Letters to the Editor: Wilson School anniversary

Wilson School panels biased toward Bush

Regarding 'Rice: U.S. must not waver' (Monday, Oct. 3):

I am deeply disappointed that the Wilson School used the occasion of its 75th anniversary to subject hundreds of alumni and friends to a virtually unchallenged barrage of propaganda from the Bush administration.

When I accepted my alma mater's invitation for the weekend, I thought I would have the benefit of a scholarly discussion of current issues. Instead, I was subjected to three unrebutted presentations of the Bush administration's viewpoint and two panels, which featured government officials and "scholars" of government contractor entities like Brookings that dare not offend those who provide their funding. For instance, no one in the panel on "homeland security" questioned the wisdom of establishing that department or pointed out how the damage of Hurricane Katrina was caused in part by the administration's underfunding of FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers' levee maintenance.

What we heard was Bush administration ideology — really theology because it is founded only on faith rather than reason or reality. It was the same theology that plunged us into the morass of Iraq and that gave rise to the mistaken priorities, which left us substantially undefended against natural disasters such as hurricanes.

And on top of that, Dean Slaughter proposed to provide financial encouragement for Wilson School graduates to enter government, on the premise that "Princeton in the Nation's Service" means government service. I suggest that serving in the present government would be the opposite of serving the nation. As one of the panelists pointed out, the government is now headed by about 2,500 political appointees, including 500 who are confirmed by the Senate. In a government with such a large corps of political appointees — who in the present administration make decisions largely on the basis of theology rather than defensible public policy — there is little that intelligent, sensible Wilson School graduates could contribute to the national interest.

This is the first time in some years that I have been embarrassed to admit that I was graduated from Princeton and the Wilson School. William Ewing '61

Rice evaded the real questions about Iraq

Regarding 'Rice: U.S. must not waver' (Monday, Oct. 3):

I did not go to Rice's talk yesterday. Instead, I was outside giving out fliers headed "Rice Lies, Who Dies?" with my friend Andrea. And after reading her speech, so prominently linked on our University's website, we were both glad we did not have to sit through all of that false rhetoric. This morning, a friend of mine — a black gay man, a Wilson School alum and a Democrat — called and enthused about Rice's speech and how it "changed his mind about some things." That was too much! Andrea and I decided that we needed to speak up.

We won't try to argue with the points about freeing the oppressed of the world and bringing democracy to the Middle East. That would take us back to academic rhetoric, something Rice is obviously quite versed in. It would also obscure basic facts with discussions about ideologies and the future. Instead, let's turn to a simple fact: The justification this government used for the war in Iraq was focused on weapons of mass destruction. This new "freedom" propaganda did not come until after the web of lies and deceit — propagated in part by Rice — was revealed. There were no WMDs in Iraq, and they knew it. Everybody at the Wilson School knows this too. In spite of this, they invited speakers on only one side of the so-called "war on terrorism," whose hands are not only tied by their affiliation with the government, but also dirty. This pretence of intellectual, academic "discussion" becomes even more disturbing when one realizes Rice's opening lines yesterday refer to Dean Slaughter, into whose expertise she (Rice) has "tapped on a couple of occasions."

This speech was part of an anniversary of a school of public policy, meant to celebrate political leadership. We're sorry to spoil the party, but even a cursory look at recent history will reveal what little public leaders should be proud of: war, environmental destruction, global inequity and, of course, AIDS. Aleksandar Donev Mathematics Andrea Valenzuela Spanish and Portuguese