Letters to the Editor: Feb. 21, 2008
Regarding ‘How to beat "Weathervane McCain,"' (Monday, Feb. 20, 2008):
Jason Sheltzer '08's article begins, "The only road to a Democratic victory in 2008 leads straight through the mud." Regardless of which side of the political fence one falls on, one thing is clear: Resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than logical argument is problematic. Even in a field such as electoral politics, we elect candidates whose views are most aligned with the truth, and in any pursuit of truth, reasoned debate is extremely critical. The consequentialist suggestion of personal attacks over heated dialogue as the best strategy in the upcoming election is irrational and unwise.
Shivani Radhakrishnan '11
New gap-year plan solves problem
Regarding ‘University introduces gap-year plan for new admits,' (Tuesday, Feb. 19 2008):
One of the biggest stigmas to a year-abroad at Princeton was frequently getting to school and not wanting to leave your class and friends or lose on-campus opportunities. I think this is a fantastic solution to such a problem. It takes the old "prep school" model and turns it on its head. Great idea.
Ari Weinberg '99
Columnist wrong on facts again
Regarding ‘Double standards on a divided campus,' (Monday, Feb. 18, 2008):
In spite of already being called out once for factual inaccuracies by Jacob Denz '10 in his Feb. 13 column, Brandon McGinley '10 continues to make basic errors. McGinley makes reference to a panel called the "Joys and Toys of Gay Sex" sponsored by the LGBT Center. Such a panel never existed. This is the name given by the Tory to a presentation called, "From Top to Bottom: Everything you need to know about gay sex." In spite of its racy name, the presentation was part of "Let's Talk about Sex:" week, sponsored by Health Promotion Services (now University Health Services), the Women's Center, LGBT Student Services and SHARE. The presentation was given by a member of the New York Gay Men's Health Crisis, an organization committed to fighting the spread of AIDS.
Not having been on campus for the 2002 event and thus having no personal knowledge of it, McGinley should have taken the time to do some research if he was going to reference the event. Instead, he continues to use the label created by the Tory, though it has been pointed out several times that they created the title. Perhaps the religious right really is obsessed with gay sex since it seems to keep returning to, harping on and warping this safer sex education event.
Thomas Lipp '08, former Pride Alliance president
Facebook story was disappointing
Regarding ‘Facebook frustrates students' efforts to quit,' (Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008):
I was disappointed to read a lazy rehash of The New York Times' Feb. 11 article, "How Sticky Is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free." Not only did The Daily Princetonian's article blatantly lift facts from the Times' article, including a reference to the "How to permanently delete your Facebook account" group, it even mimicked the style of the original New York Times article. Furthermore, by the time the ‘Prince' article was printed on Feb. 13th, Facebook had already addressed the concerns brought up by the Times article.
Princeton is a university that rightly prides itself for an emphasis on independent work and a well-established honor code. The ‘Prince' needs to make the same commitment to journalistic ethics.
Deborah Chang '10
Digg it!
Share on Facebook
Post to Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Thomas Lipp's letter above strikes me as very unfair and unnecessarily nitpicky. More importantly, the main claim is false: the title for the LGBT event was "From Top to Bottom: Everything You Want to Know about Gay Sex." The *official description* blurb beneath the title calls this event a "provocative presentation on the joys and toys of gay and lesbian sex." This phrase was on the poster for the event, and it is obviously not invented by detractors. The poster describes the event as a how-to presentation, *not* a talk about "safe sex." I find it strange that Lipp would find this very small misquote on McGinley's part to be so egregious. If this error is so important, does this mean Lipp agrees with the rest of McGinley's article? Even more bizarre is the sweeping conclusion Lipp draws from the error: that McGinley and others have an obsession with the issue of gay sex. This just simply doesn't follow. The minor error doesn't prove anything about people's obsessions or lack of them. There are valid reasons for questioning the University's sponsorship of an event designed to tell people how to have sex...it doesn't seem to have much to do with the mission of the University. That's the main point here.