Regarding “Students campaign for alternative hummus” (Friday, Nov. 19, 2010):
Hummus.
Wow. Hummus.
A major topic of debate between the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian factions at one of the foremost universities in the world is who will supply them with mashed chickpeas. Somebody contact Chris Rock, quick.
Seriously, people — three points to consider:
1. The rest of the world does not care and will in no way be affected by the outcome of your hummus wars. Really.
2. On the other hand, it is truly a good thing that there is at least some concern and passion, as opposed to apathy, about the tragedy of today’s Middle East.
3. There have been times, some relatively recent, when society’s youth told their elders to go to hell with their hatreds and wars instead of tiptoeing behind in their footsteps.
This might be a good time to bring some of that old attitude back. Instead of the ad-nauseum duels between Tigers for Israel and the Princeton Committee on Palestine, how about you guys join forces to form “Princeton Tigers for Israeli-Palestinian Peace”? Those interested might, in place of hummus tastings, look to such extraordinary efforts as “Seeds of Peace” (Google it) for an inspirational model of how to at least begin to truly make a positive difference.
But if that’s too much to ask, could you at least do something about the perennial shortage of scones at Frist?
Brian Zack ’72
Regarding “CJL cautions students on referendum” (Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010):
I find it interesting that Yoel Bitran ’11, president of the Princeton Committee on Palestine, said he is “disappointed” that the Center for Jewish Life is speaking out against the referendum because the CJL is supposed to be nonpartisan, nonpolitical, representing all Jewish students on campus, etc., for two reasons. As he said in his guest column “Hummus matters,” the referendum is in no way meant to be political. However, now he accuses the CJL of being political by voicing its opposition against the referendum. Is he suggesting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a moral issue when discussed by Palestinians but a political issue when discussed by Israelis? Nonsense. The PCP-sponsored referendum was a political move from the start.
Which brings me to my second point: A USG referendum should not be political. The University does not take sides on political debates because it is not willing to misrepresent the opinions and beliefs of its students. On similar grounds, Bitran accused the CJL of taking a political stance that does not represent the views of all Jewish students on campus. However, he seemed to ignore that his referendum, if passed, will create the false impression that the entire student body is in favor of having an alternative hummus when, in fact, it will be the opinion of only a majority of votes cast in the runoff election (in which even fewer students participate).
Bitran also suggested that even if you are apathetic to PCP’s cause, you should still support the referendum because it is, after all, fundamentally about giving students more choice. I don’t buy it. Saying the referendum is merely about providing an alternative brand of hummus risks making it frivolous. If I initiated a referendum to offer Venezuelan arepas in Frist Campus Center because I feel Hispanic students should have more choices and not just Mexican food, it would be dismissed as frivolous, and rightly so.
So which one is it? Is the referendum part of a serious political debate, or is it merely a trivial desire to have one more brand of hummus during late meal? You have to choose. As the saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Or in this case, you can’t have a referendum that is both political and fundamentally neutral.
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.
