Abortion discussion has been empty
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
As an alumnus who occasionally follows campus debates, I've been sorely disappointed by the exchange of letters to the editor that followed the Dec.14 "Pro-Choice and Women's Health" article. Rather than hurl ideological accusations at each other, Haine and Moses would be better served — and serve us better — by looking for explanations for some of the facts they observe. The link between abortion and breast cancer, for example, can be scientifically analyzed. Does abortion actually cause breast cancer? Do women who have unwanted pregnancies also engage in other risk-taking behaviors before abortions, like drinking, smoking and drug use, and are these behaviors contributing to breast cancer? Perhaps abortions are so emotionally damaging that they drive women to risky behavior or drug use afterwards, which leads to cancer? Or could it be that biological risk factors for breast cancer also cause risky behavior that results in abortions?
These possibilities are obviously not equally likely, but they are testable scientific propositions. Haine and Moses and the rest of Princeton should seek to find the true relationship. Only then can they try to minimize both abortions and breast cancer. Empty rhetoric will not help with either of those issues.
Haris Hadzimuratovic '05
Letter about graduate students was too inappropriate to print
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
I'm perplexed by The Daily Princetonian decision to print Michael Van Landingham's response to Christopher Moses GS. Unlike the other letters printed in the issue, this one did not directly engage the discussion at hand. Instead, the author merely expressed his regrettable generalizations about graduate students. I'm surprised that the 'Prince' felt it appropriate to print these statements, as they served no clear purpose other than to insult a third of our student population.
Shin-Yi Lin GS
Professor's letter shows more about his character than George's
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
There is little evidence Professor Lee Silver cares about being portrayed as a serious intellectual, as his newest and strangest public expression of angst indicates. Silver is known to many of us as vulgar and evasive when it comes to the philosophical side of his career as a molecular biologist. We've seen him on TV, read his books, debated with him over dinner at Mathey College and have heard him lecture. Like many scientists of our day, Silver seems to believe that he can bring his expertise in science to the world of ideas and speak with authority. Predictably, he is as credible on ethics as T.S. Eliot is on physics. It is obvious, then, why Silver is known to caricature and summarily dismiss the ideas of his ideological opponents, rather than confront them with honesty and precision. Silver doesn't even seem interested in exploring the very arguments he scorns, as his Wikipedia-style quote-mining of Professor George suggests.
Silver's sarcastic and cynical ranting against his colleague reveals much more about him than Robert George. Professor George is one of the most respected minds in the nation. If Silver wants to be respected, his libelous misrepresentation and anti-intellectualism have to stop.
Kevin Joyce '09
Silver's letter was disrespectable
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
One would hope that a professor of this University would be able to express himself in a more respectful manner than Professor Lee Silver did in his pathetic letter to the editor. I had taken it for granted that a man who has earned a Ph.D. would not only be tolerant of the views of others, but would also be fully capable of expressing his own views in a slightly more grownup fashion.
I do have one question for Professor Silver: Was your letter written in burnt sienna or midnight blue?
Sean McGowan '06
Professor must be misinformed
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
Professor Silver's rant against Professor George's writings on extramarital sex betrays a smugness typical of scientists who fancy themselves to be polymaths. Despite what Silver implies, George's robustly reasoned arguments make no appeal to divine authority. Nor are they biologically reductionist, as the language of Silver's letter ("...female member of the human species...") suggests. Indeed, the natural law tradition to which George subscribes is arguably far more richly humanistic than Lee's physicalism, according to which "a human being is just a complex organic computer ... a puppet rather than a puppeteer" (see Silver's "Challenging Nature," Harper Collins, 2006, pp. 61-62).
Regarding George's arguments, Silver is either misinformed or disingenuous. But that's only half the problem. If he has a meaningful response besides the shrill and tired charge of extremism, let him articulate it. If he has a rigorous rational defense of the moral value to masturbation, let him give it. His resort instead to junior-high innuendo and glibness in a facile letter to the editor of an undergraduate newspaper is as telling of his academic integrity and professionalism as it is backhandedly complimentary to his opponent. By any sound rhetorical calculus, Professor Silver, a thousand sneers don't equal an argument.
Sherif Girgis '08
George's lessons more fundamental than Silver portrayed in letter
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
While at Princeton, Robert George taught me many things about jurisprudence, political philosophy and bioethics. His most important lesson to me, however, was more fundamental: Professor George taught me that honesty, respect and civility are the paramount virtues of any scholar. I don't think it unfair to say that George's embodiment of these virtues is exemplary.
Professor Lee Silver's letter to the editor embodied none of these virtues. In the aftermath of the infamous "joke" issue, many people — including the administration — rightly questioned the decency of several articles. No one, however, raised any concerns about the ad hominem attack on the joke article about Professor George.
No one, that is, until Silver wrote: "Professor George is the straightest man I have ever met. ... Please give Professor George the respect he deserves for working tirelessly to impose his extremist views on all other Americans."
George has carefully articulated his views on marriage and sexual morality and engaged in civil and thoughtful published debates with those who disagree with him. But Silver's name-calling, sarcasm and scaremongering are unfitting for any member of the Princeton community, let alone a tenured professor. Silver's embarrassingly sophomoric ranting could not contrast more sharply with George's intellectual civility, integrity and seriousness.
Ryan T. Anderson '04
Professor's letter was lacking in humor
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
I was amused to see Professor Silver's recent letter in defense of Professor George's heterosexuality. Judging by the missive's complete lack of humor, I can only surmise that its dripping sarcasm was meant to be instructional. At last, now we all see how "extreme" George's ethical positions are, and we can comfortably ascribe ourselves to Silver's moderate views. What are these views, you might ask? There's widespread genetic engineering and reproductive cloning. There's his Dr. Moreau-like advocacy for creating animal-human hybrids (pp. 219-221 of Remaking Eden). There's the fact that Silver is a prophet of "transhumanism," an ideology that looks forward to the day when biotechnological advances will allow us to move beyond being simply human beings. Until that day comes, we mere mortals will still relish the irony of a pot calling a kettle black and thus find letters like Silver's hilarious — in spite of their best efforts.
Michael A. Fragoso, '06
USG study breaks are vegetarian-friendly
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007):
While Alex Barnard '09 raises a valid point concerning vegetarian options at study breaks, it seems he has misidentified the culprit. The USG held no Hoagie Haven study break on Monday, Jan. 22. To the extent that the USG has provided the student body with food in the past (tailgate at Yale, Town Hall meetings), we have always ensured that vegetarian options existed.
Rob Biederman '08 USG President
Support of HPV vaccine should be more widespread
Regarding 'Reasons of Conscience and the HPV Vaccine' (Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007):
What an outstanding editorial! When the governor made his announcement, I expected him to be praised. Instead he has been reviled. Legislators are making petty fools of themselves by whining how important the legislative process is, when with unruffled hypocrisy, they knew with a certainty that the relevant bill has no chance of passing or even being discussed. I'm especially disappointed in the so-called "Christians" who clearly think women with cervical cancer should be punished for their sins. It would be nice if they tried to read the New Testament.
Royal Masset '67
Read More
$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.
Why do two-thirds of your summer research wages go to Princeton, anyway?
Isaac BarsoumThe income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?
The income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?