Letters to the Editor: Dec. 9, 2010

Conference was a success

Regarding “Asian American Students Association faces challenges in hosting inaugural Ivy League gathering” (Monday, Dec. 6, 2010):

We found the article on the first annual Ivy League Asian American Conference held at Princeton this weekend utterly disappointing. Over the years, the Asian American Students Association has worked hard to raise dialogue about pertinent Asian-American sociopolitical and cultural issues as well as to promote social activism through various initiatives on and off campus. This year, in an effort to engage the student leaders of tomorrow in interactive and engaging “task forces,” we organized ILAAC. We worked to differentiate this conference from longer-established Asian-American events that are now commonly seen as mere networking and socializing sessions. The ‘Prince’ article about our effort was discouraging and one-sided.

We do not deny that in the eight months that the AASA executive board has been working on ILAAC we had faced multiple challenges. In total, ILAAC saw a turnout of about 200 attendees who participated in six two-hour-long task forces on various topics. Perhaps this was a bad turnout compared to the standards of the ‘Prince,’ but we believe that the students who actually did attend the conference found the task forces and other components of the conference to be insightful and thought-provoking. The article focused on the turnout and logistical difficulties that we had to face in organizing a conference from scratch. However, we think that the actual content of the conference and what the attendees took away from the task forces and discussions hold much more significance, and AASA will undoubtedly continue to strive toward improvement of ILAAC, our future endeavors and other relevant aspects.

Laiyin Li ’12 and Justine Chiu ’12

Co-presidents, AASA

In defense of cynics and grade-grubbers

Regarding “Brought to tears by a commencement address” (Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2010):

In his letter to President Shirley Tilghman, columnist Luke Massa recklessly divided Princeton’s student body into “grade grubbers,” “cynics” and the “exalted” few who lust for “knowledge, not victory.” Few will deny that Princeton has its fair share of academically driven individuals. Yet I object to Massa’s wholesale condemnation of grade-grubbers and cynics, whose motivations and concerns merit a closer examination.

Massa wrote: “The grade-grubbers care nothing for the simple act of learning and direct all questions in class toward examinations and papers, not the material.” This characterization might hold true for a few students. However, for the vast majority, these students are just victims of their circumstances. The chilling prospect of post-graduation job woes and the omnipresent specter of grade deflation has forced them to place an outsized (yet justifiable) emphasis on their GPA. With the job market still reeling from the economic downturn, most Princetonians realize that a sub-par GPA just won’t cut it, even in professions other than finance, law and medicine.

What Massa derides as the “anti-intellectual culture of Princeton” is nothing more than the hypercompetitive environment fostered by grade deflation. Students at Princeton do care about their “quest for knowledge” and harbor a genuine desire to learn. But they also remain cognizant of the competition they face at Princeton and in the world beyond. Should these students be stigmatized for grounding themselves in reality? I think not. Massa would do well to consider that the true “cynic” is to be found not in his fellow classmates, but in himself.

Benjamin Kalinsky ’14

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

TFI displays arrogance

Regarding “Hummus referendum defeated” (Friday, Dec. 9, 2010):

Regardless of what you think about the fate of hummus at Princeton, it is impossible not to be shocked by the arrogance displayed by Tigers for Israel over the past few weeks. Despite the fact that the Princeton Committee on Palestine expresses views held by millions across the world, TFI has portrayed the debate over the referendum as “frivolous” and a “minute, immature and pathetic distraction” (as TFI co-vice president Samson Schatz wrote in his Nov. 19 column “Middle East with a side of hummus”). On Dec. 3, the debate reached an all-time low, with Kenrick Rilee’s cartoon mocking PCP supporters as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. Under harsh pressure, PCP has remained stubbornly decent.

Aside from mockery, the TFI campaign has turned on the argument that supporting a boycott of Sabra hummus is tantamount to denying Israel’s right to exist. Their message is clear: Political action against Israeli policies is disloyal. This is a typically a neoconservative line, reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

At a time when the state of American democracy is so fragile (as the current U.S. censorship of WikiLeaks highlights), it is depressing to see such fundamentally undemocratic rhetoric blazing on the Princeton campus.

TFI has been shown up. I hope they are ashamed. And I hope PCP feels empowered to organize a second referendum — one that involves the 5,000 or so graduate students and staff who also buy hummus on campus.

Samuel Galson GS