Letters to the editor

Queer Radicals hosted 'Love-In' at Frist

Regarding 'All you need is love: LGBT has "Love In" at Frist' (Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003):

When I opened the 'Prince' this morning I was shocked to find an article about an event in which I am quoted that seems to have no similarity to the event I actually attended yesterday. The 'Love-In' in which I participated yesterday was sponsored by the Princeton Queer Radicals — a name that was on all of the literature related to the event, but nowhere in the article. The Queer Graduate Caucus had absolutely nothing to do with the 'Love-In.' Neither did the "LGBT." LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) describes the identity of many students here, but there is no such campus organization as the "LGBT." To entitle the article "LGBT has 'Love In' at Frist" is as ignorant as writing "Gay has 'Love In.'" In addition, this week was not Pride Week, but Awareness Week — a week of events sponsored by the Pride Alliance and LGBT Student Services. The events listed in the article as part of this week were actually part of last year's Pride Week calendar (which takes place in the spring).

It should also be noted that the Queer Radicals' events are independent of Pride or Awareness Week. Finally, I was misquoted as saying, "a lot of queers . . . " when I actually said "a lot of queer people" — although the difference may seem subtle, such terminology is very important in that the first can be quite derogatory to the Queer community. Although I was pleased to see the event covered on the front page of the 'Prince' since the 'Love-In' is one of the most visible forms of Queer activism on campus, I am outraged by the offensively misinformed nature of this article. Jessie Weber '05

Frist's amendment designed to segregate

Regarding 'In the fight for gay rights, students should show outrage' (Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003):

Katherine Reilly puts into words eloquently the reaction that many decent minded Princetonians had to Senator Frist's announcement in support of an amendment designed to segregate Americans. I ask, how does barring participation in an institution defend it? How can one couple's marriage harm another couple's marriage?

Ultimately, this is not about what a couple, gay or straight, calls their relationship. It's about protecting the right to deny American gay couples medical benefits, adoption rights, hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, retirement benefits and survivorship benefits. It's about protecting the right to take children away from their gay parents. It's about protecting the right to keep foreign gay couples out of our country. It's about denying gay foreigners the opportunity to stay in this country with American partners. It's even about protecting the right to keep gay men and lesbians out of the military. But most of all it's about protecting the right to deny gay men and lesbians their dignity as full American citizens.

Frist's intolerance gives Princeton a black eye. It is up to the rest of us to embody the spirit of "Princeton in the nation's service and in the service of all nations." I hope that we will rise to the task. Shawn R. Cowls '87 President, FFR/Princeton BTGALA

Project 55, others are worthwhile, successful

Regarding 'Recruiting insanity' (Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003):

Unfortunately, my column Wednesday mentioned Project 55 and Teach for America in a negative light. I apologize, as it was not my intent, and I believe that both these initiatives are not only worthwhile and successful, but also the first choice of many students on this campus after graduation. Taufiq Rahim '04