Tory resorts to poor journalism

Once a month, The Princeton Tory lands on my doorstep. I always read it. By the last page I am usually itching to debate the issues set forth by the magazine's conservative staff. As a liberal Democrat, I hardly expect The Tory's ideas to jive with my own. Indeed, I enjoy reading the words of smart people who disagree with me, if only to understand their views. Lately, however, I have been more enraged than intrigued by Princeton's conservative publication. Particularly in dealing with campus groups, like the Princeton Peace Network, the LGBT and the Organization for Women Leaders, The Tory has resorted to poor journalism and insults to prove its points. This decline represents a loss not only for the magazine's readership but for the University community as a whole. On a campus dedicated to intellectual discourse, it is a shame that The Tory seems determined to trade discussion for divisiveness.

The latest edition of The Tory features a prime example of these offenses. The article, "Screeches and Ruffled Feathers" by John Andrews, reviews OWL's "Breaking the Glass Ceiling" conference. I am an officer of OWL; it was no surprise to me that I disagreed with Andrews' opinions on our organization and its effectiveness. His article, however, transcended civil disagreement. Rather than arguing with the ideas they presented, it mocked many of the speakers, women who had taken time out of their busy lives to spend a Saturday morning with Princeton students. The comments of one speaker, the founder of the Women's World Bank, were deemed inane and illegitimate. Another speaker, coincidentally my mother, was also ridiculed. A corporate executive who holds degrees from Princeton and Columbia and has been consistently ranked number one in her field, she was declared by Mr. Andrews, a freshman, to lack "an ounce of common sense" as well as a "minimal grasp of the proper use of statistics." Such insults do not deserve to be responded to; their pettiness and inanity are self-evident.

The Tory's transgressions, however, are not limited to mockery and use of inflammatory language. Its staff is also guilty of substituting pre-conceived notions and biases for facts. Mr. Andrews asserts, for example, that one panel on women in the financial sector, portrayed "men as sports crazed simpletons." Reading these words, I could not help but wonder what conference their author had attended. The women on the panel discussed the men who had helped guide their careers, the men they worked with on a daily basis and the men who supported them as husbands, fathers, brothers and sons. If Andrews was so offended by the alleged female chauvinism, one wonders why he did not ask questions to the speakers or interview them after the panel. His willingness to substitute his own opinions for journalistic research is symptomatic. Articles in the April edition of The Tory misrepresented OWL's positions on various types of feminism; the author of the piece had contacted only one officer of the group and even then had managed to present a slanted portrayal of her words, one that did not match OWL's mission statement or activities on campus. Similar concerns about a lack of consultation and research have been raised by other campus groups who have been taken to task in print. In the interests of journalistic integrity and respect for others, the writers of The Tory should be sure that their opinions are based on correct information.

Most of the examples of problems with Princeton's conservative publication come from its writings about OWL. But this issue is not about any one group or ideology. It is about a journalistic endeavor that seems to have lost its way. Many of the pieces in The Tory are thought provoking and impressive. Articles in the most recent issue that addressed the role of Republican Jews and the arrival of Cornel West were well reasoned and well written. It is unfortunate that these statements of political thought are sullied by the derisive pieces that appear beside them. It is one thing for political jokes and jabs to appear in "The Rant," the pages devoted to such commentary, but it is quite another for them to be interspersed in supposedly serious articles. The Tory must decide if its purpose is simply to amuse conservative readers or if it is the legitimate "journal of conservative and moderate political thought" it claims to be. As a Princeton student who enjoys the high level of discussion, debate, and even disagreement that occurs on campus everyday, I hope that the staff of The Tory stops relying on derision to drive home their views and starts trusting that their words and ideas will be enough. It is only in this way that Princeton students, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum, can ever truly learn from one another. Katherine Reilly is from Short Hills, N.J. She can be reached at kcreilly@princeton.edu.