I am a member of the BlackBox team and I was present at the incident that occurred on Friday, April 18. I was harassed by one of the males in question and witnessed the group of males aggressively confronting a Princeton student. Due to this, I immediately headed toward Safeguards with my friend. On the way to Safeguards, one of the males grabbed my leg and slammed me against the wall. The Safeguards saw this, and in addition to my friend's calls, immediately rose up from checking incoming students and proceeded to hold back the attackers.
Prior to the main attack, Safeguards were unable to see that something was going on because the party was very crowded, more than 400 people, and at the same time as the incident, a huge crowd of pre-frosh and others was trying to enter. The Safeguards were paying attention to those who were trying to come in, and making sure that the walkway was clear. They were doing their jobs.
Many who were involved in the incident are highly upset at how their personal security was shaken. I believe, however, that the Safeguards present are becoming scapegoats. They were neither intoxicated nor incoherent. Instead, they were helpful to their best ability. When I called on them for assistance, they assisted me. I would be very disappointed if those gentlemen were accused of not doing their job, when in fact they were quite helpful.
Michelle Thompson '10
Why did so few step forward to help?
Regarding ‘BlackBox fight leads to arrests' (Tuesday, April 22, 2008):
Yes, the fact that there were gang members involved in this incident is troubling. What is more disturbing to me, however, is the accusation that most people who saw the fight happening did nothing to intercede and stop it. Antipathy about life in general is growing in our generation, and what good is being part of a community if you can't trust that community to interfere when it sees something blatantly wrong?
This isn't a race or ethnicity issue, this is a human being issue. Somehow, we need to make it clear that it is not acceptable to sit back and do nothing, whether it is breaking up a fight, keeping an eye on drunk friends in a club or protesting a University policy. Inaction cannot be an option.
Lauren Clark '10
Don't want sex-selective abortions? Educate parents!
Regarding ‘Don't want a daughter? Abort her!' (Tuesday, April 22, 2008):
Brandon McGinley '10's treatment of sex-selective abortion is dangerously myopic. Restrictions on abortion rights are highly unlikely to alter the practice of sex-selective abortion. A recent WHO/Guttmacher Institute study demonstrated that abortion restrictions have no effect on the incidence of abortion. Rather, such restrictions endanger women who are forced to settle for back-alley abortions. McGinley's concerns would be much better addressed by educational campaigns in communities that tend to hold gender preferences. Public awareness regarding the success of women in higher education and professional careers could go a long way toward reversing entrenched attitudes about gender. Restricting choice would not.
Furthermore, McGinley grossly mischaracterized the pro-choice objection to the partial-birth abortion ban. Pro-choice advocates and medical professionals object to the legislation based on our concern for women's health. In response to the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that "this decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact dilation and extraction [D&E] is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous."
While McGinley's description of the procedure focuses on the potential trauma of the fetus or infant, he fails to even consider that the ban could cause women extraordinary pain, suffering, and even death. If he thinks the procedure itself is repugnant, we ask that he also consider the repugnance of allowing a woman to die when a government-banned medical intervention would have saved her life.
Sara Viola '08; President, Princeton Pro-Choice Vox
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.
