Letters to the Editor

Rosen's revisions deserve to be carefully explored

Regarding 'Rethinking the calendar at Princeton' (March 22):

I commend Professor Rosen for thinking outside the box. His proposals merit serious consideration, and comment.

In my experience, 15 or more years ago, the mid-semester Fall Break and early-January Reading Period all too often meant that fall courses were more work-intensive than spring courses: not a bad thing, but not necessarily a fair or desirable thing. And we should probably recognize that political campaigns, at least at the state or national levels, require far more assistance than can be substantially provided during the last week in October and are often, though not always, decided before that late date.

So a month off in January might be a welcome opportunity for students to pursue outside-the-classroom goals, be they rooted in education or community service.

However, several caveats are in order.

First, the month off should not be a "month off," meaning that Princeton students should be required to do something. (Athletes, too.) Second, and accordingly, were the University to implement this, it seems sensible that the university would be required to offer options among supported, sponsored or endorsed activities. Third, we must not infringe completely on the winter break, to provide students who are inclined to observe religious holidays or who simply need to unwind with the appropriate time off (and please recognize that even optional activities might unfairly undermine this important goal).

So bravo to Professor Rosen, and let's think about this, and his other ideas, as well. But let us not forget that students, like the rest of us, have lives outside of school. And let us also not forget that students, like the rest of us, do not only learn at scheduled events conducted at supervised, prearranged times. Vince Sherman '90

Ramos-Mrosovsky shouldn't critize Spanish decision

Regarding 'Spanish terror: Score one for terror' (March 23):

I find it deplorable that Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, like certain members of the Bush administration, see Anzar's electoral defeat following the March 11 bombings as a victory for terrorism: that a Bush ally — who invaded Iraq against the wishes of 90 percent of his countrymen — was voted out must mean that Spain gave into terror. But the true nature of the situation is far from it. The horrific bombings in Madrid increasingly mobilized the young, disillusioned voters, frustrated at the lies and disinformation that the Anzar government disseminated. Rather than denounce the results and chastise the Spanish people, Bush, Carlos and other detractors should console a grieving nation and take notice of a hostile global opinion that will no longer be blinded by fabricated lies. Who knows, maybe Bush is next. Sam Clendon '07