Of Dissent and its Discontents
Princetonians for Free Speech | Adam Gussow
Princeton alumnus and a professor at the University of Mississippi, Adam Gussow, explains why the firing of Joshua Katz “is the metaphorical hill I’m prepared to die on.” He counts Katz in the elevated company of a number of FAIR advisors for his views and integrity, and wrestles with the choice to destroy any chance of his 16-year-old biracial son becoming a Princetonian.
“I’m willing to say that Joshua Katz, for all his flaws, is my hero—one of a diverse double handful of public intellectuals, including John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, Chloe Valdary, Wesley Yang, Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Sam Harris, and Princeton’s own Sean Wilentz, who have managed over the past two years not just to maintain critical consciousness in the face of a would-be revolution and its illiberal tendencies, but to speak and write freely. And yes, in some cases aggressively, even irritably.”
Gussow has suspended his annual gift, redirecting to Princetonians for Free Speech, and will reap the outcome of having spoken out— “I’m aware that I may be scotching my 16-year-old son’s chances of admission by sharing this news so publicly, and that saddens me… But the Princeton I’ve been hoping he’d attend has been supplanted…by a troubled, wounded institution, one that no longer aligns with its own highest ideals, or mine… he’ll flourish regardless, even as my heart breaks for the fact that this decision…now seems urgently important, a matter of conscience…”
“What’s [really] at stake, in a word, is the right to dissent: freedom of thought and freedom of speech for members of Princeton’s on-campus community, especially when what is being questioned is the reigning—or incoming, or rapidly consolidating—orthodoxy...”
As for the future, “Why would I want my son, a biracial son of Mississippi who wears his mixed identity with grace and a palpable lightness of spirit, to attend the Princeton that Princeton has become? Would he truly thrive there? Would he think for himself? Would he be allowed to think for himself? Or, stepping afoul of those who keep racial score, would he be insulted, hounded, excommunicated—criticized for his “proximity to whiteness” and abrogation of a compelled “allyship”? What values, ultimately, would those he encountered on campus, including his professors and the administrators who oversee them, encourage him—or pressure him—to uphold?”
Related:
Princeton’s Journey to Fire a Tenured Professor (multiple stories)
