History of Armenian genocide not debatable
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Thursday, April 28):
In response to 'Armenian genocide talk was one-sided':
First of all, Yesim misrepresented the question posed and failed to note the response given by the panel of organizers. The position and so-called debate she posed at the talk was not about Armenian aggression; the panelists and organizers were clear and appropriate in denouncing Armenian "vigilante justice" and atrocities. The position that Yesim assumed, both by her question and by the circulation of packets of denier literature, was a blatant denial that the Armenian genocide ever happened. It is one thing to accuse several people or an entire ethnic group of violence (for which neither we nor the Armenians claim innocence); it is quite another to deny that a massive, state-organized genocide that killed over a million people ever happened. Yesim was in clear support of the latter position, and just as no one should give any form of academic credibility to those that claim the Holocaust didn't happen, neither should The Humanity Project or any other organization on this campus support a revisionist history agenda concerning the Armenian genocide. It is an ethical affront to both the nature of the University and the injustice incurred on the Armenians to suggest that the historical validity of the Armenian genocide is under ongoing "debate," and I am grieved that the 'Prince' itself would make the mistake of subtitling our event as such. Our event was a commemoration of the Armenian genocide, NOT a debate.This was made clear from the advertising and the outset of the event itself with the understanding that it would be equally distasteful to invite a Holocaust denier to speak at a Holocaust commemoration event. Though I am deeply sorry that Yesim's family had to have suffered such gruesome and inhumane treatment, as Vice-President of The Humanity Project, I give my full endorsement to the view of the panelists and stand by this perspective unashamed.
David Chen '05
Frist filibuster a credit to the University
Regarding 'A tarnished reputation' (Monday, May 2):
The day I read your editorial, May 4, 2005, began with a sad recollection, that four Kent State students lost their lives while peacefully protesting against the Vietnam War, 35 years ago that day.
I also recalled Princeton's reply to these events: As a prospective freshman in Spring 1970, I was proud to read of the unity of purpose among Princeton's students, faculty and administration, that converted reports of rage into a spur to renewed study and debate on the war's merits. And on arriving that fall, I was proud to join in new programs to translate protest into constructive effort — including the new Election Break to permit students to work for their chosen candidates, and the related Movement for a New Congress.
Thirty-five years later, May 4th ends with new cause for hope, as the home of the former MNC — near the lower entrance to the old Palmer Physics Lab — has become home base for Princeton's remarkable Filibuster against Bill Frist '74's "nuclear option" that might end a democratic tradition once immortalized by Jimmy Stewart '32, in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
However tides of public sentiment may ebb and flow with time, it is heartening to witness hope and reason blossoming this spring along with the magnolias, at this very same, special place, after so many years.
Alan Fintz '74
Appointment of NES professor would divide University community
Regarding 'Debate grows over Khalidi candidacy' (Thursday, April 28):
As an active, concerned Jewish student, I feel that the Niehaus Chair should promote harmonious academic discourse, not provide a platform for dissonant political rhetoric.
In Professor Khalidi's words, we "brainwashed" Americans fail to understand that Israel is an "apartheid" and "racist" state. He critiques our media for its "hysteria about suicide bombers" after 9/11, and calls the Washington Institute a "Zionist propaganda tool." Khalidi is obviously entitled to his views, and I do not intend to dispute them here. However, what concerns me are the questionable ethics of hiring someone whose views will almost certainly divide this campus. This new chair offers an opportunity to acquire a professor who will present his views in the context of a meaningful dialogue. The campus is already divided along racial, socioeconomic and political lines, and I fear that Khalidi's appointment would exacerbate this latter division by pitting student against student. As we have already seen in these pages, such blatantly sectarian rhetoric can cause irreconcilable conflict within the Jewish community and the campus at large, and is extraordinarily harmful to both.
I've had the privilege of serving with Professors Katz and Farber on a CJL committee, and I have the highest esteem for both. I wholeheartedly agree with their assertion that Khalidi should be judged, to paraphrase Dr. King, not by the color of his politics but by the content of his scholarship. However, I would diverge from their views by contending that Khalidi has the potential to hijack his academic appointment (and the Princetonian prestige associated with it) to spout his factious polemics. We can do better: let's hire someone who can impartially coalesce contrary viewpoints into a meaningful dialogue, not someone who threatens to further polarize the campus.
Dylan Tatz '06
Read More
Can a bacchanal Reunions be a sustainability lab?
Darren MilmanThe path to a net-zero Reunions remains uncertain. But Earth Brands’ story proves that the same university known for beer jackets and century-old traditions can also launch the next wave of sustainable solutions.
The path to a net-zero Reunions remains uncertain. But Earth Brands’ story proves that the same university known for beer jackets and century-old traditions can also launch the next wave of sustainable solutions.
$56,000 in debt at graduation is not the financial aid Princeton advertises
Avi CheslerTake my story as an example — despite repeated evidence, both before and after taking out loans, that I would be unable to pay what Princeton asked of me — the University never set a cost that I could truly meet loan-free.
In the Garden State’s service and the service of humanity
Olivia Ragan, Lauren Aung, and Madison LintonIt is important to cultivate in students interest in local and state level change, because it is the most direct way to give back to the New Jersey community that sustains the University.