Letters to the editor

Sacrifice of ROTC cadets should not be undervalued

I am a graduate of Princeton and Princeton Army ROTC, and served on active duty. I can tell you from experience that Princeton produces some of the finest military officers in the world. I could have attended West Point or the Naval Academy, but I wanted to get military training plus the best education possible.

"Princeton in the Nation's Service" is one of the strongest traditions at the school, one that I am most proud of, and one that I try to live up to every day. But it is not exclusive to the military. Many of you will serve the nation in different ways over your lifetimes. Some may run for Congress, be honored with a Cabinet position, or serve as a D.A. or social worker. Others will run companies and create jobs; many more will volunteer and help needy people on a local level. These activities all contribute to our national wellbeing in one way or another, and we each can strive to serve however we can, whenever we can.

Banning ROTC from campus prevents certain students from serving the way they want to. You don't have to agree with military policy (as determined by Congress and the people of the United States, not Princeton undergrads) to acknowledge that it is, in fact, service at the highest level. You realize that fact when you sign on the dotted line and acknowledge that you will die to protect a concept: Freedom. I have done that. Most of you are either unwilling to do that, or have not thought about it enough to realize how much of a sacrifice military service is. Those of you who refuse to serve in the military should be thankful for the few who volunteer to protect you and your rights. The freedom that I am willing to die for as a soldier is the same freedom that permits you to voice your opinion against me. You get it for free, I might pay the ultimate price to provide it for you. Soldiers accept that paradox. You should at least respect my desire to serve my country in the way I see fit.

As you leave campus and enter the real world to become gainfully employed and to seek your fortunes, you will encounter ex-military people along the way. Most likely, you will be impressed by them; you will have to compete against them for jobs, and you will have to impress them to get hired, which will be a disadvantage for many of you. You will find, as I have, that employers greatly value military experience. It goes way beyond Duty, Honor, Country, but that's a good place to start if you want to understand why your friends might want to serve. Why would anyone want to deny a fellow student the chance to get such a valuable experience?

Banning ROTC at Princeton isn't going to hurt the military on the margin, but it will deprive Princeton of some excellent students and future leaders. If diversity is so important, why isn't the military a cohort you would seek to include? Are liberal causes the only things that add diversity? Last time I checked, the nation's groupthink, like it or not, had swung to a point where "don't ask, don't tell" will not only be firmly supported if tested, but could possibly be made more restrictive. I don't support that change, but outside of your ivory tower, that's today's reality.

I am immensely proud that I served my country, but I am even prouder that I served as a Princetonian. I hope Princeton students and administrators do not make the mistake of banning ROTC over a policy that, to most adults, seems to be a very fair compromise that works, and which is also the law. Will Wrightson '88

Four year colleges aim to fix problem that doesn't even exist

Regarding 'Two years away' (Tuesday, April 12):

Have President Tilghman and her administrators ever set foot in a residential college? From their hopes for the new four-year colleges, it certainly doesn't look like it.

Administrators hope that the four year colleges will allow upperclassmen to "continue their relationships with college masters." In my two years in Rocky, I never even met my college master, let alone built a relationship. They also "think it is important for upperclassmen to join the college system because upperclass-underclass contact is currently too limited." Although that sort of contact is in fact thriving on campus — through sports teams, Greek life, eating clubs (let's keep in mind that sophomores comprise 1/3 of club membership) and myriad other extracurricular activities — the four-year colleges will not add to it. Already, sophomores do not attend RA study breaks, and tables in college dining halls are usually composed of students from a single class.

At its heart, the case for four-year colleges centers on a desire to "foster a more intimate dining and social atmosphere" at Princeton. Interestingly, the only institutions to have truly accomplished that are the very ones that the University is attempting to weaken: the eating clubs. Instead of increasing the scope of its failed residential colleges, the University needs to recognize that eating clubs are the most effective vehicle to improve student life. We should embrace the clubs — by emphasizing them in admissions literature and increasing the amount of financial aid available, for example — to keep student life at Princeton the best in the Ivy League. Sandeep Murthy '06