Protecting freedom of the press

I was dismayed last week to hear about a group of students organizing to confront President Tilghman and demand that the University cut off funding to the Tory. While I didn't read the Tory and don't know what the article they objected to was about, I was upset that students would consider such a tactic. I don't know if they actually acted on their plans, but the fact that they formed them was itself troubling to me.

One of the necessary foundations of our community, a university, is respect for freedom of speech, which extends to freedom of the press. The publications at Princeton are encompassed in this community of learning, and as such, are entitled to the protections of the individual members who write for such publications.

I don't actually read the Tory, so I don't know much about what the offensive article was about. And I don't have an opinion as to how outrageous it was or whether it really ought to have been censored. I would even contend that there are publications that should be censored by withdrawal of funds. After all, from a practical point of view the money does come from students, and they should not be forced to fund publications they find truly immoral. The University does have a basic understanding of morality that we all agree on, and publications that violate these beliefs (honesty, mutual respect, etc.) should not be given University largess.

Yet any worthwhile University will have controversial publications, where people challenge the beliefs of others and have the opportunity to explain their ethics. If you find yourself agreeing with every publication campus, that's a problem. Either you haven't got any opinions, or there's no one else who does. Reasonable people always find something to disagree about. What's the point of being here, if we're not going to explore these issues, even if some people find them distasteful or offensive?

One of the qualities of the University community in general that has troubled me is our inability to distinguish between what we disagree with and what is truly offensive because it is malicious and morally wrong. (Please keep in mind that I am not writing about the Tory now as I know nothing about it.) I find fairly often that students here confuse personal attacks with questions of ideology. They find someone who doesn't agree with their ideology and make personal attacks. It happens across all parts of the University community.

This isn't how we should be. We ought to realize from the start that when we are discussing matters of the mind there is room for disagreement. I don't advocate complete detachment and indifference; it's important to be passionate about what you truly believe in. Yet, I want to draw a distinction between passionately making an argument in favor of your beliefs and childishly aiming to shut your opponent up rather than open his eyes.

I'm not a relativist. I don't think it's acceptable to write and publish anything you choose. Truly malicious (and we know it when see it — I don't mean the Nassau Weekly) written material, making personal attacks on people ought to be censored by any means possible. So should publications that advocate hate and intolerance, though this can be somewhat fuzzy if we are not careful about how we distinguish. I would not want a Christian publication that preached against homosexuality shut down just as I would not want a gay rights newsletter censored for criticizing exclusive religions. Thus it is crucial to consider the way something is written and its purpose.

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper," as Robert Frost said. I worry that many of us are not nearly far enough along in our educations. Aileen Nielsen is a sophomore from Upper Black Eddy, Pa. She can be reached at anielsen@princeton.edu.