Regarding 'Outrage, not ethics, spurs U. divestment,' (Friday, Dec. 5, 2008):
Your story in last Friday's paper mischaracterized the guidelines that govern the investment of Princeton's endowment. Those guidelines embody three ethical principles.
The first principle is that Princeton has an obligation to invest its funds to maximize their value to the University's mission, which is to advance teaching and research. The endowment is composed of gifts made to support the transmission and expansion of knowledge. Princeton has an obligation to its donors, as well as to its students and faculty, to use gifts for that purpose.
The second principle is that the University must in general refrain from taking institutional positions about external issues of a political, economic, social or legal character. The University aspires to be a scholarly forum for the rigorous evaluation of competing ideas, and it puts that function at risk if it becomes a partisan advocate for a cause.
The third principle is that the University may nevertheless put specific limitations on the scope of its investments when a central University value is clearly at stake. When a core University value is at stake, the issue is no longer purely external, and the University has a mission-related reason to modify its investment strategies.
Far from focusing on "outrage" or "opposition en masse," the University's procedures emphasize the need for sustained and thoughtful community-wide deliberations. The vehicle for crystallizing such discussions is the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community, which includes representatives from all sectors of the University.
Princeton's guidelines affirm the ethical importance of the University's mission and the need for campus-wide reflection about the University's core values. Reasonable people may disagree about whether Princeton's approach is the best one, but any discussion of the policy should begin by recognizing the ethical premises upon which it is based.
Christopher Eisgruber '83, Provost
Pay no attention to those groups behind the referendum
Regarding 'Competing referenda to stay on election ballot,' (Friday, Dec. 5, 2008):
If you read The Daily Princetonian, perhaps you noticed Friday's article about the dueling referenda on the USG ballot this weekend. In response to the referendum asking the trustees to express their support for overturning California's Proposition 8, another group, which calls itself the "Coalition for Intellectual Liberty," has submitted an initiative that "urges Princeton's administration and trustees to refrain from associating the University in an official capacity with partisan points of view on disputed questions of morality, law, and policy."
But the so-called "Coalition for Intellectual Liberty" is nothing of the kind. It's an amalgam of the Princeton Tory, the College Republicans and the Anscombe Society. They leave all language referring to this fact - and to the fact that their initiative emerged only after the first, anti-Proposition 8 referendum - out of their referendum. They pretend to non-partisanship, but how non-partisan can a coalition of the Tory, the College Republicans and Anscombe be? A group that is too cowardly to say who it is and what it stands for should not be supported; any group that uses deceit to convince those who would not support its policies into voting for them should absolutely be called into question.
The University has taken an ideological stand on many disputed issues in the past - for example, by committing itself to coeducation, a change that is still criticized by some alumni, or more recently to ethnic, social and socioeconomic diversity. While it's unlikely, it would not be entirely outlandish or unacceptable for the University to do so in this case. But regardless of what any voter's individual beliefs are on whether Princeton's administration should respond to Proposition 8, it is reasonable to question who and what, exactly, is being supported by a "yes" vote on this referendum.
Emily Rutherford '12
Read More
Can a bacchanal Reunions be a sustainability lab?
Darren MilmanThe path to a net-zero Reunions remains uncertain. But Earth Brands’ story proves that the same university known for beer jackets and century-old traditions can also launch the next wave of sustainable solutions.
The path to a net-zero Reunions remains uncertain. But Earth Brands’ story proves that the same university known for beer jackets and century-old traditions can also launch the next wave of sustainable solutions.
$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.