Exhibit was intended to provoke thought
Regarding 'Demonstrators compare meat-eating to genocide' (Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2007):
In an epoch where the process of hunting and gathering food has all but ceased, it was refreshing as both a student and a member of the Princeton Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) to see the PAWS exhibit in front of Frist Campus Center that inspired thought about the implications of our dietary choices. Some may have felt that the exhibit demonstrated a lack of respect for the suffering that the oppressed people experienced by equating animal suffering to the suffering of these people. Most people who stopped to talk and learn about the exhibit, however, came to a better understanding of the exhibit: They understood that the exhibit attempts to inspire empathy among those who feel removed from the suffering of animals but can relate to the suffering of humans. By applying this feeling of empathy to a context in which it is artificially suppressed (i.e. the dinner table), I hope many people were able to come to an understanding of the implications of their actions when eating. I believe this sense of awareness is a basic component of humanity that is not easy to maintain in a context where our water appears magically in our sinks, our garbage disappears and our food comes in elegant plastic packaging. Elliot Welder '10
Human nature is not a valid reason to eat meat
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Friday, Oct. 12, 2007):
While I am as unsympathetic as Alan Rice '10 toward the views of the "militaristic vegan/vegetarian" movement, Rice's use of human nature to justify meat consumption is flawed. Rice writes that meat consumption need not be justified, i.e., is acceptable as a matter of course, because, "all a person is doing by eating meat is following their instincts." But by this same logic, any activity stemming from human instinct is acceptable. Rape, for example, is surely an instance of a person "following [his or her] instincts" to pass on his or her genes, but it is not an acceptable activity — to put it extremely mildly. I am not attempting to accuse Rice of believing rape to be acceptable, but I do wish to point out that his logic is a poor defense of meat consumption, or any other activity, for that matter. Max Wertzberger '08
Seniors should explore all their job options
Regarding 'A different kind of diversity' (Friday, Oct. 12, 2007):
As my friends of the mediocre Class of 2008 do now, I felt the real world "looming" exactly one year ago. With an effluvium of slick marketing, pressure and the promise of high salaries, finance and consulting firms descend upon our fair campus and convince many Princetonians that their life is right for us. I won't deny the Goldmans and McKinseys of the world some degree of validation, but I would like to publicize a little known Career Services policy that made the tail of my Princeton career a touch more pleasant. Companies that recruit on Princeton's campus are required by Career Services to give you until January 1 to decide whether or not to accept their offer. If you were extended an offer at the end of an internship then you have until December 1. For internship offers you have until March 1. (Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself). So take your time. Explore your options and make a real decision. No pressure. Seriously. Avi Flamholz '07
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?