After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies at Princeton University expressed their strong disapproval of the decision. The program’s director condemned the court for allegedly stripping away the rights of individuals, calling the decision “racist” and “sexist,” and claiming that it resulted in “forced pregnancies” and an “unprecedented attack on democracy.”
While it is likely that the majority of those associated with the Gender and Sexuality Studies program share this viewpoint, it is important to consider whether it is appropriate for an official university unit to take a stance on such a divisive issue. As the director of another academic program at Princeton, the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, I am faced with a similar question. A majority of those associated with my program believe that elective abortion violates the rights of unborn children. However, it would be inappropriate for the program to issue a statement expressing this viewpoint.
I believe that matters of abortion and the justice or injustice of the Dobbs decision are subjects on which reasonable people in our community can disagree. At Princeton University, we should strive to create an inclusive environment where individuals with different perspectives on abortion can coexist and engage in civil discussions. We should not label individuals as “orthodox” or “heretical” based on their views. Our university is an academic institution, not a political party or a church, and we should set an example for respectful discourse in a polarized society.
While there may be religiously affiliated universities that take strong positions on issues like abortion, Princeton is a nonsectarian institution. Our role is to provide a platform for vigorous debate and scholarship, not to advocate for specific viewpoints. We should aim for institutional neutrality on political questions that are not directly related to our teaching and research mission.
The University of Chicago arrived at the right solution to this dilemma over 50 years ago with the Kalven Report. This report emphasized the importance of institutional neutrality while allowing individuals to express their opinions publicly. It recognized that the university should foster an environment where diverse viewpoints can coexist and thrive. We should adopt similar principles at Princeton and carefully consider the limitations on institutional pronouncements regarding political questions.
There is a distinction between matters of empirical fact and normative questions, which cannot be resolved simply by establishing facts. Even in the natural sciences, the history of consensus is filled with examples of scholars being wrong. This reinforces the importance of freedom of thought, inquiry, and discussion. It cautions against committing the university and its units to specific positions unless absolutely necessary.
History also teaches us that scholars have sometimes used science to advance their normative beliefs. Consensus within the scientific community on such matters should not be blindly accepted. We must be cautious of allowing normative beliefs to drive scientific claims. This is particularly relevant in the academic world and the broader intellectual culture.
In conclusion, Princeton University should strive to create a community where individuals with different perspectives on abortion and other contentious issues can engage in meaningful dialogue. We should adhere to the principles of institutional neutrality and freedom of thought, while recognizing the limitations of consensus and the potential for normative beliefs to influence scientific claims. By doing so, Princeton can lead the way in fostering a healthy and inclusive academic environment.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
