Letters to the Edtior

Headline bias?

I am grateful for last Thursday's article by Alyson Zureick on the lecture by Daniel Flynn that The Princeton Tory sponsored. However, I am still scratching my head about its headline, "Tory sponsors lecture by 'Dangerous Conservative.'" Nowhere in the lecture, lecture publicity, press release, or Prince article itself was Flynn described as a "dangerous conservative." Why was the phrase even used, not to mention enclosed in quotation marks?

Is it possible that you have confused the event with Charles Murray's recent speech, sponsored by Whig-Clio, in the publicity for which The New York Times was quoted as dubbing him "America's most dangerous conservative"?

Such thoughtlessness, by the Prince and by Whig-Clio, reinforces the negative campus stereotype of conservatives as "dangerous." However, I would suggest that conservatism is inherently safe: By maintaining the lofty ideals which brought this nation liberty and greatness, we are the bastion of stability in an unpredictable world. Rather it is the radicals, who would plunge us into an unknown realm of moral and legal darkness, who should be considered "dangerous." John Andrews '03 Publisher, The Princeton Tory

Forums are neutral

I am surprised by John Andrews' assertion that Whig-Clio (along with the Prince) is somehow reinforcing negative campus stereotypes of conservatism. Mr. Andrews takes issue with Thursday's headline "Tory sponsors lecture by 'Dangerous Conservative,' '' but I sense he is using Whig-Clio table tents and Prince copy editors as proxies in a larger crusade against campus liberalism. Such an attack is unfair. Whig-Clio prides itself on its political neutrality, and has, for over two hundred years, served as an open forum for speakers of any persuasion. By attempting to drag Whig-Clio into such partisan mudslinging misses the point of inviting an extremist such as Charles Murray in the first place. Andrews and his Tory staff have every right to promote their views on campus, but they should find more constructive ways of doing so than by attacking two politically independent campus institutions. Andrew Bruck '05 President, Whig-Clio

Misleading statistics

Once again, Robin Williams makes blatant statistical misinterpretations in his article on affirmative action. ("American Blackness," Feb. 24) While I doubt that the studies he cites actually control for economic background as he claims, he still misses the point entirely. Sure, the average black American faces greater childhood hardships than the average white American. On the other hand, there are numerous black Americans who don't face such hardships. Why should, for example, the son of a black Congressman get the giant application boost at Michigan that would be denied to a poor white farmer's son?

No, the Prince had it right a while ago when it came out in favor of admissions that are, rather than race-conscious, hardship-conscious. The student who goes through East Cleveland or Washington D.C. schools, and racks up what would be modest achievements coming from a graduate of a suburban New Jersey school, deserves a disproportionate amount of credit for his achievements, for he had to overcome greater obstacles — regardless of whether the D.C. student is black or the New Jersey student is white.

Williams' own attempt to individualize the problem by using two hypothetical children, a white child named Todd and a black child named Paul, shows the injustice of affirmative action as practiced by the University of Michigan. In his case, Paul suffers through great obstacles, while Todd coasts through with nothing to stop him from achieving. If the races were reversed, and they easily could be, why should Todd get an extra bonus? Mr. Williams seems to forget that people's lives are not entirely determined by their melanin content, and that one cannot apply a general average to any specific case. Brian Beck '05

Professors' debate

On Fri., Feb. 21, 2003, 200 students, faculty, and community members from universities across the East Coast gathered to discuss "The Enduring Question: Rights and Wrongs of Abortion," the third talk in a conference sponsored by the Student Bioethics Forum. Michael Tooley and Hadley Arkes had graciously agreed to lead the discussion by each offering brief speeches summarizing their perspectives. Professor Arkes spoke first and outlined his position for the audience before turning the stage over to Professor Tooley. Unfortunately, Professor Tooley launched a calculated ad hominem assault on Professor Arkes and the quality of his scholarship. On behalf of the Student Bioethics Forum, I am writing to express my deepest regrets to both Professor Arkes and the entire University community for Professor Tooley's inappropriate remarks.

The extent of Professor Tooley's misconduct is indeed upsetting. In a premeditated effort, he specifically requested to speak second, so as to leave Professor Arkes with a severely limited opportunity to defend himself. He excerpted sections of Professor Arkes' writings in a manner that perpetuated a mistaken and unfair interpretation of Arkes' scholarship; in so doing, he distracted the entire audience from the substantive ethical issues on the table, and focused instead on matters wholly irrelevant to an objective discussion about abortion. He also set a truly unfortunate example for the students in attendance, for whom he was supposed to serve as a model of professionalism.

On behalf of the Student Bioethics Forum, I condemn his conduct as illustrative of precisely the kind of behavior that the academic community must strive to avoid. In order to foster a truly productive discourse about abortion or any other ethical issue, we must all make a distinct effort to understand and respect each other's perspectives, even those perspectives with which we disagree. And when we are confident that one philosophical model is better than another, we must take time to carefully and coherently analyze the quality of the philosophy, and not the philosopher.

I hope that in the future the Forum will be able to organize engagements on the same and similar topics in an effort to further that productive discourse. I, and the other student organizers of the Forum, strongly believe that Friday evening's unfortunate outcome did not detract from the success of the other talks comprising our conference. We extend our sincerest thanks to each speaker and audience member who helped make the weekend otherwise successful. Michael Kimberly '03 Conference Co-chair, Student Bioethics Forum