Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Letters to the Editor

Can't equate lookism with other forms of discrimination

Zach Pincus-Roth '02's "Look Again" column in the Sept. 20 'Prince,' while well-intentioned, has to be one of the most inane pieces I've ever read, and after having been at this school for over three years, and having written quite a few inane things myself, that's saying a lot.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is ludicrous to equate unattractiveness and obesity — characteristics which are subjective and changeable — with the virtually permanent qualities of race, gender, religion and sexual preference. Worse, stretching discrimination laws to cover unattractiveness would only erode support for those laws at a time when they are increasingly under fire.

Pincus-Roth glosses over the difficulty that actually determining legal attractiveness would present. At Princeton, we're fortunate enough to have Bicker to tell who is and who is not attractive (I'm sorry, a "good conversationalist"), but the rest of the country isn't so blessed. And it is ridiculous to suggest that diversity in attractiveness is as important to maintain in the student body as diversity in race, creed or culture. Does your subjective attractiveness really shape the perspective you can bring to Princeton as much as other, more important qualities? Are we going to start dividing the writers we read into "Pretty Literature" and "Unpretty Literature"? If so, the reading list for "Pretty Literature" is going to be very short.

Pincus-Roth is certainly right to point out that our society favors attractive people unfairly, but you can't legislate every form of unfairness out of the world without slipping into absurdity. Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s short story "Harrison Bergeron" makes that point effectively. The best we can do is look beyond truly superficial qualities, like attractiveness, when we deal with other people. The responsibility is ours, not the law's. Bryan Walsh '01

Public input needed before Guyot museum replacement

A group of alumni are currently leading a vigorous campaign to persuade the administration to preserve the Guyot Hall museum space. Built in 1909, the magnificent museum space — open to the public — will be replaced by Geosciences department offices.

The University has promised "a new and better space" for the museum, but we believe that the decision to shut it down should be postponed until the design and plans for the new space are fully developed and reviewed by faculty, curators, students and frequent visitors.

Will the new space be a place where visitors can quietly contemplate the meaning of extinctions, evolution, climate change or plate tectonics without disturbing classes or staff? Will the space be available to visiting school children, families, University students, staff and alumni? Every year, 1,000 children visit the museum on school trips, while everyday, 20 to 40 people visit in family groups, including those of undergraduates. Other universities like Cornell and Yale maintain natural history museums by supporting them and expanding them. Should not Princeton do the same?

ADVERTISEMENT

Thus far, the University has not discussed the value of the museum in fulfilling Princeton's role in public education. Those of us who recognize the importance of a museum to science education believe that we need to discuss the needs and possible designs for a modern natural science museum before irreversibly destroying such a magnificent facility. Steven C. Bergman GS '82 Carl Bowen GS '60 Elaine Harkins '73 Bern Hinkley '75 Lincoln S. Hollister, Professor of Geosciences W. Jason Morgan GS '64, Professor of Geosciences Carter Ruml '00 Nancy W. West '79

No 'secret' in bipartisan debate commission's policies

Melissa Waage '01's defense of the Commission on Presidential Debates in the Sept. 19 'Prince' ("Debate commission can't change rules for third-party candidates") is fundamentally flawed.

The CPD is not "non-partisan" —rather, it is bipartisan, with a vested interest in preserving a two-party duopoly. This "secret" interest is actually quite apparent, if one notes that the commission co-chairs were former heads of the two major parties.

In addition, the 15-percent hurdle is not an original criterion for inclusion; it was established earlier this year, in response to questions about third-party candidacies. (See "Presidential Debates to Take Several Forms" in the Sept. 16 Washington Post for more details.) The notion that only contributors to the CPD should decide who participates in debates is perhaps technically correct, but runs counter to the commission's goal of providing "the best possible information to viewers and listeners." The argument that the logistics might prove overly challenging is an absurdity that requires no rebuttal.

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

Jesse Ventura's success can be directly traced to his inclusion in gubernatorial debates, and the CPD's reluctance to include Ralph Nader '55 and Pat Buchanan can be traced to an analogous fear. Andrew Frisbie '01