Some athletes are 'academic ones'
Regarding 'A Unique Opportunity' (Friday, Feb. 16, 2007):
I found the Editorial Board's opinion an interesting one. Other responses have touched upon the article's unfair stereotyping, so instead of focusing on that, I'd prefer to focus on the editorial's own question. The board asked, "but why haven't we heard about Princeton admitting last year's winner of the Westinghouse Science competition, accomplished high school writers or virtuoso musical talents?" The simple answer is that the Editorial Board of The Daily Princetonian has not decided to publicize such stories. Instead of blaming some cabal of athletes, the board should realize that this school has always been focused on excellence in every form. Given the internal inconsistency in your story, the board would be well advised to remember that there have been and always will be athletes who are academic "ones," as well as journalists and artists who are not. Josh Humphries '03
'Lazy' summer jobs can be beneficial
Regarding 'There are no lazy days of summer' (Friday, Feb. 16, 2007):
David Smart attacked and overlooked the benefits of choosing other summer options, such his highlighted choices of working at Goldman Sachs or as a cashier. Smart implied that someone with a summer experience such as his own will reap benefits later in life, while someone who chose to stay at home and work will not. Perhaps this is a bit presumptuous. Perhaps working at the cash register in Wal-Mart for the summer will allow some future doctor working in the inner city to better relate to his patients. As for working at Goldman Sachs, if a person is interested in this field, then please give him the opportunity to explore it.
Smart also wrote condescendingly about hanging out with high school friends while later quoting Winston Churchill on greatness and responsibility. Cultivating and continuing friendships held before college is by no means a bad thing, and I would argue it is beneficial to our own wellbeing. Many of us have jumped from summer job to summer camp to summer internship making temporary friendshipd, but few of them actually last.
Smart encourages readers to rage against the lazy days of summer. At Princeton the word lazy equals bad; however, in my mind, the phrase, "lazy days of summer" conjures pictures of carefree days spent with friends and family, swimming, laughing and playing games. I know we don't allow ourselves enough of this at Princeton. It is okay to unwind, to take some time for yourself and for others you care about.
Have fun during the summer. Change the world if you want, make money if you want, spend time with family and friends and if a lazy summer is what you want, you have probably earned it from a year working hard at school. Laura Smith '05
U. should amend free speech policies
Regarding 'Harris '99 fights against campus censorship' (Monday, Feb. 19, 2007):
Good for Samantha Harris '99 for standing up for First Amendment principles at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). While I agree with her that Princeton's campus culture remains relatively free of oppressive P.C. totalitarianism (despite the occasional hiccup), it is nonetheless troubling that FIRE classifies Princeton as a "Red-Light" university. FIRE states that: "A red light university has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech."
If Princeton is, in fact, as respectful of First Amendment freedoms as it seems to be, why not amend its official policies to conform to reality? If doing the right thing is not compelling enough, then maybe a little school pride will do. FIRE classifies Penn and Dartmouth as the only "Green-Light" schools in the Ivy League. Since when is any loyal Tiger content to take second place to the Quakers or the Big Green? Peter Paine '85
Center's move is worth the time and money
Regarding 'First thing's first' (Monday, Feb. 19, 2007):
The Daily Princetonian's Editorial Board vastly underestimates the distance of the planned move of the Carl A. Fields Center "no more than fifty feet" westward to the former Elm Club. According to Google Earth, the distance between the centers of the two buildings is well over two hundred feet. That's quite a long way — almost as long as the hike from Nassau Street to Nassau Hall! I, for one, am glad that the administration has chosen to spend its money on such a significant project. Dan Candeto '07
Professor Silver should be supported
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
I am glad that the only five people at Princeton who agree with Professor George's radical conservative philosophy have come forward to excoriate Lee Silver in these pages. Just because they're not getting any does not mean the rest of us have to suffer. In the meantime, Professor Silver remains my hero. Jacob Savage '06
Criticisms of filibuster were expected
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
As one of the many students who filibustered here on campus and traveled to Washington D.C., to bring the message to the Capitol Building, I can say that we all anticipated the complaint raised by Michael Taylor '05.
And we were willing to accept it. We all felt that there must be a check on majority rule so that a 51-49 senate could not create policy that a 99-1 senate could. In particular, it was important to prevent the Supreme Court appointment of radically right-wing justices who would have life terms only because the conservatives held a slim majority at the time.
Moreover, I would point out to Taylor that, while I am personally proud to call myself liberal, not everyone who participated fit that description. Actually, probably the most conservative student I know joined us, and I was happy to see him there. Sara Viola '08
Reader misunderstood filibuster's intention
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
Michael Taylor '05 misrepresents the nature of the Frist Filibuster of 2005, which I co-organized with many other students, progressive and conservative alike. That protest argued that the Senatorial filibuster on judicial nominations was a vital, deeply traditional part of the "checks and balances" system at the heart of our nation's government. We contended that it was worth preserving because of its 200-year old institutional importance in protecting the minority party's rights, including those of Republicans if they ever lost control of the Senate. Sadly, Taylor, like the senatorial leadership at the time, shows little more than contempt for this hallmark of American democracy. Asheesh Siddique '07
Many conservative students protested
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
Michael Taylor '05 suggests that the "liberal students" who protested the attempts by former Sen. Bill Frist '74 to circumvent or eliminate the filibuster should now be disappointed with the outcome, given the current composition of the Senate and the challenge presented by an obstinate minority who still support the war in Iraq.
While many of the Frist Filibuster organizers were liberals who opposed the erosion of constitutional rights by activist right-wing judges, we were joined by a number of principled conservatives who valued the institutional role of the Senate as a deliberative body where the need for consensus can, by design, frustrate the majoritarian impulse. It comes as no surprise to us that with the tables turned, the filibuster can be, well, frustrating. Pete Hill '06
Filibuster was supported by Democrats and Republicans
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
I joined the Frist Filibuster as a freshman and passionately supported it until the very end. The current situation reaffirms my faith in that "silly non-constitutional procedural rule." To attempt to boil our argument down to simple political opportunism just doesn't work. Taylor argues that those in the Filibuster protest opposed Sen. Frist's measure at a time of Republican dominance, so they must hate the Republicans and regret their success defending a principle now that the Filibuster has impeded their inevitable goal of political opportunism. Why would they stand for hours in inclement weather to gain the attention of the passersby, except for petty partisan ends?
I will tell you that I protested on principle. All of my colleagues in the Frist Filibuster still believe in what they did that semester, at Princeton, in Washington, D.C., and around the country. They feel pride when they speak of it. They will defend that principle to this day.
Taylor assumes we were all liberals, as if we were fighting for a bill on healthcare and not for one of the fundamental protections of minority freedom in our government. I am a Republican, and when I spoke for the filibuster protest, I spoke to remind my fellow Republicans not to treat Senate minority rights with such disdain, knowing the situation may change someday, but also knowing that this simple principle forces the Senate to ponder its position longer, to deliberate more carefully and to compromise in a manner befitting our Constitution. I do not regret my actions, and I feel I speak for my colleagues in the Frist Filibuster when I say that I feel proud in what I did — I will always feel that pride when I think about how I defended the principle that protected the Democrats then and protects the Republicans now. Nicholas Cox '08
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?