|
January 24, 2001: Letters PAW welcomes letters. We may edit them for length, accuracy, clarity, and civility. Our address: Princeton Alumni Weekly, 194 Nassau St., Suite 38, Princeton, NJ 08542 (paw@princeton.edu). The Snapshot photograph
in the December 6 issue of the silent vigil against the victims
of Israeli aggression distresses me as an Israeli citizen with a
long history of active support for the peace movement and opposition
to Jewish settlements in the West Bank. I am mainly distressed
because publication of the picture implies agreement with the view
expressed by the protesters, and this is a view which, despite my
peace credentials and convictions, I cannot accept. The Palestinians
who have been shot by Israeli soldiers in the past few months are
not exactly victims of Israeli “aggression.” The Palestinians chose to use violence to oppose continued Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and to reject a peace settlement that appeared to them (as it also appears to me) to be unfair and to offer far too little to the Palestinians. That decision may or may not have been a politically effective one. Time will tell. However, to call the Israeli response to Palestinian violence “aggression” is to deny that the Palestinians are active agents in this conflict. They have been rioting, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, and shooting, and the Israeli soldiers have been shooting back. Not only was that to
be expected, it was also exactly what the Palestinians wanted, in
order to get publicity for their cause -- an extremely effective
tactic, by the way. The Israeli army is better armed than the Palestinians,
so of course more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis. Again,
this was entirely to be expected and is one of the points that the
Palestinians have been trying to prove. It has long seemed to me that there are two major psychological obstacles to reaching a solution to this conflict with which both sides can live. One is the failure of Israelis to realize that Palestinians are human beings who respond to what Israel does. Conversely, it seems
to me that Palestinian self-portrayal as the perennial victims of
Zionist/Colonialist/Racist/European aggression rather than as the
weaker side in a struggle, but a side that still enjoys considerable
freedom of action, initiative, and resources, is damaging to the
Palestinian self-image and cause, and, is, indeed, untrue. Jeffrey M. Green ’66
The current situation
in the Middle East is tragic for all involved. Violence serves the
long-term interests of no one. However, PAW’s coverage
of a daily rally by Palestinian sympathizers includes contradictory
messages. An organizer characterizes the rally as “apolitical”
and “more in memory of those who died.” At the same time,
participants carry a sign stating “In Memory of the Victims
of Israeli Aggression.” An apolitical rally would acknowledge
substantial losses on both sides, including numerous situations
in which the Palestinians were the initial aggressor. More important, the protesters
might ask whether the violence could have been avoided if Yasir
Arafat was willing to make meaningful compromises during the Camp
David peace summit. During that conference, Israel offered the Palestinians
statehood, control of over 90 percent of the land in the West Bank
and Gaza, and sovereignty over parts of the Old City of Jerusalem.
After being blamed for
the failure of the summit by President Clinton, the Palestinians
have sent their children to the front lines to confront Israeli
soldiers. This cowardly attempt at generating international sympathy
cannot obscure the tragic reality -- the present, tragic circle
of violence was avoidable. Dror Futter ’86
I would hope that “photojournalism”
would be subject to the same standards of accuracy and fairness
as other PAW articles. Unfortunately, “Middle East Message”
fails this standard. If the pictured demonstration
is truly “not a political statement” (in the words of
a Palestinian “sympathizer”), the vigil would be in memory
of all victims of Middle Eastern violence, Israeli and Palestinian.
Instead, PAW has permitted its pages to become propaganda, without
the slightest acknowledgment of the acts of terrorism and violence
committed by Palestinians and others against Israel every day or
the stubborn refusal of the Palestinian Authority to participate
in the peace process. Marc Andrew Landis ’84
I certainly understand
that the PAW editorial staff is entitled to choose which of the
many events that take place on campus should be featured in the
magazine. I was, however, taken aback to see an entire page dedicated
to a “silent vigil in memory of the victims of Israeli aggression.” We all mourn the many
victims of the tragic conflict in the Middle East, but referring
to Palestinian victims as the “victims of Israeli aggression”
is most definitely a political statement, and therefore the claim
in the article by one of the protesters that “this is not a
political statement” is absurd. I would hope that students
at Princeton, as well as employees of PAW, would have a greater
appreciation of the subtleties and complexities of the tragic conflict
in the Middle East, where many people on each side seem to see the
other as the aggressor. Other campuses have had
dialogues between Jewish and Palestinian students in order to attain
a greater level of understanding -- I would be very sad to learn
that meetings of this sort have not taken place at Princeton. Faye I. Landes ’82
The current conflict
in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians is rooted
in political, emotional, and religious foundations, which are impossible
to summarize in a few words or pictures. Blood has been shed on
both sides, with a resolution far from clear. Whereas we respect
a publication’s right to use editorial judgment in choosing
subject matter, we found the manner of presenting the opposing demonstrations
on campus inappropriate and seemingly biased. The Palestinian vigil
commanded a full-page, color photo on the prime last page, and,
although the demonstrators claimed to be apolitical, the banner
which the students were holding was clearly not. Conversely, the
Israeli demonstration received short notice in the middle of the
issue in the Notebook section with a small black-and-white photo. One of the greatest strengths
of Princeton is its diverse cultural base -- even if those cultures
are sometimes in conflict with one another. We applaud PAW for reporting
to the alumni community when those conflicts arise, but we ask that
the news be delivered fairly and with sensitivity to those on both
sides. Adam and Janet Lichtenstein
’95 American universities,
including Princeton, seem to be turning into cloud-cuckoo land.
Ideologues push for speech codes that violate the First Amendment,
but say that this is “not censorship”; those pushing for
the admission of specific numbers of new students from various demographic
groups describe this as “not quotas”; faculty members
who change their course material in response to pressure from the
People’s Republic of China seem to feel no conflict with academic
freedom; professors refuse to write articles if another professor
writes one on the other side, and apparently don’t perceive
this as contrary to the academic ideal of open and vigorous debate.
To top it off, students and staff members hold vigils “in memory
of the victims of Israeli aggression,” and are quoted as saying
that “this is not a political statement.” I’m all
for people arguing in favor of whatever position they hold, no matter
how bizarre; but it would be nice if they could do it without the
hypocrisy. Peter Suedfeld *63 Like Gregory T. Greene
’75 and Patrick Swearingen ’84 (Letters, October 11) I,
too, was saddened at the prospect of losing the museum in Guyot
Hall. Guyot provided me with one of the quintessential experiences
of freshman women in the fall of 1971: Although women undergraduates
had by then been at the university for two years, I could not find
a women’s restroom in Guyot Hall. After a moderately desperate
but ultimately fruitless search, I asked a janitor to direct me
to one, but he didn’t know where one was either. Finally he
volunteered to stand outside the door of a men’s restroom while
I used it. Later that fall I discovered that Guyot Hall did in fact
have a women’s restroom, and I came to consider it the finest
women’s restroom on campus. It was in a back corner of the
museum, and, in keeping with the style and period of the museum,
it had an anteroom with a fainting couch. (At that time many women’s
restrooms had urinals, sometimes planted with flowers.) I suppose the room could
be better used as an office or a storage space, but, as Greene and
Swearingen pointed out in their letters, the museum offers a place
to study not only natural history, but the history of natural history.
It is a serendipitously maintained example of the way science and
scientists were, and as such I would like to see it preserved, bathroom
and all. Cate Huisman ’75
Lest Annie Ruderman '01 thinks her coed bathroom experience (On the Campus, November 8) is completely unprecedented at Princeton, let me relate an experience of mine. Back in the great old days of 1994Ñ95, I and 12 of my friends had the now unattainable honor of living on the top floor of Blair Tower. Thirteen guys and one tiny bathroom marked with the letter F. The men's bathroom was down a long, long staircase that seemed that much longer during the wee hours of Friday and Sunday mornings. We had an informal conversation with the six girls downstairs. They quickly understood our unfortunate predicament. Yes, they said, we'll be happy to share our bathroom. And share we did for the entire year Ñ men and women used the bathroom interchangeably and simultaneously. If there was any social psychology involved, it was just how normal it all became. Damon E. Lee '97
Annie Ruderman '01 better be educable to the variables of the toilet seat. If men leave the seat down, they are criticized for not putting it up. And if they leave it up, they are criticized for not putting it down. At the same time when it seems wrong to Ms. Ruderman not to always leave it down, she thinks it wrong that she should ever have to put it up. Alas, there are some things Princeton's teaching cannot solve. James Neely '48 Princeton’s faculty
certainly does value its graduate students as integral parts of
the teaching and research environments, but what President Shapiro
did not mention in his November 8 President’s Page is that
Princeton’s reputation for taking care of its graduate students
is less than spotless. Long-standing issues
of concern are the high cost of health care and the lack of benefits
such as reduced-cost dental and optical plans. Princeton lags behind
most Ivy League schools in this area, and while recently negotiating
an optional dental plan for its employees, neglected to extend eligibility
to graduate students. Hardest hit are graduate students with families,
who are expected to pay $4,000 per year for Student Health Plan
coverage, 20 percent of a typical student’s gross income. Another pressing issue
is housing. The size of the graduate school has grown in recent
years without a corresponding increase in the housing provided to
students. This housing is absolutely critical to the financial well-being
of graduate students, given the minimal stipends paid and the high
cost of living in the Princeton area. Graduate students forced to
seek private housing are likely to pay around $1,000 per month,
as opposed to $600 per month in the Butler apartments, for example.
I say this from experience, as my wife and I lived in a private
apartment several years ago. The only unit for under $1,000 we were
able to find was 10 miles away from Princeton. This brings up another
point: the lack of affordable housing in Princeton will force many
graduate students to take on the additional expense of buying and
maintaining a car, including the high cost of New Jersey insurance.
Princeton does not have an extensive public transportation system
allowing affordable access to low-rent neighborhoods, unlike schools
such as Harvard and M.I.T., where proportionately less student housing
is provided. Brent Jones GS The letter from Adam
Bromwich ’96 (November 8) regarding the Millstone Bypass is
a hodgepodge of misinformation and exaggeration typical of the efforts
of some in Princeton to avoid what is probably inevitable. This is a hot topic in
Princeton these days, and the proposed alignment may still need
refinement, but much of the opposition’s “party line”
is unfounded. Without giving an exhaustive account of the subject,
here are some examples as cited in Mr. Bromwich’s letter: 1. The road does not
run “directly alongside the Millstone River and the Delaware
and Raritan Canal.” It may look that way on a small map, but
its closest -- and very brief -- approach to these waterways
is more than 300 feet in the case of the river, and 450 feet in
the case of the canal. Hardly “alongside.” In fact, because
of elevation differences and intervening woodlands, the road will
be invisible from these locations. It will have little if any visual
or audible impact on either the canal towpath or Lake Carnegie. 2. The alignment “bisects”
nothing. The historic districts in the area are affected in minor
ways, if at all, and the archaeological sites near the river will
be evaluated and steps taken to minimize effects due to the road.
With respect to wetlands, the alignment’s total incursion is
an insignificant one acre. The road will conform with all New Jersey
environmental regulations, which -- believe it or not --
are among the toughest in the country. 3. The rows of elm trees
along Washington Road between Route 1 and the canal will not be
“lost.” (Some now refer to these trees as the “elm
allée” -- for added cachet, I suppose.) A small
number -- about six -- of the 74 remaining original elms
will be removed for an intersection at the road’s Washington
Road terminus. (Approximately half the original elms planted in
the ’20s have already died. Some have been replaced with other
species, and there are several stretches with no trees at all.)
Southbound traffic on Route 1 will still enter or leave Princeton
via Washington Road as it does now. Northbound traffic will use
the bypass, about seven-tenths of a mile to the north, or Alexander
Road as it does now. With reduced traffic on Washington Road the
remaining elms will be better off. 4. The bypass will have
no effect on “homogenizing Princeton into yet more New Jersey
sprawl” since that has already occurred -- several decades
ago. 5. Alternatives have
been studied -- more than a dozen at last count -- including
some in which the university has been a party to the planning. Some
of these would result in the destruction of portions of nearby communities,
including homes and businesses. Obviously the present alignment
will have environmental effects, but so do all the alternatives.
Some require construction of temporary roads, which in itself only
compounds the environmental impact. Unfortunately, many in
Princeton who oppose the bypass resort to emotional arguments based
on self-serving perceptions of environmental issues (not one inch
of the road is even in Princeton), and give short shrift to the
overriding regional economic and traffic safety concerns that brought
the new Jersey Department of Transportation to propose the bypass
in the first place. The Environmental Impact Statement that Governor
Whitman recently ordered should be very enlightening. Richard S. Snedeker ’51
Sandor Barcza ’60 Editor’s note: Greg
Mancini ’01 was shown on a trip to Budapest. The caption placing
him in Berlin was our error, not his. I nominate my classmate
Ralph Nader ’55 for the next cover of PAW, and suggest the
headline “In the Nation’s Service.” It was Ralph’s
effective presidential campaign that changed the course of the election.
He identified important issues, and mobilized a part of the electorate.
Over 95,000 voters in Florida voted for Ralph, thus ensuring the
end of the Clinton-Gore era. Ralph’s campaign was truly In
the Nation’s Service. John Grant ’55 Editor’s note: An
extensive postelection interview with Nader is on PAW Online. Organization of Women
Leaders (OWL) is Princeton’s first student-run organization
dedicated to providing a network of support for female students.
We have more than 370 members and most meetings have overflow attendance.
In October we had our first faculty luncheon, published our first
newsletter, participated in the World March of Women in Washington,
D.C., and sponsored a panel debate on Princeton’s status as
a “male-friendly” university. If you would like to find
out more or help OWL, please contact ippolito@princeton.edu,
eculbert@princeton.edu
or rhindery@princeton.edu. Nancy Ippolito ’03 That contraption being
rowed down Nassau Street is known as an Irish Mail (From the Archives,
December 6). My dad had one, I had one, and now my grandchildren
are straining to use mine up in the mountains of North Carolina.
They were also known by other trademark names. Mine was a “something”
velocipede -- the logo has long since worn off. You steer it with your
feet, and basically row it. It has a rod push/pulling a wheel (much
like a steam locomotive driver). The power is then usually transferred
to a rack-and-pinion gearing to the rear axle. A healthy six-year-old
can attain 10 m.p.h. or better on level ground, and a teenager,
with some redesigned gearing, can almost outrun a dog. It is a great body builder
and exercise machine, and a lot more fun than jogging. They are
still manufactured. Wallace DuPre ’51 Editor’s note: We
also heard from Gordon Daiger ’53, Roberta Lawrence s’38,
Joseph Crossley ’45, Frank Gibson (Yale 1949), Al McCree ’44,
Philip Murphy ’44, H. Dwight Neill ’54, Stuyvesant Pell
’53, Richard F. Furman ’38, Nicholas Wetzel ’42,
Louise Ritenour h’30, Rocky King ’45, Bruce Handler ’58,
James F. Lotspeich ’44, and Jack Raymond ’46. Several
of our respondents told us they had had an Irish Mail as a child
and loved it, attesting to the fun and fitness it provided. In the request from University
Archives regarding Elmer Adler (December 20), the incorrect date
for his employment was given; the correct years are 1940–52.
We encourage our readers
to take part in an online
survey we have posted on our Web site. |
||||||||||||
Palestinian
Vigil 
Chuckle!
Page 26 of the November 8 issue shows a Free University of Berlin
student standing on the Fishermen’s Bastion in Buda Castle
of Budapest, Hungary. In the background, across the Danube is the
Hungarian parliament. Does Greg Mancini know about this? Do your
readers know? They may get the wrong idea about the topography of
Berlin.
