As seniors drink off the memory of their theses and juniors sweat bullets over their junior papers, important stories are sometimes overlooked by those with their snouts in Solo cups or books. The Office of Religious Life (ORL)'s back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
KEN SCHWARTZ > EVERYONE ELSE. KEN FOR PRESIDENT.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The editorial is about how the office of religious life (ORL) decides to create new chaplaincies. Because Chabad is currently applying for chaplaincy status, CJL is involved in the Chabad negotiations and MSA was involved in the discussions related to creating a director of muslim life position, board members who are involved in those organizations chose to recuse themselves because not doing so would create a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. This should adequately explain your question. If for some reason you are still confused, email opinion [at] dailyprincetonian.com
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I still don't get it, even with Mr. Schwartz's note.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Chabad is currently applying for chaplaincy. The CJL has been involved in the process. See: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/03/26/news/17791.shtml
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Why would involvement with the CJL or Chabad produce a conflict of interest, unless there's some Islamophobia going around?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Bill, I think the article is saying that Hinduism, not Islam, is a non-Abrahamic religion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Is not Islam an Abrahamic faith ? If so, one might consider providing a correction to the sentence stating the contrary.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Does this imply a conflict between Chabad, CJL and MSA or the Muslim chaplaincy? I don't understand.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Yes, Joy Karugu is an officer in the Muslim Students Association Ben Herzberg was heavily involved in CJL Arthur Ewenczyk was the former president of Chabad
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
What was the conflict of interest? Usually that happens when the writers are involved in the organization discussed; is that the case here?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Board members must recuse themselves from voting when they are present for a discussion and there may be a conflict of interest.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I second the "bizarre writing" reaction, but what really interests me is why three members of the editorial board would recuse themselves from such an obviously bland and inoffensive editorial. I seem to have a vague memory of the third student being a high-up in either the CJL or Chabad or something along those lines. Relevant? Is there some behind-the-scenes intrigue going on with respect to this editorial, or is it all quite mundane? Or maybe they just don't want their names associated with the usual pabulum? And why recusal and not, say, dissent?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"As seniors drink off the memory of their theses and juniors sweat bullets over their junior papers, important stories are sometimes overlooked by those with their snouts in Solo cups or books." Does the editorial board realize how arrogant and condescending this sentence is? "The formal recognition of Islam at Princeton encourages the University community to enter into discourse that treats Islam as a vibrant and equally valid system of belief that has much to offer Princeton and the world." This is poorly written. Nowhere in the article could I find what the Islamic belief system is being compared to - what is it equal to? I assume that the writers mean that it is now recognized as an equal with respect to the University's treatment of other religions, but the op-ed doesn't really say that anywhere. It just says it's an "equal valid system of belief," but what exactly it is equal to remains unspecified. "That this new position (along with the Muslim equivalent) eschews the moniker of chaplain demonstrates the University's willingness to allow faiths their own vocabularies. Put another way, we are permitting religions to speak for themselves." Because before this monumental change, religions were not allowed to use their own vocabulary? Bizarre, I always thought freedom of expression and religious practice was assumed, and did not require institutional permission. This is a well-intended but extraordinarily poorly argued editorial.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!