Letters to the Editor: March 4, 2009

With focus on “social honor code,” the ‘Prince’ misses the real work of the ACC

Regarding “ACC proposes new social honor code to curb binge drinking” (Friday, Feb. 20, 2009):

The Alcohol Coalition Committee welcomes the recent coverage of the ACC by The Daily Princetonian. Reporting on the work of the Coalition is important, and articles in The Prince help that effort.

Unfortunately, your recent article and editorial mislead the reader to conclude the ACC is poised to discuss or has discussed a social honor code. The editorial also goes on to suggest we should partner with campus groups and use education as a primary tool. In fact, we are currently not discussing a social honor code, and we already are actively engaged in campus partnerships and education.

While the idea of a social honor code emerged as one of many ideas and suggestions from the four workshops, this fall the ACC chose to concentrate on pre-orientation and orientation education, party registration and efforts to partner with groups on campus to address pre-gaming. It’s only through encouragement of the presentation of ideas that we can work together to find solutions, but it’s important to ensure that readers are correctly informed about the active steps the ACC is taking.

We produced an informational brochure for all freshmen and recently distributed the “Alcohol: Just the Facts” booklet to all undergraduates. In addition, the ACC sponsored a workshop, “The University’s Alcohol Policy and Enforcement: What Works and What Doesn’t.” This spring the ACC will host a seminar, “High-Risk Drinking: Catalyzing a Culture Change,” based on the successful workshop model, for 16 of our peer institutions.

Later this spring, the ACC will review the many suggestions and ideas that emerged from the workshops, seminar and the 2008 strategic plan to formulate the priorities for next year.

We urge all students, including those who report on the work of the ACC, to be accurately informed about the ACC’s efforts to address high-risk drinking by visiting http://www.princeton.edu/acc.

Amy Campbell

Director, Campus Life Initiatives

Chris Chandler ’10

Co-chairs, Alcohol Coalition Committee

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

D.C. residents deserve rights, but they have to be given constitutionally

Regarding “Students laud D.C. voting rights act,” (Monday, March 2, 2009):

As a life-long resident of Northern Virginia, I grew up seeing “Taxation Without Representation” license plates every day, and have myself collected signatures for a petition for D.C. voting rights. I agree with the sentiment expressed in this article by D.C. residents that they should have voting representation in Congress. It is indeed a tragedy that some 600,000 American citizens living in the continental United States have no vote on federal legislation, while paying taxes that fund the federal government.

However, the Constitution must be taken into serious consideration in this matter. It is not merely enough that “the people of D.C. are American citizens,” as Anh D. Nguyen ’11 was quoted. American citizens live in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands, yet these people can neither vote in presidential elections nor have voting representation in Congress, because they do not live in states. D.C. is a federal district. It is not a state.

The Constitution says explicitly in Article I, Section 2 that “the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and again in Amendment IV that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers.” As for the Senate, Article I, Section 3 reads, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,” while Amendment XVII reiterates that “the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.” Representatives and Senators can only come from states.

It could not be any clearer. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act is a valiant effort for a noble cause, but it simply is not constitutional. D.C. should be given a voting representative in Congress, but it must be done through an amendment to the Constitution.

Andrew Kilberg ’10