Ebanks' oped misses Girgis' point entirely
Regarding 'Marriage matters' (Friday, Dec. 8, 2006):
Ryan Ebanks '09's response to my guest oped on marriage ignores an irrefutable argument against gay "marriage" and, in so doing, entirely misses my point.
First, my point: Under traditional laws no one is actually denied marriage because marriage — by definition and universal human confirmation — involves physical union. Unlike most human acts (e.g., locomotion or thought) which require a single person, the basic act of reproduction (sexual intercourse) unites two people — a man and a woman — as its single subject. Whether non-behavioral biological factors cause conception to follow, every coital act really unites a man and a woman in a single reproductive act unavailable to same-sex couples. It's this foundational organic union which makes marriage possible for a man and a woman — infertile or not — but not for two men, two women or more than two partners.
Now, the unanswered argument: If we reject that marriage requires such physical union, then we have no non-arbitrary basis for restricting marriage to two people. Even recognizing homosexual couples would thus be discriminatory — against polygamous or nonsexual unions seeking benefits. If objective organic union (with its unique link to childbearing and public welfare) isn't the criterion, why should sexual activity of any kind be?
Sherif Girgis '08
Neither side is right
Regarding 'Civil union bill clears committee' (Tuesday, Dec. 12, 2006) and 'The public meaning of marriage' (Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2006):
Sigh ... while I'm not surprised to see the Princeton Justice Project (PJP) arguing for full gay marriage, they need to realize difference isn't inherently unjust. I'm sure PJP would abstractly support the separation of church and state, but they've neglected that principle and are lobbying for the state to legislate marriage, an institution and term with profoundly religious connotations. Were PJP properly calibrated for justice, they would not be asking that New Jersey dip state fingers into religion.
Sherif Girgis '08's comments, meanwhile, were so hilariously disingenuous that I almost left him alone, but he deserves rebutting. Firstly, the state already interprets sexual activity as relevant to lasting relationships, since couples who don't consummate their marriages are more readily granted annulments. Furthermore, does the bill even mention sexual activity? It seems to refer to couples' genders, not sex.
Ironically, neither side addressed the bill's major flaw, at least based on descriptions in The Daily Princetonain — civil unions are explicitly defined for gay couples, when by any standard they should be openly available. PJP should want every couple to have access to civil unions, and I certainly assume that Girgis doesn't want gays having special rights. Whatever, I'm sure they would have thought to complain about it eventually.
Dave Harris '07
Response to Pro-Life
Regarding 'Pro-choice and women's health' (Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006):
Princeton Pro-Choice Vox does not promote a decrease in the number of women terminating unwanted pregnancies. Instead, we hope to see a decrease in unintended pregnancies and, indirectly, a decrease in abortions.
We did not refer to abortion as "uncomfortable" because it is unhealthy or wrong. We simply meant that having an abortion, like visiting the dentist, is physically unpleasant. Abortions may be emotionally taxing in part because of antichoice rhetoric equating abortion with murder. However, according to the American Psychological Association, "legal abortion ... does not create psychological hazards for most women." Moreover, carrying a pregnancy to term remains far more risky than having an abortion.
Tom Haine '08's use of personal websites and anti-choice propaganda as evidence for his argument is deplorable. Particularly appalling is his bogus claim that abortion may cause breast cancer. Haine would do very poorly if this were a Freshman Writing Seminar paper. He failed to support scientific claims with peer-reviewed journals or other reputable sources.
Our guest oped celebrated the new over-the-counter status of Plan B because it can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps Haine and Princeton Pro-Choice Vox could find common ground on this point. Or is he opposed to access to contraceptives, as well?
Sara Viola '08 and Max Wertzberger '08
Plan B may or may not terminate pregnancy
Regarding 'Plan B is now OTC' (Tuesday, Dec. 12, 2006):
Max Wertzberger '08and Sara Viola '08's claim that Plan B "cannot terminate an existing pregnancy" is false. As stated in the "Clinical Pharmacology" section of the Plan B Label, "Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium)." It's possible that Plan B prevents the conceived embryo from implanting in the uterus, thus acting as an abortofacient. We simply do not know if this is or is not the case. For Princeton Pro-Choice Vox to claim categorically that this is an impposibility is blatant deception. Perhaps "Princeton Pro-Choice Mendacium" would be a more accurate name for the group.
Michael Fragoso '06
Editorial's suggestions already implented
Regarding 'The SCG needs a new life' (Monday, Dec. 11, 2006):
Considering your recent coverage of Student Course Guide (SCG) developments, I was surprised that your editorial included incorrect information. A few clarifications:
The Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students will no longer compensate students per course review due to changed regulations and efficiency concerns. The recent study breaks held by the USG, however, netted hundreds of reviews, and we are ready to launch additional incentives to encourage submissions.
Many of the features you suggested, from the ability to search by distribution requirement and department to professors being included in reviews, are already present in the SCG.
A revised version of the SCG was released last week, and like the SCG launched last spring it, too, will soon be made very aesthetically pleasing.
The USG is currently exploring longterm collaboration with the administration to design an SCG in which student-designed questions at the end of the term may be integrated into a comprehensive course evaluation system.
We completely agree that the SCG is critical to students. If you had taken the time to speak with any USG officer, however, you would have learned that most of your thoughtful suggestions for the SCG are either being implemented or already realized.
Caitlin Sullivan '07 USG Academics Chairperson
Both USG candidates have much to offer
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor: Is this the best we can do as a University?' (Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006):
I am greatly disappointed by the reaction to the recent USG election. To make such a statement disparages the capabilities and the records of service of both Grant Gittlin '08 and Rob Biederman '08.
Both candidates for USG president have been serving Princeton students for years. They have contributed ideas on both socialand policy-issues. They have given away donuts by the Dinky and Hoagies at Yale, argued student concerns before President Tilghman and Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel and earned the respect of many of their peers. In addition, the constructive ideas that were generated during the campaign were some of the best that campus politics has ever produced. The candidates showed their ability to suggest both minor improvements to everyday life and their willingness to tackle the large issues that directly affect the academic and social quality of Princeton.
Both Biederman and Gittlin have much to offer Princeton and, as they would acknowledge, can offer it in different ways. I am glad that Princeton has both of them and that they will both continue to serve the school they love.
Jim Williamson '07
Unreasoned dualism
Regarding 'Biederman trumps Gittlin to win USG presidency' (Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2006):
One puzzling feature of the recent USG presidential campaign was the moral indignation which greeted Rob Biederman '08's confession in the case of the incinerated squirrel carcass. Curiously, the vast majority of those whose delicate sensibilities were offended are in the habit of burning and eating animal carcasses on a daily basis. Furthermore, Biederman's squirrel lived his life freely and was said to have died of independent causes. By contrast, the animals consumed on Princeton's tables are, at our command, deliberately and under disgracefully cruel conditions, raised, slaughtered and burnt.
It is difficult to see how students who eat meat can consistently condemn the burning of dead squirrels for amusement. Perhaps the thought is that the burning of the squirrel was non-analogously gratuitous. Those who are fully informed of the relevant facts and honestly believe the consumption of meat to be necessary suffer either from confusion or enslavement to appetite. This unreasoned dualism should worry such flesh-eaters as may care to live an ethical life. Of course, one man's modus ponens may be another man's modus tollens, and perhaps my carnivorous colleagues will prefer to allow wanton squirrel-burning than to forego their pork chops.
Dylan Byron '09 Co-president Princeton Animal Welfare Society
Ruckus not a good deal
Regarding 'U. reaches deal with music site' (Monday, Dec. 11, 2006):
Two points:
1. The service is not free but $9.99 a month or $120 a year. That's 120 songs purchased from iTunes.
2. It only runs on Windows machines. Macs are left out.
Conclusion: Not a good deal at all and not available to Mac users.
Professor William Howarth English Department
Read More
It’s time to step it up on diversity and inclusion
Christofer RoblesOver the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Over the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.