Eating healthy at Princeton is more than counting calories
As the group responsible for treating eating disorders on the Princeton campus, the PUHS Eating Disorders Team feels it necessary to comment on the article, published Friday, Oct. 18 "Say no to fat: Health officials encourage better diet habits."
We have no objection to students eating a healthy diet, but we are concerned that he Princeton Regional health commission's "Lighten Up Princeton" campaign defines "healthy" in very narrow terms, and also does not recognize the realities of life on Princeton's campus. This reality includes an increasing incidence of serious eating disorders, ranging from anorexia to bulimia to compulsive overeating. We believe that this increase in eating disorders is due, in large part, to an overemphasis on the value of thinness and to misguided thinking about what constitutes healthy eating.
Many students already avoid fat in their diets to an unhealthy degree, judge food as being "bad" or "good" according to their fat content, and judge themselves the same way. A campaign that reinforces these ideas about avoiding "bad food" and the importance of weight loss and dieting is not what we need on the Princeton campus. We agree with Dr. Silverman that many students need to have more balance in their lifestyles — which includes adequate sleep and eating a balanced diet. But for many students, having a balanced diet and a balanced lifestyle involves expanding their notions about what is OK to eat, being more flexible in their food choices and being less obsessive about counting calories — not more. University Health Services Eating Disorders Team
Anti-intellectualism does not characterize the University
Aileen Nielsen's argument that Princeton undergraduates condone an anti-intellectual climate in the Oct. 22 issue of the 'Prince' is respectable in its motivation, but it suffers from an overly narrow definition of "intellectual life."
To discuss over dinner what one has learned during the past day is the mark of an enthusiastic student, but this type of intellectualism does not address the "separation of academics and socializing at Princeton." Rather, it substitutes academics for socializing, and the result is an unbalanced intellectual climate.
I would argue instead that the true mark of an intellectual is the ability to synthesize academics and socializing. An anecdote about Proust may be interesting, but I would be much more impressed by a joke in which Proust is the punch line.
Princeton students excel at this form of intellectual synthesis. And it is precisely for this reason that some — at least I — believe the anti-anti-intellectual campaign to be misdirected.
Lastly, the claim that "the eating club system certainly doesn't help matters" is baseless. My dinnertime conversation is frequently as dynamic, witty, and engaging as I could hope for, but the proof is in the pudding: Ms. Nielsen, you have an open invitation to come to a meal with me and be pleasantly surprised.
I'll even tell you the one about the nostalgic French writer . . . Joshua Schulman '04
Finding intellectualism all around the University campus
I have been following the increasing talk of anti-intellectualism at Princeton with some amusement, because it bears so little resemblance to the Princeton I have discovered over the past six weeks. In the past month alone, I have been exposed to speakers ranging from the acclaimed American writer Don DeLillo to the eminent Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson to The Washington Post journalist T.R. Reid. The week before last, the dozen or so members of my American Studies precept stayed twenty minutes beyond the regular end time, because our discussion of war and moral obligation was so engaging. And when I returned home from Firestone at midnight last night, my roommates were arguing over the relative importance of race and class in American society, a discussion that we continued and extended for another few hours into the night.
I appreciate the concerns expressed by Aileen Nielsen in her Op-Ed. But not only do the opportunities to pursue a rich intellectual life abound at Princeton; most of the people I've met here are inclined to take advantage of those opportunities. I think there's room for improvement, certainly. But I also think that, although you wouldn't know it from reading the 'Prince,' Princeton is closer to an intellectual utopia than an intellectual wasteland. Erik Linstrum '06
Placing blame for decline in campus Jewish population
In his letter of Monday, Oct. 7, Mr. Grover states that Dean Hargadon has "managed" to reduce the number of Jews on this campus by over 50 percent during his tenure." I am not sure if Mr. Grover defines "managed" to imply deliberate action or a sloppy blunder, but either interpretation rests on the unstated assumption that the decline in the campus Jewish population is due to actions taken by the admissions office, as opposed to other factors beyond the admissions' office control. Such factors might include a declining application rate among Jews, or the recently observed nationwide decline in the number of Americans who identify themselves as Jews (Daniel J. Wakin, The New York Times, Oct. 9th, 2002). Like Mr. Grover, I would find a deliberate cap on the admission rate of ANY group in the population disturbing. As the child of Russian Jewish emigrants to the United States, I would find such a cap frighteningly reminiscent of the quotas my parents faced as members of a persecuted minority in the Soviet Union. Let's not, however, cry wolf. Anti-Semitism, like bigotry of any kind, is a serious charge. If Mr. Grover has evidence to substantiate his implied charge against the Dean of Admissions, he should furnish it. Otherwise, he should restrict his article, ostensibly about divestment, to claims more immediately pertinent to his argument. Daniel Grin '03
Precedent for reparations in the American legal system
Mr. Andrew's article is one of the first in Princeton's dialog about "reparations" to use real factual data, however he misuses this information to make blanket generalizations and assumptions. His first argument claims that reparations are not constitutional under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. This issue is not so cut and dry, and cannot be thoroughly explained in a short article, but such hypothesis would be a great JP or Thesis topic.
He apparently was unaware that American courts have heard cases for reparations, and have awarded billions of dollars to Jewish and Japanese victims.
Mr. Andrew also uses misleading statements about the goals of "reparations advocates." Had he taken the time to read recent literature, he would have seen that there is NOT a consolidated Reparations effort. Supporters of this issue are in favor of everything from economic compensation of wages lost during slavery to present policy changes concerning racial profiling and public education. It would have helped if Mr. Andrew actually identified individuals or organizations instead of including everyone within the "reparations advocate" super-umbrella. More so, there is NO consensus on what "reparations" actually are. Some advocates include the Jim Crow era as well in their claims for restitution.
My final point is that I am disappointed in the current dialog on this campus about Reparations. I agree with Mr. Andrews that most of the dialog has been "accusations of racism and hypocrisy." The reason for this is the lack of unbiased information. The Reconciliation Committee of the Princeton Justice Project is encouraging students to continue this engaging dialog, however, with academic intellectualism. We need to realize that "Reparations" will not disappear. Therefore, we need to have facts from the complete spectrum of advocates and opponents so we can sift through the fluff of future articles. Stephanie Mash '04 Co-President Princeton Justice Project
On selective memory in campus divestment debate
The car bomb that killed 14 Israeli citizens on Tuesday will likely evade the purview of the campaign to divest from Israel folks on campus. Islamic Jihad — a terrorist organization with ties to Yassir Arafat — claimed responsibility for the attack. Anti-Israel campus lobbying groups will probably demand that Israel respond to the attack by disarming itself so that dictator Arafat can rule an already suffering people. But, this response would endanger Israel's and America's national security interests and likely hurt the Palestinian people. Instead of fighting against Israel, these too-far-to-the-left liberals should be fighting to replace Arafat with a democratic leader who can become Israel's partner for peace. Arafat is a terrorist and, as we unfortunately know today: a terrorist anywhere is a terrorist everywhere. Jeff Vinikoor '03
Read More
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
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.