PACKET EDITORIAL, Oct. 2
By: Packet Editorial
It is highly unlikely that Shirley M. Tilghman, a native of Canada and a molecular biologist by training, could have imagined herself even a few short weeks ago devoting what would arguably be the most important speech of her life to an eloquent and stirring defense of freedom of speech in times of national crisis.
But there she was, last Friday afternoon, on the occasion of her much-anticipated inauguration as Princeton University’s 19th president, speaking to students, faculty, staff, alumni and community members on the role of the university in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11. And to her enormous credit, Dr. Tilghman said exactly what needed to be said at this critical moment in our nation’s and her university’s history.
As Jeff Milgram reported in Friday’s Packet, the Princeton campus, like much of America, finds itself deeply divided these days between an overwhelming urge to seek retribution for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a compelling aversion to the idea of waging an all-out war, especially one against an unseen enemy. And, as in much of America, the opposing views of two ad-hoc campus groups the Princeton Committee Against Terrorism and the Princeton Peace Network have fostered an unhealthy atmosphere of deep distrust and disrespect.
This, of course, is precisely the kind of atmosphere that should never exist in a nation that celebrates its diversity, its tolerance and its commitment to freedom of expression. It is even more unwelcome on a university campus, where the intellectual pursuit of ideas that may be unpopular or unconventional is not merely a right but an academic responsibility.
Dr. Tilghman reminded all of us of Princeton’s responsibility and our broader responsibility as citizens in her inaugural address:
"American universities have been granted broad latitude not only to disseminate knowledge, but to be the home of free exchange of ideas, where even the rights of those who express views repugnant to the majority are vigorously protected," she said. "Defending academic freedom of speech is not particularly difficult in times of peace and prosperity. It is in times of national crisis that our true commitment to freedom of speech and thought is tested. History will judge us in the weeks and months ahead by our capacity to sustain civil discourse in the face of deep disagreement, for we are certain to disagree with one another. We will disagree about how best to hold accountable those responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11. We will disagree about how broadly the blame should be shared. We will disagree about the ways in which nationalism and religion can be perverted into fanaticism. We will disagree about whether a just retribution can be achieved if it leads to the deaths of more innocent victims. We will disagree about the political and tactical decisions that our government will make, both in achieving retribution and in seeking to protect against similar attacks in the future. We will disagree about how and when to wage war and how best to achieve a real and lasting peace."
Dr. Tilghman concluded, "The conversations we will have on our campuses are not intended to reach a conformity of view, a bland regression to the mean. Rather we aim to come to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the complexity of human affairs and of the implications of the choices we make. Perhaps, if we are very dedicated, we will find the wisdom to see an honorable, yet effective, path to a world in which terrorism is a thing of the past. With generosity of spirit and mutual respect, we must listen carefully to one another, and speak with our minds and our hearts, guided by the principles we hold dear. By conducting difficult discussions without prejudice or anger, by standing together for tolerance, civil liberties and the right to dissent, by holding firm to core principles of justice and freedom and human dignity, this university will serve our country well. By so doing, we will be true patriots."
Amen.