Dean seeks nominations for the M. Taylor Pyne Prize
I write to solicit nominations for the Pyne Prize, the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate, which will be awarded on Alumni Day, Saturday, Feb. 23, 2002.
In thinking about the nomination, I would ask that you consider the following description:
M. Taylor Pyne Honor Prize — A prize awarded annually to the senior who has manifested in outstanding fashion the following qualifications: excellence in scholarship, character and effective support of the best interests of Princeton University. Founded in 1921 in remembrance of the life and character of M. Taylor Pyne Class of 1877, Trustee of Princeton 1885-1921, by his cousin, Mrs. May Taylor Moulton Hanrahan, the prize is the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate. The prize consists of the income from this fund up to the prevailing comprehensive fee for one academic year.
The prize winner will be selected by the President of the University, the Deans of the College and of Undergraduate Students and the Secretary of the University. We are eager to receive nominations from members of the University community. Please direct such names and, preferably, letters of nomination to my attention at 313 West College by Friday, Jan. 4, 2002. Kathleen Deignan Dean of Undergraduate Students
United Nations blames Taliban for Afghan starvation
In his Nov. 8 letter, Mike Long '02 misses the forest for the trees. Mr. Long cites the United Nations' estimate that 7 million Afghans are in danger of starvation this winter, but he neglects the statement accompanying the report, which places the blame squarely on the Taliban. In the statement, the U.N. Security Council "deplored the looting of U.N. offices, and the Taliban's takeover of humanitarian relief sites, including food and supply warehouses."
Ideally, relief agencies should be able to deliver aid free from hostilities. Unfortunately, the situation in Afghanistan does not present us with such ideal conditions. Calling for a moratorium on military action, as Mr. Long does, would only allow the Taliban to regroup and prolong its tyrannical, repressive regime that caused the refugee crisis in the first place. Long before Sept. 11, millions had fled the Taliban's reign of terror, and scores of people who weren't lucky enough to flee were butchered.
As the United Nations found out the hard way, attempting to deliver aid amidst such conditions is futile because the Taliban quickly stole the supplies to sustain its own manic and murderous machine. We must do everything we can to mitigate the effects of the war against Afghan civilians by providing them with food and shelter and ideally by securing within the country a safe zone free from the Taliban's menace. But we must not mitigate the war for the Taliban; doing so would cause an unmitigated humanitarian disaster. Humanitarian aid can only fully resume with the Taliban's total defeat. Eric Wang '02
Long's criticism of the United States is unfounded
Mike Long '02's assertion that "The United States is on the verge of committing a holocaust in Afghanistan" is so incredibly off base that to even attempt to contrast current U.S. operations with the atrocities of the past century would be to endow Long's statement with credibility that it so obviously does not deserve.
While insulting the memory of Holocaust victims, Long also alleges that "In addition to the U.S. role in Afghanistan, support of Israel's treatment of Palestine violates the same provision." In a letter arguing for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, this comment is simply out of place and only serves to reintroduce the canard that the United States' support of Israel is in some way responsible for the murderous tactics of Osama bin Laden.
Completing his trifecta of absurdities, Long concludes rather flippantly that "By halting the bombing and drastically increasing the amount of food aid, the United States has a much better chance of stopping terrorism and fighting for justice than by bombing Red Cross warehouses and Afghan hospitals," as if the target of the military campaign is to hit the Red Cross and hospitals. One would hope that it need not bear repeating (but apparently, it must) that in a major war, there will always be unfortunate and tragic civilian casualties. What makes us better than our enemies is that unlike them, we don't target innocent civilians.
We must remember that we did not seek this war. This was a war foisted upon us by the murder of thousands of our fellow citizens. In order to stop terrorism and fight for justice, we must first destroy the perpetrators of these acts, along with the Taliban, as quickly as possible so that they can no longer threaten us or oppress and starve the people of Afghanistan. Only then will we be able to stop the bombing and successfully direct the massive amounts of food needed to those who are starving. Howard Deutsch '02
Acknowledging our ignorance concerning the Middle East
There remains much to be said about professor Fleming's two recent columns and the two short responses by professor Peter Brown and Karen Bauer GS, and I hope that the 'Prince' will continue to encourage such dialogue by dedicating space to it. If a recent alumnus can be allowed a short comment, I would simply like to issue a plea to professor Fleming (a former JP adviser for me, and an excellent one), to consider the ramifications of his own arguments concerning the mutual lack of information, understanding and dialogue suffered everywhere from the hallowed halls of the Princeton English department down to huts in the Afghan desert.
If we are willing to admit, as he does, that we ourselves (in the hyper-educated, information-saturated West) are woefully ignorant about the religion, culture and intellectual conditions in the vast and varied countries that make up the "Muslim world," as well as the history behind these current conditions, then perhaps we can be more sympathetic to the fact that many, indeed most, Muslims living in their part of the world may have a less-than-fully-informed appreciation of America's religious, cultural and intellectual conditions. We are as guilty as they, I would suggest, of caricaturing the other side — then acting in a way detrimental to both sides.
Tit-for-tat devastation, even the "eradication" of one small (albeit powerful) group of extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere, will only treat the symptoms of the problem. Indeed, as professor Brown hints, only if we accept that the other side might just have as "rich and complex" a perspective as our own — and then take care to communicate in such a way as to be comprehensible to this truly different perspective —will we have any chance of entering and maintaining a dialogue that would enable the movement to peace and understanding we all claim to desire. Chris G. Bradley '01
Read More
What is a Princeton degree really for?
Joel IbabaoSo what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
So what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
If there’s one survey you fill out this year, make it the Year End Assessment
Jerry ZhuThe University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.
The University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.
In defense of ChatGPT
Eliana DuComplete avoidance of AI is not a solution to the issue Johnson rightfully points out. Avoidance merely leaves us ignorant, standing still in a moving world. On the contrary, Princeton students should discuss the use of AI tools in education with honesty and open-mindedness and consider it a novel tool as opposed to a morally objectionable scourge.
Complete avoidance of AI is not a solution to the issue Johnson rightfully points out. Avoidance merely leaves us ignorant, standing still in a moving world. On the contrary, Princeton students should discuss the use of AI tools in education with honesty and open-mindedness and consider it a novel tool as opposed to a morally objectionable scourge.