Letter overstates problem of speaker bias

A recent open letter to President Tilghman, signed and supported by various members of the Princeton community, criticized the University's methods and motivations when inviting speakers to campus. Specifically, the writers argued that the University disproportionately invites "speakers with messages consistently representative of federal administrations." It points to recent speeches by members of the Bush administration — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in particular — as proof of its claims.

However, the actual list of speakers on campus in recent years tells a very different story from the letter. The writers categorically ignore the large number of recent lectures delivered by individuals who are strongly critical of administration policies. The letter never accounts for visits to campus by individuals like Ralph Nader, Eli Weisel and Amzi Bishara, all of whom have quite publicly denounced various policies of the Bush Administration.

Even more troubling than this oversight is the letter's failed tightrope walk between an argument against bias in speaker selection and ideologically-motivated criticism of recent speakers. The letter writers argue at first that Princeton needs to strike a balance between government figures, regardless of the presidential administration from which they hail, and those who look at issues from outside the government. Yet the letter quickly degenerates into condemnation a of individual speakers.

The letter concludes by suggesting that inviting Secretary Rice to campus constitutes a University endorsement of violations "of international codes of conduct, treaties and laws." Their disapproval of Rice may or may not be well-founded, but statements like these lead one to question whether the motive of the letter's authors is to promote balance or their own political agenda. Furthermore, the assertion that Princeton has somehow cozied up to the far right-wing is even less credible than the frequent claim that schools like Princeton are training grounds for young communists.

Nevertheless, the letter does get one thing right. Princeton has undoubtedly attracted a large number of well-known political figures and government officials to campus in recent years, and rightly so. While students may vehemently disagree with the opinions of speakers like Secretary Rice — we certainly did the Oct. 3 editorial — there is great value in inviting the people who run our country to share their thoughts on campus. Students opposed to their policies and ideas are perfectly welcome to make their opposition known through protests, discussions and letters. However, preventing students from having access to high-profile government officials due to ideological differences is shortsighted and unfair.