I was generally disappointed with the quality of Wednesday's debate on slave reparations. David Horowitz was too caught up in his own crusade against the editorial board of the 'Prince' to discuss concrete reasons why reparations were a bad idea, and Dorothy Lewis summed up the lunacy of her cause with the suggestion that Americans should "pay rent" to Native Americans after returning the nation's land to them. However, though the debate was long on rhetoric and short on fact, it is important to note that it was conducted fairly and without incident, a few self-righteous walkouts notwithstanding.
I therefore view with alarm several points raised in Seth Green '01's Friday letter to the 'Prince.' Not once during the debate did either participant speak ill of people of other races, yet Green labels Horowitz's performance as "hate speech" and a valid reason to "limit" the First Amendment rights we enjoy on campus. If Horowitz's suggestion that blacks are not worthy of reparations qualifies as hate speech, what is one to make of Lewis' assertion that America is still a white supremacist society?
Secondly, if such controversial speech can be tolerated and discussed by Princetonians, why would one assume that further restrictions on speech are required? Horowitz, though it was probably lost in his anger towards "left-wing losers" on campus, raised a valid point about Princeton's lack of conservatives, particularly in the fields of history and politics. Green in turn blames this situation on people like Horowitz, who make conservatives appear "unscholarly," but conservative professors like Robert George bear as little resemblance to Horowitz as my many liberal professors resemble hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan. If we do not judge the Left by its fringe element, why must we judge the Right that way?
Whig-Clio attempted to have an honest debate about slavery reparations, and the University seems to have survived. Yet Green uses the events of Wednesday to suggest further limiting our freedom of expression and continuing the liberal monopoly of academic opinion on campus. Perhaps there is more to Horowitz's charges of left-wing totalitarianism than meets the eye. Ty Doyle '02
Read More
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
We need to keep breaking the glass ceiling of the ivory tower
Maria Luisa Vieira Parada“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
Reactions: Guests respond to Eisgruber and Calhoun’s statements on protesting
Zeke DouglasRosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt BrowneGuests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
Guests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
