Princeton to Incoming Freshmen: People Here Will Disagree With You. Deal With It.

As the young folks like to say, "YASSSSS!"

As a college counselor and life coach for gifted teenagers, a social scientist who values the scientific method and the quest for truth, and simply a concerned citizen, I have watched with growing alarm as American universities have spiraled out of control.

After Berkeley announced it had literally installed escape hatches so administrators could stay safe during violent student protests and Evergreen State College was shut down when police could no longer assure public safety, I knew that something would have to change. 

Indeed, Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber started the academic year with a strong message for incoming freshmen. After assigning Jan-Werner Müller’s What is Populism?, he used his opening exercises speech to discuss how populism is at odds with the foundational principles of both the United States and this University.​

Specifically, he said:

[Professor Muller] argues that populism is anti-pluralist, and that populist leaders act as though “anyone who does not support them is not properly part of the people” (p. 101).

If Professor Müller is correct, then populism is at odds with the foundational principles of both the United States and this University.  The United States Constitution and Princeton University are pluralist at their core.  Both are committed to the idea that people of all races, religions, and ethnicities deserve full and equal respect, and beyond that to the idea that diversity of background, experience, identity, and opinion is, for this country and for this University, one of our greatest strengths.

​

Next, he tied this in to what happened in Charlottesville this summer -- and then, a call for students to think critically and for themselves: 

Some people have suggested that the University should issue an official statement about Charlottesville, or that I should use this occasion to pass judgment upon President Trump’s comments.  The events and the president’s response troubled me profoundly, and it is tempting to share my thoughts with you in detail.  It is, however, neither my role nor that of the University to prescribe how you should react to this controversy or others.  It is rather my role and the role of the University to encourage you to think deeply about what these events mean for this country and its core values, and to encourage you to find ways to participate constructively in the national dialogue they have generated.

You will find plenty of professors on this campus whose scholarship and erudition will provide you with insight about Charlottesville.  As journalists worldwide have sought to illuminate these events and their aftermath, they have turned to professors here, including Eddie Glaude and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor in African American Studies, Lucia Allais in Architecture, David Bell and Kevin Kruse in History, Julian Zelizer in History and Public and International Affairs, Robert George and Keith Whittington in Politics, and Peter Singer in the University Center for Human Values.
I urge you to seek out these and other faculty members, hear what they have to say, and learn from them. 

Keep in mind, however, that what they offer are not authoritative pronouncements but arguments backed up by reasons.  It is your responsibility to assess their views for yourself.

​

Rather than ramble on about safe spaces and trigger warnings, he reminds students:

This emphasis on independent thinking is at the heart of liberal arts education.  It is a profoundly valuable form of education, and it can be exhilarating.  It can also at times be uncomfortable or upsetting because it requires careful and respectful engagement with views very different from your own.  I have already emphasized that we value pluralism at Princeton; we value it partly because of the vigorous disagreements that it generates.  You will meet people here who think differently than you do about politics, history, justice, race, religion, and a host of other sensitive topics.  To take full advantage of a Princeton education, you must learn and benefit from these disagreements, and to do that you must cultivate and practice the art of constructive disagreement.

Doing so is by no means easy.  Some people mistakenly think the art of disagreement is mainly about winning debates or being able to say, “I was right.”  It is much harder than that.  The art of disagreement is not only about confrontation, but also about learning.  It requires that we defend our views, as we do in debate, and, at the same time, consider whether our views might be mistaken.
​
​

​On the topic of free speech, he said:

I disagree with people who consider inclusivity and free speech to be competing commitments.  I believe exactly the opposite, namely, that if we are to have meaningful conversations about difficult topics on university campuses and in this country, we must care passionately both about the inclusivity that enables people to trust and respect one another and about the freedom of speech that encourages the expression of competing ideas.

​

And reminds students that they don't have to be militant and belligerent all the time:

Even in a University that thrives on disagreement, you need not rise to every provocation.  As you speak with classmates and others, you may sometimes choose to focus on developing relationships, deferring vigorous debate for another day and a more promising moment.

​

Wait, so... you don't have to scream at professors you disagree with... about Halloween costumes?

​You don't have to accost and assault people whose haircut you don't like?

You can just... agree to disagree? Walk away? Save it for another day? Pick your battles wisely? Not get offended by everything?

That sounds so... civil.

I'm glad. I'm really glad. And I hope the students were paying attention.

***

Want to know more? Don't miss:

• ​Telling People Words Only Hurt If You "Let Them" Isn't Mean. It's Helpful and True.
• Forget "Moist." "Unpack" Is The Most Terrible, Cringeworthy Word of ALL Time.
• "Required, ongoing cultural competency training for Academy employees" is dangerous and unethical.
• If DePaul Needs to Ban Conservative Speakers Due to "Security Concerns," They Should SERIOUSLY Rethink Their Admissions Process.