Preserving Princeton

News of the Newtown tragedy united America in grief. My mother was in a state of disarray for days; our commander-in-chief broke down in front of the nation, not so much as a president, but as a father. In an op-ed published on Monday, Benjamin Dinovelli reinvigorated those emotions in order to call for reforms to curb gun violence. He and I would agree, I suspect, that the cooler heads dedicated to preventing future massacres should look to the origins of the different perspectives on guns in order to reach consensus. But sorrow alone is only productive insofar as it catalyzes reasonable discourse and clear thinking, and it certainly has no place dictating Princeton’s investment policies.

Sons and daughters who grew up hunting with their fathers view guns very differently than those who survived childhoods in inner-city war zones. Self-reflection in public is awkward — no one likes to feel naked on stage — but appraising the contextual roots of differing opinions may be the only way to reach common ground. Still not sold? It’s all right; I’ll go first. My own opinions do not completely fit into either side of the discussion. Perhaps from a place of ignorance — I grew up in a weapon-free home and have never fired a gun myself — I detest guns. But anyone who commands a deadly instrument with prowess demands respect, and the Supreme Court’s affirmation of an individual’s right to bear arms was a victory for personal safety.

I attribute my own distaste for firearms to the blessing of growing up in a safe environment, a privilege, though shared by us today as Princetonians, too many Americans endure without. For some who are not fortunate enough to live in secure communities, owning a gun is not a luxury but a necessity. Meanwhile, even the Supreme Court’s conservative wing, in the process of carving out a historic victory for gun rights, deliberately left room for certain curbs. These two realities do not have to exist in tension: Hunters and patriarchs can rest easily in their constitutional guarantees and also support meager alterations in restrictions.

In January, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel bullied TD Bank and Bank of America with an open letter prodding them to leverage their lines of credit with gun manufacturers to encourage reform. What was Emanuel’s grand indictment of Smith & Wesson, the firearm manufacturing company with which the banks do business? One of its products, the AR-15 assault weapon, was the destructive instrument brandished in the Aurora, Colo. movie theater massacre. A lawful product abused by a deranged outlier does not implicate the corporation that brought the device to market. Similarly, Princeton’s investment in gun manufacturers neither enables nor endorses violence.

Back on campus, the Resources Committee, charged with overseeing Princeton’s holdings, will soon review a petition signed by 113 faculty members that calls for an end to the University’s investment in gun makers. Thankfully, the Board of Trustees has the final say, and I hope these wiser minds will quash this potentially harmful idea. Is a self-congratulatory exercise really worth a reduction in our University’s unmatched resources? Princeton should not divest its holdings from gun manufacturers in order to protect its robust endowment and all the benefits that come with it.

Today, the University stands as one of America’s greatest instruments of social mobility. In an age when the average student debt tops $26,000, Princeton graduates young professionals with negligible financial burdens. According to a new study by the Urban Institute, the oppressive specter of what may be our generation’s defining economic burden has the potential to delay millennials’ abilities to accumulate wealth by decades. For those who earn admission, Princeton is a safeguard against this slide into a diminished future. As far as I’m concerned, the trustees should only divest an asset when it is no longer profitable.

It’s not sexy, and it’s distinctly non-idealistic; call me a cold utilitarian, but there is far more benefit in maintaining our trove of money, no matter how politically incorrect it may be. Even if this particular selling of assets does not cause great harm, don’t think for a moment that guns will be the only push. Every new issue du jour will induce cries for Princeton to cleanse itself of any association with the latest offending industry. Rather than sacrificing funds in indulgent pageantry, let’s buttress and build on the already enviable resources that Princeton provides. Endlessly showering students with funds and opportunities might seem selfish as a singular goal, to which I say: You bet.

David Will is a religion major from Chevy Chase, Md. He can be reached at dwill@princeton.edu.