Letters to the Editor

Skloot '05 was overly attacked for his opinion about Chabad

Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, April 3, 2007):

The Scharfs' letters might under other circumstances be ignorable, each just another sound bite from just another chronically angry Princetonian. I did take some issue with William Scharf '08's presumption (read: "chutzpah") to speak for me as a Jew, but the real problem is how, between their bombast and namedropping ("I've talked to Tilghman! More than once!"), they both deign, by invocation of blood libel or, more directly, to call rabbinical student Joe Skloot '05 an anti-Semite.

Personal discomfort is certainly no reason to deny Chabad a chaplaincy, though documented violations of CJL policies and allegations of serving alcohol to minors should raise eyebrows. Criticizing Chabad's methods is not tantamount to drawing cartoons of rockets falling on Jewish elementary schools. Skloot may be judgmental, but he is not hateful. When the Scharfs toss around comparisons to Princeton's despicable Jewish quota and to blood libel, they poison the conversation and hamper our ability to identify and fight real hate.

"Shame, shame, shame" indeed: Shame on them. Joe Zipkin '07

Chabad chaplaincy decision was divisive for Jews on campus

Regarding 'France, CJL and identity crusades' (Wednesday, April 4, 2007):

David Smart's recent oped indicates just how widely the University's denial of chaplaincy to Chabad has resonated on campus. Rather than faulting the CJL for "failure to provide," however, I would emphasize that the two groups are in many ways complementary. I have many friends who enjoy what both have to offer. Without feeling shortchanged by the CJL, they find the added opportunity of Chabad enriching and sense no obligation to cast rigid allegiance with one group at the expense of the other.

Why, then, the protective CJL monopoly? Part of the rationale has been Chabad's alleged potential for divisiveness. As an active participant in campus religious life, I would suggest that the University's Chabad decision, and not Chabad itself, may pose the real threat of division. I had thought that the University's commitment to pluralism would at least mean support for the spiritual ventures students valued. Much as I would like to give Old Nassau the benefit of the doubt, I am forced to wonder whether Chabad's more conservative orientation influenced the University's decision, a glaring blemish on Princeton's carefully groomed image of neutrality. This should be a concern for everyone involved in campus religious life, regardless of creed. Elizabeth Washburn '08

Editorial comments on a non-issue

Regarding 'Hallway waste reduction' (Wednesday, April 4, 2007):

Is there a requirement that the editorial board always write something even when there is nothing of any importance to write about? This is surprisingly worse than your editorial a few months ago requesting that the University replace all heaters with magical, silent steam radiators. I'm going to refrain from explaining to you the heating process and the co-generation plant, which recently won an award for efficiency despite our supposedly horribly inefficient heaters and continue with this editorial.

Do you honestly think that Brazilian forests are being clearcut to provide the 100 percent recycled paper that the University has agreed to use at much higher cost than regular paper? I didn't know there were Brazilian forests made of trees composed of recycled paper. Do you have a person specifically designated to make up facts for your editorials, or is it a group effort? Even paper that comes from trees is made from trees planted and farmed specifically for the purpose of producing paper. I have a better idea to solve this supposed international crisis: People can actually stop being lazy, pick up the papers in front of their door that they step over all day, and recycle what they do not need. Mike Westrol '07