A joint letter against porn on campus

Mercifully, Princeton has not followed Yale's degrading example of celebrating "Sex Week" on campus.  From time to time, however, campus organizations have sponsored pornographic exhibitions. In response to one of these, Cornel West and I wrote to Shirley Tilghman, Princeton's president, to urge the University to oppose the presentation of pornography on campus and to deny requests for the use of University faciities for pornographic activities.

Dear Shirley:

As you know, we are strong advocates (and practitioners) of freedom of speech, especially in the context of university education where the exploration of ideas and the exchange of reasons and arguments are vital to the success of the enterprise.  We would defend the right of any member of our community to express and make reasoned arguments for any view, even if we regarded the view as reprehensible and judged the arguments to be poor or fallacious.  For example, we would defend the right of anyone to argue that pornography is psychologically healthy and morally liberating, despite our judgment that pornography is, in fact, degrading, damaging, and incompatible with a sound understanding of men and women as possessors of profound, inherent, and equal dignity.  However, we think that the judgment that pornography is, in truth, de-humanizing and de-personalizing, and in these and other ways damaging to individuals and communities, does matter in some ways that are relevant to University policy decisions.  In our judgment, the University should do what it can do to prevent, or at least to discourage, the identification of Princeton University with the dissemination of pornography and the use of University facilities and other resources for showing pornography.

We recognize that there are borderline cases as to what counts as “pornography,” and we would be happy with a policy that erred on the side of freedom.  But there are clear cases as well.  Indeed, there are cases where what is expressly being proposed is to screen or display pornography under the auspices of University-affiliated entities using campus facilities and resources.  We believe that the common good of our community is poorly served when such proposals go forward.  They contribute to an environment of objectification and de-humanization.  They impoverish our efforts to instill in our students a sense of the profound worth and dignity of the human person and the need for true self-respect and respect for others.

In our view, Princeton has no obligation, as a matter of academic freedom or otherwise, to make its facilities available for pornographic activities, and would be not only within its rights, but right, to refuse to do so. Yet, even if a libertarian impulse were to stand in the way of forbidding the use of University facilities for pornography, we believe it would be extremely valuable for the University to go on record as opposing the presentation of pornography on campus, lest anyone believe that it is the University’s policy to treat the screening or other exhibiting of degrading and dehumanizing material as something perfectly legitimate.

Yours in friendship,

Cornel West

Robert George