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.
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?
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.
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
Read More
Make intro macroeconomics the prerequisite for SPIA, not intro microeconomics
Eleanor Clemans-Cope“The current curriculum fails to equip our future policy leaders with the economic knowledge most relevant for their roles. For SPIA majors, Princeton’s introductory macroeconomics course is arguably more useful than its introductory micro, and this should be reflected in the curriculum.”
“The current curriculum fails to equip our future policy leaders with the economic knowledge most relevant for their roles. For SPIA majors, Princeton’s introductory macroeconomics course is arguably more useful than its introductory micro, and this should be reflected in the curriculum.”
It’s time to change how we talk about abortion
Lily Halbert-Alexander“When we don’t question disengaged language like this at Princeton, we excuse anti-abortion advocates from being present in the facts. We excuse them from talking about Amber Nicole Thurman, Josseli Barnica, Nevaeh Crain, Candi Miller, and countless other women who have lost their lives as a direct result of abortion bans and restrictions.”
“When we don’t question disengaged language like this at Princeton, we excuse anti-abortion advocates from being present in the facts. We excuse them from talking about Amber Nicole Thurman, Josseli Barnica, Nevaeh Crain, Candi Miller, and countless other women who have lost their lives as a direct result of abortion bans and restrictions.”
Princeton’s non-teaching staff are essential to building community
Asa SantosCommunity extends outside the classroom: Non-teaching employees play a huge part in establishing community and spaces of belonging at the institution.
Community extends outside the classroom: non-teaching employees play a huge part in establishing community and spaces of belonging at the institution.
