Princeton University, one of America’s most prestigious Ivy League institutions, is making headlines for offering courses that dive deep into the worlds of prostitution, pornography, and “queer spaces.” These Gender and Sexuality Studies (GSS) classes raise serious questions about the direction higher education is taking in the name of inclusivity and progressivism.
While proponents of such courses claim they are merely academic explorations of marginalized communities and professions, critics argue these programs normalize and glamorize lifestyles that exploit and degrade human dignity. What’s more, they do so under the guise of intellectual pursuit at a university known for producing future leaders.
Princeton’s GSS program offers a range of disturbing courses, including:
- “Power, Profit, and Pleasure: Sex Workers and Sex Work”
- “Queer Spaces in the World”
- “Love: Anthropological Explorations”
- “The Poetics of Memory: Fragility and Liberation”
- “Disability and the Politics of Life”
Of these, the most controversial is undoubtedly the course on sex work. According to the official description, the class examines the lives of sex workers “from the perspective of sex workers themselves,” covering topics like pornography, prostitution, erotic dance, escorting, and even sex tourism.
Instead of critically addressing the harm and exploitation inherent in such industries, the course appears to frame sex work as a valid, even empowering, profession. It invites students to explore what it calls the “fascinating, controversial, and often taboo” aspects of sex work, seemingly sidestepping the physical, emotional, and societal tolls associated with it.
The course on sex work claims to “challenge societal stigmas” and explore the marginalization faced by those in the industry. However, critics argue this approach dangerously blurs the line between academic inquiry and outright advocacy. By presenting sex work through a lens of empowerment, it risks trivializing the devastating consequences experienced by countless individuals trapped in these professions, often through coercion or financial desperation.
The normalization of prostitution and pornography in an academic setting sends a troubling message: that these exploitative practices are just another career path, rather than industries rife with abuse, human trafficking, and moral decay.
Another course raising eyebrows is “Queer Spaces in the World,” which examines heterosexual dominance in politics, policy, and urban spaces. Students are encouraged to critique how traditional societal structures and histories have been shaped by heterosexual norms.
While it’s important to acknowledge diverse perspectives, critics of the course argue that framing heterosexuality—a biological and societal norm—as inherently oppressive alienates the vast majority of people. The course’s focus seems more intent on deconstructing established norms than fostering meaningful dialogue.
Defenders of these courses argue they promote understanding of marginalized communities and challenge societal taboos. But many wonder if the true goal is to indoctrinate students into embracing a radical worldview. The focus on glorifying controversial lifestyles and questioning traditional values raises concerns about the kind of education elite universities are prioritizing.
Rather than preparing students to tackle pressing issues like economic instability, political division, or global conflicts, Princeton seems preoccupied with pushing an agenda that normalizes what many view as immoral and harmful practices.
Universities are meant to be bastions of intellectual exploration, but there’s a fine line between studying a subject critically and endorsing it. Courses like those in Princeton’s GSS program not only toe that line—they seem to leap over it.
Instead of addressing the exploitation and degradation often associated with prostitution and pornography, these classes risk glamorizing them, presenting sex work as a legitimate career choice rather than an industry fraught with abuse. Moreover, by framing heterosexual norms as inherently oppressive, the university alienates a significant portion of the population it claims to serve.
It’s time for parents, students, and alumni to ask tough questions about the direction of higher education. Are these courses truly about fostering understanding, or are they part of a larger agenda to erode traditional values?
Universities like Princeton must be held accountable for the messages they send. If higher education institutions are more concerned with promoting controversial ideologies than equipping students with practical skills and ethical frameworks, society as a whole will bear the consequences.
In an era where the cost of a college education is skyrocketing, should students and their families really be paying tens of thousands of dollars to learn how to navigate the worlds of prostitution and erotic dance? Or should universities refocus on preparing students to become leaders and innovators who contribute positively to society?
The answers to these questions may determine not only the future of academia but the moral direction of our culture
