USG should not give support to PJP brief
Regarding 'PJP lobbies for support on gay marriage' (Monday, Nov. 28):
In light of the impending referendum on this issue, The Princeton Tory would like to propose several considerations to the student body.
First, the USG should not be authorized to draft statements on issues outside the scope of University affairs or student life within the University community. Supporters have argued that gay marriage affects every student at Princeton. By that same reasoning, what would block any student group — from Princeton Pro-Life to Students for a Sensible Drug Policy — from seeking a USG endorsement of their own projects or ideological positions? Quite clearly, it is a slippery slope.
The referendum also represents a form of political coercion. The PJP acts with arrogance when they presume to speak for the entire student body through a referendum that only requires the assent of one-sixth of that body. It's one thing for the PJP to organize its own petition and seek signatures among interested students, but it's completely unacceptable for the purportedly democratic USG to coerce the entire University community to lend its name to a referendum that reflects such a small minority vote. This is an abuse of democratic decision-making.
And lastly, the amicus brief ultimately finds no "rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples." In doing so, the brief effectively discounts every opposing viewpoint on marriage as nonsensical, and every student who dissents from this position as unreasonable. The USG has no business officially denouncing the many well-grounded political, sociological and moral arguments against same-sex marriage. Those students who hold these positions should be free to express themselves without accusations of irrationality or bigotry. We want to promote an atmosphere of intellectual diversity and discourse at Princeton, not suppress it.
We vigorously urge all students to contemplate these issues and vote against the unfair and coercive USG referendum.
The Editors of The Princeton Tory
Referendum process followed USG rules
Regarding 'USG puts gay marriage issue to student referendum' (Tuesday, Nov. 22):
As the presiding chair of the Senate, I feel it is my duty to respond to the procedural issues that six members — Karis Gong '06, Elizabeth Gough '07, Michael Murray '06, Brandon Parry '06, Lide Paterno '06 and Robert Wong '06 — charged against the Senate on Nov. 22.
The first charge is against themselves: that few USG Senate members read the report. As a USG Senate member, one has an obligation to read all attachments sent out to the Senate in advance. From my memory as a U-Councilor last year, the Vice President consistently sent the agenda on the same day as the Senate meeting. This year, I have deliberately tried to send agendas at least one day and often times several days in advance. I sent it out Saturday morning, giving all Senate members a full 36 hours of time — without classes, I might add — to read the relevant documents. If Senate members fail to read information that was sent to them, they are not doing their jobs.
The second charge concerns the disparity between when the agenda is set and when it was sent out. Of the six members who signed onto the editorial, three contributed to setting the agenda at the Executive Committee meeting several days in advance. They all listened to the course of action which the PJP was asking for and, although many knew the impending controversy this would cause, they failed to make any suggestions to allow for smoother deliberations.
Finally, during the Senate meeting, I recognized Senator Karis Gong's motion to table the referendum entirely. As a result of the democratic process that motivates the Senate climate, her motion fell short of the necessary majority to promulgate that course of action. I would also like to remind this group of people that significantly more than the necessary one-third of the Senate voted to put this issue to referendum. In essence, the Senate meeting yesterday in fact confirmed the democratic principles that guide the USG.
At the emergency Senate meeting called for tonight, in another gesture that realizes the democracy of the USG, when the group moves to rescind the referendum, I will recognize their motion and give them the Senate floor.
Jesse Creed '07 USG Vice President
Early Decision is a valuable tradition
Regarding "Admission should switch to an early action plan" (Wednesday, Nov. 30):
I question the editorial's main argument that early action would increase the size, and therefore the quality, of the applicant pool. First, admissions officials have repeatedly asserted that applicants are so well qualified already that they could admit a freshman class several times over each year without any noticeable decline in quality. More importantly, however, Princeton stands out among the Ivies because of the unabashed pride and fierce loyalty of its students and alumni; that is due in no small part to an early decision policy that demands a demonstrated enthusiasm for Old Nassau even at the application stage. No one can claim that early action would create a similarly self-selecting pool that is especially enthusiastic about Princeton.
The editorial board claims that early decision hurts lower-income families by preventing them from "comparison shopping" for aid policies. An early decision acceptance, however, can be declined if the accompanying aid package is deemed inadequate. This ensures that no family that has judiciously evaluated its abilities to pay beforehand will be forced into a commitment it cannot afford.
The way to keep Princeton great is to maintain those traditions that set us apart and make this place special. Early decision is one of those traditions.
Sandeep Murthy '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.