If I may, I would like to turn your attention slightly from the recent "hot topics" of sexist comedians and JP stress that have filled the editorial pages recently.I'm sure you have seen the Arts Alive posters around campus.
The Daily Princetonian occupies a unique role on campus. We are the only publication to report as impartially as possible on the full range of issues that concern members of the campus community.
Jean-Marie Le Pen, the veteran French extremist, shocked the world last week by placing second in the first round of France's presidential elections.
I got two notifications about the Princeton Divestment demonstration last Thursday (April 18) ? one for the rally, and one for the counter-rally.
Campus activism should be better-informedThe Daily Princetonian made an interesting statement by only briefly mentioning the protest calling for divestment [withdrawal of University funds from companies based or with subsidiaries in Israel] ? and entirely leaving out the counter-demonstration ? with a stand-alone photo on the front page of Friday's paper.The divestment rally, combined with the active pro-Israel opposition, proved that there are people on campus willing to take a stand, to fight for something they believe in, to demonstrate their passion for a cause.
Thursday, April 18, 2002. It was two weeks ago that I turned in my thesis. I am having a good time at the Street with friends.
I used to wonder how it could be possible that the space in our daily paper could be filled consistently with editorials about pet dogs or debates on the character of Kenny or Butters from South Park.
In planning this year's Take Back the Night, some concern was raised about the coincidence of this event with Pre-Frosh Weekend this year.
A few weeks ago, the Class of 2003 ran a heavily advertised event sponsored by Princeton's very own Alcohol Initiative (so appropriately named!). The event was held in McCosh, and the large lecture hall was filled to capacity.
Uninformed rhetoric used to describe dialog on homosexualityA recent opinion article by Mr. O'Brien considers the status of the campus climate on issues related to "homosexuality" in light of Pride Week features.
Even against the backdrop of Israel's thirty-five year occupation, the events of the past few weeks seem particularly awful.
It's happened. My worst fears about Princeton have been realized. The jibes of my friends from home have come true.
(Due to an editorial error, Mike Kimberly's column was not printed in its entirety. This column includes his additions)In a recent column for The Daily Princetonian responding to President Bush's speech on cloning, Dave Sillers suggested that creating life with the express purpose of destroying it is wrong.
It's mid-April, and we've already had several 90 degree sweltering days. This winter we set new highs for monthly average global temperatures.
On April 18, the University received two petitions, one calling for divestment from companies that do business in Israel and the other opposing such an action.
I have occupied an office (number 49) at the top of the many stairs of the fourth entryway in McCosh Hall for more years than I can accurately declare.
There is perhaps no issue, from abortion to race relations, where we forget the virtues of free and open discussion more quickly than when it comes to the question of homosexuality.
Cloning is wrong, no matter the reason. Admittedly, George W. Bush is not the best with words, and his explanation as to why cloning is morally unjustifiable leaves something to be desired.
Last Monday I had the privilege of joining a group of professors and students for dinner preceding the Bioethics Forum lecture, "When Does Life Begin?" Near the end of the meal, I noticed Professor Peter Singer engaged in an animated discussion with Nigel Cameron, one of the speakers for that evening.
Currently, there are two bills working their way through Congress, both entitled the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001." The bill offered by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy (Dem.) would ban only reproductive cloning ? cloning that would lead to the birth of a child ? whereas the bill sponsored by Senators Brownback, Bond '60 and Smith (Rep.) would ban both reproductive and therapeutic cloning.Underneath all of the controversy and political rhetoric, it is important for us to carefully examine the arguments for and against both forms of cloning, in order to make an informed decision as a society.In a speech last Wednesday, President Bush expressed worries that cloning research would inevitably lead to "a society in which human beings are grown for spare body parts and children are engineered to custom specifications." Both of these concerns may be unfounded.The president is mistaken that cloning will result in children that are engineered to custom specifications.
