Princeton’s ‘Safe Spaces’ are Nurseries

This week, a Princeton University student-run newspaper published an op-ed by senior undergraduate Matthew Wilson, who detailed the controversy that emerged when he brought conservative professor Robert P. George to dine at an eating club. (For those unfamiliar, an “eating club” functions similarly to Greek life for juniors and seniors, where they eat their meals and, on weekends, enjoy less virtuous activity.) In the article, Wilson relays that a group of students filed complaints after George’s visit, and therefore the club adopted a policy requiring that the leadership approve guests for meal-time hours who are not friends or family. The student leadership suggested this change aimed to cultivate an “inclusive environment” and keep the club a “sanctuary.” Going forward, advance notices of professors visiting would be sent to the student membership so they can avoid the premises if that is desired.

To be clear, George was simply eating at the club with a student whose thesis he is advising; George was not delivering a lecture (or playing the banjo, an instrument I can only tolerate for about ten minutes). Wilson, who has written for National Review, provides incisive criticism of the widespread sensitivity on campus: “[T]he notion that merely being in the vicinity of someone whose views you find objectionable qualifies as a legitimate threat to your safety, health, or well-being is patently absurd and should not be validated by any authority, Charter’s leadership included.”

About the Author

Abigail Anthony

Abigail Anthony is a staff writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

This week, a Princeton University student-run newspaper published an op-ed by senior undergraduate Matthew Wilson, who detailed the controversy that emerged when he brought conservative professor Robert P. George to dine at an eating club. (For those unfamiliar, an “eating club” functions similarly to Greek life for juniors and seniors, where they eat their meals and, on weekends, enjoy less virtuous activity.) In the article, Wilson relays that a group of students filed complaints after George’s visit, and therefore the club adopted a policy requiring that the leadership approve guests for meal-time hours who are not friends or family. The student leadership suggested this change aimed to cultivate an “inclusive environment” and keep the club a “sanctuary.” Going forward, advance notices of professors visiting would be sent to the student membership so they can avoid the premises if that is desired.

To be clear, George was simply eating at the club with a student whose thesis he is advising; George was not delivering a lecture (or playing the banjo, an instrument I can only tolerate for about ten minutes). Wilson, who has written for National Review, provides incisive criticism of the widespread sensitivity on campus: “[T]he notion that merely being in the vicinity of someone whose views you find objectionable qualifies as a legitimate threat to your safety, health, or well-being is patently absurd and should not be validated by any authority, Charter’s leadership included.”