Silver's response was hypocritcal
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
Professor Silver's response to my letter in defense of Professor George was a mixture of backpedaling and mendacity. I never accused Silver of distorting George's record. I accused him of being a hypocrite. That charge still stands. Silver's response ignored my claims about his radical views and doubled back to regurgitations of George's views on sexuality, apropos of, well, absolutely nothing. After having read some of Silver's work, I understand why he would rather quote George than respond himself, but it does not do his position any service. He remains a hypocrite for daring to chastise George's "extremism" and has shown himself to be childish for his perpetual goading of George, which possesses all the courage of a bully and the grace of a tattletale. For those interested in finding out why George has been unwilling to debate Silver and Singer, Silver's disgraceful recent conduct should be evidence enough. But for anyone about the complete story, we recommend reading George's June 12, 2006, piece on www.firstthings.com entitled "I Was Wrong about Peter Singer." Michael Fragoso '06
Silver has not yet defended his opinion
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
"Shut up," Silver explains.
Lee Silver just doesn't seem to get it. His second letter does nothing either to defend or apologize for his ad hominem attack on Professor George. More significantly, it suggests that Silver doesn't have the arguments to take on Professor George's work, or at least he refuses to explain them. Despite the absence of evidence for his main claim, Silver expects us to take him at his word: Professor George's widely acclaimed writing is nothing more than a reworking of the Bible. But then again, how could we doubt Silver's philosophical and theological contentions? After all, he's a biophysicist.
If Silver wants to present an intelligible critique of George's arguments, he might avoid what he has done thus far — picking and choosing various conclusions (whose premises he conveniently evades) — and scoffing at them. Silver's defensive cry for a public debate is old news, and Professor George has articulated elsewhere why the type of exhibitionist contest Silver desires is unsuitable. But think about it: Silver has twice taken the opportunity to express his views publicly and in an academic manner (in The Daily Princetonian) and has both times resorted to contextomy and armchair philosophy. Would he not do the same in a debate? If this is the level at which Silver wants to debate, I can see why he can find no sparring partners but undergraduates.
Professor Silver needs to come out of the cave and see the light. His quixotic "arguments" are not as evident to others as they are to him. If he has real philosophical objections to George's work for the 'Prince' readership, let him explain them in that context. That's what Peter Singer would do, anyway. Kevin Joyce '09
Silver criticized for his lack of professionalism
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007):
Professor Silver either failed to read my letter or completely misunderstood it. I criticized him because he acted in a manner which is unbecoming of both a Princeton professor and a gentleman. The fact that he tried to shift the blame onto Professor George, while never denying my accusation of unprofessionalism, leads me to believe that he is fully aware of how childish his initial attempt truly was.
I felt the need to defend Professor George not because I agree with everything he believes or writes, but because he is a great professor, and he takes his job in the classroom very seriously. George is capable of expressing his "extremist" views (in his written work, not the classroom) without lowering the bar of decency and academic respectability set by the countless Princeton professors who have come before him. Also, unlike some professors, he does not use a college newspaper as a means of lashing out with cheap shots and challenges to his colleagues, current students and recent alums. Why? He is a gentleman. Sean McGowan '06
Anscombe Society conference was kept quiet
Regarding 'Forum spreads gospel of chastity' (Monday, Feb. 19, 2007):
The Anscombe Society has been getting a fair bit of attention from The Daily Princetonian in the wake of its conference, "Making love last," held Feb. 16 and 17. But the 'Prince' has neglected to inform its readers of the secretive and exclusionary nature of this conference. When we wrote to the conference organizers with inquiries, we were stonewalled at every turn. Lee Silver and our colleague James Trussell wrote to Mary Cheffers '08 of the Anscombe Society, inquiring where the conference was to take place, and Cheffers declined to answer their questions but instead replied that the conference was full. We thought it odd that the conference location was not listed in any of the public communications and the conference organizers seemed to be refusing to divulge the location, but, reluctant to believe that the conference location was actually secret, Lisa Wynn wrote to Cheffers asking where the conference would be held. Ms. Cheffers did not respond, but Cassy DeBenedetto '07, the conference organizer, responded instead, challenging us to explain our interest in the conference location and rejecting the idea that there was any evasion in Cheffers response to Professor Trussell. A response to DeBenedetto asking why she and Cheffers refused to tell us the conference location went unanswered.
We find it curious that a conference purporting to educate participants on what academic inquiry has to say about the family, marriage, sexual ethics and sexuality would take such steps to exclude participants from the Princeton community who might contribute to the spirit of intellectual debate that characterizes academic inquiry. We also wonder why the conference organizers would go to such lengths to chasten us for jumping to the conclusion that there were any secrets being kept, when they were clearly unwilling to divulge the conference location. We encourage the organizers to "receive with greater charity" our own interest in the conference location and that of other members of the Princeton community. Lisa Wynn Associate Research Scholar, Office of Population Research and Center for Health and Wellbeing Lee Silver Professor of Molecular Biology and Public Affairs
Article title was unfair
Regarding 'Quad unpopular; Tower, Cap increase selectivity' (Saturday, Feb. 24, 2007):
Usually when former eating-club presidents appear in the Opinion section of The Daily Princetonian, they are apologizing or promoting something. This is neither. This is a proud defense of his club against the aggressive libel of his college newspaper.
The 'Prince' had no business running an article titled "Quad Unpopular." Reprinting an old article under a new title without fully updating the numbers is blatant misrepresentation.
Quad is unpopular? When was the last time the 'Prince' was on tap? You must always be members-only because I've never been in 48 University Place, but I'm pretty sure over half the student body has been to 33 Prospect Ave.
Honestly, it's difficult to tell which is more credible: the 'Prince' or the New York Observer. While the 'Prince' surpasses the Observer in its judgment of decency, it somehow lacks the Observer's commitment to accuracy.
It is no secret that coverage of activities at the Street is skewed. So I now ask, as an outraged participant in the club system as a whole, for more responsible reporting on the eating-club system — an institution that is possibly the most rewarding experience for the majority of Princeton students. Cody Sonntag '07 Emeritus President, Princeton Quadrangle Club
Quad sign-in numbers were inaccurate
Regarding 'Quad unpopular; Tower, Cap increase selectivity' (Saturday, Feb. 24, 2007):
The article in question was a composite based upon two stories about the clubs. What it succeeded in doing was producing an amalgamation of inaccuracy and editorial fallacy. Not only was it a partial reprint of an article without the retractions appended, but it also took disconcerting liberties with its limited information.
Our first-round numbers were reported to the paper, and they were compared with our total from last year. Our second round numbers were not released. As I mentioned then, the reasons for this were that contracts had not been tallied and we were still receiving requests from sophomores to join. I'm not sure, then, how there could be any interpretation of data that was explicitly not provided at the time. Even in the reprint article, it was stated to be a "notable decline" though in the very next sentence, it was admitted that no total numbers had been released. Actually, our final number represents an increasing trend.
These things happen, but I want to set the record straight for our members and distinguished alumni. Scott Syverson '08
Juniors and seniors have many meal options
Regarding 'Disjointed meal plans' (Monday, March 5, 2007):
I want to thank The Daily Princetonian for raising the issue of shared meal plans, since March 7 is the deadline for students to apply for four-year colleges through the room draw process. Shared meal plans are available to those rising juniors and seniors who are members of clubs who enter the draws for the two four-year residential colleges — Mathey and Whitman.
Unfortunately, the editorial may have left some students with the impression that opportunities to choose shared meal plans are quite limited. In fact, there are enough shared meal plans available that the majority of juniors and seniors who decide to live in a four-year residential college next year could choose this option.
Under the agreement the University reached with each of the 10 eating clubs, it is up to the clubs to provide their members with more detailed information about shared meal plans (including the maximum number available). I strongly recommend members of eating clubs who are interested in living in four-year residential colleges talk with their club leadership to make sure a shared meal plan is available to them.
So in advance of the room draw application deadline later this week, I would encourage rising juniors and seniors to consider all of their options and to make an informed choice. Mark Burstein Executive Vice President
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.