Princeton is better than article makes it sound

Your article on the results of the CPUC's Princeton Experience Survey ('Students report undergraduate satisfaction,' Nov. 9) maintained that among undergraduates, social life and lack of diversity are among the highest sources of dissatisfaction on campus. It's common for students, administrators, and 'Prince' reporters to paint these two issues as sore spots marring the otherwise paradisal lives that Princeton students lead, but that view does not reflect a fair and balanced assessment of social life and diversity at Princeton.

With respect to social life, the article was quick to give in to the administration's stance that eating clubs are a cause of dissatisfaction and that four-year residential colleges will provide a better alternative. In the very survey that was the impetus for the article, however, people who ranked eating clubs as their single most positive Princeton experience outnumbered those who ranked residential colleges as their most positive experience by over two to one. Clearly, eating clubs make a positive impact on social life at Princeton, one that is far greater than the impact of the residential colleges.

And with respect to diversity, the article pointed out that over half the minority students surveyed wanted more diversity among the student body. Most likely, those students do not truly want diversity; in fact, they probably want the exact opposite. Instead of learning to interact with students from different backgrounds, those respondents want Princeton to attract more minorities so they can have more people like themselves with whom they can associate. The insular communities that will result from this will simply defeat the very purpose of diversity itself. Sandeep Murthy '06

Voting for morality doesn't mean you're not thinking

Regarding 'Bush reelection shows triumph of fear' (Letter, Nov. 9):

While some of the writer's claims about the intellectual malaise of the voting populous carry some weight, his assertions for strictly amoral and tangible politics are baseless at best, and contrary to Democratic principles of a fair and free society at worst. Our country was founded on the intangible moral principle of freedom.

But perhaps the biggest logical blunder occurs when he writer equates morality with emotion, ignorance, fear. Morality is what drives us to improve our nation; morality tells us that there is injustice; morality says that things could be better.

Perhaps the writer's own moral principles do not align with 51 percent of this country, which is perfectly acceptable. But what is unacceptable is accusing those with a different set of moral principles of being emotional and illogical. If anything, that is ignorant. Calvin Chan '02 GS '04

Deporting immigrants is the wrong way to go

The article on the recent immigration raid on ('Feds, Hispanics dispute arrests of immigrants,' Nov. 8) quoted a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) indicating that the American people demand this kind of enforcement. I am not sure where ICE is getting that message.

In the words of President Bush: "The search for a better life is one of the most basic desires of human beings. . . . Undocumented workers have walked mile after mile . . . have risked their lives in dangerous desert border crossings, or entrusted their lives to the brutal rings of heartless human smugglers. Workers who seek only to earn a living end up in the shadows of American life — fearful, often abused, exploited. When they are victimized by crime, they are afraid to call the police, or seek recourse in the legal system. They are cut off from their families. . . . It is not the American way. Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow willing workers to . . . fill jobs that Americans are not filling. We must make our immigration laws more rational and more humane."

Undersecretary of Homeland Security Asa Hutchinson, in referring to the estimated 8-12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States today, has said "It's not realistic to say we're going to reduce that number. . . . [Americans] have too much compassion to tell our law-enforcement people to go out there and uproot those 8 million . . . some of whom might have been here 8 or 12 years, who got kids that are American citizens." ICE is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. Manny Van Pelt, the spokesman quoted in the article, might want to compare notes with Hutchinson.

How does an immigrant get on the ICE list of "criminals"? Ironically, it is those who have attempted to adhere to the law, petitioned for legal status, paid several thousand dollars in legal fees, and waited 8, 10, 12 years to have their cases wind through a dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy, and under a legal code even more byzantine than the tax code, only to be presented with a "voluntary departure" order at the end of process. After making a life for themselves, forming families, obtaining jobs or establishing thriving businesses, our system expects these immigrants and their U.S.-born and raised children to pack up and go. Many of those detained in the Princeton raid were in that exact situation.

We also need to question why at a time when ICE is facing an estimated $500 million budget shortfall which is preventing it from doing what should be its top priority, keeping this country safe from terrorism, ICE resources are being deployed to pick up, detain and deport undocumented, but otherwise law-abiding, cooks, janitors and gardeners. Maria Juega Chair, Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Princeton