So-called personal matters are important public issues
Regarding 'USG hopefuls confront past indiscretions' (Friday, Dec. 1, 2006):
Amid the brouhaha surrounding the disciplinary records of both Grant Gittlin '08 and Rob Biederman '08, many are claiming that such "personal issues" as disciplinary histories should be omitted from debate. In applications to schools, summer programs and RCA positions, the applicant's disciplinary history must be disclosed. Why should it be any different for the USG races? I think the fact that my class president isn't considered fit to live on campus is an important public issue.
These candidates' "personal" issues have public consequences. Laws and rules are put in place to protect every member of a community. How can we elect one of these men as a representative when they so clearly disregard the rights and wishes of others? No action occurs in a vacuum, and the activities Gittlin and Biederman choose to engage in are no exception.
Unfortunately, it seems that irresponsible behavior within the USG is not limited to these two candidates. In Biederman's words, there isn't "a single person on the USG who doesn't do silly things from time to time." I hardly consider watching the immolation of a squirrel carcass "silly." As for Gittlin's actions, I think the serious nature of his punishment says enough about his level of silliness. The statements and actions of both candidates should raise concerns about the level of responsibility within the entire USG. I believed that students in powerful positions would behave as responsibly (or more responsibly) than their peers. Was I ever wrong.
Betsy Chisler '08
'Prince' article is an obvious hack job
Regarding 'USG debate takes personal turn' (Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006):
I just finished reading the article and was wondering why half the article was spent bashing Grant Gittlin '08. I'll go ahead and admit that I'm for Gittlin in the election. The Daily Princetonian, however, dedicates the first half of the article and the title to the question of Gittlin's disciplinary record, a question which both Rob Biederman '08 and the debate moderator disregarded as "irrelevant." Yet the 'Prince' spends so much of the article, supposedly covering the USG debate, highlighting personal attacks on Gittlin such that it appears that the only differences between the two candidates are in the minor details of how students should be reimbursed by the school. The 'Prince' even interviews the student who originally stirred up the personal attacks. Bluntly, the whole story simply seems like an obvious hack job on Gittlin, and it's really a shame that it made it into the 'Prince.'
Matt Smith '08
Need to focus on candidates' positions, plans and ideas
Regarding 'USG debate takes personal turn' (Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006):
Thursday's delinquent front-page article on the USG presidential forum unfairly represented the evening's proceedings. Instead of immediately outlining salient issues, such as the main positions staked by the two candidates, it devoted the first half to aggressive accusations against one candidate, Grant Gittlin '08. Among dozens of questions, the one quickly dismissed as inappropriate by the moderators became the Thursday morning headline on campus. Both candidates want to discuss the coming transition to four-year colleges, methods to increase USG efficiency and possible extensions of student involvement on campus. Neither wants to make personal attacks part of the debate. Yet The Daily Princetonian chose to sensationalize. To his credit, Gittlin showed that he is willing to ingenuously confront the concerns. That's his personality. No one who meets Gittlin can miss his ebullience, warmth and, if need be, his candor. He put that personality on display last night and will continue to do so, I'm sure, throughout the rest of the campaign. Let's retreat from personal attacks, and let the candidates' positions, plans and ideas dominate.
Peter Lambert-Cole '09
Crew loves its season, in spite of its length
Regarding 'Hopes are high after XC wins' (Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006):
"Some athletes complain that their seasons last too long. Only runners, however, can claim a season that extends nine months, from early September to June."
What's this? I don't know what you are thinking here. Take my sport, crew, for example. We did not complain: It was beautiful.
Even 30 some years back, rowing practice and fall races began upon arrival in September and concluded with regattas in June or July if we were really successful.
Charles Whitin '73
Pitting racial minorities against each other doesn't help
Regarding 'Jian Li, Asian-America and West College' (Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006):
The critical factor that seems to be ignored by Jian Li, the Chung and Espenshade paper, and The Daily Princetonian is that "disaffirmative" or "negative" action disfavoring Asian-American applicants is not the flip side of affirmative action for underrepresented minorities, or even legacies and athletes. It is a completely separate phenomenon that thrives, among other places, in recent oped pieces published by The Crimson. As UCLA's William Kidder has shown, confronting the existing stereotypes held by the general public (and, yes, some admission staff) about Asians and Asian-Americans would be far more helpful and enlightening than posing the issue as a battle between Asians and other "interest groups" in the admissions process. It's politically expedient for groups such as the Center for Individual Rights to pit racial minorities against each other, but it doesn't further the cause of Asian-Americans or race relations as a whole.
Jonathan Jew-Lim '04
Chiao bends over backwards to dismiss Li's arguments
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor: Princeton may have quotas, but it aims to promote diversity' (Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006):
In bending over backwards to dismiss Jian Li's admissions discrimination complaint, Megan Chiao '09 seems to suggest that Princeton's various admissions quotas do not reflect social, cultural, historical or even monetary realities. Rather, it's simply the case that the benefited applicants possess compensating strengths "in other areas."
Inexplicably, she fails to take her analysis to its logical conclusion. After all, if Asian Americans are admitted less often despite possessing higher scores, presumably this too is because they, as a group, demonstrate deep weaknesses "in other areas." Chiao undoubtedly has valuable insights to offer on what these areas might be.
Srivas Prasad Research Assistant in Physics, Harvard University
Princeton Bonfires: Bigger is better
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor: U. bonfire dangerous and big enough as is' (Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006):
David Barndollar '88's letter neglected to mention that, risk of disaster aside, larger bonfires are far more awesome than smaller ones.
William Scharf '08
Politics is not an athletic competition measured by numbers
Regarding 'For Tigers, a post-election eviction' (Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006):
Regarding the election, The Daily Princetonian writes, "the end of the year decline in Princetonian political clout marks a disappointing finish for what began as a banner year for Tiger politicos." To this I shout "good riddance" and elation for this beginning of the end. If other Princetonian Republican appointees and officials like Kit Bond '60 (D-Mo.) were on the ballot, they too would have been keelhauled.
Politics is not an athletic contest where we glow in the victory of the sheer numbers of alumni in Washington. Princeton's reputation in the nation's service has been severely tarnished by Sen. Bill First '74 (R-Tenn.), former large donor trustee and the sacked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld '54.
Rep. Jim Leach '64 (R-Iowa), an honorable standout, lost his bid because he represented the wrong party. Rightfully, he was dispatched.
We need no more such "banner years." Many educated alumni look forward to more Princeton nabobs jettisoned in two years. Princeton has been and is being dramatically ill-served by the dismal performance of many of these Republican alumni in Washington.
Laurence C. Day '55
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.