Professors' response
Regarding 'Standards of Intolerance' (Thursday, Dec. 13, 2007):
This column is a classic illustration of the smear tactics that some of Israel's defenders employ against anyone who criticizes Israel's conduct, challenges Israel's special relationship with the United States, or questions the policies advocated by the Israel lobby. Instead of discussing what we actually wrote or said, Barry Caro '09 levels a set of false charges against us. Contrary to his claims, we did not say that "a cabal of wealthy Jews controls the President and Congress," and that it "controls American foreign policy" and the media as well. Nor did we say that domestic supporters of Israel are in any way disloyal to the United States. In fact, we have gone to great lengths in our book and in every public talk we have given, including Princeton on Dec. 10, to condemn such blatantly anti-Semitic claims.
We have also explicitly defended Israel's right to exist, condemned all forms of anti-Semitism and emphasized repeatedly that the United States should come to Israel's aid if its survival is ever in jeopardy. Nevertheless, we do believe that the United States should end its special relationship with Israel and treat it the way we treat other democracies like Britain, France, and India. Treating Israel like a normal country would benefit both Israel and the United States.
Caro, like many of our critics, does not focus on the substance of our book, because the case for the special relationship is so weak. Instead, he resorts to misrepresenting our arguments and accusing us of "upscale Anti-Semitism." Princetonians who want to know what we really said should read our book and make their own judgments. John Mearsheimer University of Chicago Stephen Walt Harvard University
Grant is not enough
Regarding 'International students to get winter grant' (Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007):
I think the primary reaction of some Princeton internationals might not have been properly captured in this article. Our primary reaction to the new winter grant was "Thanks!" It is not "$400? Is that all?" This is not to say that the International Students Association at Princeton officers do not make an important point about the prohibitive cost of international travel and how it affects poor students. They're right. The students who cannot afford a $2,000 ticket home for Christmas probably cannot afford a $1,600 one. They are correct to question how well the winter allowance fulfilled its intended purpose. And they make an interesting suggestion. Instead of giving out a uniform winter allowance, the financial aid office could distribute the grant money such that each allowance is adjusted for the cost of travel to one's particular home region and for the level of one's financial need relative to other students. With any luck, this could happen within the limits of the existing grant facility. These are reasonable suggestions. Both of these criteria factor into the University's normal financial aid decisions. Unfortunately, they would mean that West College would have to do more than just mail merge a bunch of checks in late November. Regardless, the article didn't allow like-minded internationals to say what is foremost in our minds: Thanks a lot, Princeton! Thanks for having our backs. Tsheko Mutungu '09
An unfair policy
Regarding 'HIV policy tightened in China' (Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2007):
In addition to being ineffective, this new policy is also outrageously unfair. Based on my reading of its original Chinese version, foreign citizens are not subject to compulsory testing if their intended stay is shorter than a year. All Chinese citizens abroad for over a year, however, will have to go through this humiliating process, most likely at the airport upon entering the country, no matter how much time they plan to spend in China. Yes, you read it right: Chinese citizens are discriminated against in their own land by their own government. And that's what has caused great uproar in the overseas Chinese community since the policy became effective. I am a Chinese citizen and will go to China to visit my parents in a week. I condemn this policy! And I call for you to join me. Shu Zhu GS '03
Fruit confusion
Regarding 'Ask the Sexpert' (Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007):
While the Sexpert column is often informative and, dare I say, entertaining, my recent discovery that both the pineapple and the mango are citrus fruits has taken the column to new heights! Ian Brasg '10
A disregard for fact
Regarding 'The new American taboo' (Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007):
I am again disappointed and frustrated with the continued disregard for facts and logical expression in The Daily Princetonian columns attacking Israel. First of all, thanks to the University, the names Mearsheimer and Walt, a year ago, cued me to two of America's leading foreign policy analysis voices; Mearsheimer even headlined the George Kennan Centennial Conference hosted by the University in 2004. So right away, Sarah Dajani '09 is off on the wrong foot, demonstrating both a condescending attitude toward the readers of this fine publication, as well as demolishing any bona fides she might have as a commenter on foreign affairs.
Second, it is patently disingenuous to suggest that the topic of the influence of pro-Israel political groups is "taboo." Criticism of Walt and Mearsheimer's article, for which they admittedly conducted not a whit of independent research, centers on the lies and shoddy analysis contained therein. In one particularly hideous example, Walt and Mearsheimer edited a quote from Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to fit their allegations. Rather than answer their critics, the formerly respected professors have hidden themselves under the banner of academic martyrdom and accused their critics of knee-jerk character assassination, when in reality it is the professors who have refused to debate the merits of their arguments. I, for one, am happy to have a debate about the causes and effects of American support for Israel. But I'd prefer to have it with someone who doesn't have to lie to make their arguments, and then when called on that lie, accuses me of stifling "free discussion." Josh Waldman '05
Inappropriate words should not be printed
Regarding 'Blackface' pics spark controversy,' (Monday, Dec. 3, 2007 and 'The U[SG]-tube elections' (Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007):
The articles covering the USG elections highlighted two lamentable circumstances. First, the most vulgar of language has now become acceptable in respectable discourse, and second, The Daily Princetonain has no hesitation about reprinting it. I make no claim to a pristine vocabulary, and don't expect it of my peers, but we are private citizens. If Josh Weinstein '09 and the 'Prince' endeavor to earn the public's respect, they should hold themselves to a higher standard. There was a time when even a facetious candidate for office wouldn't use a four-letter word in campaign materials, let alone in a statement of contrition. That time is obviously passed, but joke candidacies and virtually uncontested USG presidential elections yielding a tarnished candidate are nothing new. It is the 'Prince's' handling of these events that I find disturbing.
There was a time when journalists would have avoided repeating such verbal missteps. The reasons for this were threefold: First, publicly repeating them unnecessarily defames the speaker, who no doubt regretted the momentary lapse. Second, they unnecessarily expose the public to foul language; and thirdly, because journalists had enough pride in their publications that they would not see its pages so sullied. Before you claim to be the campus' most trusted news source, ask yourself which of these standards has failed: respect for the candidates, respect for the public, or respect for the paper itself? Aaron Buchman '08
Alcohol considerations
Regarding 'A history lesson' (Monday, Dec. 10, 2007):
Reviewing the history of Princeton's debate over campus drinking, I've noticed am ambivalence when it comes to articulating the precise priorities of University policy. Is the University primarily concerned with reducing the number of students who drink (particularly those that are underage) or with stopping abusive and dangerously irresponsible binge drinking? While both aims may possess merit, depending on your personal viewpoint, conflating them as interchangeable can do harm when policies work at cross purposes. Kyle Smith '09's column raises many important points, particularly with respect to the social norms phenomenon.
Applying the concept to the University's current Alcohol Initiative (AI), for example, one might be inclined to judge that if the chief concern is indeed student safety, then the policy is not well considered. AI doles out money to student groups to hold events on Thursday and Saturday nights, creating an "alternative" competitor to the typical party scene. Since there is not and will never be full participation at all AI events, such a strategy will ultimately fragment the student body into smaller populations, each with its own set of norms. So while AI may succeed in preventing some students from going out drinking, the remainder that do will interact less socially with nondrinkers or light drinkers, thus leading them to perceive a higher, and much riskier, level of acceptable drinking within their social circle. University practices that encourage this self-segregation of different attitudes toward alcohol will buy temporary individual comfort at the price of both longterm campus cohesion and moderation. John Taggart '09
Group is a joke
Regarding 'Are we 'Woman Haterz'?' (Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007):
I once held out hope that there was someone, anyone, on this campus who could still take a joke, but every column like this puts another nail in the coffin. PJ Miller '10
A growing culture of misogyny
>Regarding 'Are we 'Woman Haterz'?' (Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007):
A specter is haunting Princeton — the specter of misogyny. Thank you to Dante Ricci GS for pointing out that a facebook.com group with two dozen members is an insidious manifestation of a campus-wide misogyny pandemic. But Ricci didn't go far enough! There are other pervasive and manifestly evil groups on the Princeton Facebook network: "Tall people are awesome" (50 members), "Students against sore-loser liberals" (27 members), and the 1,300-member behemoth of hate, "I went to a public school... bitch." Short people, whiny liberals and private school alums, beware — your enemies are lurking in the tall grasses of the internet jungle.
We should also thank Ricci for pointing out how misogynistic our everyday speech is. Saying that I got raped by a test is plainly hateful to the fairer sex. Then again, men also get raped, but let's not trouble ourselves with silly little facts like that when it's so much more fun to take giant leaps from paltry evidence to panoramic conclusions. That's bad science and even worse punditry. Matt Hoberg '09
A moral mistake
Regarding 'U. to subsidize birth control' (Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2007):
The University's decision to subsidize birth control is poorly made and hypocritical at best. There exists a perverse mentality that we as students have a right to be protected from the consequences of our own free choices, that we have a "right" to low prices and indeed that the University should protect us from ourselves in our personal lives. While the University says that it works for the health of its students, birth control does nothing to protect either party from STDs, and studies have shown that hormonal birth control may actually increase the chances of the woman contracting HIV and STDs because it makes the her body more susceptible to these infections. Even if one uses condoms along with birth control, promoting this behavior, the number of people in that "1 percent" where condoms fail will increase. In addition to acting against the health of its students, Princeton is also taking a stance on the sex lives of its students, which it claims not to do, by normalizing the hookup culture, trying to remove the consequences that follow and hiding the true facts about the consequences to which it does admit. By doing so, the University is subsidizing not only birth control, but also a false sense of security.
If, regarding the possibility of pregnancy and/or STDs as a result of sexual activity, my peers say, "That's a chance I'm willing to take," while demanding subsidized birth control and free condoms, they are joining the University in hypocrisy. If we students demand the full right to make our own choices, we must also take full responsibility for their consequences. When the University wants to spend $69,000 per year on an issue that is caused by the behavior and choices of none other than the students themselves, it is suddenly the right thing to do. If the University regards pregnancy, a completely biologically and functionally natural outcome of sexual intercourse, as more of a threat to its students' health than the lifelong damage of STDs and the equally lasting emotional chaos — results of the current sexual culture on campus which the University is condoning — it clearly has much deeper issues to deal with than $15 birth control. Lauren Kustner '11
A different view
Regarding 'Critics of Israeli lobby draw fire' (Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007):
Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have written a perfectly splendid book that everyone interested in a just resolution to the problems of the Middle East should read and take to heart. The antagonism to the book constantly expressed by the Israel lobby and its supporters in both the United States and Israel surpasses the bounds of common decency. Read the entire book. Please do not simply listen to the unfounded criticisms of its now-desperate opponents. Three weeks ago, in the West Bank city of Ramallah, my wife and I gave a joint talk in which we urged that we Americans and the Palestinians must stand firm and overcome the "illogical, fanatical forces on the U.S. and Israeli side" that are bent on further injustice and destruction in the Middle East. These are the same forces that oppose Mearsheimer and Walt. Bill Christison '50
Illogical rationale
Regarding 'Gays, feminists and the Anscombe Society' (Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007):
We should congratulate Jason Sheltzer '08 for discovering a new universal axiom: The proposition that "a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy" is self-evidently false, so you need not provide any evidence against it or examine evidence for it.
We should also thank Sheltzer for showing that supporting "traditional gender-roles" means thwarting all agency or meaningful achievement on the part of women. Many social conservatives were previously confused on this point, none more than Elizabeth Anscombe, who (like many benighted pre-Jasonians) did not realize that being a devoted mother of eight was not really compatible with being one of the most feared and admired philosophers of the twentieth century.
Most of all, we should be glad that Sheltzer scorned low right-wing tactics like argumentation and simply stipulated that only bigotry can account for opposition to gay marriage. Those who claim that gender complementarity is simply built into the idea of marriage only have the universal and immemorial opinion of mankind on their side. We have the word of Sheltzer. We eagerly await his future pronouncements about marriage. How many of us may yet turn out to be monagomo-anthropo-anima-normative bigots still blind to our bigotry? Stefan McDaniel '08
No solid argument
Regarding 'Gays, feminists and the Anscombe Society' (Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007):
My friend Jason Sheltzer '08 frighteningly thinks that he can discredit a conservative view just by mentioning or even distorting it — no arguments needed. On gender roles, for example, Sheltzer misconstrues the Anscombe Society's celebration of the dignity of motherhood as a denouncement of working women which Anscombe never makes and categorically rejects. Or take his claim that Anscombe's position on marriage discriminates against homosexuals. This fallaciously assumes that any distinction is unjust discrimination. Suppose marriage benefits were granted to same-sex couples. By Sheltzer's assumption, wouldn't we still be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous or even nonsexual unions? But if marriage is a pre-political reality with public significance, then limiting public recognition to real marriages is only reasonable, and the debate shifts to what marriage really is. Anscombe proposes that the person includes the body, so full interpersonal union includes bodily union: two individuals becoming together the single subject of a bodily act, reproduction, whether or not non-behavioral factors bring about conception. The reality of marriage determines its structure, and its unique link to the procreation and wellbeing of the next generation grounds its public significance, which every society in history has recognized. That's our argument. What's Sheltzer's? Sherif Girgis '08
The marriage question
Regarding 'Gays, feminists and the Anscombe Society' (Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007):
I am so tired of the claim that homosexuals can't get married. Gay people can get married. Lesbians can get married. They have the same freedoms as any other man or woman. A gay man, like a straight man, is free to marry a member of the opposite sex. As sterilized as it sounds to romantics like myself, the state keeps a record of marriage to maintain social order, not for affirming or celebrating sexual attraction between two persons. If a man, gay or straight, wishes to form a familial unit with a woman (whether she is gay or straight), he can do so. When a gay man has met the same qualifications as a straight man — among those, forming a stable familial unit with a woman, both of whom are intent upon the balanced and responsible upbringing of children, he can adopt a child. Thus, I find the contention that, "The current law treats gays and lesbians as second-class citizens" to be both alarmist and false. Under the current law, gays and lesbians are treated exactly like all other citizens. That they be treated differently is actually what arguments like Jason Sheltzer '08 seem to be calling for. Jennifer Mickel '07
Irrational dialogue
Regarding 'Gays, feminists and the Anscombe Society' (Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007):
As a recent alumnus, it was with some pride two weeks ago that I read the University announcement and The Daily Princetonian article about Princeton's three Rhodes Scholars; though year by year, we have come to expect members of the Princeton undergraduate community to be awarded the great honor of Rhodes, nevertheless the description of the personal friendship of Sherif Girgis '08 and Brett Masters '08 in spite of their moral and social disagreements reminded me once again of the unique and radical nature of the Princeton student body. I firmly believed that it is only at Princeton that there would be an atmosphere of wholesome equality in which frequent and respectful discussion on such polarizing issues could take place.
That is, until I read Jason Sheltzer '08's column. Sheltzer's sudden departure from cordial, meaningful and dedicated discourse on the these most profound moral and social questions regarding our sexuality and way of life (questions that were so wonderfully embodied in the intellectual friendship of Girgis and Masters), his abandonment of rational dialogue and argumentation, and his ultimate recourse to cheap accusations of bigotry with regard to matters of sexual ethics can only remind one of the state of ethical dialogue in other universities. I can only hope that Princeton continues to cultivate the friendships of Masters and Girgis against which Sheltzer's "arguments" appear so divisive. P. L. Hough '07
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
