A changed stance on gun control?
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Friday, May 18, 2007):
After reading the letter written by Terry Wintroub '69, I feel that I must publicly retract my previous comments about the necessity of gun control. I must admit that it was positively imbecilic of me to assume that the reason America's homicide rates are so much higher than all similar countries is because of the easy availability of firearms; my lapse of judgment is especially vexing when one considers that the real reason for the high murder rates in our country is that not enough people have firearms. In fact, the best way to prevent robbery would be for every house to have heavy machine gun emplacements defending the yard. Of course, since even a heavy machine gun emplacement wouldn't protect against an aerial attack, every house should have a battery of surface-to-air missiles as well, not to mention the requisite assault rifles and grenades etc., that are necessary to defend oneself from the myriad of threats that we as American individuals face. . ??My previous statements were flawed in many regards. Indeed, I made the common mistake of thinking that guns are designed to kill people, when clearly they are designed to save innocent lives. Therefore, I propose that our nation should make gun possession and training a mandatory requirement for citizenship starting at the age of 13. Only when our nation is truly armed to defend itself from its armed citizens will we achieve the tranquility and peace that we so desire. Derek Yecies '08
Cannon was a home to many alumni
Regarding 'Cannon to reopen in spring 2008' (Friday, May 18, 2007):
It's great to know the Gun will return. My best memories of Princeton are there. Better than home; more than brothers. Ron Van Buskirk '66
Cannon reopening will add to the Street
Regarding 'Cannon to reopen in spring 2008' (Friday, May 18, 2007):
Finally, a great club is to exist again.
V.J. Menna '61
Disapproval of the rebuilding of Butler was misunderstood
Regarding 'Butlerites lament wreckage upon return' (Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007): This article presented a quotation from my Butler blog posting as though I were criticizing the University and architect Jon Hlafter '61 for demolishing the college. In reality, I have, both in the pages of the 'Prince' and numerous other forums, including emails to Hlafter, been a strong advocate for demolishing the old Butler. The correct context for my lament is the design of the new Butler buildings. According to the renditions published last year, they are hardly designed with "an eye for longevity." The exterior's sleek lines and arrow-slit windows will be a blander — but equally unattractive — misfit on the historic campus (and right across from beautiful Whitman, no less). I am sorry to see my quad demolished to make way for something that will itself likely be deemed an eyesore in 50 years. Jennifer Mickel '07
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.