Letters to the Editor

Princeton bubble is nothing more than a myth

Emily Stolzenberg's account ('Thinking outside the Princeton buble,' Nov. 30) could be read in two ways. As intended by the writer, that is, that liberal communities like Princeton have been marginalized in the 2004 presidential election, or as an extraordinarily geocentric view of Princeton that gives little regard to the equally valid opinions of those living outside Princeton.

"Americans do not sound, look or think like Princetonians, and to assume so is a mistake," Stolzenberg writes. This is the same exclusionary jargon we heard from President Bush during the second presidential debate. Throughout his campaign, he consistently implied that the Northeast did not represent America. Well, the last time I checked, the Northeast is very much part of this country, shoulders a hefty portion of the tax burden, and educates a large portion of innovators and global leaders, including, alas, our president — much to his dismay, I'm sure.

Monday night, I attended the Wilson School's "Whose Morals? What Values?" panel. The discussion focused on how, by and large, everyone agreed on the issues on the table, but voted differently depending on what they felt was most important. For instance, Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup, said while Bush supporters largely voted on the moral values issue, unlike the Kerry voters, virtually all voters felt the country's moral values were in the dumps. It's this kind of nuance many are unable to see and why we are portrayed by alarmists as a nation divided.

If Princetonians such as Stolzen-berg are to be in the nation's service, I suggest she stop trying to think "outside the Princeton bubble," and realize that the bubble is a myth. Matthew Hersh New Brunswick

Asians don't need to receive affirmative action

Regarding 'Admissions Policies Unfair to Asians,' Kai Chan, Nov. 28:

Kai Chan made several valid points. It is true that East/Southeast Asians suffered through a variety of past injustices. I would also agree that the Board of Trustees should better represent the ethnic/racial/gender makeup of the student population.

But I find fault with several of the author's points. First, the California school system is primarily funded by taxpayer dollars, whereas ours benefits from alumni donations, allowing us to choose students as we see fit. Thus, the school has made an effort to assemble a student body that more closely resembles the population of the United States. Still, Princeton's Asian American population (by percentage) is 3.66 times that of the United States. This is a testament to the excellent work ethic, personal qualities and determination of Asian-American students, but it seems unreasonable to skew the student population any further.

Affirmative action is not simply "a tool to overcome historical discrimination or slavery"; nothing could make good on such injustices. It is, however, an attempt to level the playing field. In a perfect world, this could occur independently, and the student body could be composed in a race-blind manner. However, cliche as it may be, education is the key to success. By practicing affirmative action, Princeton Univesity is doing its part to ensure that the future leaders of America will come from all walks of life. It is a small step, but it is better than ignoring the problem altogether. Sean McGowan '06