A moratorium on campus acrimony

And to supplement the more than 350 comments online, the reaction has included representatives from Sexual Harrassment/Assault Advising, Resources, and Education (SHARE) issuing a strong response to Neagu, columnist Brendan Carroll posing a comprehensive challenge to both and, as if enough hadn’t already been said about the isuse, Jacob Denz ’10 and Isabel Flower ’13 writing in with their own concerns.

Whether or not this persists, issues like it have been and will continue to be common at Princeton. In particular, I’ve observed that Princeton students have a tendency to argue with a troubling degree of certainty and stridency about issues that are either deeply complex or inherently irresolvable.

As Flower wrote in her letter to the editor (Tuesday, March 2, 2010), the law in New Jersey is very clear about what constitutes consent. But this avoids the normative question of whether the law is just or expansive enough to account for questionable circumstances where both parties are relatively incapacitated. I personally disagree with Neagu’s conclusions, but from a normative standpoint, she is not alone in presenting date-rape law as discriminatory. So while I disagree with Neagu, I think that parts of her argument have some legitimacy as an alternative viewpoint.

I find it interesting — though maybe not surprising — that her column has inspired such an intense response. It is a credit to the type of school Princeton is that such intelligent, well-intentioned individuals find each other on opposite sides, investing as much passion into their arguments as their rivals. But sometimes it is the thrill of debating and not the fruits it bears that interests us.

What else explains the active participation of such smart individuals on both sides of the most pressing arguments that seize our campus? The truth of these matters neither lands on one side nor is retrievable to begin with.

That does not mean that these arguments are meaningless. Far the opposite: Arguing unanswered or unanswerable questions is one of the most important things that we can do as Princeton students, or even as intellectually curious individuals. But there is a decisive difference between controversial inquiries and the myopia of certainty in one’s position.

So when I see the degree of vitriol that arises on our campus between what I can only assume to be intelligent people of good will, I do so with some deal of alarm. Neagu’s position may be upsetting to many, but that distress should be manifested in humble challenges, not categorical denunciations.

As we engage with campus issues, however, we should be responsible enough to recognize intractability when we see it. Arguing is fine, as long as it involves a breakdown of each position into its basic parts and initial premises. Finding a false premise or a logical fallacy is grounds for dismissal of an argument. However, arguments like the perennial debates with the Anscombe Society turn on premises that cannot be proven or disproven.

In debates like these, we should at a certain point recognize that our own conclusions do not negate the plausibility of alternative ones.

For those who need to crown a winner between the sides of our campus debates, we can organize a dodgeball game for Tigers for Israel and the Princeton Committee on Palestine; Greco-Roman wrestling for Anscombe and the LGBT Center; robo or Beirut for Neagu and SHARE; or maybe the vegans and vegatarians and the rest can pass around the old pigskin and score touchdowns for or against meat!

Or maybe, we could demonstrate intellectual maturity by debating respectfully and agreeing to disagree when debate no longer has any fruit to bear.

Peter Zakin is a sophomore from New York, N.Y. He can be reached at pzakin@princeton.edu.