Controversial Anti-Abortion Fliers Spark Campus Outrage

Black Students At Princeton Theological Seminary Want Answers

PRINCETON, N.J. (CBS 2) — It has become the talk among African American students at the prestigious Princeton Theological Seminary — racially charged fliers and postings. All of it is apparently anti-abortion literature.

Among the fliers was one that displayed a noose and another with the words “in the new klan lynching is for amateurs.”

“I was shocked and appalled that someone would place something like that up at this particular institution,” seminary student Maurice Stinnett told CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis.

“There was a lot of devastation for me, psychological damage, injury, because I saw this as social bullying,” student Shirley Thomas said.

Student leaders at the seminary, which neighbors Princeton University but is not directly affiliated, said the fliers first appeared on campus last November then reappeared in February for Black History Month.

The fliers originate from various sources, pointing out the number of African American deaths by abortion.

Student Katherine Timpte called the fliers “appalling and tragic and upsetting at all levels.”

Another student, Alex Turpin, said he thought whoever was distributing the literature had a “right to voice their opinions,” adding “personally, I wouldn’t have done it in that way.”

A statement from the seminary said it “does not tolerate racial discrimination” and “has policies that both protect freedom of speech and preclude racial harassment of any kind.”

On Wednesday, students at the seminary will hold a forum to discuss the images.

“People need to understand that racism is not dead,” Thomas said.

SOUND-OFF: What do you think about this campus controversy?  Let us know in the comments section…


One Comment

  1. Spuda McKenzy says:

    WFP-I think you and many others are making a gigantic leap to assume that there is any such thing as an abortion of convenience.
    Without knowing anything about bthe woman’s life, it would be impossible to make an assumption about her decision to terminate her pregnancy.
    So, do you really want to force women to have children against their will? Why exactly?

  2. kendra says:

    i told think those flyers where aimed at any1 in particular cause it,s true from what somebody has told me not to long ago that the percentage of abortions is done by our teenagers in this society that we speak so will…

  3. William Reyes says:

    The abortion issue regardless what side you’re on it can not b used as a pretext to express your sel-hatred feelings of racism against black people as you impress to have intentionally done.

    I recommend individual and pastoral care therapy for all of you; a true dialogue designed to sincerely address this matter it is healthy. By the way Dr. Capps and Dr. Dykstra are excellent. Dare to practice God beyond belief;let you all be moved by the Spirit of reconcialiation, and invite them to conduct this recomended individual and group pastoral care among you. Grace, Justice, Peace & Blessings! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!

  4. Michael Meyers says:

    And just what is the nature of the “controversy” here? That these flyers were posted?

    That they were posted anonymously? or without the permission of the Seminary?

    Or, that they used “dramatic” and even “offensive” imagery such as nooses?

    That they dared to compare abortion with “genocide”? That the assertions on the flyers were inaccurate? Or blasphemous?
    Is the objection to these flyers that the messages were “racist”? And, if so, so what? Should they have not been posted because someone thinks of them as “racist”?

    I saw the CBS 2 News report on the “racist” anti-abortion flyers that were posted at the Princeton Theological Seminary. It was not a very objective or careful news report. It wasn’t even coherent inasmuch as it had one student claiming that the “anti-abortion” flyers were from “pro-choice” advocates.

    All the voices on the Channel 2 News report were those of “outraged” blacks and whites…

    Channel 2 News did not air any voices of students, black or white, who were not offended or outraged by the posting of a “controversial” flyer, their choosing, it appears, to focus only on the emotional claims of those who said they were “hurt” and “psychologically damaged” by the flyers.

    Psychologically damaged by flyers? Really?

    Were there no students at the Seminary who regarded these flyers, this exercise of free speech, as something other than “hurtful,” “racist,” “offensive” or–as one student put it–a “form of social bullying”?

    Not one student there who simply saw the flyers as just distasteful or just provocative and worthy of refutation rather than censorship through claims that they were causing black seminary students to suffer “psychological damage”?

    Did Channel 2 News’ “exclusive” even find out who posted the flyers so that they might talk with them and have its viewers hear the other side of this “controversy” directly from the anti-abortion speakers?

    Why this penchant for shutting down discussion by means of labeling speech “racist” and “hurtful” and as “harassment’?

    Speech that differs with mine and our point of view–yes, I am pro-choice–speech that equates abortion with murder or with the “genocide” of African Americans (I am an African American) is not per se “racist” or deserving of censorship even i fit is “racist” speech; it is just errant nonsense that can and should be refuted by we and by others who believe and argue otherwise. The adage is true–“sunlight is the best disinfectant;” let us not consign controversial ideas to the dungeons of hell simply because they upset or disturb the status quo or challenge prevailing wisdom and present-day majority opinion.

    The media especially ought to reach out and to air both points of view and not only the viewpoint of those who are “offended” or who don’t want to see, hear or allow others’ free expression.

    Our society’s commitment to free inquiry and debate must welcome expression that is not sugar-coated, expression that is provocative, and speech that may include symbols that may jar us and that may depict historical events and atrocities, such as lynchings and genocide–without that speech being shut down or “disallowed” as “racist”, offensive, “harassing speech.

    There are generally always at least two sides to a “controversy.” I am always surprised when students at academic institutions, including theological seminaries, don’t want to hear them. What will such shrinking violets do when first they hear a congregant or agnostic yell at them or when they come face-to-face with posters on the walls that say, “There is no such thing as God”, or worse, that, “God is dead!”?

    Michael Meyers, Executive Director
    New York Civil Rights Coalition

  5. Morgan S. says:

    You foolishness is ridiculous.

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Watch & Listen LIVE