Regarding “Apartheid label fits Israel” (Thursday, April 8, 2010):
This letter is not about politics. This letter is not about a wall. This is a letter about intellectual integrity.
The column by members of the Princeton Committee on Palestine labels Israel an apartheid state. In short, the identity of the Palestinian community is indeed a heritage, but it is not racial (see articles 4–6 of the Palestinian National Charter of 1968). Israel’s actions, therefore, are not apartheid. Yes, this is important. No, it is not just semantics. When you label a government apartheid, you are stating that any injustices it may perpetrate are not the result of mistakes or bad policies made in response to a horrible situation. Rather, you are stating that the injustices are entirely purposeful and stem from racism.
You neglect to mention that the disparities in infrastructure and roads are because Israel and the West Bank are separate entities, and thus necessarily disparate. You ignore that within Israel there is no “separate system of roads,” and that within Israel the disparities in infrastructure are due to the usual miserable causes, such as poverty. Your apartheid label perpetuates an image of Israel as a racist, hateful nation, while within Israel’s borders a community of more than 1 million Palestinians possess citizenship and are guaranteed full rights under the law, including the right to vote.
How do I feel about the barrier? I hate it. But there are other things I hate as well.
I hate kids getting blown up on the bus on their way to school. I hate it when a 10-month-old baby, such as Shalhevet Pass, is shot in the head by a Palestinian sniper in the name of freedom. Staging a protest on the West Bank barrier with no mention whatsoever of the reasons Israel built it is intellectually dishonest, as was the fake Nelson Mandela quotation gracing the front covers of PCP’s pamphlets.
You can do better. We who are mired in this conflict, Palestinians and Israelis alike, deserve better. Please deliver.
Rivka Cohen ’12
Whining and dining
Regarding “Why Dartmouth does it better” (Tuesday, April 13, 2010):
There are two types of Princeton students: those who complain about (usually petty) things (like food or toilet paper) and those who complain about those people. Kelsey Zimmerman has proven that she is no exception and clearly falls into the former category with her column.
Ironically, I read her column while eating in one of the very dining halls she criticized. As I enjoyed my slice of freshly cooked brick oven pizza, I thought to myself, “We don’t have it so bad.” In fact, when my dad and sister visited campus a few months ago, they were impressed by what they found in the Wilcox dining hall. Why don’t you travel down the road a few miles for a meal at Rider? I volunteer a week of my summer every year as a counselor for the Boys State program there, and their food is notorious for its lack of options and its ability to upset many a stomach. Horror stories about college food abound, but I’ve yet to hear a legitimate one about Princeton.
As I complained to my senior friend who has been enjoying her post-thesis spring, she quoted the somewhat overused, yet all too true cliche, “The grass is always greener on the other side.” A la carte dining, like at Dartmouth, sounds nice until you are forced to pay for everything out of pocket. Besides, juniors and seniors already have that option if they so choose. And, in case you haven’t heard, a majority of them don’t. We all come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, but the University strives to give every student an equally rewarding Princeton experience. Who are we to blame the administration for trying to even the playing field? What we have is not subpar. On the contrary, it’s the best around. We can be so jaded; Princeton is the norm for us because that’s all we know.
I’m sure I could find a lot of students who’d make sacrifices to study here, including eating in our dining halls. As for me, I’ll be happy as a person who falls into the second category of Princeton students, those who complain about complainers. At least I’m not ungrateful, as so many in that first category seem to be. Sure, Dartmouth does it differently, but better? I don’t think so.
Gary Fox ’13
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award in 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 in 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 in 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.
