Letters to the Editor

Letter thoughtlessly attacks freedom to speak one's mind

It seems ironic that Nathaniel Hoopes and Peter Hegseth's Sept. 20 letter demonstrates the very irrational and inflammatory rhetoric that was cautioned against in the column they sought to denigrate. The subject of Mr. Hoopes and Mr. Hegseth's ire is Dan Wachtell's Sept. 17 column, "A time for restraint." In it, Mr. Wachtell pleads, "We must attempt to diminish hatred," as he argues against a course of unrestrained military action by the U.S. government and unrestrained anger by the American people. In no way do I agree with every aspect of Mr. Wachtell's argument, but, like Voltaire, I stand by his right to voice it — and I stand against the reckless and thoughtless manner in which Mr. Hoopes and Mr. Hegseth attempt to disparage it.

Most troubling to me, Mr. Hoopes and Mr. Hegseth make a poorly-veiled attempt to put words into the mouth of Mr. Wachtell. They write, "Mr. Wachtell directly implies that the terrorists who killed more than 5,500 innocent Americans were not themselves responsible for the bloodshed inflicted last Tuesday." Anyone who reads Mr. Wachtell's original column can recognize this statement to be a heinously false accusation; suggesting that Mr. Wachtell "directly implie[d]" that the 19 terrorists were not responsible is simply dishonest, not to mention syntactically oxymoronic. Mr. Hoopes and Mr. Hegseth go on to assault Mr. Wachtell's assertion that America is not "the most just or righteous country" by drawing a comparison between the Sept. 11 attack and the Holocaust. Such rhetoric has no purpose other than basely to incite anger, and such a comparison is an insult to the victims of both tragedies and their loved ones. I could easily go on to point out other irresponsible assertions in Mr. Hoopes and Mr. Hegseth's letter, but I will not waste any more space here doing so — anyone who reads their letter objectively and fairly will readily find them.

I am deeply troubled by the fervor with which Mr. Hoopes and Mr. Hegseth endeavor to squelch the opinion of Mr. Wachtell. It's obvious that at the most basic level, the terrorist attack on Sept. 11 targeted America's most cherished ideal: Freedom. We in America practice freedom as a way of life, be it through freedom of religion, freedom of movement and — of course — freedom of speech. To thoughtlessly and spitefully dismiss a fellow student's thoughtful opinion as "cowardice masquerading as conscience" is both outrageous and frighteningly irresponsible. The beauty of an institution such as Princeton lies in the unparalleled possibilities that it affords for discourse that is intelligent, informed and reasoned. Sadly, Mr. Hoopes and Mr. Hegseth's letter was none of these things. Such specious logic and inflammatory rhetoric have no place in a serious discussion about the events of Sept. 11 and their aftermath. Ted S. Liao '02

University values profit over cooperation with community

The Sept. 18 article "University Land Development and a Village's Battle" raises important questions about the priorities of this University. Though ostensibly a public-service institution, it is clear that Princeton's leadership has firmly embraced the corporate model of university administration that has spread to universities across the country in recent years. "Princeton in the Nation's Service and in the Service of All Nations" is the expanded motto embraced by former President Shapiro. But as the reluctance of administrators to pay University workers a living wage and their apparent passion for aggressive real estate development demonstrate all too clearly, a more appropriate motto might be "Princeton for Profit."

While many in the University community, as well as concerned residents of local communities, look for ways to combat the problems posed by suburban sprawl, the University actively promotes sprawl in its own backyard. Instead of working to preserve the sensitive areas near the Delaware and Raritan Canal and the small community of Kingston, the University follows the manic logic of suburban development, contracting with developers who have bulldozed land where once stood a world famous nursery.

What could possibly justify the University's actions? Surely preserving valued open spaces and local communities should take precedence over real estate ventures, the profits of which would be a drop in the pond when measured against Princeton's formidable eight-billion-dollar endowment. Sadly, however, the drive for profits has repeatedly come at the expense of the more noble values and the "public service spirit," which the University trumpets in its promotional literature. Students, faculty and others in the University community should start asking University administrators some tough questions about the destructive developments being pursued on University lands. Joe Conley GS

Triangle Show crowd reveals students' disregard for others

On the night of Sept. 14 at 10:30 p.m., after I was waiting in line for an hour to be admitted to the Triangle Show, a crush for the door began which would rival that at a rock concert or an English soccer game. It was my scariest experience here; in three years I have never seen anything like it. The immaturity and total disregard of each for each other was appalling and frightening, especially in light of the atrocity of that week. No one was fleeing a fire or a terrorist attack. Certainly there was a lack of care and stewardship here. Can you imagine that the only way I could escape the tangling of arms and legs was to announce that I was going to be sick and that they had better move? My feelings were a mixture of disgust at my fellow students and shock as I stood by and listened to the screams and cries that came from the crowd until security began herding them through like cattle. To top it off, it was precisely this mob that had a chance to see the show, while the remaining line stretched the length of Rockefeller College.

It is an outrageous tease on the part of the Triangle Club to have only two shows for something that the whole school wants to see. We now know that under these conditions it is no longer safe to see the show. If no one was hurt that night it was a miracle.

Triangle Club, please help. Dorina Amendola '02