Duel inaccuracy
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, March 27, 2007):
I was surprised to see Ambrose B. Scoffpossum, Esq. Class of 1856 challenge my friend Sean McGowan '06 to a duel on these pages after McGowan called into question Professor Lee Silver's credentials as "a gentleman." I was surprised mainly because Scoffpossum challenges McGowan using the Code Duello of 1777 (or "the Irish Code"). The Code does not contain any provisions for a man to issue a challenge on the part of a third party's honor, unless it is "a lady under a gentleman's care or protection." (Article 10) In order for the validity of Mr. Scoffpossum's challenge to stand, it seems we need to know more about his relationship with Silver. Of course, I wouldn't dare insinuate what that relationship might be — after all, that's the sort of thing Silver would do. Michael Fragoso '06
Speaker out of touch with Americans
Regarding 'Antiabortion speaker sparks heated debate' (Thursday, April 5, 2007):
Charmaine Yoest exposed the unapologetic anti-intellectualism of the antiabortion rights movement during her April 5 lecture.
The policy statement of the American Psychiatric Association reads, "The [APA] 1) opposes all constitutional amendments, legislation, and regulations curtailing family planning and abortion services to any segment of the population; 2) reaffirms its position that abortion is a medical procedure in which physicians should respect the patient's right to freedom of choice."
Why, I asked, does Yoest propagate the myth of post-abortion syndrome, since the mental health experts clearly disagree with her? At this point, Yoest revealed her intellectual cowardice, calling the APA "highly politicized" and their scientific work, "an art form." She refused to justify these charges.
How convenient this is for Yoest! I suppose she thinks that the American Medical and the American Public Health Associations are filled with leftist extremists, too.
Yoest should admit that her idealogy has absolutely nothing to do with improving the mental health of women. I take her shamefully dishonest strategy as a sign of desperation. Contrary to her public prediction that Roe v. Wade will soon be overturned, Yoest knows she is increasingly out of touch with the American people. Sara Viola '08
A healthy controversy
Regarding 'University should reconsider chaplaincy' (Monday, April 9, 2007):
I proudly served as a Princeton University chaplain while still a rabbinic student in the early 80s. The status and chaplain's ID card automatically came with my job title as assistant Hillel director. Working on campus with then Hillel director, Rabbi Edward Feld was, in so many ways, a profoundly broadening experience for this clergyman-in-training. Rabbi Feld converted my knee-jerk liberalism into an ever deepening appreciation for the hard work and courage required of religious leaders committed to diversity.
As a Reform Jew with a profound appreciation for what Chabad brings to the table, I think an examination of its commitment to diversity is fair game. Chabad's ultimately parochial approach speaks to an ideology that remains foreign to me. But, so what? Judaism thrives on diversity and typically bristles when good people try to control the conversation by centralizing power to protect our fragile remnant.
Not to worry, we are a resilient people and can withstand the controversy. After all, a healthy controversy for a higher purpose remains a central tenet of Jewish study. Let an open-spirited and intellectually honest conversation be your guide. And let the strength or weakness of Chabad's commitment to diversity be the question. Rabbi Marc Disick
Decision lies with University
Regarding 'The CJL and Chabad partnership' (Wednesday, April 11, 2007):
Outside Princeton, Hillel does not profess to speak for or represent Chabad, nor does Chabad claim to represent Hillel. To suggest that Chabad become part of Princeton Hillel is absurd. It would be a shame if Princeton were to substitute the administration's patronizing discretion to choose one group and not another for pluralism.
While the CJL's name appears to make it an "umbrella" organization for Jewish activities, a broad mission does not preclude the need for other organizations, any more than a single Christian chaplaincy could satisfy the entire Christian community. It is painfully humiliating that in 2007, the supposed "fact" that Princeton has "the second-smallest Jewish community in the Ivy League" could be the foundation for any reasoned argument. Chabad and Hillel are both recognized chaplaincies on other campuses, including ones with smaller Jewish communities, such as Dartmouth, not because of any threshold number of Jewish students, but rather because those campuses have administrations that value religious diversity.
Ultimately, the decision to deny Chabad chaplaincy belongs to the University and President Tilghman. Chabad will move forward, but the University itself will labor under this ill-advised decision. For many years to come, Tilghman will be asked questions about this decision and will have to explain her tortured logic. But it is not too late for her to reconsider. Leon Furchtgott '09 and Jacob Oppenheim '09 Chabad Student Board members
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?