O n Wednesday, I posted a screenshot taken from the “Black Princeton” group chat consisting of students and alumni. The image shows that undergraduate Kennedy Primus enticed people to join the pro-Palestinian protest on campus with the promise of bagels, and further reassured new recruits that there were “masks, hats, and umbrellas available for anyone who is concerned about their identity being revealed.” Then, she requested help for an “urgent need”: “PLEASE send me videos of our protestors looking peaceful! Our lawyer says that these are desperately needed.” (A stunning Freudian slip: Looking peaceful.)

Shortly after I shared that image, the group chat devolved into a struggle session — and I received more screenshots, which I similarly posted online. Student Reina Coulibaly wrote, “I have to believe that the leak is a non-black person in this chat bc I have faith in OUR community. Whoever is the leak (whether or not they are Black) is not part of our community. Keep your friends close because it is true that we keep us safe. Black liberation and Palestinian liberation go hand in hand, and THIS IS OUR TRADITION. We know who we are and where we come from.” Student and subpar detective Jordan Johnson wrote, “whoever leaked these messages please identify yourself. i have evidence to make a reasonable conclusion as to who it is, and if you don’t respond in the next minute i will kick the person or people out whose social media have been tied to the person on twitter.” (Emphasis mine.) Then, three people (whom I haven’t spoken to since I graduated last year) were expelled from the chat. A new standard was born: If you follow Abigail on Twitter, then you ain’t black.

Late on Wednesday evening, I received a link to a Reddit thread that included more screenshots showing some chat members using monkey emojis and racial slurs in reference to black university administrators, including the university vice president, Rochelle Calhoun. Coulibaly, who in 2022 was awarded $5,000 by Princeton University to pursue the summer project “Yoga for Self-Actualization,” suggested that black administrators and staff had committed “coon behavior” when they were arguing with the crowd outside Clio Hall, the building that pro-Palestinian activists occupied on Monday. When I visited the Reddit website on Thursday morning to read the comments, the images had been censored by moderators; a few hours later, a student sent me the screenshots originally posted on Reddit, which I then posted on Twitter.

Allow me to establish some facts: (1) I have never been a member of the Black Princeton group chat, under my own name or a false identity. (2) All the screenshots were directly sent to me by current students, some of whom I have never met. (3) None of the individuals banished from the chat were those who sent me the screenshots. (4) The chat had nearly 1,000 members. (5) There was no verification process to join the chat. (6) The chat was entirely deleted after my social-media posts. (7) I have screenshots that I haven’t released — yet.

The Daily Princetonian, a student-run publication, ran a story about this episode. Obviously, the newsworthy discoveries are that a pro-Palestinian protester admitted to providing masks for the purpose of concealing identity and further disclosed that a “lawyer” believes “videos of our protestors looking peaceful” are “desperately” needed. Surely, if the protesters had been entirely peaceful, then any footage would be appropriate and there’d be no cause for desperation. Moreover, the Great Group Chat Purge illuminates the militant enforcement of groupthink on campuses: Innocent people were deemed guilty without trial on the basis of mere social-media association. Finally, the causality is relevant. I didn’t seek out any screenshots. Rather, some black students were so frustrated with the hostile group-chat environment that they took initiative and contacted me. One source wrote to me, “You should definitely make another post about these; people need to see this” and added, “I think a lot of people who weren’t speaking probably disagreed but were afraid to do so publicly.” (A subtle but important detail: The group chat was public.)

But the Daily Princetonian decided that the newsworthy event was not what was said in the chat but that I had shared the screenshots. The story it ran therefore obscures the relevant material by selectively quoting. (This is hardly surprising, given that the student journalists explicitly want to be “amplifying” the pro-Palestinian demands.) The article states that Primus was “requesting video footage” without noting that she specifically asked for footage of protesters “looking peaceful” to portray the building occupation in a particular way. The reporters note that I shared images that were first posted on Reddit, although they neglect to mention that the images show individuals using monkey emojis and slurs in reference to black administrators. Such messages would hardly gain widespread approval on campus. After all, it was less than a month ago that the Princeton French Department removed a course slide deck that included gorilla images that had “inadvertently caused offense.” And, in previous years, the Daily Princetonian didn’t hesitate to run lengthy articles about university members who used racial slurs. Ultimately, the story published yesterday is a journalistic failure because it does not provide important facts for readers to consider in order to form an opinion — so I’m sure the reporters can expect a job offer from CNN upon graduation.

I do, however, give credit where it is due. The Daily Princetonian did publish damning quotes — except they were not sourced from the screenshots. The Black Student Union board told the newspaper that “the Black Princeton chat has become a cultural institution within our community” and deleting it was “a great loss.” Here’s some unsolicited advice: Avoid describing a group chat with slurs as a “cultural institution.” Junior undergraduate Bétel Tenna stated, “I hope that whoever is responsible for the leaks can feel remorse about this and have a desire to rebuild our community too despite any politics or other beliefs.” Ironically, Tenna had suggested creating two new group chats in which “all members should have to be approved.” What precisely would be the approval process if there was no consideration of beliefs? Perhaps she wants a DNA test. Anyway, I doubt that the “community” can be rebuilt “despite any politics” after members were ejected for holding nonconforming views or simply following me on Twitter. Most importantly, Tenna fails to realize that there wasn’t a community to begin with: Black students upset with their fellow chat members sent me the screenshots.

Since posting the images on Wednesday, I have been accused of “doxing” a “private chat.” But accurately attributing a statement to a person’s name is not “doxing,” and I did not disclose any sensitive information (like home addresses, phone numbers, or employers). The chat was hypothetically limited to black Princeton students and alumni, yet there was no verification process. In any case, a theoretically exclusive chat is not necessarily private. It had nearly 1,000 members and therefore lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy. I couldn’t claim my statements were “private” if I addressed a crowd of 200 people, let alone a thousand.

I will affirm what I wrote in National Review last year: If doxing means “sharing something I wrote,” then please dox me.