Below is the email that the Anscombe Society recently received from Princeton President Shirley Tilghman rejecting the approval of a Center for Abstinence and Chastity.

Dear students,

As all of you have seen fit to send the Provost and me the identical message, I hope you will not be offended that I respond, on behalf of us both, with a single message in return.

The question of whether the University would sponsor the establishment of a “Center for Abstinence and Chastity” was raised with several members of the University administration last year, and each of us provided the same response, which was a firm “no”. Let me review the reasons why this decision has not changed over the summer.

You argue for such a center on the grounds that abstinent students feel “stigmatized, marginalized and alienated” when they publicly reject the dominant “hook-up culture” of the campus. Each student must make his or her own decision about how public to be about one’s sexual mores, and that decision should be informed by some understanding that others will not necessarily agree with your position. I understand that it is sometimes difficult to stand up for what you believe when you are in the minority, but the fact that you are greeted with opposing points of view when you do so is not sufficient grounds for the University to establish a center.

This brings me to your second argument – that the University support for the Women’s and LGBT Centers dictates on fairness grounds that there should be a center “to support students who lead a chaste and abstinent lifestyle”. There are a number of problems with this argument. First it implies that the Women’s and LGBT Centers are there to support a non-chaste or non-abstinent lifestyle, which is not the case, and would be considered offensive by both centers. Second, those centers arose because women and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students faced not just discrimination that was often “stigmatizing, marginalizing and alienating”, but that discrimination was (and still is, in some instances) enshrined in law. In other words the discrimination is able to draw upon the full force of the state. LGBT individuals and women are denied fundamental civil rights in many countries around the world, and even in some states with the U.S.A. The same cannot be said for chaste students, which makes the analogy inappropriate, to my way of thinking.

I am sympathetic to the need for students who share a set of ethical values to have opportunities on campus to gather together for both dialogue and relaxation. Such an organization to facilitate these activities already exists on campus - the student-run Anscombe Society. Its mission statement includes the following: “We aim to promote…………a chaste lifestyle which respects and appreciates human sexuality, relationships, and dignity. Therefore, we celebrate sex as unifying, beautiful, and joyful when shared in its proper context: that of marriage between a man and woman. The Anscombe Society is a proactive community that provides social support and a voice for those already committed to these values, and promotes intellectual engagement to further discussion and understanding of this ethic on Princeton's campus and in the broader community.” From everything I can tell, it is doing a very good job of providing a safe space and support for abstinent students.

Best wishes,

Shirley M. Tilghman

cc. Christopher Eisgruber