Letters to the Editor

Thanking gank

Google, MapQuest, Citysearch . . . People use search engines and web services without giving it a second thought. Often we are all thoughtless consumers, forgetting to appreciate these resources. How many of us get upset when websites we want to access are down? In reality, what right do we have to expect anything for free?

Roughly 13,000 searches each weekday (and twice as many on weekends) are conducted using gank.princeton.edu. Yet how many users realize someone worked for hours adapting the computer code that makes gank work? Or that thousands of dollars in electronics are devoted to the sharing of digital media on the network? Did anyone ever consider saying thank you for the entertainment its service provides?

This does not condone last week's posting on gank. I do not wish to detract from the issues of cultural sensitivity and diversity. But there is another issue. CSA co-president Dan Chiou '05 was quoted saying, "It was not an appropriate message to put on something so widespread. [Gank] is different from a personal webpage." But gank really is nothing more than a personal webpage. Thousands may take advantage of its search capabilities, but it makes no difference whether provocative content is posted on the web, plastered on lampposts, or printed in campus publications. We have the right to share opinions in any of these forums, as well as the right to challenge these opinions.

All matters of content aside, we should not take for granted the time and resources that go into free internet services. Web advertisements are annoying, but they allow us to use websites for free. Sites such as gank, find, and S.L.E.E.P., don't have advertisers or revenue streams — just generous students willing to share their work with the campus. These students don't expect payment, accolades, or attention. Nevertheless, they deserve our appreciation. Michelle Wu '03

Silencing Protest?

Last week, the tangle of posters adorning seemingly every accessible surface on this campus promised to play host to a debate of the utmost importance: the debate over the moral and legal status of abortion. As Princeton Pro-Life advertized its array of events commemorating "Respect Life Week" and urged America on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to "Stop Abortion Now," the Princeton Queer Radicals memorialized women who had died as a result of botched abortions and even took it upon themselves to answer the sensitive question of why queer persons care about reproductive rights.

And yet this promise — a promise of open, honest disagreement of the sort that has always been the university's gift to democracy — remained unfulfilled. Rather, it was unapologetically trampled upon as scores of pro-life posters were removed from bulletin boards, lampposts, and other public places and piled in trash cans. Pro-choice proclamations, rather than taking their place beside the views they opposed, sought to prevent their rival arguments from seeing the light of day. It appears that some abortion-rights advocates, far from using Respect Life Week to remind the campus of the importance of considering both sides of the issue, instead chose to quash dialogue and foster bitterness.

Near the beginning of the year, the Ombuds Office rightly posted warnings against the propogation of homophobic posters and grafitti. Later, it apologized profusely for the accidental removal by University employees of some LGBT Pride Week posters and condemned any purposeful removal of these signs. The University's reaction to the destructive and insulting activities of last week should have been as swift and sure, as should be all students' unified denunciation of such cowardly practices. Katherine Roberts '04

Don't tear down debate

While walking across campus today, I overheard a woman with an armful of Pro-Life posters exclaim that her "Stop Abortion Now" posters have been systematically torn down, while Pro-Choice posters have remained. "The Queer Radicals must be having a field day," she said.

As a member of the Queer Radicals, I certainly find the stop sign Pro-Life posters offensive, and many of my friends have expressed this same sentiment. However, the Queer Radicals have had no part in removing them. In fact, while putting up my Pro-Choice posters, I have been extremely careful not to cover up any of those advertising Respect Life Week events. Doing so would only silence one side of a healthy campus debate.

I regret that some anonymous individuals have taken it upon themselves to remove the Pro-Life advertisements, as this reflects poorly on the entire Pro-Choice community. I encourage these individuals to put up some of their own posters in opposition, instead. Louisa Alexander '03