Clearing things up after the Whig-Clio referendum debate
Regarding 'Debaters take on referendum' (Friday, Dec. 2):
The Prince's article on Thursday's Whig-Clio debate misrepresented the Princeton Justice Project and me personally.
At about 1 a.m. on Wednesday morning, when I learned that a few membersof the USG forced an emergency meeting to rescind the referendum, [Gay Family Rights Project leader] Chris Lloyd '06 and I immediately shifted our focus to that emergency meeting. It was not clear to us that it would be useful debating at Whig-Clio on Thursday afternoon a resolution which might have been — and almost — was rendered inactive by the emergency USG meeting to rescind the referendumon Thursday evening. We still wanted to do a Whig-Clio debate, though, and on that same day, Chris and I expressed to Whig-Clio President Matt MacDonald '07 that we would have been happy to participate in a Whig-Clio debate at any time after the USG meeting resolving the referendum.
And so, attempts by Aaron Spolin '08 and Glen Weyl's '07 to characterize my own and PJP's absence at the debate are truly unfortunate.
Their comments detracted from the real debate about the referendum, and for that I am deeply disappointed.
Thomas Bohnett '07 President, Princeton Justice Project
Regarding 'Debaters take on referendum' and 'Vote no' (Friday, Dec. 2)
I write to clarify and correct two items that appeared in the December 2 issue of the Prince. First, in Opinion I signed an editorial opposing the referendum on the amicus curiae brief submitted by PJP. The Princetonian describes me as "a current PJP officer." While it is true that I direct PJP's free trade project Princeton Against Protectionism, my position within PJP is irrelevant to my opposition to this referendum; I oppose it as a student, not as a PJP officer. PJP is united behind this referendum as an organization.
Second, I am quoted in "Debaters Take on Referendum" as insinuating that Tom Bohnett '07 and Chris Lloyd '06 did not have the courage to face us in a debate. I do not believe this, and I publicly and sincerely apologize to Tom and Chris for this implication. I maintain, as I have tried to throughout this process, that they have shown nothing but the highest level of courage and integrity in pursuing their convictions throughout the referendum process. While I oppose them on this issue, their public-minded spirit exemplifies what is best in Princeton.
Glen Weyl '07
Official summary of PJP brief misleads
In order to inform students about the content of the Lewis v. Harris brief that is the subject of the second referendum on the elections ballot, the USG has posted a summary of the brief along on its website. This summary was written by PJP, sponsor of the referendum and edited by USG President Leslie Bernard-Joseph '06 and Elections Manager Jesse Creed '07. We believe that this statement is materially misleading and biased towards persuading students to support the referendum rather than informing them about the brief's content.
Two examples are immediately apparent. The second paragraph mentions the evolution of marital law away from racial bias. This is a material misrepresentation of the brief, which never uses prohibition of interracial marriages as an example (in fact, the word "race" does not appear once in the entire 65-page brief). Second, the last sentence of the summary discusses how the state has "expanded the definition of marriage when it was clear that a manifest injustice was, as it is now, occurring." In fact, the brief never uses the words "injustice" or "unfairness" and discusses the evolving "social and legal functions of marriage," never mentioning the court revising the "definition" of marriage when it found that definition unjust. We believe this language, like the implicit comparison of prohibiting gay marriage to racial discrimination, is formulated to provoke and persuade, rather than to inform. We therefore believe that the USG's summary misleads students and neglects the responsibility of the USG to fairly manage the referendum process.
Glen Weyl '07 Mike Murray '06, USG Senator Karis Gong '06, USG Senator Brandon Parry '06, U-Councilor
On faith and science
Regarding 'The Intelligent Design debate: (Parts I and II)' (Monday, Nov. 28 and Monday, Nov. 21):
I read with great interest Prof. Fleming's two recent columns on the "Intelligent Design" debate. I couldn't agree more that intelligent and civil discussions of religion and faith belong in our schools, adjacent to our intelligent and civil discussions of biology and mathematics (and of course, classical English literature). I appreciate efforts to bridge the "physical" and the "spiritual," as I myself am very interested in doing the same.
Like Newton and Einstein (perhaps the only likeness), I do not separate my beliefs in God and Christ from my Ph.D study of biochemical engineering at MIT. To do so seems absurd, as Prof. Fleming rightly point out. I humbly seek truth in the physical, and that points me to truth in the spiritual (although the latter requires a gift of faith as well). I wholeheartedly agree with Prof. Fleming's request for a reexamination of faculty hiring in terms of evangelical Christians — I wonder how the current Princeton administration would feel about this.
I wish Prof. Fleming and all those who fight the "good fight" with their pens a Merry Christmas (and not simply a happy holiday).
Brian E. Mickus '03
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.