Letters to the Editor

Whig-Clio fosters open debate in inviting Horowitz to speak

Tonight, the American Whig-Cliosophic Society will host Mr. David Horowitz, author of "10 Reasons Why Reparations are a Bad Idea for Blacks — and Racist Too" in a debate on race-based reparations with Ms. Dorothy Lewis of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. The event, which will occur this evening at 7 p.m. in McCosh 50, was organized in response to the widespread controversy generated by Mr. Horowitz's advertisement. Explaining the importance of airing divergent points of view, John Stuart Mill once wrote that "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race . . . . If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

Whig-Clio, by organizing this event, is performing a vital public service, bringing the discussion off the pages of this very newspaper and into a lecture hall here on campus. You, members of the University community, will not only be able to hear Mr. Horowitz and Ms. Lewis speak but will also have the opportunity to have your specific questions answered. Whig-Clio will also host an informal panel discussion session following the debate to give students the opportunity to talk with each other about the issues raised earlier in the evening. All should feel free to attend and pose questions to the student leaders on the panel, make general statements and ask questions of the floor.

Whig-Clio's historical role on the grounds of this esteemed institution has been to provide a forum for discourse on both national and campus issues. We have believed since our founding in 1765 that it is only through informed discussion that true knowledge can be gained, regardless of whether those decisions are political or personal in nature. Without such discussion, opinions and decisions are apt to be misguided. Only through the airing of all views can the right one be determined. And without that airing, certainty is impossible.

The importance of the issues at hand in tonight's debate demanded the involvement of Whig-Clio, and we strongly believe that through this discussion students will be better able to make informed individual decisions. As President Shapiro so eloquently stated in his statement regarding the appointment of Peter Singer: "We insist upon civility in debate and respect both for evidence and for the rights of others, but within this context we regard debate and controversy as healthy and invigorating." It is my hope that students will take advantage of the opportunity Whig-Clio is presenting to have their questions answered, and in so doing come to an informed decision. Jonathan Ophardt '03 President, Whig-Clio

Trustee candidates don't have to be most vocal students

In the next few days, the Classes of 1999-2002 will be voting for the Young Alumni Trustee of the Class of 2001. The field of candidates has been narrowed down to three people by the members of the senior class.

While I admire and respect the three candidates, I'd like to register my own and some friends' frustration that the rules for the primary prohibited all campaigning. Candidates who got enough signatures (required to be on the ballot) were not even allowed a statement. They could not e-mail friends encouraging them to vote.

Although I understand the principle behind these rules — a trustee position is not meant to be campaigned for like a congressional seat — the primary is effectively predetermined by name recognition. The three candidates from my class, for example, are class president and two prominent USG officers. Their two predecessors were both USG presidents. All of these men have made valuable contributions to the institution and the campus. But they have been treated to what is frankly a student government incumbent protection program.

I am angered by the argument made by those who support the current system: "Well, where have the other candidates been? They had four years to make a name for themselves! And anyway, the best candidates are going to be the ones who have been most committed and publicly involved."

Two answers: 2001's losing candidates have been serving the Princeton community in a variety of other ways that don't earn them front-page 'Prince' coverage or weekly class e-mails: writing columns, participating in ambitious community service efforts, playing sports (and every other extra-curricular cliche one could think of) — or all of the above. Who's to say that USG is the only trustee-worthy way to serve?

Secondly, after a candidate passes an initial commitment standard (provable in candidate statements), why do the very MOST involved necessarily make the best trustees? Several of my classmates on the initial ballot who would have made wonderful, thoughtful, active, creative trustees haven't necessarily chosen to invest their energies here into the student government. With a published statement, they could have made their alternative contributions clear while reminding their supporters of their candidacy.

If recent trends continue, our Young Alumni Trustees will continue to be culled from the same small, self-selecting group of student government vets (a group which, incidentally, includes few women these days). This leaves three options for underclassmen who may someday be interested in serving as a Young Alumni Trustee: Run for USG president, start plastering your name on every lamppost you can find — or reform the process. Dillon Teachout '01