Regarding: “The politicization of Judaism” (Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2010):
Brandon Davis expresses concern with what he sees as the moral failing of American Jews who categorically accept all of Israel’s policies or who fail to stand up to policies they disagree with due to pressure from their Jewish communities.
Although the author states that “it would be wrong to draw conclusions about Israelis or Jews in general because of some Israeli policies and military actions,” the column proceeds to do exactly that. Contrary to the column’s stance, I, and most of my Jewish acquaintances, do grapple with the cognitive dissonance of loving the land of Israel — seen by many to be the realization of an ancient dream — and the knowledge that our implementation of that dream has not always — and still painfully and often does not — live up to our expectations. Each individual handles this dissonance differently.
Davis further poses the question: “But how do we deal with Judaism when almost all American Jewish organizations unconditionally support Israeli policies?” But if he includes synagogues within American Jewish organizations, then this statement is difficult to substantiate in light of the wide variety of American Jewish values and beliefs.
A parallel issue presented itself last year when Nonie Darwish came to speak on campus. Many students expressed concern that her remarks asserting the radical and violent nature of Islam were based on “cherry-picking” isolated incidences of problematic Islamic texts and historical events. Signs went up around campus reading “pro-Israel does not equal anti-Islam” — that is to say, political support of Israel does not necessitate attacking Islam and Muslims.
I would add that withholding political support from Israel does not necessitate attacking Judaism and Jews either.
Rivka Cohen ’12
Think before you vote
Regarding: “Sanity, not sensationalism” (Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010):
I agree with David Mendelsohn in condemning the manipulative actions of Andrew Breitbart, who neither claims to be a journalist nor to be unbiased. I agree with him in denouncing the media for spreading the story without checking the facts. I also agree that the Obama administration showed no spine in firing Shirley Sherrod or (though Mendelsohn didn’t mention these examples) in deferring governance to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and in advocating for terrorists to be tried in civilian court. Most importantly, I agree with Mendelsohn in saying that the public (including Princeton University undergrads) needs to be more informed so as to not play into the hands of these “agitators.”
As an example, consider another news story not based on facts. On March 20, The Huffington Post reported that Tea Party protestors outside the Capitol spat on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., and called Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a “nigger.” Despite the fact that news camera crews were present, and despite the abundance of video-recording-enabled phones, there is still no audio or video evidence of either incident. But, as Mendelsohn suggests, we live in an age in which facts are no longer needed. All the media had to do was report the story as true (which they did) in order to accomplish their goal (which they did): If you know nothing of the Tea Party, you know at least two things: that they are racist, and that they are extremists.
Most Princeton students I’ve spoken to think of the Tea Party in said way. Perhaps that is why no more than 15 people showed up to a recent talk on the Tea Party given by Henry Olsen, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute. Or maybe they were simply not interested. Whatever their reasons, they cannot remain ignorant forever. Those who continue to think of the Tea Party as a group of right-wing nuts that deserves to be laughed at and not taken seriously as a political force are in for a surprise on Nov. 2.
I urge all of us to inform ourselves as much as possible. After all, information is only a Google search away. We cannot use the excuse “I’m not into politics” and remain ignorant — and then vote in November anyway. In the words of a no-longer-so-well-known philosopher (Plato): “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Something is missing from that quote. Perhaps Plato meant to add “and your country ends up falling apart.”
Tulio Jose Alvarez Burgos ’12
Read More
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.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
