Regarding “Breaking the silence: Princeton’s ROTC” (Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2009):
In particular, we feel the need to correct Mr. Collins’ mischaracterization of cadets as “private citizens.” Contracted ROTC cadets — those who have committed to military service and have sworn an oath to the Constitution — are no longer simply private citizens. They are members of the U.S. military. With that membership comes an expectation of adherence to America’s long-standing tradition of military subordination to civilian control. When we raised our right hands, we understood that our duty was to follow the government’s orders, not to dispute them. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen, who recently visited Princeton and held an audience with Princeton ROTC, made this point: “Part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting national interests. The military as an institution must remain a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway ... We don’t get to say, ‘Well, it’s not how I would have done it,’ or ‘If only they had listened to ME.’”
We would like Collins and other students to understand that we refrain from direct political action not out of apathy, but rather out of duty. To us, this rule is part of our service, and a very necessary one at that. In 1951, President Truman relieved General MacArthur of duty for actively opposing Truman’s efforts to limit the Korean War. For the safety and security of the nation, the military must respect the superiority of the civilian government. In short, it is not that we don’t care or that we have no opinions: It simply is not our role to publicly present them.
If Collins doubts the importance of military subordination to civilian policy making, we ask him to consider this question: If the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rule were repealed, how would he feel if military commanders publicly challenged the new policy and urged that it be rescinded? We expect and hope that he would find such behavior by military leaders to be entirely inappropriate. It is no less inappropriate for military leaders to attack the existing policy that has been established by our civilian authorities.
The article mentions Owen West, a former Marine who has criticized the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Indeed, we recognize the value of former servicemen contributing their points of view on important military policies. Perhaps one day, after our military service has come to an end, we will do the same. But until then, we will serve obediently, as our duty requires.
Cadet George O. Puryear ’09
Commander, Princeton Army ROTC
Cadet Samuel S. Gulland ’10
1st Sergeant, Princeton Army ROTC
Criticism of Birthright program and Zionism is misguided
Regarding “Birthright Comes With a Price” (Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009):
It is telling that Isabel Schwab seems to believe that “instill[ing] some form of love for” Israel is evidence of Birthright organizers’ sinister intentions. Love of a nation does not imply unconditional acceptance of all of its policies any more than love of Princeton implies support for every administrative decision.
Birthright does not pretend to be a comprehensive educational program. It is a 10-day trip designed to introduce Jewish students to a key part of their heritage. It is also a celebration of that heritage. I don’t see anything shameful or inherently political in embracing the best aspects of one’s cultural legacy.
Unlike Schwab, I have followed Israeli politics since long before I went on Birthright last summer. While I do not support every Israeli action, I feel no ambivalence over my love of the country. I will even cheerfully admit to being a Zionist, a word that Schwab uses as a slur but that I claim as what should be an uncontroversial profession of my support for the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. I find it particularly troubling that Schwab seems to dismiss the opinions she heard on Birthright as necessarily skewed. Educating oneself on an issue almost invariably leads to choosing one position over another; acknowledging both sides in an argument does not compel us to find them equally valid. I hope that after researching the conflict, Schwab will not dismiss her own opinions as biased simply because she finds herself taking a stand.
Carra Glatt ’09
Want to be a 'Prince' columnist? Visit www.dailyprincetonian.com/join/opinion by Feb. 20 for an application.
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.
