Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Letters to the Editor

New faces needed on race, gender committees

Discussion of the human environment at Princeton sounds like a good idea. However, I am skeptical of the plan of USG president Joe Kochan '02 to form committees on race and gender. First, I was puzzled by his lack of distinction between the terms "gender issues" and "women's issues." Also, I am disappointed that "undergraduate life" has apparently been confined to only two areas of discourse: race and gender. But my main concern pertains to the committees themselves. Of course, as a finite set, a committee will be incapable of representing the full spectrum of campus experience; this is a flaw accepted in any committee situation.

ADVERTISEMENT

My specific concern for the proposed committees is more subtle. The Feb. 19 'Prince' article states that committee leaders Adamma Mba-Jonas '02 and Vanessa Bartram '02 "plan to gather a well-rounded group of people with strong opinions on the issues at hand." This is an admirable goal. However, I am worried that the obvious criterion for selecting members for the committees (Who are the most outspoken gender/race issue leaders on campus?) will prevent the formation of the best possible group. I do not think it is the most prominent members of the gender and racial discussion scene who should dominate the new campaign: these people already have a voice. It is quite possible that those individuals currently immersed in situations with the most insidious gender and racial implications are precisely those individuals who have not yet had the opportunity to speak. It seems that the committee leaders should seek out the invisible people — the people who are as yet unknown on the discussion platform at Princeton. Perhaps an impossible task, but I would like to see the committees searching for members in unlikely places.

Kochan has given Mba-Jonas and Bartram a wonderful opportunity, albeit one which gives new meaning to the word "challenge." Lillian Beatrix Pierce '02

SVC choice for banquet speaker inappropriate

In November 1993, I organized the first campus Hunger Banquet as part of the SVC-sponsored Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. I still regard this as the proudest achievement of my undergraduate years and am delighted that it has continued as a campus tradition. Though it is only a small contribution, I believed back then — and still do — that this event, and awareness week, is one way to affirm the belief in the dignity of every human life.

And so I was truly dismayed to read in the January 2001 SVC newsletter that the SVC board chose Peter Singer to be the 2000 Hunger Week speaker. His message is most certainly not one that affirms the dignity and beauty of every human life. His logic leads him to conclusions that stand in stark contrast to the very recognition that led me to organize a hunger banquet on the Princeton campus: that we ought to reach out in solidarity and love to all human beings, especially those in need. Furthermore, the choice of such a controversial speaker is a terrible way for an organization to gather support for its cause. I sincerely hope the SVC will be more judicious in choosing speakers in the future. Melissa Schettini '96

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT