That’s false.
I’m not saying that Princeton doesn’t have any values: Of course she does. After all, “In compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and other federal, state, and local laws,” Princeton doesn’t discriminate against the usual grabbag of shielded persons. But saying that the University complies with the law is not making a very strong statement at all. And other than the basic principle to refrain from retaliation against fellow students on grounds of sex, religion etc., we don’t seem to have any common principles in this University at all.
Judging by the comments box at the Daily Princetonian article about Margaret Sullivan’s participation in a porn shoot, most undergraduates are thrilled that Sullivan “took control of her body” and were likewise impressed by Roger Wang’s photography skills. (I’ve seen the pilot issue of “Diamond” – it really does have dreadful photography work. Wang could have a future ahead of him. Diamond also looks like it was made using an antique version of Microsoft Office, with heavy emphasis on that ugly Word Art feature.) Fortunately, the comments box at the Daily Princetonian is without doubt the most insipidly moronic corner of this University, so we need not take too much time assessing the pulse of the intellectually dead. (My apologies to those rare and brave souls who venture into so dark a Cave and shed, by their presence, some feeble beams of light.)
There are so many things that are objectionable about Matt di Pasquale’s new all-Ivy porn mag, Diamond, and about Sullivan’s participation in it, that I’m not quite sure where to begin. The writing is awful, the premise adolescent, the photography of low quality, and the message mendacious. Di Pasquale claims that he wants to “embrace the light” and help people appreciate “the beauty of sex.”
Right. And Playboy is a philanthropic venture.
Not that there’s anything ugly about sex, but I do think there’s something ugly about paying people money to engage in sexually provocative poses for a camera and then selling the images on the internet. What is perhaps most offensive, however, is the magazine’s attempted association with America’s most prestigious universities. (It’s a hard call, though: The prose style is a sin against the English language, and one would have to consult Hegel for more fatuous bombast. The letter of congratulations from the editor’s mother is a particularly egregious piece of inane vacuity; which, incidentally, contradicts his stated goal of rebelling against his parents.)
But leaving issues of style aside, Diamond is an affront to those universities which now form the exclusive modeling pool for America’s only all-Ivy porno. (Though I have heard that future issues may go farther afield in the search for subjects.) This poses a serious challenge for Princeton, and all those schools whose names have been dragged into association with this deplorable dishrag. Diamond draws particular attention to the academic credentials of its subjects: The models may be nude, but the magazine has draped itself in all the ivy of Princeton, Harvard and Yale.
Does Princeton have any definite values, or does she not? Once upon a time, this University could claim that she stood for a definite view of ethics, based on prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. Now, we have the University as gladiatorial arena: Princeton no longer holds particular values, she only provides a forum in which students and professors can argue over them. I am not making the judgment that one of these methods is better than the other, but Princeton and her peers need to settle for themselves what sort of schools they want to be.
It seems to me that Princeton has already decided that she prefers not to hold any values, not to insist on any common ground among her pupils and professors, but rather to allow for a clash of worldviews so profound as those, say, between Robert George and Peter Singer.
I think there is much to be said for this model of moral education, but Princeton cannot then wax poetic about “the values that we share.” We don’t share any values. That is the price one must pay for this model of ethical education. The only values that we do share are those so basic as to be axioms of the American political experience.
So let me be clear: I am not asking for Diamond magazine to be censored, nor even for Princeton to issue an official repudiation of the magazine, which seeks to associate itself with her — but I do want that silly quote taken down.
Brendan Carroll is a philosophy major from New York. He can be reached at btcarrol@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
