Letters to the Editor: Oct. 7, 2009

Eating clubs very much part of Orange Key tours

Regarding “Orange Key tours gloss over life on the Street” (Monday, Oct. 5, 2009):

As an Orange Key tour guide who has given over 50 tours, I agree that it is unfortunate that we are unable to show Prospect Avenue to prospective students. During my visit to Princeton, I was awed by this street of magnificent mansions and enjoyed snooping around Tower Club uninvited. However, the logistics of an Orange Key tour make this impossible. We have to maximize variety, and our loop around North Campus makes it possible to see a nice mix of residence halls, academic buildings, historical sites and libraries. As any Charter Club member knows, a trip to the end of the Street and back would consume most of our one-hour allotment.

But I strongly disagree with the headline and premise of Marla Jalbut’s article. My fellow guides and I do not “gloss over life on the Street.” I invest significant time in explaining the eating clubs because the concept is foreign to most tourists. I take pains to explain the difference between sign-in and Bicker clubs, and the unique use of the word “Bicker” never fails to generate a chuckle from the group. After all, in the context of choosing a college, eating clubs help distinguish Princeton from inferior rival institutions.

Ian Flaniken ’10

Grade deflation is the right medicine

Regarding cartoon “Side effects include hysterics, depression and delusions” (Friday, Sept. 25, 2009):

Mariah Min’s vignette in the Sept. 25 issue of the ‘Prince’ was really funny. After the initial laugh I couldn’t help but think what freshmen would be thinking of it.

As one of those initially skeptical of the adjustments made on the grading policy by the University years ago, I have to say that “grade deflation” has provided us all, students and faculty, with the necessary tool to refine the idea of academic excellence. Out of what I hear from colleagues throughout campus, it seems that the new deal has also fostered a debate, individual or collective, about how to reach for even higher standards in our teaching, course designing and even the kind of academic relationship we have with our students.

I’d have a hard time finding the likes between Dean Malkiel and Big Pharma. Many of us see her proposal as a proactive decision that’s probably integral part of Princeton’s quest for unique academic experiences in a 24/7 mind-growing and thought-provoking environment.

As for the conspiracy? I’d rather call it commitment. And about the meds .... there’s only one: Work! As far as I know, no instructor has and/or will deny an A to the kind of work that does deserve it.

Honestly, I’d rather get hooked on this kind of painkillers. You’ll feel the effects right away, and, sure, side effects include “agony,” but please, refrain from discontinuing the treatment. It’s all part of the experience.

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

Antonio F. Calvo

Anger over Sanger’s racism misses crux of the issue

Regarding “Societal ignorance and sexual bliss” (Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009):

In the column “Societal ignorance and sexual bliss,” guest contributor Aaron Smargon’s argumentum ad hominem dedicates many paragraphs to outlining the racism of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

Whether or not Sanger’s opinions are racist or her political agenda is deplorable by 21st century standards may affect the appropriateness of a celebration in her honor, but it does not alter the relevance — or lack of relevance — of the role Pro-Choice Vox plays on campus today.

Regardless of one’s personal morality regarding issues of birth control, it is not reasonable or logical to come the conclusions Smargon does based on his interpretation of the background of a historical figure. It seems Smargon’s real problems with Pro-Choice Vox are its effects on sexual liberation. Glibly mocking a misguided anniversary celebration does not address the real issues at hand.

Julian Dean ’13

Tilghman’s introduction for Erdogan inappropriate

Regarding “Turkish prime minister talks of a new world order” (Thursday, Sept. 24, 2009):

I expect Princeton officials’ statements on behalf of the school to project political impartiality. In introducing Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he spoke here, President Tilghman violated her responsibility to maintain neutrality. I assume the best of motives. She was introducing a notable guest and wanted to make him feel comfortable. However, her overall tone was, to put it kindly, laudatory, particularly when she referred to Erdogan having taken Israel “to task” for the conflict in Gaza. President Tilghman ought to have been more careful. Her words are essentially Princeton’s, and she should strive to avoid a hint of bias in the interest of balanced intellectual discourse.

Jacob Reses ’13