More to remember than just Darfur
Regarding 'Remembering Darfur' (Tuesday, March 7, 2006):
While Moore should be applauded for his desire to raise public consciousness about the disenfranchised conditions of the victims of state-directed massacre and dislocation in Sudan, we should not forget the surrounding historical and geopolitical context. We need to accurately understand problems before prescribing solutions. For example, while much of the Muslim world is outraged about the massacres in Iraq, why shouldn't that mass of opinion be mobilized regarding the massacres in Sudan of co-religionists? Those who do not realize the Islamic orientation of Darfur's citizens miss the point. In addition, what more can the international community offer victims in Sudan and elsewhere other than exhortations of outrage? Perhaps a U.N. resolution can be passed stating that in response to "insurgent" activity, states are not allowed to perpetrate crimes of mass targeting against civilian populations. This, however, is not permitted because that may lead Russia (see Chechnya), Israel (see Occupied Territories) and the United States (see Iraq) to squirm.
Words may assuage individual intellectual consciences. Without a real and robust framework proposed, accepted and implemented by the world's states to combat genocide, however, war crimes and campaigns of ethnic cleansing will continue to provoke lamentations of regret rather than active solutions. Let's not remember Darfur. Remember the new "memories" that need our attention and are being created everyday.
Taufiq Rahim '04
Free speech argument conceals real issues
Regarding 'Sorry, but free speech is indeed the issue' (Monday, March 6, 2006):
Professor John Fleming GS '63 argued that free speech is indeed the crucial issue at stake in the recent Danish controversy about the cartoons that have infuriated Muslims across the world. It is an important point, but it remains unclear whose free speech we are talking about here. Bored Danish provocateurs do not really mean harm when they offend Muslims, but scary-looking London-based Oriental youths with headbands do.
Unfortunately, Fleming assumed that because I introduced both the rise of Fortuyn and the murder of van Gogh as two extremes, it must be that I think they are equally bad. I simply noted that the responses to both events showed how difficult it was to actually "talk" about them. How can it simply be a matter of free speech if Muslims and non-Muslims often cannot even talk to each other?
The call to save free speech is a noble one. But does it explain all we need to know about the social rifts in Western European societies? Does it tell us how we got to such violence? Does it not perhaps conveniently conceal the intentional misreading of "the other?"
Elidor Mehilli GS
Reproductive choice must be talked about
Regarding 'Pro-Life posters University to spark discussion' (Friday, March 3, 2006):
"Many students are apathetic about abortion," according to Princeton Pro-Life president Tom Haine '08. We agree that apathy is not the desired response and are equally frustrated with the lack of concern for women's rights on campus and in the wider Princeton community. This is a scary time for women's health. This past week, South Dakota passed a law outlawing abortion. The law makes no exception for cases when a woman's health is in danger or in incidents of rape or incest. Never has our society been closer to returning to a time when women who chose to terminate pregnancy were forced into unsafe, illegal situations. Our respect for women's lives and their right to choose motivates our political stance on the issue.
The term "pro-choice" does not imply a pro-abortion stance. Like Princeton Pro-Life, we too would like to see a decrease in abortions in the United States. In addition to our belief in a woman's right to an abortion, our group also supports increased access to contraception and sexual education. We are currently petitioning for pressuring the University ensure contraceptive equity by providing birth control to Princeton students under the student health plan and making condoms and other forms of contraception more readily available.
Our generation takes for granted the rights for which our parents' fought, and we are often woefully unaware of the consequences of limiting reproductive choice. Princeton Pro-Choice Vox hopes to promote discussion and activism before it is too late.
Members of Princeton Pro-Choice Vox
Denying campaigning rights is hypocrisy
Regarding 'Leeds '06 opts to stay in running' (Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2006):
I would like to applaud Ira Leeds '06 on his stand against the administration's prohibition of campaigning. The student body deserves to know for whom they are voting. The Board "feel[s] very strongly that it is not in the best interests of the Board or the University for trustees to be elected having staked out positions on issues, when no one not on the Board has full access to all information."
It is more than a little hypocritical of the Board to deny the student body the information it needs to elect a representative on the grounds that being well-informed is critical to making proper decisions. Even if one looks past this inconsistency, one stumbles when trying to make sense of an absolute prohibition on campaigning when the sole concern of the Board (and I assume, the administration) is that potential trustees might stake out positions on issues without being privy to all information. Why not just prohibit articulating positions?
Ben Schaye '02
Trustee election is one of enforced ignorance
Regarding 'Leeds '06 opts to stay in running' (Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2006):
The fear that candidates might make outlandish promises remains an objection to political speech only in the world's petty despotisms. I would rather not count Princeton among their number, but the unseemly spectacle of University and USG officers denouncing the "Princeton Matters" campaign and attacking the character of its principals suggests otherwise. One cannot help but be appalled when a university picks its trustees in an atmosphere of enforced ignorance.
Joseph Barillari '04
Whig-Clio has healthy relationship with University
Regarding 'Give back Whig Hall' (Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2006):
As the past and current leaders of Whig-Clio, we appreciate Jason Sheltzer's concern for Whig-Clio but wish to correct a number of inaccuracies.
While we were glad to see Sheltzer acknowledge the success of the Debate Panel, we were utterly mystified by his claim that the other subsidiaries are any less successful. Princeton Model Congress has over 100 active members and runs one of the largest high school conferences in America. The International Relations Council sends teams of delegates all over the world and runs two of the most innovative, interesting conferences on the Model UN circuit. The Princeton Mock Trial program, which was only able to accept 25 percent of this year's applicants due to overwhelming interest, recently won the top two places in a regional competition and has been invited to send those teams to the National Championship Tournament in Des Moines, Iowa next month. Whig-Clio is one of the largest and most active student organizations at Princeton, and Sheltzer's claim that the Society "struggles to attract interested members" is simply untrue.
In addition, contrary to Sheltzer's assertions, the Society maintains full control of Whig Hall. We do not know where he came up with the idea that Public Safety removes students from the building after 11 p.m., but this is false. Student leaders have keys to the building, and students often meet well into the night weeks before a competition. The building is reserved for Society members and special events that must be approved in advance.
It is disappointing that Sheltzer did not contact the current Whig-Clio presidents before writing his column, but we appreciate any attempt to provide constructive suggestions to improve Whig-Clio. Upholding Whig-Clio's long tradition of reasoned political debate is a responsibility we take seriously, and we welcome any thoughts or comments from the student body.
Matthew MacDonald, Shriram Harid, Aaron Spolin, Karis Gong, Adam Malin, Tom Brown, Mike Noveck Current and former Whig-Clio officers
University should keep late meal option available
Regarding 'Yo quiero Four-Year Colleges" (Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006):
Just like many other students, I have been apathetic to the four-year college debate for months, partly because I had no reason to believe it would affect the traditional life of an upperclass student and that the Street would still easily dominate the social atmosphere on campus without competition.
However, in your article "Yo quiero Four-Year Colleges," the administration spoke of rescinding the late meal policy. This came as quite a shock to me — a strong advocate of the double late meal swipe at Frist. My friends and I, whenever in need of a respite from the undeniable tedium that college dining halls sometimes inspire, have turned to Frist's late meals as both a healthy and cheap alternative. The popularity of the late meal policy can be readily seen any night of the week, when hundreds of students, from all classes, congregate in the main cafeteria. I even know of some students who dine exclusively on late meals; the negative effect of the four-year college plan on these students will be immense.
I ask that the University seriously consider the immense popularity of the Frist late meal before they destroy a well-loved dining option.
Kai Swenson '09
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.