Letters to the Editor: April 3, 2008

USG efforts were not just top down

Regarding ‘University revises RCA alcohol guidelines,' (Friday, March 28, 2008):

The article about the University's RCA policy was wholly accurate and well reflected the positive student-administration interaction. Students should know, however, that the efforts of the USG are not solely the actions of the president, but rather largely thanks to the efforts of the individual members of the organization. In this case, Zach Squire '08, Lauren Barnett '08 and the USG representatives to the Undergraduate Life Committee deserve a lot of credit and thanks, as does Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Hilary Herbold.

Josh Weinstein '09, USG President

No guns needed

Regarding ‘Public Safety requests firearms,' (Friday, March 28, 2008):

What exactly must Public Safety officers deal with on a routine basis that requires a pistol? Even though supplying New York City cops with AK-47s might assist them in more effectively stopping criminals, it is clear that the public wants a police force that protects them from crime, not one that approximates military occupation.

The real problem at hand is the nature of the Public Safety officers' job itself. These men and women have chosen to police a suburban University campus, not Trenton; regardless of their training, they will not, nor do they plan to face, the same sorts of challenges that police from a big city or even from Princeton Borough do on a regular basis.

Moreover, the Princeton Borough Police Department is actually closer to central campus than the Public Safety's Headquarters, and Public Safety's driving route to Frist is twice as long. We have two full-fledged police departments right on top of Princeton geographically. Wasting Princeton's money on an interrogation room for Public Safety's new office (replete with one-way glass) was already a step too far. Arming the officer that writes you up for "serving" your of-age friends beer is just plain unnecessary.

Nic Poulos '08

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

No wall to tear down

Regarding ‘Tear down this wall,' (Thursday, March 27, 2008):

I agree that the eating clubs should not throw stones at Princeton Borough. It isn't productive and fosters a sense of mistrust. The concept of the Borough standing in direct opposition to the Street is, however, not helpful, nor is it true. Cindy Hong '09 discredits the efforts the ICC has put into fostering a good working relationship with Princeton Borough.

In my first month as an eating club president, the old and new club presidents attended a Borough Council meeting at which we were very well received. The outgoing presidents addressed the strides the ICC has made to ensure safety on the Street, the meetings we have with council members to raise concerns, and the work we do with Corner House, a nonprofit counseling agency for young adults.

Hong also states "for Princeton students who know that eating clubs do more than enable underage drinking, it's frustrating to feel like targets." The point is, we're not supposed to enable underage drinking at all, and I speak for the ICC when I say that we don't.

The author is absolutely right that a healthy, functioning relationship between the clubs and the Borough is necessary, and that is exactly what we have been working toward. We look forward to maintaining an open dialogue with Princeton Borough officials as our terms continue.

Stephanie Burset '09 President, Tower Club

Grad students more than means to an end

Regarding ‘Do right by grad students,' (Wednesday, March 26, 2008):

Though I agree with the editorial board's call for the University to address the concerns of graduate students, I strongly disagree with its characterization of graduate students as mere instruments that improve the undergraduate experience. Graduate students do provide an invaluable service to undergraduates, but they ought to receive fair treatment not for what they do but for who they are: fellow Princetonians. The editorial board is misguided in assuming that the benefits that undergraduates enjoy as a result of the presence of graduate students on campus can be considered a measure of their worth as members of our community. Moreover, the editorial board is mistaken in assuming that the lives of graduate students revolve around the undergraduate population. An editorial board that commends their contributions to the University community ought to mention their research and their assistance to the faculty in addition to the benefits that they provide to undergraduates.

Juan Contreras '09