Letters to the Editor

Wilentz clarifies his decision not to participate in point-counterpoint

Some weeks before the American studies/Wilson School conference on the Progressive tradition, The Daily Princetonian asked me to write a piece about it, to coincide with President Clinton's keynote address. I agreed. Two days before the piece was slated to run, however, the Princetonian informed me of its decision to publish my contribution as part of a point-counterpoint political debate. I immediately and emphatically objected and told the Princetonian that I would not agree to have my piece run in such a format.

In keeping with the spirit of the conference, the piece I wrote was historical and academic, and unsuited to an ideological debate. Moreover, the conference was formally an academic and not a political occasion.

A further clarification. As one of the conference organizers, I invited Professor Robert George to be a special guest at both days of the conference, so that he might be involved fully in the give-and-take along with other academics from a wide range of viewpoints. He declined that invitation and eschewed open scholarly debate on his own campus. Instead he chose to tell a false story to The Wall Street Journal. He did not talk to me at any point before or after the conference nor did the Journal contact me to ascertain the facts. I have no idea what Professor George's motivation was. Sean Wilentz Dayton-Stockton Professor of History

'Prince' was wrong in choosing not to print George's column on Clinton

In his statement — posted on The Daily Princetonian Website over the weekend — explaining the 'Prince's decision not to publish the column by Professor Robert George, Editor-in-Chief Richard Just '01 inadvertently indicts himself of the charge he seeks to deny. In asserting that he would never let The Daily Princetonian be "bullied," he is blind to the manner in which Professor Sean Wilentz manipulated the entire situation and effectively and entirely controlled the publication process. Good journalistic practice would dictate that, rather than cancelling both columns after the withdrawal by Wilentz, the newspaper should, instead, have run that of George with an accompanying explanation for the lack of opposing commentary. Instead, had it not been for the intervention of The Wall Street Journal, the entire Princeton community would have been denied scholarly commentary on the occasion of President Clinton's visit to campus. Howard Husock '81 and Aaron Husock '03

On details of presidential search committee selection process

As the chair of the Graduate Student Government, I am fortunate to hold an ex officio position on the presidential search committee. It is thus with great interest that I am following the 'Prince's coverage of this committee.

The staff editorial in the Oct. 3 issue of the 'Prince' appropriately highlighted the importance of a fair selection process for the second undergraduate representative. Unfortunately, some readers may have interpreted this as an attack on PJ Kim '01, the USG president, or an attack on his selection, Lisa Lazarus '02. I believe this is a misinterpretation.

From my reading of the editorial, the editors criticized the selection process, and did not cast doubts about the qualifications of these two individuals. From personal experience, I know that Kim is an excellent and experienced student representative. I also trust that he has selected a qualified, motivated, and committed candidate. At the same time, the concern over process is a legitimate one — it is not a "petty dispute . . . with a student newspaper" as Kim asserted in the Oct. 5 issue of the 'Prince.'

Perhaps in the future, the undergraduate student body can come up with a better means of selecting a representative. In the meantime, I look forward to working with two very capable undergraduates to help select a new University president who respects extracurricular activities, encourages open dialogue and trusts the student body to elect adequate representatives. Lauren Hale GS GSG Chair

Grad students' domestic partners do not receive health-care benefits

In response to yesterday's 'Prince' article, "A step toward equal treatment," which discussed the fact that Princeton extends health care benefits to domestic partners of faculty and other employees, I would simply like to point out that Princeton does not do the same for its graduate students. Though graduate students are allowed to share University-owned apartments with domestic partners, we are not allowed to purchase health insurance for our partners through the University. Erica Carlisle GS