Letters to the Editor: March 10, 2008

Don't expect too much from the USG

Regarding ‘Wag the pet project,' (Monday, March 10, 2008):

You know, I nearly laughed out loud when I read the editorial over breakfast. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the USG is. What do you think happens when students become part of the USG Senate? Do they have new access to administrators or decision-making committees that was lacking before? Oversight power or influence within the University? Taxpayer, ahem, student fee-funded salaries? I'll tell you the answer: absolutely nothing.

I should know: as a senator for the Class of 2009 last year, I played an immeasurably small role in the University's policy to subsidize birth control, among a couple of other ventures the success of which almost had nothing to do with my position on USG.

The USG was and is a bunch of hard-working kids who love Princeton and want to improve it, but that doesn't affect the fact that they have no real advantage over similarly passionate students who want to make their voices heard by the University.

That's not to say that the USG doesn't get anything meaningful done - it can, and sometimes does - just that being on the USG is a formalized reflection of your interest in working with other students to address school policy, not a position conferring especially heightened change-making power.

What readers should know is that if they want to address some policy change at Princeton or feel their voices should be represented on a committee, they should go and do it themselves. The criticism that the USG overinvests its time in small-scale activities would be a sensible one if it indicated that senators were not fulfilling the responsibilities conferred by a unique position bestowed on them. But indeed it is hardly a unique position at all, and anyone who feels that there is an important change to be made to the housing or alcohol policy certainly needs not wait to run for a position to make a difference.

Rob Weiss '09

Former USG Senator

‘No comment' is a bad campaign slogan

Regarding ‘Voting for a smile,' (Wednesday, March 5, 2008):

I second The Daily Princetonian's editorial on the Young Alumni Trustee race. When one candidate petitioned me for my signature, I asked him, "Why on earth would you want to be a trustee?" And he refused to reply, citing anti-campaigning rules.

Seth Blumberg '08

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

It's time to start buying your own birth control

Regarding ‘Good public (and campus) policy,' (Tuesday, March 4, 2008):

Both Sarah Viola '08 and Sierra Gronewald '11 are quick to deem those advocating limited condom access as paternalistic. Perhaps if they thought deeper, they would recognize the deep vein of paternalism that runs through the University's decision to fund contraception. Is the University not acting as a young adult's ideal parent, a security net so that its children will never have to deal with the responsibilities or consequences of their actions?

I am all for students using contraception, but if you're mature and responsible enough to have sex, you should be mature and responsible enough to deal with its implications, including purchasing your own contraceptives.

Patricia Sever '11

It's probably time to leave Nava alone

Regarding ‘Letters to the Editor,' (Tuesday, March 4, 2008):

In his letter, Hal Parker '08 says that "as recent events have shown, conservative students have no one to fear but themselves," a clear reference to the Francisco Nava '09 case. Since when is taking cheap shots at the mentally ill acceptable for LGBT Center supporters?

Adam Ernst '10