On Thursday, March 24^th, 2010 I endured an hour of distortion against one of the world’s great faiths—Islam. The Princeton Tory and Whig-Clio along with an outside organization by the name of CAMERA sponsored a lecture by Ms. Nonie Darwish entitled “Human, Women’s, and Minority Rights Under Islamic Law.”

Darwish claimed that her comments were not against Islam as a religion, but against an ideology. Her defense of this position is that religion is simply one’s personal relationship with God, not a social-moral order that extends beyond the individual. However, even a Standard English dictionary defines religion as “often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” Many world religions, such as Judaism, function out of a sophisticated legal system that informs every aspect of life. So, let’s be clear: Darwish is talking about Islam as a religion, not as a “political ideology,” when she condemns Islamic law. There are two main flaws to the Darwish-ian approach to Islam:

First, Darwish’s approach to Islamic law itself is flawed. Her approach assumes that Islamic law is a stagnant body of text developed centuries ago found in a couple of books. In reality, Islamic law—in the realm of human interactions (mu’amalat)—is a constantly evolving code of life that is flexible to change in every place and period. Furthermore, one of the brilliant features of Islamic law is its tolerance for difference of opinion (ikhtilaf), and, therefore, no one book can ever claim to contain the final word on most legal issues. As a living tradition, Islamic law is in constant conversation with Muslim scholars and thinkers, and the masses in general. In fact, when medieval scholars wrote legal manuals, which Darwish quotes from, they did not intend for their works to be published in mass and placed on the shelf of every Muslim’s home. They intended, for the most part, for their legal works to serve as a basic outline of legal opinions and positions that would then be explained and expanded upon by teachers and preachers. As such, you will find that medieval Islamic legal texts often employ absolute language, expecting that the wise master will offer nuances.

This brings us to the second flaw of the Darwish-ian approach, which is to think that one can open up a book of Islamic law and find their “Islamic” answers to all life’s questions without the aid of a reliable scholar-expert. It is like practicing medicine out of books of medicine without a license. Darwish goes even a step further by then taking all these sentences and paragraphs, found within a legal text, out of historical and textual context to “prove” her own assumptions and validate her own experiences. Darwish employs the same approach in her analysis of Islam’s primary texts, known as Qur’an and hadith. This, in fact, is the dangerous approach of religious fanatics who have wreaked havoc in many parts of the world. The radicals we despise use this approach to spread violence on earth with the righteous mantle of “faith.” Darwish uses the same approach to spread fear and sow mistrust between peoples with the righteous mantle of “human rights.” In other words, Darwish represents a phenomenon that is best described as “non-Muslim Islamic fundamentalism.” The goals are different, but the approach is exactly the same. And giving credence to this approach is giving credence to the problematic phenomenon of religious based extremism across faiths.

Now, let’s examine briefly some specific issues that Darwish brings up in her critique of Islam and the Muslim World. Darwish claims that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is born not out of political fighting, land disputes, and historical circumstances; but rather out of Islam’s hatred for Jews. She plays some fear-mongering videos of anti-Jewish rhetoric that can be found in some parts of Arab media. Now, there is no doubt that anti-Semitism is a real and troubling phenomenon in parts of the world, and must be condemned as an evil. But, to claim that anti-Jewish rhetoric and sentiments are “Islamic” is simply untrue. Even in the videos that Darwish played for her audience, the anti-Jewish rants were, if one analyzes closely, hateful political rhetoric cloaked in religious terminology, rather than the other way around. Furthermore, if Islam preached hatred against Jews, then why is it that over the centuries Jews took refuge in Muslim lands when they were persecuted in Christendom? And how is it that Jews experienced one of their Golden Ages under Muslim governance in Spain? Why is it that many Muslims sacrificed their own lives to save Jews during the Holocaust, according to a new book entitled Among the Righteous by Jeffrey Brown? Either these Jewish-friendly Muslims were not following Islam, or they had a very different understanding of Islam than the one Darwish articulates.

Darwish also claims that Islamic law is a vigilante justice system that has no regards for minority rights. I accept that Islamic thought needs to evolve to a higher plane of thinking when it comes to minority rights today; but minority rights are granted in Islamic law, and when Muslim civilization was at its best it was as minority rights oriented as was possible in the pre-modern world. Periods of the Ottoman Empire, in which religions were free to practice as they saw fit and even granted their own religious courts for civil law, is an example of Islamic tolerance. Even today, Christians and Muslims live peacefully in most parts of the world, not despite Islamic law, but in adherence to it.

The Egyptian born author and activist argues that Islamic law is against women’s rights. Well, I agree that in many parts of the world Muslim women are still struggling for fairness and opportunity in society. And medieval jurists in their opinions did, at times, contribute in some ways to the suppression of Muslim women. But, there are historical and modern examples of Muslim men and women and women’s movements that offer a very different understanding Islam. Their voices should be heard and their approach to Islamic law should be celebrated as a way forward.

Lastly, Darwish argues that the primary and ultimate goal of jihad is to achieve an Islamic state, and that the idea of Islamic state is necessarily totalitarian and fascist. To argue her point she quotes the founder of a 20^th century religious movement in South Asia, by the name of Abul ‘Alaa Mawdudi. Yes, these thinkers have had an influence on Muslim thought – and not all negative either. But, when it comes to understanding the role of jihad and Islamic state, fair intellectual inquiry cannot be limited to just some writings to the exclusion of others. It is fair to say, I think, that a vast majority of Muslims are more convinced by democratic, pluralistic, and just ideas of jihad and Islamic state, as is shown by statistical research, such as the Gallup poll studies documented in the book, Who Really Speaks for Islam? by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. These interpretations are as valid as any.

Before I conclude, there is some outright misinformation in Darwish’s presentation that I must counter.  First, so-called “honor killings” have nothing to do with Islamic law, and they have been condemned in religious verdicts (fatwas) and sermons over and over again. Second, contrary to what Darwish asserts, the term Jihad is not used ninety-seven percent of the time in reference to violence in the Qur’an; in fact, jihad is never used exclusively in the fighting context in the Qur’an – the word qital is used instead. The reference to jihad as spiritual struggle is found in books of Islamic spirituality (Sufism) and not law, for obvious reasons. Third, Islamic law, in promoting the virtue of modesty, does not consider a woman’s entire body to be private (awrah); only the most fringe interpretations consider it as such, and the speaker’s gross generalization was incorrect. Finally, wife beating is never permissible.  And women inheriting half of a man’s share does not mean they are half of men in any legal argument that I’ve ever heard of.

In conclusion, what I am arguing here is not that Islamic law is perfect. Indeed, Islam as a legal system that has developed over the centuries is imperfect and constantly in need of reform. In fact, Islamic law has always been a self-reforming system with the science of legal reinterpretation (ijtihad) at the heart of the sacred law. What I am arguing, though, is that it is time to give voice and support to the vast majority who approach Islam in a very different way—in a way that insists on protection and enhancement of the sanctity of life, freedom of religion, human dignity, family, property, and intellectual pursuit. These six ideals are the higher purposes (maqasid) that Islamic Law is built on and represents what mainstream Muslims think of when they conceive of their religion.

Princeton prides itself on hosting a faculty whose members possess varied experiences and viewpoints. In pursuit of intellectual diversity, the University often hires professors with provocative ideas – Peter Singer, among others, comes to mind. However, two nominations made this spring stretch the bounds of credulity. On February 24, 2010, the University announced its appointment of former White House advisor Van Jones to a distinguished fellowship in the African American Studies department, as well the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School. A month later, the University celebrated the appointment of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine as the John L. Weinberg-Goldman Sachs visiting professor in the Woodrow Wilson School. Both of these figures lack the temperament and background that ought to accompany a Princeton professor, and thus should be received warily by the Princeton community.

Van Jones: Rules for a Radical

Following the announcement of Jones’ appointment, students and alumni flooded the Internet with blog posts and comments on news articles expressing their disappointment or even revulsion that the University would see fit to honor Van Jones with such an appointment. They cite that his incendiary remarks about Republicans and alleged association with conspiracy groups as indicative of an anti-intellectual attitude that would detract from respectful political discourse on campus. While the extreme rhetoric exercised by some of Jones’ most ardent critics vehemently demonize him and his public advocacy, serious consideration of his past activities and current agenda should inform our evaluation of the University’s and the African American Studies Department’s decision to award such a divisive political figure a distinguished fellowship.

For most Americans, Van Jones entered the public sphere in March 2009, when President Obama appointed Jones as his administration’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation. However, even before joining the Obama administration, Mr. Jones pursued a prolific career as a liberal political advocate, environmental leader, and popular author. Jones’ political activism began in the mid-1990s as an employee of a communist organization called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which claimed Mao Zedong as its political inspiration. During Jones’ tenure at STORM he was particularly active in protesting police violence in the San Francisco Bay Area, eventually founding two organizations dedicated to this cause–Bay Area Police Watch and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Jones’ first foray into the environmentalist movement began only as recently as 2005, when he expanded the mission of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights to advocate for governmental mandates for alternative energy and green job development. As Jones expanded his advocacy of environmentalist causes, he began to associate the perennial struggle of the poor and racial minorities with the effort to deepen America’s commitment to substantial environmental reform. Indeed, Jones eventually founded an organization, Green for All, which collaborates with cities and municipalities to create jobs for the urban poor in the alternative energy industry. Additionally, Jones regularly speaks of “environmental justice,” “environmental racism,” and “green collar” jobs which explicitly link the modern burgeoning environmentalist movement to the urban poor.

As part of President Obama’s broad ambition to concentrate investment and political capital on environmentally conscientious economic innovation, Jones was appointed by presidential order to a newly created position dubbed “Green Czar.” However, soon after his appointment, Jones’ ability to serve the American people was challenged by media personalities, national politicians, and political commentators. Jones’ critics claimed his extensive and unabated activity as an advocate for the far left made him unfit to fill a position which requires nuanced decision-making and bipartisan cooperation to establish sustainable and effective policy. In addition to highlighting Jones’ position at the communist organization STORM, his detractors also published a speech Jones delivered shortly before joining the Obama administration in which he called Republicans “assholes,” hardly the rhetoric expected of White House advisors. Yet most damaging for Jones was his relationship with the “9/11 truther” movement, which implicates the United States government in the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11^th, 2001.

While Jones apologized for some of his past activates and attempted to repudiate his connection with the “truther” movement, the breadth, depth, and ferocity of accusations against Jones forced him to resign. In doing so, Jones avoided further scandal both to the fledgling Obama administration and to his personal reputation, which had already endured intense scathing. After his resignation, Jones left the public spotlight for a number of months, returning only a short time ago at the announcement of his appointment at Princeton, as well as of a position at a liberal think tank called the Center for American Progress.

Since the University’s announcement of Jones’ distinguished award, hundreds of commentators have posted on the websites of the Daily Princetonian and the Princeton Alumni Weekly, as well as on dozens of unofficial student and alumni blogs. However, regardless of the apparent interest of students and alumni, University administrators have refused to recognize any of the controversial activities in which Jones was implicated during his humiliating stint in the White House. The University’s reticent statements concerning Jones’ past are disturbing given the prospect of such a politically divisive and controversial figure being accorded such prestige by Princeton. Indeed, the justice of Jones’ fellowship is a question that merits serious discussion.

Central to this issue is the impact we expect Professor Jones to have on the university political discourse. As a distinguished visiting fellow in the African American Studies department, Jones is expected to engage in scholarly research for the Fall semester of next year, and teach during the Spring semester. Since Jones is not required to engage with student life in any other manner, both the nature and the extent of Jones’ future relationship with the university community remains unknown. Indeed, until his arrival on campus, it is impossible to speculative as to whether Jones will be a polarizing force on campus or a source of inspiration for substantive debate on pressing issues of environmental and economic concern.

Although Jones’ impact on campus politics is yet unknown, the passivity of the University and the African American Studies department in addressing Jones’ tenebrous past is distressing. If Jones desires to enrich campus understanding and debate on serious political issues, he must first allay pervasive suspicions of himself as a divisive and dismissive partisan. Only with such reconciliation may he hope to engage a diverse range of students in levelheaded, constructive, and truthful discussion.

Jon Corzine: Mediocre People Need Representation, Too

The furor over Jones’ appointment has largely obscured that of Jon Corzine. Although the former New Jersey governor lacks Jones’ record of controversial remarks, the merits of his visiting fellowship with the Woodrow Wilson School seem equally dubious. It remains unclear on what grounds the University has decided that this remarkably undistinguished individual is worthy of such an honorable appointment.

Corzine’s rise from humble beginnings to the position of Goldman Sachs CEO, and his deft stewardship of the financial powerhouse, are certainly impressive. However, these grounds alone do not merit a position in an institution focused on public policy. It seems, then, that Corzine’s record as a politician served as the catalyst for his appointment.

Jon Corzine first became personally involved with politics in 2000, when he ran for a seat in the United States Senate as a Democrat, eking out a narrow victory largely through his expenditure of an unprecedented sum of $62 million from his personal bank account. Once in the Senate, Corzine appeared to grow restless, displaying a lack of interest in the legislative process. During his tenure, he sponsored only a single minor bill that became enacted into law.

To be fair, since the Republican Party controlled the Senate for most of Corzine’s time in Washington, he had limited opportunities to advance his agenda. He might have been able to accomplish more, however, if he had been more proactive in reaching across the aisle. Corzine’s capacity to engage in bipartisan compromise could have been restricted by his stances on the issues, which consisted largely of left-wing boilerplate. After his election, Time magazine noted that he “ran on one of the most liberal platforms in the nation,” advocating programs such as public preschool and universal health care.

Itching for a promotion, Corzine jumped into the race of Governor of New Jersey in 2005 – before the expiration of his term. Continuing a familiar pattern, Corzine invested $38 million of his own money in order to achieve victory. According to the New York Times, he campaigned on reform, “pledging to use his business expertise to bring economic prosperity and higher ethical standards to New Jersey.”

This new version of Corzine’s views, more moderate than the previous iteration, reflected concern among the electorate of New Jersey about high levels of spending and taxation, as well as rampant corruption. If Corzine’s ability to deal with these challenges is the metric by which his time in office is to be judged, then he failed miserably.

The most obvious area in which Corzine was unable to bring about the change he promised is that of ethics. In July of 2009, an FBI sting resulted in the arrest of 29 New Jersey civil servants and public officials as part of an extensive probe into the state’s infamous graft problem. Standing in stark contrast to Corzine’s fecklessness in the face of widespread sleaze was his opponent– and eventual vanquisher– in the 2009 gubernatorial race, Republican Chris Christie, who had launched the investigation as the former U.S. Attorney for Newark.

Another issue on which Christie hammered Corzine’s shortcomings was the budget. Throughout his term, Corzine was unable to make significant headway in addressing the state’s suffocating tax burden. Although he did manage to pass a modicum of property tax relief, this reduction came in tandem with increased sales taxes. As a result, New Jersey currently retains its status as the most heavily taxed state in the nation, along with the equally inglorious title of worst business climate. This unfriendly economic environment has worsened the effects of the current recession and exacerbated the state’s fiscal crisis.

While Christie struggles heroically to rein in the disastrous deficit he inherited, Jon Corzine’s prestigious post in the Wilson School gives him a forum to criticize his successor, and, potentially, to revitalize his own moribund political career. In his keynote address at the Princeton Colloquium on Public and International Affairs – which received fawning praise from Wilson School Dean Christina Paxson – he laid out the latest manifestation of his political beliefs, which is no more original than previous ones. He combines platitudes about the need to reduce debt, cope with globalization, and improve civility in political discourse with the standard liberal zeal for erasing inequality by redistributing wealth.

Corzine’s positions, and his record of implementing them, may not have endeared him to the voters of New Jersey, but they nevertheless tend to dovetail with those held by the faculty of the Wilson School, who are required to approve all appointments. Associate Dean Nolan McCarty dismisses the suggestion that ideological affiliation may have factored into Corzine’s appointment, ascribing the decision to hire Corzine to the former governor’s availability. In addition, he cites past examples of Republicans who have served as fellows at the Wilson School, including Jim Leach ‘64, Bill Frist ‘74, and Josh Bolten ’76, as evidence that the program does not have a partisan bias.

However, McCarty’s statement deserves to be taken with a grain of salt. Leach, Frist, and Bolten are all unambiguously accomplished in the field of public policy, a claim that cannot be made about Corzine. In addition, while the three Republicans are all alumni, Corzine has very little connection to the University beyond his role as ex officio member of the Board of Trustees, a position held by every sitting governor of New Jersey. Thus, it seems fair to conclude that the Wilson School holds conservatives to a higher standard than liberals in determining who will be invited for a visiting fellowship. This trend runs contrary to Princeton’s mission of fostering vigorous scholarly debate, and bodes ominously for the future of free and open discourse on campus.

We are all familiar with the “Orange Bubble,” that intellectuality of political apathy that surrounds our campus and shields us from outside worries. To some degree, this protection—reinforced by the administration and faculty—is a necessity. For without it, how could we individually muster the callousness to devote hours of our days to impractical academics while all around us serious questions are being asked about the longevity of the current world and American political paradigms? At Princeton we must temporarily forget that peace and liberty are fragile ideals, so that we can focus on learning the tools of reason and understanding that will ensure liberty and peace in the future.

But the Orange Bubble may also blind us from our internal reality and leave us severely hindered upon graduation. Take the recent comments of President Tilghman in response to the racial homogeneity of the Greek system, for example. She was quoted in the Daily Princetonian as saying that, “If you go to a Triangle show, you will see the rainbow coalition on that stage. You will see students who come out of very selective schools. You will see students who are coming out of public schools. You will see people of different ethnic groups. It looks like America.” Now I do not mean to contradict our venerable President’s words, but looks can be deceiving. Had she actually spoken to each of the Triangle performers (not to mention crew) about their other University activities and organizations, she may have left with quite a different impression.

While we no longer live in the age of the stereotypical all-white male Princeton, campus segregation is nevertheless still well and alive, albeit along ideological lines. The “Princeton Prism” differentiates incoming students based on multiple invisible criteria, including their political and cultural views. And no matter how many times the administration revises its selection process according to race and socioeconomic status, the underlying problem will remain: The different shades of orange do not interact.

The prism has an equally divisive impact on conservatives as it does on any other group. Having grown up in Southern California and been friends with liberals for my entire life, I was surprised to discover the level of conservative exclusivity at Princeton. As a minority, we may feel safer when we decry perceived social antagonizers and cling closer together for moral support, but in the long term this overprotection is unhealthy to our growth as an accepted ideological movement. If we continue down this path, then we are no different from those confrontational gay rights activists who call opponents homophobic and who rely on intimidation tactics and “allies” for security.

And so my advice for Princeton conservatives is threefold. Firstly, do not view yourself as oppressed or ignored on campus, as this will lead only to self-pity and delusion. Secondly, talk to more liberals to learn more about their beliefs and motivations, as well as your own. And finally, find issues about which you may disagree with other conservatives.

The Tory’s March invitation of Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish to Princeton arguably achieved each of these objectives. Instead of simply commenting on a campus culture of indifference toward human rights abuses, we initiated a dialogue through a speaker. The result of the event was a confluence of conservatives and liberals—distributed almost equally among Christians, Muslims, and Jews—who came to listen to Darwish and voice their differing opinions. In the process we discovered that fellow conservatives like Raffi Grinberg ’11 and Muslim Life Coordinator Imam Sohaib Sultan can disagree fundamentally on some issues. Their arguments in this issue of the Tory are a testament to the point that both the Orange Bubble and the Princeton Prism can be overcome. Sometimes it just takes a little poking around.

Sincerely,

Aaron Smargon ‘11

Americans are experiencing a crisis of confidence. The challenges we face are monumental: burgeoning and bankrupt entitlement programs, an appalling national debt, a corrosive moral culture, and national security threats unlike any in our history. Americans keenly perceive that things are not well, but they are even more shaken by the utter failure of national leadership. Conscious of the inadequacy of politicians in the foreground, they look to the horizon of American politics, only to discover a setting sun. There is no Washington in the distance, no Lincoln in the offing. Before us lies a wasteland of cynicism, corruption, and ineptitude, the scarred remains of demagogic wildfire.

Left alone, abandoned by those entrusted with their leadership, Americans can look to the past for comfort and counsel. They can read biographies of Benjamin Franklin, watch a miniseries on John Adams, or reflect on the crucible of the American Civil War. But what guidance does the past offer? What feature do we discern in our history that is so lacking today? The great moments in our national story draw our attention, and we see in these the presence of titans. We perceive Madison and Adams at the Founding, Clay and Calhoun ante bellum, and Lincoln and Douglas during the Civil War Era. These were not merely politicians eager for power, though they certainly were that; they were statesmen, among the greatest political theorists of their times. These were men who had spent their lives contemplating the meaning of public service, the purposes of government, and the aims of civil society. Versed in the philosophy of the ancient and classical philosophers and inheritors of the Enlightenment’s intellectual tradition, these giants of the American political scene were leaders of men and lovers of ideas. They were, in a sense, “astonished at the world and yet at home in it,” to quote Chesterton. Comfortable with wielding power and the burdens of leadership, they nonetheless were capable of transcending the decisions of the moment to reflect on the great questions of history and political theory. They were not always correct. In fact, such as in the case of Calhoun and the slavery question, they could be profoundly wrong, but with a solid intellectual foundation beneath their feet, they approached the crises of their eras with a steady gait and a fixed gaze.

But their legacy has long since passed away. There are no Madisons in the Congress, no Lincolns in the White House. Gone are the days of the American statesman. It is not that current politicians do not have a political theory; it is that they believe they do not need one. Party platforms are taken for political philosophy. The clichés and colloquialisms of American politics become the foundation of political ideologies. What, after all, is American conservatism? Limited government? A strong national defense? A focus on family values? These are sound-bites, not theories. Why limit government? Why is the family so central to our civil society? These are heady questions that demand real answers, but they are the kinds of questions American politicians are content to let lie. To today’s politician, these are topics for academia, not Congress. It is, apparently, elitist to venture responses at all, for the common sense of the American people is the only necessary guide. Conservatives are particularly guilty of this way of thinking, and it accounts in large part for the intellectual bankruptcy of the mainstream conservative movement.

Political theory is not the exclusive domain of academia; it is an essential prerequisite of sound policy. Policy divorced from a theoretical framework and the fruits of a proper liberal arts education is erratic, arbitrary, doomed. We must understand the purpose of law before we can enact sound law. But the politician of today sees such questions as above his pay grade. Today’s politician, for instance, makes grand pronouncements about the “right to health insurance” but has no theoretical referent from which to derive this alleged right. Is this a right that only exists in wealthy societies or a basic human right enforceable everywhere? Is there a meaningful distinction between a right to health care and a right to health insurance? He does not pause to ask what rights are, how they are discovered, and why health insurance ought to be included within the universe of rights. Our leaders, confident in their own intellectual abilities and armed with a Congressional Budget Office report and party committee talking points, pull the trigger of public policy—without first taking aim or knowing why they are shooting. The American citizen, watching from afar, is the unintended victim of this mad exercise in self-assured ignorance, while the politicians reload for a new session of Congress.

The reader may object that a sound and consistent political theory is no guarantee of good policy, nor is the lack of one a guarantee of bad outcomes. My claim, however, is not empirical. I am not suggesting that having a theoretical framework results in policies that are beneficial or morally praiseworthy. In fact, the example of Calhoun and other proslavery Antebellum Era statesmen proves that this is not always the case. Rather, I am making the argument that having a theoretical framework ought to be part of the policymaking enterprise because policy and theory are conceptually interconnected. Separating them does not mean that one cannot still make good policy, but the policies will not be as well reasoned or grounded as they would be when joined with theory. Perhaps a legislature that segregates theory and policy will continue to produce beneficial legislation, but this is more the result of fortune than purpose. The legislature does not have the ability to create consistent and sound policy because it has no basis upon which to build such a legislative agenda. Consistent and sound policy may obtain, but it will not be because of any conscious efforts on the part of the legislators.

In addition, the lack of strong theoretical frameworks undergirding the policies of the competing parties renders it more difficult for citizens to make comprehensible political decisions. Rather than being presented with competing visions, voters are provided with dueling platforms comprised of assortments of internally inconsistent and often self-defeating policy positions. True, the average voter may not understand the nuances of theory, but it would not be impossible for politicians to put forward competing political theories in accessible language. Politicians instead offer voters a platform that will lead to electoral success, even if the particular configuration of policies does not cohere. The result is a politics not of reason but of reassurance. Instead of advocating strong theories of governance and society, leaders say what voters wish to hear, theoretical complications be damned. Good policy may result, but it is not because anyone understands why the good policy is being chosen or why, in fact, it is good at all.

One may wonder whether it is the voters themselves who bear responsibility for this dynamic. It is they, after all, who elected the current leadership and do not demand the articulation of theoretical visions in elections. The point is well-taken, and I do not deny that, in our republican society, the citizens may be faulted for a great deal of the current crisis of leadership. But leaders exist among men precisely for such times. It is the statesman who is summoned by history to lead his people even when the people resist doing that which would be in their interests. The fact that no such person has stepped forward, that there appears to be little prospect of one in the near future, and that current leaders actively resist undertaking the roles of statesmen, all serve as an indictment of today’s politician. This article focuses on this failure of leadership, though another article could certainly be written criticizing the decisions of the American electorate.

I should also make clear that I am not claiming, as it may at first appear, that we ought to be ruled only by philosophers, though I think we would greatly benefit from having more of them in government. The great statesmen I mentioned earlier did not serve in governments of philosophers; they stood out precisely because they were unique. It is entirely consistent with my argument that Congress be comprised of a mixture of statesmen and non-statesmen, the latter supplying the insight into common experiences so vital to policymaking. There are those who will go to Congress with sincere hearts and a commitment to the public good but who have no education in theory or the time to master it. They may, in fact, have no formal education at all. These servants lend their own perspectives to the debate, bringing with them the wisdom of the citizen-legislator, the common sense of the average man. They supply a heavy dose of pragmatism where pure theory could otherwise mislead the legislature. What is problematic is a politics which sees this valuable citizen-legislator as the ideal legislator. The ideal legislator is the statesman for the reasons set forth above, but theory tempered by the experiences of the average citizen only improves theory and the resultant policies. Policy cannot be detached from theory, but neither can it be separated from the wisdom of tradition and practical experience.

Let us then, for a moment, lower our sights to examine our own role in this crisis of leadership. It is the mission of the American university to produce the discerning citizen and the wise leader. But when we turn our gaze towards American higher education, we discover a familiar and disheartening panorama. An institution that ought to be providing an intellectual foundation instead supplies the quicksand of relativism. Where the academy of old preached the subordination of passion to reason, today’s schools encourage the indulgence of the vilest vices. Students are told to disown the wisdom of the ancient and classical philosophers and to embrace the egotism of modern liberalism. The leaders of tomorrow are crippled by the professors of today.

How has Princeton, specifically, responded to the crisis of leadership? An increase in public service initiatives, of course, and the continued adoration of the Woodrow Wilson School. But the Wilson School inculcates precisely the attitude characteristic of today’s politician. Students are encouraged to write their theses on how best to reform immigration visas without being asked to first consider the moral obligations of citizens to non-citizens, the ethical issues surrounding the existence of borders, or the overarching purpose of civil society and the role that immigration plays in it. And so Wilson School concentrators immerse themselves in CBO reports, census data, and myriad statistical analyses, all the while ignoring the fundamental issues which are antecedent to any discussion of policy.

Of course, it is entirely possible that Wilson School graduates will not fall into this trap. There may be some students who recognize the importance of theory and embrace its role in policymaking. But the culture of the school does not foster theoretical investigation, and the requirements hinder mastery of a given academic field. The concept of a policy-training school at a liberal arts institution is deeply problematic because a liberal arts degree ought to teach students a discipline and provide them with a broad theoretical context in which to situate decisions. Wilson School concentrators, by contrast, generally sample various fields and then plunge into the morass of policymaking with no clear idea of what they are aiming at or why. They take their Disciplinary and Distribution requirements, ensuring that they are exposed to enough liberal arts to hold their own at cocktail parties while being shielded from engaging in an academic discipline. They keep their eyes focused on policy; all else is merely instrumental and subordinate. They graduate from Princeton thoroughly prepared to become the next generation of policymakers unqualified for the demands of national leadership.

And so we come to it: the passing of the American statesman. The life of the mind is shunted aside, acts of policymaking disaggregated from a philosophy of governance. The angry cries of the citizenry finally reach the ears of the American university, and, contemptuously, the academy sneers, another graduating class sent off unsuited for leadership. Americans, ever the optimists, look longingly towards the future, eager for a statesman to lead them through the crises of the moment. They look towards the horizon, and watch the sun set.

On March 24^th, Nonie Darwish spoke in the Whig Senate Chamber, at a lecture co-sponsored by the Princeton Tory, the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.  This was not the first time she was supposed to speak in the Senate Chamber.  Earlier this year, her November 18^th lecture was unceremoniously canceled by Whig-Clio and Tigers For Israel the day before it was to be held—allegedly due to pressure from the Princeton Committee on Palestine and the Muslim Student Association.  Thus her recent, successful lecture represented a victory for free speech on campus, an event that stated, “No speaker should be canceled just because some students may disagree with her.”

The re-instating of her lecture was not just to make a general point about the abstract value of free speech, however.  The lecture was held also because her main point—that radical Islam’s interpretation of Sharia (Islamic) law is a major threat to the Western way of life—is not only interesting and valuable, but essential.

Darwish had numerous transformative experiences growing up with radical political Islam, and has devoted her life to speaking about and studying the Middle East and Sharia.  While her experiences alone are not enough to give her claims validity, her research and evidence are.  Yet, surprisingly, a number of students on campus hold the misguided view that Darwish is Islamophobic, and that her message is hateful and offensive to Muslims.  This belief is completely false and, as I will explain, dangerous.

In her speech, Darwish made three important distinctions (each of them more than once).  Her statement “I am not here to offend the good and peace-loving Muslims” could not summarize it more perfectly.  The first distinction is between a people and an ideology.  An ideology can be hateful and violent, but that does not necessarily mean that the people who practice it are hateful and violent.  For example, Islamic fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia preaches intolerance.  That does not mean that all Saudis are intolerant.  But when intolerance is a large part of the accepted law and culture, it may easily become ingrained in one’s mindset.  Those affected by this negative culture are not intolerant people by birth, but they have become so because of the surroundings in which they have lived.

The second distinction is between religion and political movement.  Islam was founded as a religion.  As Darwish said, like any other religion, Islam is about a personal relationship with God.  In that sense, it should not be criticized, put down, or spoken against.  A relationship with God, and with a community that worships, is a personal—and often wonderful—thing.  Yet sometimes, as is the case with Islam, peace-loving religions can become the basis for political movements—which manipulate the religion’s precepts for the movement’s gain.  Not all political movements that use Islamic values as their foundation are necessarily evil.  But some are.  As Darwish said,

“If religion expands itself so much to become a one-party totalitarian state with a very elaborate legal system, then it is no longer a private matter.  It has become a dictatorship that has put itself in the realm of criticism.  If a legal system, religious or secular, has given itself the right to put to death those who no longer wish to follow it, then it makes perfect sense to criticize it.  It is political and legal Islam that I am concerned about, and not the personal faith.”

Indeed, Islam has laws that oppress women, oppress people of other faiths, and call for the death of those who convert from Islam.  And this leads into the third distinction.

There is a difference between law and practice.  Just because a religion, or a political movement, or even a state, has certain written laws, it does not necessarily imply that those laws are enforced.  Many religions, for example, have laws in their scriptures which are considered outdated, or artifacts of history.  In the Hebrew Bible, there is a law which calls for the annihilation of all people of the tribe of Amalek.  This is essentially a commandment to genocide—does this mean that all Jews today (and all those who follow the Hebrew Bible) are genocidal?  The commentary on the Hebrew Bible, and interpretation of prominent Rabbis, have “worked their way around” that law.  They say things such as, it is impossible to trace whether someone today is a descendant of the tribe of Amalek, so there is no need to worry about this.  In other words, because Judaism values human life above all else, there are virtually no Jews today who follow this law literally.

Similarly, no one can argue with the fact that Islamic scripture contains violent passages.  “The Reliance Traveler,” a book of Shafi’i (a Sunni school of thought) law, contains many inflammatory verses:   “The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax while being belittled.”  But one must look at whether or not these laws are followed literally.  The vast majority of Muslims worldwide choose to ignore, or interpret around, these laws—because they are good, peace-loving people.

However—and this is a big however—there does exist a significant proportion of Muslims who follow these laws literally.  They exist in the government of Iran, in radicalized mosques in Egypt, and in the ranks of Hizbullah and Al Qaeda.  They are of a significant enough number to make us concerned—concerned not about the religion of Islam or about the majority of Muslims worldwide, but about that smaller proportion of radicals who use Islam as justification for their violence.  Radical Islam, when it becomes an oppressive political regime (as in Saudi Arabia, where women’s rights are continually trampled upon), or when it becomes a violent movement (as in Iran, where nuclear weapons are being built to wage Jihad against the Western world), becomes a danger to human life and morals.

Darwish quoted many Sharia laws to make another point.  Not only do radicals use Islam to justify their violence—sometimes the radicalization stems from the laws themselves.  People who are poor, or angry, or prone to violence, who then hear that fundamentalist interpretation of their religion push them towards violent Jihad, will be further propelled in that direction.  Incitement to violence is a frightening reality that is all-too present in countries such as Egypt, Syria, and Iran.  TV clips that are aired on popular stations can be found (in terrifyingly high numbers) on www.memritv.org, for instance.  (Although media like TV surely does not represent the views of an entire population, it obviously affects those who watch it.  When shows for children teaching hatred against Jews and Christians are aired daily, it influences their upbringing.)  In Syria, a January 2010 news clip accused Jews of aiding earthquake victims in Haiti only to steal their organs.  In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, an April 2009 clip featured a man telling a room full of children that “our hatred against the Jews is perpetual and continuous,” and made them repeat it.  This hate education is as real as anything, and it is a large cause of the radicalization of Islam in certain Middle East countries.

With that in mind, Darwish’s message is especially important to Muslims and Middle Easterners.  There are people who are literally hijacking the religion of Islam and exploiting it to fuel their hatred and to incite others to hatred.  It is as much a problem for Jews and the state of Israel (whose destruction is called for by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), as it is for Muslims, and the women and minorities who are oppressed under the Saudi fundamentalist regime.  The fact that Muslim students label Darwish as Islamophobic is alarming.  It means that they are unwilling to accept the fact that radical Islam is a problem.  They are unable to realize the distinction between their practice of peaceful Islam versus the fundamentalist practice of radical Islam.  Muslim students, more than anyone else, should be at the forefront of the movement to combat radicalism.

In today’s political environment, radical Islam is a significant threat to the Western way of life.  It has very little to do with Islam as a religion, but Muslims and people of other religions alike need to acknowledge it—for acknowledging it as a problem and learning about it are the first steps to stopping it.  Islam as a religion is peaceful; Islam as a political movement, though, can move into the dangerous territory of violating human rights.  And this needs to be recognized.  As Darwish said:   “We can continue the defensiveness, denial and blaming the messenger, but we can also accept the challenge, and change.  Human rights are not negotiable even in the name of God. They are sacred and more divine than any scriptures.”

Last month, an article in the Daily Princetonian was published celebrating the rather remarkable achievement of Westerly Road Church’s Senior Pastor Matt Ristuccia, who has now been with the church for 25 years. This article was met with a host of criticism. What particularly drew the ire of the critics were the church’s attempts to build new property at Princeton Ridge.

Perhaps the most common criticism was that it would be best for the environment if the church were to expand on its current property rather than building on new land. But in fact, when Westerly Road Church first attempted to address overcrowding problems almost fifteen years ago, that was precisely the approach it took.

In the mid 1990’s, Westerly Road Church proposed to the township a plan to build on more of the 5-acre property that they currently own. At that time, land-right agreements dating back to the 1950s dictated a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .25, meaning that 25% of the property’s 5 acres could be used for actual construction. At this time, the church building was already too small to accommodate the church’s burgeoning population. David Keddie, a Princeton Evangelical Fellowship staff member who was a junior at Princeton when this plan was proposed, recalls how he was “teaching Sunday School in a closet” because their space was so inadequate.  Nevertheless, the residents of the surrounding area blocked Westerly’s attempts to expand on their current property. Fearing that a larger building would increase traffic flow through the area on weekends, they were able to force the hand of the township, which halved the church’s FAR on that property, effectively eliminating any possibility for future expansion there.

From 2004-2005, the church began to pursue a piece of property on the Princeton Pike. However, under New Jersey law, the church required variances (exceptions from city/state land zoning laws) to purchase and build on that property. These variances, too, were denied. Interestingly, on that very property now sits a rather large mansion, suggesting that the township’s reluctance to let the church relocate there was out of concern for property tax revenue, rather than environmental considerations. Nevertheless, 5 years and millions of dollars later, Westerly Road Church looks closer than ever to meeting their long-term goal of acquiring new property. Because the property the church now owns on Bunn Drive is a commercial strip, it requires no variances on New Jersey state law.

That is not to say that the current relocation attempt has not been met with criticism and controversy. Interestingly, one of the biggest arguments of environmentalist opponents  is that the new construction plan  is not ‘smart growth’.  This environmentalist buzzword refers to the ideal of putting “long range sustainability over short term focus.” Nevertheless, Keddie pointed out that, “low density is the opposite of smart growth.” This in fact makes sense – if only a very low percentage of land can be used for building, suburban and rural areas will have to sprawl out in order to accommodate various groups and organizations. Not only does this mean the inevitable cutting down of more acres of trees and plants (and, subsequently, the disturbance of indigenous species), but as towns and cities sprawl, inhabitants become less likely to bike and walk, and public transportation will become less feasible, thus leaving residents with no viable option other than to travel in personal vehicles.

Sprawl very obviously presents itself as a less environmentally conscious alternative to higher population densities. An average American suburb has a density of 5 residents per acre, while the minimum density required for the state to fund public transport is 7-8 residents per acre. These numbers are a far cry from the 2 resident per acre standards that the Princeton Environmental Commission recommended in their January report on Westerly Road. Westerly Road’s building difficulties thus reveal the inherent contradictions between various tenets of environmentalism. “Green” advocates want to achieve both the aesthetic value of suburban and rural communities as well as the energy efficiency of urban neighborhoods – two goals that are mutually exclusive. The result is that the application of environmentalist principles becomes arbitrary, and can be used to justify the approval or rejection of projects depending not on a set of universal guidelines, but rather on the whims of bureaucrats and elected officials catering to the demands of special interest groups.

Another opposition talking point concerned a bird species indigenous to the Princeton area – the Cooper’s hawk. This hawk is scientifically classified as endangered in this area, and various environmentalists were concerned that building on the Bunn Drive property might unsettle or permanently displace any birds living in that area. Although Westerly Road Church did eventually hire an ornithologist to prove that there were indeed no birds living in the area where they wished to build, a little of research shows the whole talking point to be extremely misleading. The Cooper’s hawk is of no national concern anymore, since the main threat to its survival was the use of DDT, which has been banned for four decades. Indeed, it is very close to being removed from the endangered species list altogether. In addition, Cooper’s hawks are very adaptable creatures and actually thrive in suburban and urban areas more than rural areas. The pigeon, which also makes its home in suburban and urban areas, serves as a prey of choice for the hawk. More construction therefore does no harm to this hawk species – in fact, it aids its already thriving growth. The environmentalist critics ignored these facts in pursuit of their ideological goal of halting further development.

Despite the myriad obstacles that the Westerly Road Church has faced in its quest for expansion, it appears that the controversy is on the verge of a favorable resolution. In March, the Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB) recommended that the Regional Planning Board of Princeton not approve Westerly’s design unless it either made a host of changes or proposed a two-story building design. The church has been adamant on some issues – for example, it will not consider leaving Princeton– but on a series of other subjects it has been willing to concede. Following an April town hall meeting, the church decided to propose a two-story building to accommodate the qualms of the SPRAB. In addition, the church has agreed to greatly reduce the size of its parking lot and has proposed a shared parking arrangement with nearby organizations.

I discussed the implications of eminent domain with Mr. Keddie, inquiring if he or the church had any fears that the township would exercise this right and claim the property from the church by force. Under the Supreme Court precedent set in the 2005 case of Kelo v. New London, municipalities have the power to transfer land from one private party to another. As he explained, the Township is broke, and even with eminent domain, it would have to purchase the Princeton Pike property to exercise its powers, thus rendering such an outcome highly unlikely.

Because of all of this, the church remains confident that the Board will approve their latest push for a new building. There are no legal precedents to suggest otherwise, and with the concessions the church has made, there is hope that the board is finally ready to put an end to the posturing of environmentalism and do the right thing.

In 2008, 18 forcible sex offenses were reported on Princeton’s main campus.  Given that 17 of those sex offenses occurred in a residential facility, the majority were almost certainly instances of date rape.^[1] Given how large a problem this is, Princeton demonstrates an appropriate attitude of concern in choosing to address the matter.  However, Princeton’s actual strategies are problematic – namely, its decision to provide most date-rape communications through SHARE, or Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources, and Education.  Although SHARE puts on a number of events throughout the year, the most prominent is almost certainly Sex on a Saturday Night. (hereafter referred to as SoSN). According to SHARE’s website, SoSN is “an educational play performed by students…after which RCAs and SHARE Peers facilitate discussions with RCA groups in the residential colleges.”^[2] Although it’s not enforced, all freshmen are officially required to attend SoSN.

Most Princeton students are familiar with the accusations that have been made against SoSN, but they bear repeating.  For instance, in a 2007 Wall Street Journal article, Princeton graduate Christian Sahner argued that SoSN “spends much of its time glorifying the hook-up culture”, and that it “gives freshmen the false sense that virtually all of their peers are sexually active, with the resulting message that, ‘Maybe you should be too.’”^[3] These are valid complaints: if there is indeed pressure to have sex at Princeton, the University should be countering that pressure by supporting students who choose to remain abstinent.  This, however, is only one of SoSN’s major problems.  In his article, Sahner suggests that, “SoSN carries a lot of one-sided messages that already overpower the supposedly central lesson on rape.”^[4] While this is certainly true, it is important to note that this message itself is problematic and unclear.

In the section of the play which addresses date rape, two Princeton students, one male and one female, return to the male student’s dorm room after a night of partying.  Both inebriated, they lie down on the couch, and he has sex with her. Throughout this scene, she offers no form of consent, merely repeating his name. The next morning, both students independently come to the realization that he has raped her, and she considers reporting this crime.

To the audience, it is clear that rape occurred in this scene.  The male student initiated sex, and the female student didn’t provide any form of consent.  She was, in fact, so drunk that she was unable to consent (which the SHARE peer counselors underscore in the follow-up discussion).  SHARE peer counselors also emphasize the fact that the male student’s drunkenness does not excuse him from his act of rape, just as it would not excuse him from an act of theft or murder.  In the situation portrayed in SoSN, SHARE is correct in saying that the male student raped the female student, but many freshmen misinterpret this, taking it to mean that if a male student and a female student have drunken sex, it is by definition an act of rape by the male student.  Of course, this is not in fact the case: in SoSN, the male student is guilty of rape because he initiated sex and did not obtain consent.  Had the female student done the same thing, she would be equally guilty of rape.  SHARE, however, does not do an effective job of conveying this message.  SoSN’s ineffective nature can easily be seen.  (Iulia Neagu’s recent Prince article “The Real ‘Sex on a Saturday Night,’” along with its 442 comments, provides excellent evidence that SHARE has failed to  convey what date rate consists of to the student body.

Of course, the obvious problem with SoSN is that, in real life, it’s rarely that easy to know what occurred.  For instance, if  both students were intoxicated, it’s entirely possible that they could have sex without either of them remembering it the next morning.  At that level of intoxication, both students would likely be too drunk to provide consent.  If this is the case, it is possible that both students might wake up feeling regretful and violated, but it is simply not possible to know which student violated the other, or if the sex was mutually initiated.  Unfortunately, SHARE peer counselors do not address this issue in an appropriate fashion, instead taking the stance that “if you feel like something is wrong, something is wrong.”  Another way to put that would be, “if you wake up, feel gross, and don’t remember what happened, we will support you as you accuse the person you slept with of rape.”  This attitude is gravely unjust, and amounts to support for unfounded accusations of rape.

If SHARE’s aim is to help rape victims achieve justice, the best way to do this would be to encourage only accurate allegations of rape.  After all, every false allegation makes it more difficult for real victims to be believed and for actual rapists to be convicted.  The lower the conviction rate, the less likely actual victims are to step forward.  By thus failing to promote an accurate understanding of what actually constitutes rape, SoSN thus makes it harder for rape victims to achieve justice, and increases the chances that people will be falsely convicted of rape.

SoSN’s failures to support justice can be explained by examining SHARE’s purpose. SHARE is designed to serve “students, faculty, and staff experiencing verbal and physical sexual harassment, relationship violence, sexual assault, or harassment based on sexual orientation.”^[5] As an organization primarily concerned with counseling victims, SHARE is more concerned with being supportive than with encouraging students to take actions that avoid date rape. However, in attempting to fulfill both roles, SHARE creates for itself a conflict of interest. Were they to emphasize the situations in which students should not allege rape (because they are unsure that it occurred,) actual victims might become more hesitant to report their rapes. Likewise, SHARE’s desire to avoid blaming victims or victim-blaming prevents SoSN from being able to successfully discourage behaviors that increase the chance of date rape. Were SHARE to strongly recommend that students don’t drink excessively – a good measure to discourage date rape – SHARE would compromise its ability to provide counseling to a victim of date rape who had been intoxicated at the time the rape occurred.

The most appropriate way for Princeton to address the issue of date rape would be to create an independent organization with the sole purpose of date rape prevention.  This organization could organize anti-date-rape programming for the freshman class, as well as various other events throughout the year.  Given that it wouldn’t provide counseling to rape victims, this organization could provide a stronger message about how to avoid date rape, and could present a clearer message about what constitutes rape, thus serving Princeton in a way that SHARE is simply not equipped to do.

Audrey Pollnow is an undeclared freshman from Seattle, Washington.  She can be reached at apollnow@princeton.edu.

^[2] http://www.princeton.edu/uhs/healthy-living/peer-advising/share-peer-advisors/

^[3] http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0151.htm

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] http://www.princeton.edu/uhs/student-services/share/

In the spring 2010 USG elections, 27 males and 22 females ran for a position. Women by no means lack clout in appointed positions either; they make up 6 of the 12 members of the influential Honor Committee. With such a balance, it’s hard to believe that Princeton would feel lacking in women leadership. But such is the case: Shirley Tilghman recently announced the creation of a Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership, in effect through fall 2010. The committee’s members were chosen through discussions between Tilghman and faculty members such as the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Thomas Dunne and Women’s Center Director Amada Sandoval.
What would such a committee actually do? Tilghman states that the committee will “examine the current and historic data that are available on both academic leadership and extracurricular participation at Princeton.” In her charge she includes a list of questions that the committee will aim to answer, such as “what is the gender profile of student ‘leaders’ on campus today[?]” and “are there extracurricular activities that have become the purview of one gender?” The committee, not surprisingly, will examine these issues from a predominately female perspective; 12 of its 14 faculty representatives, and all 6 of its student representatives, are women.
The problem with these questions is that they give the committee the opportunity to answer them in a misleading fashion. Let us consider the question about extracurricular activities. Since certain student organizations – such as Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering (PAVE) and the Math Club – are predominately male, the committee could argue that these clubs have become the “purview” of men. However, the committee would probably not also consider that there are many student organizations that are the “purview” of women, such as Princeton University Ballet and Pro-Choice Vox. Thus, by studying mono-gender organizations from only the female viewpoint, the committee may produce misleading results.
A peculiar aspect of the charge to the committee is that it begins by affirming that women have been strong leaders at Princeton, which contradicts the premise on which it was founded. “[In the past forty years] women have succeeded and demonstrated leadership at the highest levels at Princeton…Outside the classroom women have exercised leadership in all aspects of campus life – from student government to community service to arts and literary organizations.” What, then, is the problem? Why do we need a committee on women’s leadership, if they are already leaders?
The main problem seems to be that “the officers of … the 10 eating clubs … [are] predominantly male.” There are two ideas that one must consider in tandem with this fact. First, the eating clubs are not owned by Princeton, so the fact that their leadership is male-dominated is not very relevant. It would be more pertinent instead to study the gender distribution of RCAs, for instance, who are selected by the university and affect all students, not just those who choose to join a club. RCAs are also far more involved in students’ daily lives than are eating club officers, who primarily work behind the scenes handling administrative functions. Currently, fifty-seven out of the ninety-four residential college RCAs – over 60% – are female, a disparity which one would expect to impact the student body just as much, if not more so, than the prevalence of male leadership in the eating clubs.
Second, a possible cause for the lack of female leadership in the eating club scene may, ironically, be due to interest and support groups targeted at females, such as The Women’s Center or the Society of Women Engineers. Females fill leadership positions in these groups, siphoning them away from leadership positions in the eating clubs and elsewhere.
Another point to consider is that past female presidents of the eating clubs have not seen their gender as much of an issue. Former Tower Club president Stephanie Burset ‘09 stated that “[w]e ran because we thought we’d do a good job, not because we thought women should run.” And the former president of Terrace Club, Becky Gidel ’06, describes her opinion in the following way: “My story was less about, ‘Am I a woman?’ than it was, ‘Do I fit into my own perception of the club stereotype?’” If these women leaders do not see their gender as an issue in the election, then why should the University be concerned?
The committee, however, may have negative consequences as well. It could make women leaders feel like they were elected only on account of their gender, much as African-American students may feel stigmatized by affirmative action policies. As a woman in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering department, I feel that many people are under the impression that I got into Princeton because I am a female engineer.  But female leaders, I believe, should not have to be subject to this condescension.
The various comments made in response to the creation of the committee tend not to inspire confidence in its agenda, but rather to deepen skepticism. Cloister Inn president Aran Clair ’10, a supporter of the committee, described the “problem” of women not becoming leaders in the following way: “When it comes down to it, it really is a two-pronged problem: a) women deciding whether they want to run for president and b) getting elected.” The two prongs he mentions, however, are independent of gender: surely, a man must also decide whether he wants to run for president and actually get elected. Additionally, Lizzy Drum ‘11, a member of the committee, states that its goal is to “look into the reasons why women may play less vocal roles in the University’s academic and extracurricular activities.” But her claim of “less vocal roles” is far too sweeping and unsubstantiated, as evidenced by the breadth and depth of female leadership on campus, even in groups that one might stereotypically expect to be dominated by males. For example, the president of Princeton’s Math Club is female, and the Band’s president, drum major, head manager, treasurer, and student conductor are all female. Thus, as evidenced from such quotations, it seems as though students are confused or misled about the committee’s purpose.
If Princeton strives for gender equality, its steering committee should seek to promote both the leadership of women in realms dominated by males and the leadership of men in realms dominated by females. It simply does not make sense to approach this imbalance from one side. Pursuing this course could even have the unintended consequences of harming women’s leadership on campus. Instead, Princeton ought to approach the issue of gender discrepancies on a case-by-case basis, rather than attempting to implicate all organizations in alleged discrimination.

The Tory congratulates the Daily Princetonian et al. for hazing the hell out of the fraternity system.

***

Michelle (Again)

Much flak has been given to First Lady Michelle Obama ’85 for her decision not to attend her 25^th Princeton reunion. But we ought to be rational and consider her modus operandi: when Barack is finally elected President of the University, for the first time in her adult life she will be proud to be a Princetonian.

***

Robot Tigress Attack

“Open your eyes, I see, your eyes are open.” – Erasure

“If you go to a Triangle show, you will see the rainbow coalition on that stage…It looks like America.” – President Tilghman

She’d jump through the air dashing through the Trustees,

That Robot Tigress on Triangle whimsies,

Her tactics were tactful, USG she could please,

And my eating club she turned to…more useless University space.

***

Title?

The latest skirmish in the media wars has taken a lyrical twist. Fox News’ Bernie Goldberg has accused Daily Show host Jon Stewart of treating liberal guests on his program more generously than conservatives, a claim he vividly – and nauseatingly – illustrated by saying that Stewart “gave [left-wing columnist Frank Rich] a lap dance.” In response, Stewart rolled out a gospel choir to condemn Goldberg for being hypocritical, given Fox’s perceived pro-Republican slant. The bluesy number concluded with Stewart and his backup singers repeatedly telling Goldberg to “go [expletive] himself.” Goldberg plans to retaliate with a Broadway musical dedicated to exposing political favoritism on Comedy Central.

***

Title?

The Princeton Committee for Palestine (PCP) assembled an “Apartheid Wall” outside Frist last month to protest Israel’s policies towards Palestineans living in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Unfortunately, the wall measured less than 10 feet across, hardly enough to slow a ravaged Princetonian from his late-meal dinner. Perhaps next year the PCP would consider consulting an Israeli engineer – they seem to build walls quite well, seeing as the one surrounding the Gaza strip has stopped all suicide bombers originating from that region.

***

The Passion of the Crist

Florida Governor Charlie Crist recently announced his intent to run as an Independent candidate in the 2010 Senate elections.  When asked if his decision were simply based on his obvious inability to perform in the polls, he denied the notion vehemently.  Instead, he focused on his ability to discern what was good for all people, additionally noting that he was “running for our sins.”  The Tory appreciates his candidness, but wonders whether Crist has considered the inevitable outcome suggested by his statements.

I want to thank the American Whig-Cliosophic Society for co-sponsoring this event and for allowing us to hold it in the beautiful Whig Hall Senate Chamber. I want to thank CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, for co-sponsoring as well.

My fellow Princetonians, four months ago, today’s speaker, Nonie Darwish, was turned away from campus at the last moment, not by the University, but by student leaders like Charlie and me. Many of you know the back-story, but for those of you who do not, The Tory investigated it quite extensively in last December’s issue, which is available on our website. Unequivocally, mistakes were made last November, but this time we are doing things right.

The principal reason for our re-invitation of Darwish is simple: We are a journal of conservative and moderate thought committed to the diverse and uninhibited exchange of ideas. For whenever and wherever free speech is limited, there can be no free thought. And so I ask each of you here today to consider not only what Darwish has to say, but also the very fact that she is allowed to say it.

Members of the Tory, including myself, share Muslim views on many social issues. And we know what it’s like to be in the minority, to be marginalized by a campus that doesn’t seem to share our values. Everyday of the school year, we know what it’s like to feel how you must feel today. But some of us also come from worlds apart. In America, no ideology is beyond questioning. And in America, people of all faiths and creeds are welcome to practice publicly their religions, to protest peacefully anything without fear of retribution. And so we embrace your respectful participation today, within the guidelines of Rights, Rules, Responsibilities.

Although we honor your voice, we do not necessarily approve of your words. I have no problem with your questioning Nonie Darwish’s scholarly authority, but the comparison of her to a Neo-Nazi last November was both intellectually dishonest and personally offensive to me, as the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, as someone who has grown up listening to stories of how hateful human beings can be to each other. Arab Society of Princeton, Muslim Student Association, the Tory challenges your leaders to write for us on why Darwish’s criticisms of Islam, even her most controversial statements, make you fear for your or your loved ones’ lives.

In my view, this moral equivalence is completely unfounded; it is a distortion of the meaning of hate speech, meant to dismiss all criticisms, whether legitimate or not, of a certain ideology.  And it deeply concerns me that the leadership of the Center for Jewish Life and Tigers for Israel would take such apologetic stances on this issue, that the burden of campus refutation would ultimately fall on a non-religious, non-political advocacy group such as the Tory. But again, we invite you to try to prove us wrong by taking part in a point-counterpoint for our next issue. Contact our Editor-in-Chief David Pederson if you’d like to get involved. I look forward to a spirited debate among conservatives about the limits of free speech.

While we do sympathize with Nonie Darwish, The Princeton Tory does not endorse her views. Yet regardless of our publication’s position, we feel that her right to speak and her personal story are more valuable than the desire not to offend someone.