Racial undertones in Horowitz's rhetoricThe 'Prince' has recently published several letters to the editor calling upon the editorial staff to defend its argument that David Horowitz is a racist and not simply condescending or strident.
Thirty years ago yesterday ?April 17, 1971 ? was undoubtedly a very interesting day in the history of Princeton University.
Students for a Democratic Society, a 1960's activist group, told young Americans to "make the personal political" in an effort to make politics more relevant.
Arrington should appreciate chance to hear to new worksI am writing in response to the March 28 column, "On musical ? and audience ? appreciation," by Nathan Arrington '02.
I don't want to do work ever again. I have no aspirations, no goals and no desire to be productive anymore.
"Save America ? Abolish Government Schools." That's the latest conservative-activist slogan I came across the other day while perusing one of my favorite Internet forums.
I cried on the first day of my Outdoor Action trip freshman year. But you couldn't tell because it was raining so hard.
A response from the educators on graduate students as teachersAs members of the Princeton community who care a great deal about effective teaching, we would like to reply to columnist Robert Schmidt '03's March 16 column on the preceptorial system and the role of graduate student instructors.
Now that the standoff between the United States and China appears to be winding down, it is worthwhile to try to glean some lessons about Chinese behavior.
In the last few weeks, there has been some debate in the opinion pages of The Daily Princetonian about whether students, on the whole, are assigned too much reading.
The Workers' Rights Organizing Committee has two laudable goals: to treat Princeton's service workers with more respect and to pay them more.
The current standoff over our downed EP-3E Aries II electronic surveillance plane and its 24 crewmen requires that we seriously rethink the U.S.
'Prince' presents no proof against HorowitzI have read Horowitz's ad (elsewhere, previously) and found it well thought-out.You characterize his ad as racist in your spineless "apology" for running his ad ? yet without presenting one scintilla of proof for doing so.
Strange things have been happening at Yale, and the man responsible goes by the mysterious moniker "Dave." Just "Dave."For over a week now, all across their post-industrial wonderland of a Connecticut campus, Yalies have been seeing posters with baffling Dave-related slogans.
Horowitz is absurd to claim that Jews and Christians should not receive their dueAs a Jew, I read David Horowitz's letter to the editor in yesterday's 'Prince' with horror and charoset.
Quick question: you believe in freedom of expression, right? Yeah, that's what I thought. You do.You are, of course, committed to liberal democratic ideals ? liberal in the classical sense of the word, naturally.
This year, as the economy heads into a "soft landing" or mild recession, the predictable hand-wringing ensues over who is responsible for the slowdown.
Horwitz responds to Princetonian's 'Abuse'I have attempted to place an ad in college papers expressing the view that reparations for slavery 136 years after the fact is a bad idea.
Although the Workers' Rights Organizing Committee has built up a formidable group of supporters since its formation last November ? hundreds of students and workers, over 90 faculty members, religious leaders, local politicians and alumni ? it has so far forced only one change in University policy.
Prince' has no right to designate Horowitz as a racistI read with interest your "To Our Readers" opinion referencing the publication of David Horowitz's controversial ad in Wednesday's 'Prince,' and was ready to commend you for your stance on free speech, so readily abdicated by the editorial boards of campus newspapers at prominent universities.However, I must take issue with your thoughtless appraisal of Mr. Horowitz as a racist (to be exact, your statement that the 'Prince' will not "profit from Mr. Horowitz's racism."). This is a serious charge you have chosen to make, and you have done so at great peril to your credibility unless you are able to demonstrate that either the ad or Mr. Horowitz is racist.I have read the ad, and while I agree that it is controversial, confrontational in tone and cannot possibly "tell the complete story" (who could purport to do so in 1,200 words?), I do not believe it to be racist.
