education. This is the consequence of providing a nonsectarian education while encouraging a culture that inhibits the development of an intellectual life.

Read Wade’s ‘23 take on education at Princeton

Because Princeton gives students access to world-renowned minds, generous financial aid, post-grad opportunities, stateof-the-art facilities, and rigorous courses, a technical analysis validates its annual ranking as the number one undergraduate university in the world. The low studentto–Nobel Laureate ratio is only one of Princeton’s unique offerings. Princeton students are treated like thoroughbreds and trained to be the fastest out of the gate. But however grand and wonderful Princeton’s student resources are, they don’t answer the question “to what end?” A Princeton education can be used for good or bad. For example, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Maria Rissa (class of 1986) and authoritarian dictator Syngman Rhee (class of 1910) used their Princeton educations in very different ways. Ultimately, an answer to this question is required for a student to feel a sense of fulfillment and direction.

As human beings, we yearn for meaning, and where meaning is lacking, our personal fulfillment wanes and we’re prone to becoming directionless. For some, religion provides meaning through a rich moral code that, when followed, guarantees reward. Utilitarianism and other secular philosophies also provide guides for individual action. These moral frameworks do more than just provide meaning—they provide direction. The Christian motivated by charity chooses to work in a refugee camp; the hedonistic utilitarian driven by a desire to maximize happiness chooses a career in public health. In contrast, the graduate who has not adopted a moral tradition is more likely to stumble into a profession—whether one of these or something else.

That’s not to say that religious or utilitarian students have their lives planned out and can describe exactly how they’ll

use their Princeton education (I certainly couldn’t!), but these students may feel meaningful direction in their studies and career goals.

As a nonsectarian university, Princeton doesn’t make religious or ideological demands of its students, who are allowed to choose to adopt a moral code or not. Therefore, students are left to their own devices to find direction that may have been otherwise provided had they attended a Catholic or Jewish university. I won’t attempt a lengthy discussion on the merits of a nonsectarian education, but it certainly puts more responsibility on the student to discern the meaning and end of their individual education. Unfortunately, Princeton’s academic culture, reinforced by the university itself, does not promote the personal discovery of direction; instead, it prioritizes the hustle for internships, fellowships, and prestige.

A friend recently commented on how many businesses could have been started, inventions patented, and poetic stanzas written in the time Princeton students spend looking for summer internships. I can relate, having spent as much time working on securing my summer plans as on any single class. For most students, free time is spent networking, looking for internships, or making sure they’re doing something “productive”; summer plans are a central topic of conversation in the dining halls. For some, this is motivated by pressure from parents; for others the pressure is internal. Either way, certainly, the insatiable hustle for the next resume bullet permeates Princeton’s academic culture.

While this may be the natural consequence of housing 4,700 highachieving undergraduates in a small New Jersey town, Princeton does little to

minimize the often corrosive effects of the hustle culture that has oversaturated our academic environment. Career-fair advertisements and resume workshops provided by the Center for Career Development are the subjects of some of the first emails that incoming freshmen receive. And yet, for all the options presented to Princeton students, they’re not taught how to decide which path is right for them. Yes, Princeton prides itself on teaching its students how to think, but that “thinking” is usually attached to an assignment or a grade, the experience tainted by pressure from peers, professors, and parents. The university is quick to promote the practical uses of our education but slow to promote habits that build fulfillment and a sense of direction. For Princeton students to find these after graduation, they must learn and be encouraged to develop an intellectual life. In her book Lost in Thought: The Hidden Pleasures of an Intellectual Life, Zena Hitz outlined the importance and fulfillment of developing what she calls an intellectual life. Hitz argued that a rich life is a life rich in thought. Human beings, she contended, long for something that exceeds the “merely material or the merely social.” The intellectual life provides meaning to education and direction to its application by creating a refuge from the world where you can consider your deepest thoughts and feelings, free from the “power plays and careless judgments of social life.”

Before coming to Princeton or garnering international fame, Albert Einstein worked in a patent office. It was there, far from any laboratory, that Einstein wrote his seminal papers on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and

the theory of special relativity. Those ideas turned the physics world on its head, and calling someone an Einstein has become a compliment of their intelligence. Einstein called the patent office “that worldly cloister where I hatched my most beautiful ideas.”

Einstein’s “worldly cloister” gave him a refuge where he could pursue his natural curiosities without undue pressure from colleagues. Unless they frequent the eating club named Cloister Inn, it can be difficult for a Princeton student to find their own worldly cloisters where they routinely take refuge to deeply consider what they have read or learned. Princeton students are typically overschedulers (that’s how they had the resumes to get in), and this tendency persists in their college lifestyles.

Even for students who find direction in a moral tradition, a personal cloister is essential to the search for meaning amid the hustle of University life. The truthseeking process, to which Princeton has been publicly committed, requires both diligent effort in studying and intentional consideration of what’s been studied. Without the latter, the student becomes like an ice cream merchant who, despite buying and selling sweets all day, never tries the creamy dessert.

Because of its personal nature, developing an intellectual life is something that Princeton cannot do for its students— but it certainly could encourage it. In my three years at Princeton, I have yet to see a poster for a “place to ponder” or even a simple reminder to feast upon the ideas around us. Instead, “study halls” and tips on how to read quickly are advertised on the bulletin board of every residential college. While these latter resources are

OPINION

helpful in the quest for good grades, they incentivize students to hustle on, forget what was already tested, and begin working on the next P-Set.

Despite the hustle culture, it’s possible for students to develop a directiongiving intellectual life. For example, a friend of mine makes a habit of journaling at the Princeton battlefield. There he finds his worldly cloister, and he credits that habit with aiding his direction-seeking pursuits. Personally, I use walks from my

dorm to class and the gym as quiet time to ponder.

Once Princeton students understand that the university does not optimize for “meaning,” they can begin searching for their “return” in both moral codes (like religion) and the development of an intellectual life. For this reason, I break with Deresiewicz’s conclusion and would happily send my kids to Princeton . . . that is, if they understand what the university can, and cannot, offer.

The Boy Who Cried “Left-Wing Mob”: How Campus Free-Speech Rhetoric Must Change

Shane Patrick ’24

Beware of the left-wing mob.” It’s an oft-repeated slogan among proponents of free speech on college campuses around the country and certainly at Princeton. The Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC), the organization dedicated to the promotion of free speech on this campus, made it the focus of its signature event this year, “Mob Rule: The Illiberal Left’s Threat to Campus Discourse.” POCC brought in some high-profile speakers for an interesting panel discussion, but unfortunately the event’s headline performer—the socalled left-wing mob—failed to show. While one could view this as evidence of the success of the free-speech movement, given that the aforementioned enemies of free speech appear to have slunk into the shadows, I think that the event and the absence of the “mob” bring to light a key flaw in campus free-speech rhetoric: its dependence on enemies to legitimize itself.

Boy-who-cried-wolf moments like these severely undermine the authority of free-speech proponents, as they help turn the “left-wing mob” into a mythological boogeyman, which most students will never see but will constantly hear war stories about. After enough retellings without an appearance from a dreaded leftwing mob, these war stories risk becoming fairy tales in the minds

Read Patrick’s ‘24 take on free-speech movement

of listeners. If supporters of free speech (and I count myself among them) make themselves reliant on the existence of a tangible enemy to show free speech’s goodness, they will never be able to truly overcome objectors. Free-speech rhetoric runs the risk of becoming an eternal game of cat and mouse, where proponents of free speech decry the left-wing mob to the point of making themselves look like idiots, only for it to return and then retreat under renewed attack, continuing the never-ending cycle.

Proponents of free speech (or “liberals,” in a broader sense of the word) must retool campus free-speech rhetoric so that it focuses on the positive goods associated with free speech and the ends to which free speech must be directed rather than constantly harping on the perilous dangers of the left-wing mob. They could, for example, spend more time arguing for the many goods associated with free speech, such as exposure to diverse ideas and the simple good of each student’s agency in their own education brought about through their dialectical expression of their beliefs and opinions. In addition to this more practical point, it is intellectually unsound for the primary argument for free speech to rest on a claim that “our enemies are bad”—which, again, makes free speech intellectually dependent on unfree speech. Free-speech proponents must be able to articulate positive arguments for free speech even in the absence of opposition, and, if they hope to preserve free speech at the university, this must be the rhetoric that they adopt and use more often. This rhetorical shift will be necessary to reach students who, like myself, have not had negative experiences with cancel culture on campus, and for whom “mob” rhetoric will not resonate.

I’m not saying this to diminish anyone’s experiences with cancel culture. And by no means am I saying that we should not talk about free speech on this campus. I’m also not saying that the speech environment at Princeton is perfect. It’s not, and even if it were, discussion about the place of free speech on campus would still be necessary. There is an important place for groups like POCC on this campus. As the speech environment on campus improves, we must remember that if we do not intentionally conserve things like free speech, they will be easily imperiled or lost when challengers arise again. There is more work to be done to foster an environment where students feel comfortable sharing their opinions and experiences on all topics in a robust pursuit of truth. But this work cannot focus on vilifying a now-invisible enemy.

In revamping free-speech rhetoric, we can look to movements that have successfully adjusted their rhetoric to restore their credibility and resonate with a wider audience. A strong example is the sustainability movement. Not too long ago, the sustainability movement’s rhetoric focused on issuing prophetic warnings about the woes that would befall our unsustainable society. A favorite device was the “future U.S. map,” which showed the United States with Florida underwater and much of the coastal areas and lowlands submerged. The mantra “Florida will be underwater in thirty years” began to lose traction with most people after about fifty years, and so the sustainability movement pivoted to rhetoric focused on the good of sustainability and stopped trying to position itself as a modern-day Noah. Similarly, the gun-rights movement has shifted from emphasizing the need to defend oneself against violent criminals

OPINION

toward arguing for the goodness of gun rights on their own merits. The free-speech movement likewise must grow beyond simple fearmongering, hyperfocused on a few extreme but rare cases, and talk more about the genuine goods of free speech. We can leave the “left-wing mob” events back in 2017.

POCC could be the Cassandra of Princeton, shouting warnings at people like me as we welcome the Trojan horse through FitzRandolph Gate. But whether or not there is an imminent threat, I think

the free-speech proponents would be well served to retool their rhetoric to focus more on the positive good of free speech than on fairy tale–style warnings about an invisible boogeyman. If they do not change, they risk becoming the Harold Campings of campus, constantly warning Princetonians to prepare their souls for the Second Coming of the Left-Wing Mob— and constantly making fools of themselves when the Day of Rapture passes by without any left-wing mobs appearing at their events.

Princeton BDS-Aligned Referendum Fails to Pass, Is Rejected by Administration

Darius Gross ’24

While the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement continues to gain momentum on college campuses, Princeton bucks the trend.

Background

For the second time in its history, Princeton University undergraduate students faced a BDS-aligned referendum for the Undergraduate Student Government (USG). Despite a close race, it did not win support from a majority of the student body and University President Eisgruber ruled against enacting it.

In March 2022, the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP), a campus organization that has been embroiled in numerous antisemitic controversies, held a protest outside the Center for Jewish Life (CJL) on campus. Protestors’ signs included phrases such as “From the River to the Sea,” an antisemitic slogan that calls for an end to the Jewish State. At the event, PCP President Eric Periman ’23 insinuated that the Jewish community at Princeton is complicit in human rights violations. As PCP chanted, pro-Israel students formed a counterprotest and waved Israeli flags.

Later that month, Periman introduced an anti-Israel referendum to USG. Citing “the violent role that Caterpillar machinery has played in the mass demolition of Palestinian homes,” the referendum called on the University to permanently terminate all contracts with companies that use Caterpillar construction equipment, or to renegotiate with contractors in ongoing campus development projects.

The explanatory section of the referendum, which explains the motion’s reasoning to voters, cited BDS as a precedent for divesting from Caterpillar. The co-founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, has advocated for the eradication of the Jewish State.

Once proponents secured the requisite 500 signatures, the referendum was included on the ballot for a campuswide vote. As PCP began to promote the referendum, groups organized in opposition, among them Tigers for Israel (TFI) and Tigers United, an ad hoc body of anti-BDS students, faculty, and alumni. Both sides created flyers, promoted awareness on social media, and mobilized students to discuss Israel one-on-one with their peers and sway their vote on the referendum.

At one panel, PCP collaborated with the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP) and the Pride Alliance to discuss Masafer Yatta, a populated area in the West Bank where Israel conducts military drills. PCP also hosted a “Caterpillar Referendum Teach-In” with the parents of Rachel Corrie, an American who was killed by a Caterpillar machine while protesting in a closed, active military zone in Gaza in 2003.

TFI hosted its own panel, called “The Case Against BDS.” The panel featured former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, who discussed the

role of diplomacy in resolving the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. The panel also featured Palestinian peace advocate Bassam Eid, public intellectual Michael Walzer, and Ethiopian-Israeli activist Ashager Araro.

“Stop talking about bulldozers—I don’t think the conflict is founded on bulldozers,” Eid urged. He argued that boycotts of companies like Caterpillar would actually harm, rather than help, Palestinians, such as “the 150,000 Palestinian workers from the West Bank that go into Israel to work, everyday, mainly on tractors and bulldozers.”

Referendum Results

Disputed; USG Upholds Objections

Soon after voting ended on April 13, the referendum’s results were leaked, revealing that the referendum failed to receive majority student support. The voting breakdown was 44% in favor, 40% against, and 16% abstaining. Confusion erupted over the meaning of abstentions, and thus the outcome of the voting process.

Two weeks before the vote, USG’s Chief Elections Manager (CEM) Brian Li ’24 advised Jared Stone ’24, President of TFI, that abstentions would be included in the total of all votes cast, and a majority of all votes cast had to be in the affirmative for the referendum to pass. Since 44% of cast votes were in favor, by this metric, “yes” votes would not meet the threshold for a majority, and the referendum would fail. However, several hours after voting concluded, the CEM changed course, telling Stone that “in consultation with the parliamentarian, the handbook indicates that abstentions do *not* count against votes in the affirmative.” (See communication between Stone and Li below.)

(the Chief Elections Manager’s texts with Jared Stone ’24, providing guidance on the status of abstentions.)

By April 14th, USG Treasurer Adam Hoffman ’23 filed a formal appeal to USG, co-signed by USG Sustainability Chair Audrey Zhang ’25 and USG Senators Carlisle Imperial ’25 and Ned Dockery ’25. In addition to the appeal, a slew of complaints were filed by Myles McKnight ’23, Jacob Katz ’23, official opposition leader Reid Zlotky ’23, and others. USG met on April 18 to hear the appellants and other complainants. According to USG Senator Imperial, official guidance was “misleading, and impacted the integrity of the voting process.” Hoffman claimed that passing

the referendum would not “fairly represent the will of the students,” and recommended several remedies: failing the referendum in accord with the CEM’s prior guidance, holding a revote, or voiding the referendum. Alternatively, he and Dockery supported writing a reconciliation paper in which USG declared neither side winner.

“Hundreds of students learned by proxy that it was better to abstain than not to vote at all,” McKnight told the USG Senate, speaking on behalf of Zlotky. Many opposition activists corroborated the fact that Li’s communication shaped their

campaigning strategies. Rebecca Roth, a member of the opposition, participated in private, one-on-one discussions with students during the campaign. “I urged people to vote abstain if they felt uncomfortable voting no, rather than simply not voting at all,” said Roth.

At the hearing, the CEM apologized for his mistaken guidance, but maintained that his latter interpretation of the status of abstentions must stand, per USG constitutional rules. Eric Periman, PCP President and sponsor of the referendum, also spoke before USG, calling the appeals as “ludicrous” and undemocratic.

USG overwhelmingly voted in favor of the appeals: 15 in favor, 4 against, and 4 abstaining. USG settled on a compromise drafted by USG President Mayu Takeuchi ’23 and Vice President Hannah Kapoor ’23, which was openly supported by Hoffman and McKnight. Rather than declaring a “pass” or “fail” outcome, USG wrote an official reconciliation paper to the Princeton administration. The paper details the procedural complexity of the election, including the appeals process and the numerical results. The USG’s paper only “seeks to provide context as to how the student body engaged with Referendum No. 3,” and the USG “will not make a statement on behalf of the student body in favor of or against the referendum.”

Reactions to this outcome were mixed. Since opposition groups had mainly wanted to prevent the referendum’s passage, the pro-Israel side celebrated. “We are incredibly encouraged by the outcome of our efforts,” TFI wrote to its members. “BDS has failed.” On Instagram, Tigers United thanked the Princeton community for not voting in favor of the referendum. Despite the fact that USG clearly stated that “it will not make a statement

on behalf of the student body in favor of or against the referendum,” PCP left up its post which had declared victory after the voting breakdown leaked.

President Eisgruber Responds, Criticizes USG for Considering Referendum

There is reason to believe student motions aligned with BDS and against Israel will continue to find little purchase on an institutional level. On April 22, Princeton University President Eisgruber wrote to USG President Takeuchi and USG Secretary Charlotte Selover ’25 that in order to divest, the Board of Trustees must perceive that there is lasting, campus-wide consensus on an issue, and the Board declared that this consensus is unquestionably lacking on Israel issues.

“There is quite obviously no consensus on campus or in the broader University community about issues of Middle Eastern politics or what to do about them,” Eisgruber wrote. In the absence of unanimity, “which side ‘won’ a contested student election [is] not material to Princeton’s decision-making.”

This is just as true now as it was in 2014, when Princeton faculty circulated anti-Israel petitions, which Trustees rejected on the same grounds.

Eisgruber further criticized USG for allowing the referendum to reach a vote, and to think carefully about “when and why a referendum would be desirable” in the future. “Some issues are ill-suited to decision by referenda… the student body might be better served if USG’s processes allowed for more deliberation about when and why a referendum would be desirable.” Whether or not future divestors heed this advice, BDS promises to continue to be a flash point in campus politics.

What Do I Do in College?

Adam Hoffman ’23

On a recent trip home, a family friend asked me what I do in college and how I maintain my conservative beliefs in an aggressively progressive environment. In that moment, I gave him the typical, glib answer, but on further reflection, I realized that I owed it to him—and myself—to dig deeper. My boilerplate answer would not suffice. I hope he will allow this article to function as an answer of sorts.

What do I do in college? To answer that, I think we must first consider a more important question: what ought I be doing in classrooms and in my extracurriculars?

Read Hoffman’s ‘23 take on college academics and extracurriculars

Well, for one, I ought to be learning. In college, I ought to be engaging with texts and ideas that I know—or thought I knew— and exposing myself to new ones. In the liberal model of education, I am to challenge my most cherished beliefs and reexamine even those practices that define my identity. As Max Weber in “Science as a Vocation” would have it: “the primary task of a useful teacher is to teach his students to recognize ‘inconvenient facts’—I mean facts that are inconvenient for their party option.” Under this model, no belief should be left unscathed, no view can be left triumphant. Fair enough. But to what end? Should there be a limit to this questioning?

I argue yes. College, in my experience at Princeton, will push you to check your beliefs at the door and endorse a radical skepticism. As I have seen it, only lip service is paid towards true and open inquiry. With exceptions made for fashionable truths, belief itself is degraded as archaic or unenlightened. Belief in God? How could you be so silly?! Belief in the greatness of the American civilization? Well, that is a supremacist and hateful proposal. As I was told just this month, if I trust in America’s moral legitimacy, then I haven’t thought for myself.

How could the detractors of these ideas—the ideas that those of us who read the Tory care about—be so certain that I am wrong if they are radical skeptics themselves? I think it is because they have their own epistemological position: yes, question your beliefs if they are your beliefs, but no, don’t question—in fact, you are forbidden to question—beliefs tied to your identity. Your skin color, for instance, will bestow upon you knowledge of certain sacred truth. So, there are those beliefs drawn from your tradition or reason—say, support of Israel—and then there are those beliefs that are inherent in your assigned identity—say, your oppression by Israel. Where is the line between the two? Which ideas get categorized as reasonable versus identity-determined? You’ll have to ask Twitter, and it will probably depend on the hour.

Back to our question, what do I do in classes and extracurriculars? Moreover, can one navigate the challenges of college while still maintaining thought integrity?

Yes and no.

No: certain professors will grade based on your beliefs. There are political clubs—as I have experienced—that will let you take part in certain discussions only

if you meet particular identity categories. Most recently, I was forbidden to join a conversation about the American criminal justice system because of my light skin. That’s the no. But there’s also a cheery yes.

In 1921, Franz Rosenzweig wrote to Gershom Scholem on the nascent Wissenschaft des Judentums, academic Jewish studies: “In a sense, we are ourselves guests at our own table, we ourselves, I myself. So long as we speak German, we cannot avoid this detour that again and again leads us the hard way from what is alien back to our own.”

Rosenzweig, I think, offers a model for the confident conservative in college today: recognize that we are not sitting at our own table. We are guests, and that means that we must come bearing a gift. Instead of undermining what our parents have bequeathed us upon matriculation, we can take that inheritance and share it with others. In my own case as a Jew, when possible, offer the unappreciated Jewish perspective during in-class discussions. In a recent seminar on global justice, I pushed back on suggestions for the same treatment of Americans and foreigners, family and strangers. As I know from my Jewish tradition, we can only learn to love the foreigner if we have a particular love for America, only love the stranger if we love our family. Do the same with your own tradition.

College can be an occasion to upend your life, or it can be an occasion to celebrate the life you have been gifted. With the guidance of parents, college students can contribute to their communities for the benefit of all.

What do I do in college? At the least, I try to learn from others and allow others to learn from my tradition.

“Religion, Truth-Seeking, and the University”

Occurrences like Terrace Club sending an email explicitly mocking a Protestant religious event or a prominent Princeton alumna repeatedly tweeting unfounded accusations that Catholic Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barett is in a cult happen far too often to be dismissed as random incidents. They indicate that many Princetonians graduate as religious illiterates— unfamiliar with major faith traditions and quick to mock and condemn any that strike them as odd or challenge their values. The result is not just bigotry against the religious, but (perhaps worse) closed-minded students without understanding of a key element of human experience. Students fervently proclaim and debate ideologies sourced from every other discipline to make arguments about how society should be ordered, necessarily “imposing their values” on others, but dismiss mere attempts at religious persuasion as rude and dangerous proselytizing.

Princeton professes to “provide a liberal arts education to all undergraduates, broadening their outlooks, and helping form their characters and values.” But can it make this lofty claim when its core requirements ignore religious education—for centuries considered the peak of intellectual pursuit, the regina scientiarum? It reigned over the trivium and quadrivium of classical liberal arts education as the home for the most fundamental quandaries of human existence. Religion was perhaps the key institution for forming character and values throughout the vast majority of world history.

Benjamin Woodard ’25

As Aquinas argues, religion was and is a “science,” both fit and necessary for academic study. He makes this case in the very first question of the magisterial Summa Theologica. He lists astronomy and physics as examples of “means through which knowledge is obtained,” then goes on, “Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation.” He explains and defends the concept of religion, what he calls “sacred doctrine,” as a science, writing:

We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed.

Since it proceeds from these higher principles, religion is capable of answering the highest, most difficult questions facing humanity. Aquinas calls it the noblest science, since it “treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason’s grasp.”

Religion is a legitimate way of knowing that is entirely unknown by huge numbers of Princeton undergraduates. University students should know what religion is, what questions it deals with, and its limits, just as they learn about any other field of study. Princeton claims to teach the basic disciplinary approaches of the liberal arts to every student, but it fails miserably when it comes to religion. And this discipline is exceedingly important; as Aquinas puts it, religious inquiry pursues “eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed.”

Religion also remains eminently relevant. Despite popular belief, Enlightenment rationalism failed to completely topple religious understanding of the world as an important discipline. The very idea of individual freedom of conscience was spearheaded by Martin Luther and the Reformers, and, as Nietzsche realized (and abhorred), the moral values taken for granted by the secular West had their roots not in blunt reason, but the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Without a firm grasp of religion, comprehension of the modern world is impossible.

Regardless of the continuing philosophical importance of religion, even after the Enlightenment, there is a long tradition of theological scholarship, religiously-grounded inquiries in science and philosophy, and religious references in literature. Basic religious literacy is necessary to understand these disciplines and be an educated person. It is also necessary to understand the country and world that Princeton students will serve and lead. According to the last two Daily Princetonian Frosh Surveys, about 55-60% of Princeton students identify with some

organized religion. On the other hand, 76.5% of people in the United States claim a religion. These statistics reflect the late sociologist Peter Berger’s famous aphorism: “if the people of Sweden were the least religious people on earth, and the people of India were the most religious, then America was a country of Indians led by Swedes.” Berger also noted that this dichotomy has produced all kinds of social and political dysfunction. Perhaps better knowledge of the deeply-held beliefs and practices of the American populace on the part of the elite (which Princeton students undeniably are) would help temper the populist polarization rampant in our country today. Religious literacy would also help budding leaders better comprehend the intricacies of the American cultural patchwork. For example, the ruptures in my own religious-demographic community, white evangelicals, have been the fodder of countless analyses by scholars and pundits in major national publications. These shifts have massive political and social impacts, but require a basic knowledge of religion to be understood and critiqued.

Finally, exploring religious traditions can help students find truth, meaning, and purpose. Religious knowledge and tradition provide answers to profound questions. Many students are wrestling with these questions, and they should be given all the necessary disciplinary tools to seek answers. Some search for a higher meaning to existence, others to an objective standard for living a good life. These are questions religion is well suited to answer, as they transcend materialistic understandings of the world. Just like Princeton hopes to give students a background in different modes of understanding (say, quantitative and computational reasoning or historical analysis), religion should be required as well. This instruction should engage with the beliefs, practices, and claims of various faiths on their own terms as potential answers to human dilemmas, not just a historicist deconstruction of received tradition. Then all students can know how to approach religious issues and truly think for themselves, unhindered by ignorance.

On The Daily Princetonian’s News Biases

The Princeton Progressive, Princeton’s leftist political publication, has gone dormant. Why? Likely because The Daily Princetonian has stolen its mantle. Consider the Prince’s treatment of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)-aligned Referendum No. 3. According to the ‘Prince’s reporting, a contested interpretation of a USG constitutional rule is a matter of fact – a decision that conveniences Referendum supporters. To the Prince, an internationally-celebrated Palestinian human rights activist is a “political analyst,” because of his opposition to BDS. And, a statistic about antisemitism documented by the University is a mere “claim” peddled by Referendum opponents. Just as a reporter could never list each lie rattled off by a politician, I can’t here list every slanted fact and lie reported by the Prince on this topic. Perhaps you think I’m a crank who can’t swallow objective reporting. You would be wrong. The Prince’s news section is led by public opponents of Israel, BDS supporters, and members of activist groups supporting Referendum No. 3. One of its Managing Editors, a Head News Editor, and an Associate News Editor are signatories of a 2021 anti-Zionist and pro-BDS petition, and the staff writer covering the USG elections results is a member of the pro-Referendum No. 3 activist group. In its coverage of Referendum No. 3, the Prince news team saw fit to recognize my previous involvement in the pro-Israel

Adam Hoffman ’23

OPINION

community, but not to do the same for their own pro-BDS, pro-Referendum No. 3 affiliations. So much for “work[ing] each day to earn the trust of the community it serves.” It’s no wonder that the Prince produces such slanted reporting: its staff is more student-activist than studentjournalist.

The Tory brands itself as a right-wing publication and the Prog defines itself as progressive. Their news pieces fall under the banners of “conservative” and “left,” respectively. It’s about time the Prince owns up to its own identity: a duplicitous, agenda-driven paper.