A tarnished reputation

For the past week, dozens of Princetonians have stood outside Frist Campus Center reading from their favorite texts to protest the use of the so-called "nuclear option" by Senate Republicans. Their "Frist filibuster" is a reminder to all who walk by that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist '74 is quite possibly the University's most visible alumnus — both on campus, where the center donated by and named after his family plays a central role in student life, and off campus, where he is a national political figure. During the past few months, however, Frist has repeatedly put forth arguments and undertaken actions contradictory to the values for which the University stands. His behavior has tarnished, rather than polished, Princeton's reputation.

Part of the job of a politician is to set priorities and make tradeoffs. But Frist has shown a willingness to ignore facts and ethical guidelines to advance his political agenda. While the merits of his political views can be debated, the legitimacy of his methods cannot. His actions would be unbecoming of any Princetonian, and are simply abhorrent when undertaken by someone entrusted with a position of such power and influence.

On the national stage, Frist has used his medical degree to lend authority to his political arguments. But when he refused to give a straight answer to George Stephanopoulos about whether HIV/AIDS could be transmitted through sweat and tears — as a federal educational initiative implied it could — Frist disregarded truth for political gain. When he decided to question the neurologists who diagnosed Terri Schiavo as being in a persistent vegetative state based on heavily edited, years-old videotapes, he strayed outside the bounds of medical ethics. By standing on the Senate floor — in his words, "more as a physician than as a U.S. senator" — and contradicting dozens of experts in an area in which he had no expertise, Frist destroyed his credibility as medical health professional and as a public servant interested in impartial inquiry.

Moreover, when Frist suggested that Democratic filibustering tactics in the Senate constituted an affront to Christian beliefs, he clouded discussion of the issue, substituting dogma for debate. Rather than engaging his political opponents in an argument about the relative importance of minority protection and majority expediency, he undermined a critical discussion by removing all subtlety. He eschewed nuanced truth in favor of categorical half-truth — simply to secure a short-term political victory.

Underlying the motto "Princeton in the nation's service" is a belief that graduates of this University will elevate the national discourse with the tolerance, perspective and respect for truth they learned at Princeton. The substance of his politics aside, Frist does not fulfill this mission. His conduct might further his goals as a politician, but it does not live up to our ideals as Princetonians. We hope he will take a moment to reassess his recent tactics, for his actions reflect on this University. Currently, they do not reflect well at all.