Letters to the Editor - Dec. 13, 2007

Generalizations of Hudson are incorrect

Regarding 'Hudson Valley' (Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007):

After reading Conor Gannon's article, it is quite obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. As someone who has lived in the Hudson Valley since birth, I think that Gannon's representation of the region is less than fair. Is Gannon aware that the Hudson Valley is home to four major universities? Marist College, Vassar College and the Culinary Institute of America are all located there, as well as Bard College, which Gannon apparently visited. In addition to this, Hyde Park, located not far from Red Hook (a town which is apparently "dying at no one's hands"), boasts an impressive level of tourism. Many people come to the historic area to visit the homes of F.D.R., Eleanor Roosevelt, Samuel Morse and the Vanderbilt family. These are just a few of the things the Hudson Valley has to offer. I could go on and on.

For Gannon to encounter a handful of people and describe the whole region as "old and senseless" is wrong. Gannon also claims that Princeton practically does not exist in the Hudson Valley. What is this claim based on? Gannon's experience with a cab driver? I can tell you that he is most definitely wrong. I am from the Hudson Valley and somehow am not too "worn," "sluggish" or "pissed off" to know of Princeton's existence. Gannon should really try to put some thought into his words instead of summing up a limited experience into an offensive, false description of a region he knows nothing about. Or maybe I should just go to Brooklyn, Gannon's hometown, meet three or four people and make vast overarching assumptions about the whole borough. Alyssa Smilowitz '08

No valid argument offered against group

Regarding 'Gays, feminists and the Anscombe Society' (Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007):

Jason Sheltzer '08 considers Anscombe bemusing. Ergo, Anscombe is wrong. Since Anscombe is wrong, Sheltzer need not address a single one of its actual arguments. This is scaldingly thorough reasoning.

Sheltzer finds it sufficient to decorate his article liberally (forgive the pun) with "bigot," "discrimination" and generally unsubstantiated outrage. Should our "crass commercialization of sex" be accepted (as Sheltzer seems to imply) or resisted (as Anscombe maintains)? Is mutual sexual release sufficient for marital union, or is actual bodily union necessary? If a unitive act is not necessary for marriage, but only a "loving partnership" is, then why would nonsexual friendships or polygamous relationships be excluded from such an institution? Are the studies indicating that homosexual sex is in fact physically and psychologically damaging to those who participate unreasonable or irrelevant? If so, why? Is feminism properly defined within our current cultural brand of sexual licentiousness, or can one offer a more sound understanding? Ah, but of course such questions need not be addressed, because Anscombe is wrong. Thus sayeth Jason.

Silencing debate by merely shouting "bigoted" and "discriminatory" is a bit frustrating. In the end, I'm left wondering: Why does Sheltzer preach these wrongheaded notions? Why won't he offer an argument? Tom Haine '08

A society responds

Regarding 'Gays, feminists and the Anscombe Society' (Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007):

The Anscombe Society refuses to allow Jason Sheltzer '08's preachy antics, libelous claims and intellectual intolerance to smear our good reputation, respectful outlook and intellectual decency. It is a shame that, despite Anscombe's continuing effort to bring the topic of sexuality into the light of academia, Sheltzer would rather see our dissenting views silenced by the libertine orthodoxy to which he adheres. His intolerant outlook represents the worst form of politically correct paternalism, and defies the very idea of a university — a forum where views are debated on their rational merits. The primary goal of Sheltzer's armchair analysis is not an honest one. His false inferences, gross ignorance of Anscombe's mission statement and unjustified normative claims are patronizing to those unacquainted with the depth and breadth of the arguments we have advocated since Anscombe's inception. Given that he focuses on the same-sex marriage issue, Sheltzer should also keep in mind that his disagreement is not only with the Anscombe Society, but with half of Princeton students, not to mention an overwhelming majority of Americans.

The Anscombe Society enthusiastically welcomes debate about our positions, such as the one we hold on same-sex marriage (a debate Sheltzer presumes to be settled in his favor). The problem with Sheltzer's article is not that it is critical, but that it offers no argument whatsoever against our position. We have answered many times the question of why we hold what Sheltzer calls "wrongheaded notions." As a group, we're interested in why he thinks our notions are wrongheaded. Jason, we're waiting to hear your arguments. Kevin Joyce '09 President, The Anscombe Society