The Princeton Tory 38.5

THE PRINCETON TORY

journal of conservative thought

CULTURE WARS

Dear Tories,

It often feels as if we live in a time of great political and social upheaval. There are major rivalries on the world stage between China, Russia, and the West, between the Gulf States, and between right and left within nations. There is further disruption with the rise of new technologies like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, and widespread distrust of social media, the government, and “elites.”

The current cultural divisions are perhaps the most interesting due to their relative novelty. Princeton’s cultural conflict has undoubtedly sharpened since I arrived here four years ago.

Recent Tory news articles covering Princeton’s decision to offer a “Black Queer BDSM” course in the Spring and race-themed study breaks titled “Melanin Mondays” went viral this semester, somewhat to my surprise. I believed they were important to cover, but I also recognized how taken-for-granted these developments were on campus – our “Melanin Mondays” article, published nearly a month after the first “Melanin Mondays” meeting, was the first indication from students that there may be something wrong with the University hosting racebased events. Alumni and national news organizations seized on these stories. At Princeton, these occasions have become the new normal, it seems, while in the real world outside the “Orange Bubble,” they remain as contentious as ever.

How should conservatives look to respond to these issues? What can we offer to replace them? What role should famed Princetonians like John Witherspoon, Princeton University President and the only clergyman signer of the Declaration of Independence, play in the modern University? Finally, how can conservatives engage in these conversations?

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 deeply engage with our arguments and ideas. Whatever your opinion, if you send us an astutely argued letter, we’ll publish it. Email tory@princeton.edu and we’ll respond.

Christopher Kane Publisher

CONTENTS

Vol. XXXVIII || Issue no. 5

OPINION

Where Are the Conservative Conservationists?

Darius Gross ’24

In Defense of Bronze—and John Witherspoon Zach Gardner ’26

The Working-Class Ivy League Man – What JD Vance’s Campaign Can Teach Us About Nontraditional Candidates and Trump’s Influence on the Republican Party Ethan Hicks ’26

How to Approach the Abortion Debate in a Productive Way Micah Kittay ’26

PCP Calls for the Boycott of Israel TigerTrek in Yet Another Instance of Antisemitism

Alexandra Orbuch ’25

Save the School Boards! Jaden Stewart ’26

Who is talking about the midterms? Darius Gross ’24

NEWS

Princeton Offers “Black Queer BDSM” Course Adam Hoffman ’23

The Tory Surveys Princetonians on the DeSantis–Trumpv Debate Ethan Hicks ’26

The Princeton Tory Vol. XXXVIII | Issue No. 5

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 Alexandra Orbuch ’25

Board of Trustees

Anna Bray Duff ’92

James Haynes ’18

Peter Heinecke ’87

Ira Leeds ’06

Brian Tvenstrup ’95 Timothy Webster ’99 Jeff Zymeri ’20

Financial Manager

Nishant Kumar Singhal ’23

Head of News Darius Gross ‘24

Events Manager Adam Hoffman ’23

Where Are the Conservative Conservationists?

Darius Gross ’24

The GOP envisions itself as staunch supporters of America in all of its beauty. In 2020, former president Trump ordered that public architecture imitate classical styles in order to “inspire the human spirit” and “ennoble the United States.” This is a definite step in the right direction, and should be applauded by anyone who appreciates our heritage.

But the vision comes off as insincere given the ways the Trump administration neglected the environment. If conservatives care about the longevity and prosperity of our country, they must make conserving our natural heritage a pillar of the program again.

Trump had a mixed record on conservation. It is true that he signed the Great American Outdoors Act, increasing funding for National Park infrastructure and conservation grants. But his administration had earlier proposed significant budget cuts to the EPA , the LWCF, and the land acquisition efforts of the National Park Service.

Conservatives should resume Teddy Roosevelt’s legacy of environmental stewardship.

Trump also shrank the size of the iconic Bear Ears Monument by 85 percent and the Grand Staircase-Escalante by 47 percent – all at the behest of energy companies seeking access to coal and uranium deposits in those areas. Can conservatives forsake America’s most breathtaking landscapes – what Theodore Roosevelt recognized as

OPINION

a unique American inheritance – under pressure from corporate lobbyists?

Protecting America’s landscape should not be viewed as a purely symbolic endeavor. Our heedlessness toward the natural world often comes back to bite us. Chemical fertilizers provide a striking example.

The three-element mix typically spread in farming operations is simplistic and misapplied, depletes the soil, and yields lower-nutrient food. Farmers then apply fertilizers more heavily, heightening the soil’s susceptibility to erosion. Next, rain washes the exhausted earth and fertilizer into our waterways, pooling along our coasts in vast “dead zones” for aquatic life. These broken ecosystems make our populated coastline vulnerable to increased flooding and shrink our already overharvested seafood supply.

Conversely, when we limit our impact on the natural world, we see enormous economic benefits. New York State incentivizes farmers to use lowpollutant agricultural methods to avoid contaminating the Catskills watershed. The result? New York City drinks clean, cheap water, and city residents save the $10 billion or more that a filtration system would cost them.

Healthy landscapes don’t impose burdens on farmers, either – they actually increase agricultural output. In Costa Rica, coffee plantations within a kilometer of tropical forests saw 20% higher yields than average due to pollination from native bees. Researchers are increasingly discovering how forests might benefit crop growth. Nature is the friend, not the enemy, of economic self-sufficiency.

Rather than support Park Service budget cuts, Republicans should be expanding protected lands. Besides being

a boon to local economies, conservation is a growing sector with good pay, few educational barriers, and career mobility. Increased conservation could even cultivate the technical expertise necessary to bring manufacturing back to our shores.

Conservatives should feel an affinity for conservationism. Leftist grievance politics, unchecked immigration, and radical gender ideology are eroding the very foundations of society. They threaten to shred the fabric that holds together our most basic notions of sex, family, and nation. Conservatives see society teetering over a social abyss, and try to keep it from plummeting down.

Yet we have experimented on our ecological fabric with equal nearsightedness. Social and ecological caution are two sides of the same coin. Good morals and healthy landscapes both enable generational growth. The world we pass to our children should promote these systems that work and have always worked.

We must investour biological capital in sustainable projects and conserve it against both human and environmental degradation. Otherwise, present-day carelessness and live-for-today thinking will jeopardize our future.

In the meantime, Biden is showing up the GOP on conservation. In 2021, his administration launched an ambitious effort to nearly triple the amount of land we conserve, protecting 30% of US holdings by 2030. Once in power, Republicans must double down and ensure that land protections don’t simply cover regions of “rock and ice,” but favor locations with high biodiversity and threatened species.

Such motions are already popular on the right. Last year, a critical conservation

OPINION

bill passed the Florida legislature unanimously and Governor DeSantis signed it into law.

But more effort is needed. America must fund the glaring infrastructure backlogs in National Parks; halt carbon emissions and restore our energy independence by building nuclear power plants; invest in sustainable farming projects; and divest from the agribusiness lobby, which cares only about next quarter’s earnings, and not whether the food system is built to last or if

it promotes America’s health. These green initiatives have bipartisan potential – all we need is the political will to get them on the table.

The state of wildlife across the world is dire; the current species extinction rate is comparable to that of the dinosaurs. American self-sufficiency depends on proper environmental stewardship. Will we do the conservative thing – and conserve the very land that makes America, America?

In Defense of Bronze—and John Witherspoon

Zach Gardner ’26

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Like a green patina of bronze, the legacies of past figures are layered and must be allowed to evolve.

When I arrived on Princeton’s campus this fall, I was enthralled by the richness of its history and traditions. I was proud to start my journey at such an important American institution, and I cherished the opportunity to contribute to its legacy. During my first week, I found myself in Firestone Library poring over the works of Princeton’s sixth President, John Witherspoon. Over the

George Orwell, 1984

summer, I had developed a deep interest in the role he played as a mentor to so many prominent Founders, and I wanted to steep myself in his teachings. During my first few weeks at Princeton, I read everything from his Lectures in Moral Philosophy to his sermons “Christian Magnanimity” and “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men.” With each word, I felt a deeper connection to Princeton and its history, and I felt a growing sense of responsibility to continue his legacy.

In the late 1990s, the University honored this legacy by commissioning an 18-foot-tall bronze statue of him to stand outside East Pyne. The statue would be a replica of one that had been installed at the University of Paisley in Scotland, Witherspoon’s home country, and it would signal a bond between the two nations he called home. At its 2001 unveiling, thenVice President for Public Affairs Robert Durkee said the statue would serve as “a tangible way to remind all who live, work and visit on this campus of the pivotal role Witherspoon played in shaping this University and this nation.”

More than 20 years later, this physical manifestation of Witherspoon’s accomplishments is more important than ever. In our current era of cultural disaffection and self-flagellation, we need reminders of human greatness, and Witherspoon’s statue provides that reminder in great measure. The statue shows us that, despite our fallen nature, we can build things that outlive us, things that immeasurably contribute to those who have yet to be born. In representing the monumental legacy one man can leave, it inspires us to strive to leave a legacy of our own.

To some members of the Princeton community, however, Witherspoon’s

accomplishments are overshadowed by his moral failings, which included owning slaves, and his legacy cannot withstand the pressures of contemporary standards for remembrance. He is, in their view, wholly unworthy of praise. These members of the community conclude that his statue should be torn down or “contextualized” to comport with our modern moral scruples. Although I agree that it is commendable, and necessary, to discuss the full story of Witherspoon’s life and legacy, it is condemnable to remove his statue and deprive future Princetonians of a tangible discussion point. Taking down the statue will shut down conversation entirely, including open dialogue about both the failings and accomplishments of great historical figures like Witherspoon. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize John Witherspoon for his participation in such a destructive institution. However, it is also necessary to revere him for the monumental impact he left on Princeton and the United States.

As the statue’s sculptor Alexander “Sandy” Stoddart expressed in a 2021 interview, “the dead live in companionship with the yet to be born,” so it is up to us to maintain the dialogue between ourselves and the past for the benefit of the future.

By creating monuments of those who came before us, we create impetuses for thought and reflection, tangible markers to spark interest, reverence, and debate. Just as bronze is covered over time by layers of green patina, the legacies of past figures are layered upon by evolving contributions and discussions of future generations. As each generation contemplates the measure of a person’s legacy, that legacy is strengthened and carried into the future. However, this can only be achieved if each generation stops and looks to those

who came before. These retrospective moments will necessarily involved a discussion of the sins of past generations, including those as destructive as slavery. However, these are discussions that must be had, and they must be had with humility. Just as Witherspoon taught so many in the founding generation during his life, his legacy can give us profound insights after his death. Nothing can be learned through destruction, even of things which prove to be disconcerting for some.

In a 1772 address, Witherspoon wrote that the reputation of this college “should be decided by the conduct of those in general who have come out” of it, “for a tree is known by its fruits.” A tree is indeed known by its fruits, and the fruits of John Witherspoon’s tenure at the College of New Jersey were extraordinary. Even if the Princeton administration removes his statue, it can never erase these contributions, which are embedded in our national fabric. It can never erase the students he taught or the documents he signed. It can never erase James Madison, Aaron Burr, and Philip Freneau, and it can never erase the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. Apart from persisting in our nation, his legacy persists in the college he helped to strengthen and the students who today call it their alma mater.

If a tree is entirely uprooted, it will cease to produce good fruits––or any fruits. If Princeton is deprived of its own history, it will sacrifice its identity and cease to serve its function as an institution. It will no longer be in “the nation’s service and the service of humanity”; it will be in

service of Orwell’s “endless present,” a vain existence in which the past is completely irredeemable. Statues, in their permanence, play a crucial role in preventing this uprooting from happening. Ultimately, an institution which hates its history hates itself. Bronze outlives the hubris of modernity, and it forces us to remember those who planted the trees of the past which give us the fruits of the present. It forces us to have gratitude for those who built the paths upon which we now walk. When we one day exist in the pages of history, will we be remembered as sinless, or will we be criticized in the same way we now criticize our ancestors? To be intellectually honest is to recognize the truth in the latter. In order for us to properly learn from human experience, we must humble ourselves before the past and recognize our own capacity to do wrong. We must recognize the flaws inherent to human nature. As Witherspoon wrote, “a cool and candid attention, either to the past history, or present state of the world… ought to humble us in the dust.” Just as those in past generations achieved greatness, so can we. However, just as past generations sinned deeply, we too will inevitably do so. Thus, an attitude of generational humility is greatly needed. If we are to be worthy of commemoration in bronze, we must honor the monuments that exist today. We should let John Witherspoon’s statue continue turning green. We should allow future Princetonians to contemplate his contributions, both positive and negative, to the University and the nation, not deprive them of this opportunity.

The Working-Class Ivy League Man – What JD

This election will measure the pulse of the American people.

Vance’s

Campaign Can Teach Us About Nontraditional Candidates and Trump’s Influence on the Republican Party

Ethan Hicks ’26

The upcoming election between J.D. Vance and Tim Ryan for the vacant Ohio U.S. Senate seat is critical for both parties, as Senate control will likely be decided by a few contested races. Things are heating up as the candidates trade insults during debates and chuck footballs while calling the opposition’s policies “bullsh*t” during non-stop television advertising.

The Republican candidate, J.D. Vance, is anything but ordinary. A political outsider and self-proclaimed “hillbilly,” Vance leveraged his Yale Law School degree and New York Times best-selling autobiography Hillbilly Elegy to burst onto the political scene at 38 years old. Vance is a testament to how an Ivy League education can help propel individuals from underprivileged backgrounds to prominence.

In Hillbilly Elegy, Vance tells the story of his rough upbringing by his drug-abusing mother and compassionate hillbilly grandmother. After serving in the Marines, Vance used his GI Bill rights to attend Ohio State and later Yale Law School. Vance expresses that Yale taught him how to be successful among the nation’s elite and advanced his career in ways that probably would not have been accessible otherwise. Vance is truly an example of how Ivy League institutions can advance

OPINION

the lives of those born into America’s working class and provide them with the skills and network to be forces of positive change.

The addition of another federal legislator who graduated from one of the nation’s top academic institutions and had no prior elected office experience would be nothing new in American politics. For example, both Alexandra OcasioCortez, alumna of Boston University who waited tables, and Ted Cruz ’92, had not held elected office prior to serving in the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. Both were also the first Hispanic Americans to represent their constituents. And who can forget how a prominent Ivy League businessman with no prior political experience became the nation’s 45th President? Although their graduates do not make up a majority of Congress, the country’s top colleges serve as springboards for people of all different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds to enter politics in unconventional ways.

Vance survived a contested Republican primary campaigning as an outsider and a man of the people. Despite his platform

and credentials, he only pulled ahead after receiving President Trump’s endorsement. Of the U.S. Senate candidates that Trump endorsed during the 2022 election cycle, all won their primaries. Although he is out of the White House, Trump’s pull within the GOP remains strong, and Vance has benefitted from it.

Vance’s remaining competition, the Democrat Tim Ryan, is nothing out of the ordinary. Ryan made a name for himself as a career politician and is a powerful force within the Ohio Democratic Party. This election will measure the pulse of the American people as they decide between the status-quo career politician Tim Ryan and the outspoken political outsider J.D. Vance.

Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, two things can be learned from the rapid rise of J.D. Vance: the potential for Ivy Leagues to give a voice to the nation’s working class, and the command that former President Trump retains over the GOP. Although this election is the start of J.D. Vance’s political career, it will most likely not be the end.

One must understand what makes the other person believe what they do.

How to Approach the Abortion Debate in a Productive Way

Micah Kittay ’26

Recently, abortion retook center stage in the American political landscape with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But most of the dialogue that swept the country was focused less on the constitutionality of a woman’s right to have an abortion and more on the morality of abortion generally. Too often, those who dare argue these issues with someone on the other side end up only fortifying their own beliefs. They leave the conversation with a hoarse voice and believing the other person doesn’t care about babies. These discussions about abortion don’t have to end this way. I’ve found that the best way to foster a fruitful debate is to devote the first part of the conversation to nothing more than identifying precisely where your views diverge from the other person’s. For example, the mainstream pro-choice movement is rooted in the idea that the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body. Much of the rhetoric one hears from the left is centered on this point. However, many on the pro-life side of the debate agree completely with that statement. They simply believe the baby is not a part of the mother’s body. So any argument that a pro-choice advocate makes on the grounds that the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body will not change the mind of any such pro-lifer. Furthermore, pro-abortion advocates agree with the pro-life community that killing children is abhorrent. They just don’t believe that the unborn baby is a child. So, if the pro-life advocate’s base argument is that killing children is immoral, they will be utterly

unconvincing because these pro-choice people don’t think they are killing children. Where these two sides diverge is at the issue of whether the fetus is a part of the mother’s body or a distinct human being. That is the question that should be explored between a pro-bodily-autonomy pro-life advocate and an anti-killingchildren pro-choice advocate. To explore this divide, you can ask each other a variety of fascinating, conversation-provoking questions: What are the requirements for something to be an independent life? Are those requirements flawed? (For example, if one of the requirements for life is no dependence on something or someone else, this would mean people with a pacemaker aren’t alive.) When does a developing fetus meet those requirements?

Of course, there are other places where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can diverge. It’s possible that someone who is pro-life doesn’t think anyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own body. It’s also possible that someone who is pro-choice believes that abortion is still justified even if the fetus is a human being (e.g., Judith Thompson’s violinist allegory). But to have a productive dialogue, you have to find precisely where the divergence is and customize your discussion and arguments to address that point.

It’s also important to understand what it would take to change your own mind. A common epistemological game is to determine your main argument for any given topic and then ask, “Would I still believe what I believe if that argument were perfectly rebutted?” If you say yes, then ask yourself the same question with your best remaining argument. Then keep going. If your best arguments were rebutted and you wouldn’t change your mind at all, then you

should question why you believe what you believe and if it would even be possible for your opponent to change your mind. And, of course, you should hold your debate opponents to the same standard. If you make great arguments that rebut their best points and the other person doesn’t change their mind at all, you most likely will not be able to convince them. Their beliefs aren’t reliant on the arguments they’re making, so rebutting their arguments won’t make them change their mind.

This same principle applies to any controversial topic. Let’s say you’re advocating for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” by talking about their efficacy. You base your argument on statistics showing that these techniques often uncover critical national security information. Such an approach will be futile if your opponent’s main issue with torturing prisoners for information is that it’s immoral. Even if you make fantastic arguments that show the positive results of it, you will not have convinced your opponent of anything because what you’re saying doesn’t address the morality of torture, their primary concern. One must understand what makes the other person believe what they do.

If you follow these guidelines, you will find that your debates will result in thought-provoking discussions rather than screaming matches. It’s easy to retreat into your strongest argument supported by bumper-sticker political slogans. The conversations that begin by identifying the point of divergence may be uncomfortable but are worth it in the pursuit of truth. The discomfort will result from both of you genuinely exploring your beliefs at a deeper level. Hopefully, your opponent will challenge you as much as you challenge them.

PCP Calls for the Boycott of Israel TigerTrek in Yet Another Instance of Antisemitism

Alexandra Orbuch ’25

On Friday, November 5, 2022, the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP) released a statement calling on the University to boycott Israel TigerTrek, a student-led winter break trip that brings a Princeton cohort to Israel to meet with key players in the nation’s high-tech startup industry.

PCP, led by Eric Periman ’23, has a history of being embroiled in antisemitic controversy, and its newest statement is no different. The statement, emailed out to all Residential College listservs via HoagieMail, declares that “travel to Israel…normalizes apartheid,” stating that advertising such an act “so casually is shameful.”

The apartheid equivalency is an oft-trotted out falsehood used by Israel’s detractors. In truth, Israeli law protects all, no matter their “religion, race or sex.” Unlike Apartheid South Africa, in which Blacks were officially second-class citizens stripped of equal rights, Israel’s Declaration of Independence ensures “complete equality of social and political rights” to each and every citizen and equal access to the courts to prevent infringements on their rights.

The blatant misrepresentations made by PCP exhibit ignorance of the facts at best and antisemitism at worst.

Israeli Arabs are living, breathing evidence of the fulfillment of this; they are represented in Israel’s police forces, diplomatic corps, courts, and parliament. In a study conducted by Harvard University, 77% of Israeli Arab respondents reported that they would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world. In stark contrast, Black South Africans had separate public facilities

and were unable to vote, let alone stand for election.

Turning to the West Bank, it must be recalled that most of the Arab territory is not under Israeli jurisdiction, but rather subject to the rule of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Meanwhile, Gaza is completely under the control of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Schools, courts, laws, and other decisionmaking functions are outside Israel’s jurisdiction and have been for the past 17 years.

It’s also important to note that even during Israeli-Palestinian flare-ups, Palestinians are given treatment in Israeli hospitals, despite lacking Israeli citizenship. Blacks in Apartheid South Africa, on the other hand, had extremely limited healthcare.

I could compose volumes about the popular falsehoods of the South AfricaIsrael apartheid analogy, but I won’t. The key point here is that PCP makes the analogy with malice of forethought and without consideration for the basic incomparability of the two circumstances, for their end goal is to defame Israel at whatever the price; they declare Israel racist and “illegitimate” and call it a day.

The statement also accuses the Jewish state of “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.” The United Nations defines ethnic cleansing as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.” The crux of the assertion is that Israel is attempting to create a homogenous society and rid its territory of Palestinians. Setting aside the equal citizenship rights granted to Israeli Arabs and focusing solely on the West Bank and Gaza, one can

debate the wisdom or rationale behind checkpoints and limitations on movement for Palestinians between zones controlled by the Palestinian Authority and those under the purview of Israel. However, Israel is in no way attempting to eliminate them via extermination or expulsion; given the natural increase in population of both Palestinian Territories and Arab citizens of Israel proper, if this were indeed Israel’s goal, it has failed miserably.

In fact, it is actually Hamas that does, attacking civilians with the end goal of destroying the Jewish nation. Hamas’ very own charter rejects any and all attempts at peaceful negotiation and says it must “fight Jews and kill them” – note: “Jews,” not “Israelis” – and “obliterate” Israel. The statement declared that “on October 7, Israeli soldiers opened fire on a group of children in the West Bank as they were playing in a grove near the border wall and invaded al-Mazra al-Gharbiyeh,” linking an article from The Electronic Intifada (EI), an outlet that has been called “anti-Semitic” for its comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany.

Ali Abunimah, the co-founder and executive director of the outlet, has made similar antisemitic statements, going so far as to call Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel a “fraud and huckster” in a 2015 tweet.

What PCP failed to mention is that the deceased youths discussed in the EI article hurled Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers, to which they responded by opening fire. The soldiers were in the area for an operation to detain a member of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whom the IDF suspected of being behind attacks on Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. The IDF soldiers involved did not pre-emptively target civilian children innocently “playing in a grove” as the article

and PCP statement attempt to convince readers; the soldiers were responding to use of explosives and other dangerous weapons.

PCP made a similar misrepresentation when it reported that “Israeli soldiers invaded Jenin and killed four teenagers in Shuafat refugee camp.” The teenagers in question launched explosives at IDF soldiers who were in the area during the IDF operation discussed above.

The blatant misrepresentations made by PCP exhibits ignorance of the facts at best and antisemitism at worst. It declares the aforementioned clashes between Palestinians and the IDF to be “human rights” violations on the part of Israel, charging TigerTrek with being “a blatant violation of international human rights and therefore our community values.” The real violation of our community values is the deep-seated antisemitism of PCP’s statement and its falsities.

Save the School Boards!

Jaden Stewart ’26

When I first stepped onto Princeton’s campus, I was surprised by what appeared to be a significant lack of wokeness. Throughout my childhood, I had been told by my conservative friends, family, and the media that the modern university is the bastion of progressive indoctrination. And while our University’s progressive bias is certainly evident, the prevalent depiction of higher education always implied a more direct and forceful conversion process. After all, how else could thousands of reasonable students with traditional values be transformed into leftist activists in just four years?

Parents and communities must work to directly combat left-wing indoctrination in K-12 schools.

But as I reflect on my transition to Princeton, I realize that my surprise at the evident lack of wokeness here is actually the result of my own desensitization to the abnormality of higher education’s present state. As a public school student from a very liberal state, I am no stranger to school administrations placing identity politics above growth and ideology above achievement. In my lower-school days, exposure to age-inappropriate content was par for the course. Traditional perspectives were rarely if ever espoused by anyone other than myself in my classes. Conservatives were vilified. I survived the indoctrination. By the time I arrived here, there was very little else that Princeton could do to affect me. But for many other students, common-place leftist lower-school practices had already swayed them long before they entered FitzRandolph Gate. For these students, most of the ideological molding was done before the university even had to lift a finger.

This acceleration of the indoctrination process is incredibly concerning. While much of the energy of the conservative movement is focused on higher education as the focal point of progressive indoctrination, the K-12 education system has for too long been allowed to engage in these practices unchecked. And just as quickly as the Covid-19 pandemic alerted parents and lawmakers to how severe the situation in our schools is, their passion disappeared, as if the election of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia completely solved this issue nationwide. An inconsistent or lacking focus on our education system –and the most vulnerable members of our population – only places conservatives in a position to repeat the mistakes we previously made.

Parents and communities must work to directly combat this threat. The most effective way to accomplish this is through school board elections. While these races tend to get overlooked in the

slew of political rhetoric and polls that come with election season, they are one of the best ways for voters to directly impact policies that will affect them and their children. Additionally, as fighting against massive bureaucracies is often an arduous and thankless job, many ideal candidates stray away from running for school board positions. However, it is more important than ever that people with strong convictions run for and win these positions to raise standards of excellence, instill American values, limit the tyranny of teachers’ unions, and keep children safe. Only when conservatives recognize the power of the school board will we be able to create an environment where leftist indoctrination in our universities is the exception, not the rule. This in turn will give us the tools and cultural momentum to be able to eradicate woke education, and ensure that our youth are finally able to simply learn how – not what – to think.

Princeton Offers “Black Queer BDSM” Course

Adam Hoffman ’23

Princeton University will offer a course titled “Black + Queen in Leather: Black Leather/BDSM Material Culture” in the Spring 2023 semester. The course will study how Black Queer BDSM material culture resists contextualization in relationship to biographical narratives.

“Black + Queer in Leather” will be taught by Tiona Nekkia McClodden, a Princeton Arts Fellow. According to her personal website, McClodden was educated for two years at Clark Atlanta University but was not awarded a degree. Her website states that she her work has won numerous awards at the Philadelphia Int’l Gay + Lesbian Film Festival and has been recognized by the Andy Warhol Foundation. McClodden’s work at Princeton is currently supported by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, David E. Kelley Society of Fellows in the Arts, and the Maurice R. Greenberg Scholarship Fund for “demonstrating extraordinary promise in any area of artistic practice and teaching.”

This class fulfills undergraduate students’ Culture and Difference (CD) graduation requirement. The CD requirement was introduced for the entering Class of 2024 and beyond to learn about “groups who have historically been excluded from dominant cultural narratives or structures of social power.”

A sample reading list for the course includes titles such as A Taste for Brown Sugar: Black Women in Pornography and The Color of Kink: Black Women, BDSM, and Pornography. Mireille Miller-Young, the author of A Taste for Brown Sugar, was convicted for

“grand theft, vandalism, and battery on a 16-year-old girl” in response to feeling “triggered” by a pro-life poster the teenager was holding.

The Tory Surveys Princetonians on the DeSantis–Trump Debate

Ethan Hicks ’26

Amid former president Donald Trump’s announcement of his 2024 presidential bid and growing speculation surrounding Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ 2024 bid, it is likely that the GOP will see a showdown between the two in 2024. In order to get a pulse on Princeton students’ perspectives on the Trump v. DeSantis debate, the Tory conducted surveys of both general members of the undergraduate student body, and those who identify as conservative, and the results were striking: both groups appear to be in consensus for DeSantis in 2024.

A total of 54 students were randomly surveyed at Frist Campus Center on November 21, 2022. 56% backed DeSantis, as opposed to the 11% who supported Trump. Interestingly, of those who preferred Trump to win the primary, all did so on the grounds that they believed he was more likely to lose the general election to the Democratic candidate.

In addition to the 36 individuals who picked either Trump or DeSantis, 33% of participants claimed to have no opinion on the subject or offered only derogatory comments towards both

candidates. One student went as far as to claim that they “would rather stab [their] toe than see Trump or DeSantis in the White House.” Many other students made similar claims.

These results are unsurprising given that the 2026 Daily Princetonian’s Frosh Survey found that before arriving at Princeton, 72.5% of incoming freshmen had strongly unfavorable views of Donald Trump while only 1.0% had strongly favorable views.

Students who identify as conservative were more enthusiastic about both candidates in a survey that was distributed to various conservative groups on November 29, 2022. In total, 56 students were surveyed. DeSantis still remained

the favorite with 86% of student support, while Trump was favored by 14% of those surveyed. Interestingly, Trump supporters were significantly more vocal, with 57% of Trump supporters choosing to elaborate on their opinions while only 17% of DeSantis supporters chose to elaborate. Many Trump supporters admired his boldness, and feared that electing DeSantis would be a “return to George Bush.” None favored Trump on the grounds that he was more likely to lose.

Now that the 2022 midterms have come to a close – save a handful of runoff elections – the nation will soon set its sights on the 2024 presidential election. The Tory’s surveys reveal a clear favorite among Princetonians.

Who is talking about the midterms?

Darius Gross ’24

Image from Google Trends, relative search interest for “Midterm election,” by year, January–November

In October and November of 2018, all you heard about was the midterm elections. Every social media feed was flooded with reminders to vote. Late night talk shows exhorted viewers to get to the polls. Even Borat came back to haunt our Republic on the eve of voting.

Midterm elections are again upon us, four years later. If you didn’t realize that or haven’t thought about the elections in a while, you aren’t alone: Google Trends shows that relative search interest in the 2018 midterms was about twice as high as it is now, in 2022.

Four years ago, the left claimed that the 2018 midterms were going to be a “referendum” on Trump’s election. A fire was lit under every left-leaning institution, and America was chattering about the midterms months in advance. The result: the highest midterm voter turnout we’ve seen in a century.

Take a look at the mainstream media, and one gets the sense that the 2022 midterms are again top of mind in America. News outlets are covering elections as they always have. The airwaves are abuzz with punditry, just as they were in 2018. But Google Trends confirms that we just aren’t paying as much attention anymore. Why not?

Some might argue that President Trump was such an acute threat to democracy, or alternatively such an impotent buffoon, that it was inevitable the country would turn against him in full force when they got the chance to in 2018. But now, they’d tell you, Trump is out and ‘normalcy’ has returned to our country under President Biden. With

depolarization has come a lack of voter zeal – hence, low interest in the midterms. Many would accept this narrative, but I am incredulous. A closer look reveals how America has not ‘depolarized’ under Biden. In fact, poll respondents believe at equal rates by party that the very survival of our country is at stake at the ballot box this November. Nor have politics gone quiet: plenty of news currently commands public attention. Most Republicans are worried about inflation and the economy, while Democrats are focused for instance on gun violence, abortion, and climate change. Furthermore, one would expect our faltering economy to drive independent and undecided voters across partisan lines, motivating voters more than the economically rosier days of 2018.

So why isn’t voter interest reflected in search trends? I contend that it is because the left-wing institutions that hold the greatest sway – mainstream and legacy media, Big Tech, the entertainment industry, and social good–styled corporations – don’t want us to focus on the midterms.

The left has long obscured the public’s awareness of current events for political purposes. Liberals predominate in most mainstream newsrooms, and use this position to accelerate witch hunts against the right. They also limit coverage unfavorable to Democrats. Left-wing tech companies follow their lead, promoting or silencing dissent often in collaboration with the FBI, DHS, and other unaccountable intelligence agencies.

Precisely how Big Tech is influencing the midterms is unclear – but I have no doubt it currently is doing so. Twitter, Meta, and YouTube possess a plethora of tools to curb undesirable right-ofcenter content. They strategically deploy hate speech rules, shadow bans, and

demonetization; more recently they’ve embarked ‘anti-disinformation’ campaigns, mixed with spates of flagging, factchecking, and appending disclaimers to posts. Whether social platforms muzzle right-wing voices in concerted efforts or by more subtle algorithmic methods, they have demonstrated the means and the motivation to determine who is heard, when, and how loudly.

And this November, the powers-thatbe have good reason to keep quiet about the midterms. It’s well known that midterms typically result in reverses for the governing party. As usual, the “in” party is complacent in its power. And as a consequence, there is significantly higher midterms interest among Republicans than among Democrats. The informational establishment knows that this year Democrats are on the bad end of this cycle, so they are trying to keep elections out of mind, since low voter turnout favors their side.

Meanwhile, Biden’s government remains highly disfavored. His approval ratings are almost exactly as low as Trump’s were at this time in 2018 – in fact, they are slightly less favorable. This should come as no surprise to Republicans, who have been simmering for months about Biden’s handling of Afghanistan and Ukraine, about the reeling economy and mammoth inflation rates, and about the left’s radical social ideology.

The media organs that dominate America are securely aligned with the left. They know that the disaffection is real. They know how midterms usually go. And they know that if they talk too loudly about the 2022 midterms, or let the search algorithms reflect actual political currents, they may inadvertently increase the amplitude of the red wave that is fast approaching.

Tories at Fox News with Pete Hegseth ’03