Charter students confirm what we already knew: ‘Safe spaces’ are nurseries that prohibit disagreement for the sake of intellectual and emotional soothing.
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.”
There is subtle irony: George was made an honorary member of Charter in 2012 by vote of the club board, so he should be entitled to use the club and bring guests. More recently, Charter ran a fundraising initiative in 2016 to sponsor a “special” dinner with George; the club’s 2017 annual report described him as “one of Princeton’s most impressive scholars” who was “received enthusiastically with 25-30 undergraduate members” for the “very special evening.”
Apparently, times change quickly: The current Charter leadership effectively seeks to prevent a member from entering — a member whose importance they had capitalized on for financial gain just a few years ago. The club evolved from promoting a meal with George to trying to prevent precisely that possibility.
But there is a more grand philosophical tension. Of the eleven eating clubs currently operating, six have what is essentially a rush process called “bicker,” in which students apply for membership. The other five are “sign-in,” a “first-serve” process in which students rank their preferences (and a lottery is held in the event of too many requests). Practically every spring when the rush process commences, there is a wave of opinion articles condemning the “exclusivity” and “elitism” of the selective bicker clubs. (I find it perplexing that those who make such complaints do so as students at Princeton, an institution that is one of the most exclusive, elite clubs on the planet.) In 2022, one student went as far as to suggest that the eating clubs — regardless of their acceptance procedures — are “rooted in white supremacy” and “will always produce toxic, oppressive, exclusionary environments that devalue marginalized people.”
In justifying the new guest policy, the Charter leadership resorts to the supposed virtue of “inclusivity.” But by implementing an approval process for guests, the students demonstrate that they don’t want an “inclusive” environment. Instead, they want a carefully constructed community, presumably one insulated from people who hold different views. I seriously doubt the new policy will be neutrally enforced with respect to political ideology; after all, it was precisely because of George’s conservative views that complaints were raised, since he wasn’t engaging in any disturbing conduct (other than sitting and eating, apparently). Those who celebrate “inclusivity” simultaneously demand balkanization on the basis of politics; they condemn “colonization” but impose a moral framework on a given area through intimidation tactics and the threat of expulsion.
I don’t object to clubs tailoring their membership; in my junior year, I was a member in an application-based club. It is widely understood within the Princeton community that each eating club has a unique personality or character; indeed, that is partially why students prefer some clubs over others. I also don’t object to a policy requiring that certain meal times are for members only.
I do condemn the pathetic fragility, however. The Charter students confirm what we already knew: “Safe spaces” are nurseries that prohibit disagreement for the sake of intellectual and emotional soothing.