This information strongly suggests the signer holds strongly religiously conservative beliefs which predisposes her to oppose the protests calling for removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name on political ideology grounds.
Cobrat - The GFG is correct. There are numerous programs in Trenton where Princeton students assist with literacy, health etc. Trenton is about 10 miles away. See this list if you’re interested in the facts http://pace-center.princeton.edu/projects/
And, I’m a little confused by your reference to the recollections of classmates (which of course appears to be a fairly common approach you take). By the mid-90s, colleges were lifting their divestment restrictions, since Mandela had asked for reinvestment. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/28/us/colleges-reverse-divestment-plans.html
@cobrat, first of all, I asked tiger1307 what point HE was making. Why do you find it necessary to speak for him? He may well be making that very point, but I certainly think he is capable of doing so himself.
The point was the older URM HS classmates at Princeton were shocked at seeing many White classmates still arguing against divestment in SA issue from the '80s saying it was a bad idea and wrong when it was already a settled and a done deal at that point.
The same classmates were also hostile about President Mandela and Black majority rule in SA as well.
In contrast, the only folks still holding such views on many other campuses including H were regarded as retrograde cranks who are still stuck in the '50s/early '60s regarding race relations and related issues.
I think that college funds should be invested where it makes the most money for the school. And I’m pro-choice and in favor of stem cell research. Chew on that.
“The other major problem with arguing within the framework of the social construct, is that it tends to be all-devouring. Conservatives value ancient institutions like the family and the church for their abilities to form children’s characters and pass wisdom from generation to generation, and seek to sustain them. Liberals see these institutions as hives in which prejudices and injustices are bred and inculcated, and seek to tear them down. Social construct theory is an easy means by which they may accomplish this, because an institution which is merely constructed artificially loses much of its legitimacy and may be modified or discarded at will. Thus fundamental institutions, and especially hierarchical ones, like the nuclear family, which philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle saw as both naturally formed and beneficial to their participants, and common-sense principles like those which teach that men and women have different strengths and abilities to offer to society, are labeled “constructs” and assumed illegitimate as such. So next time your liberal friends attack ancient norms or institutions as social constructs and sit back expecting to be applauded like victorious Roman generals, strike back by attacking their assumptions that this theory governs all human interactions, and that this necessarily makes our customary interactions suspect things.”
This may help you to understand where Ms. Gallo and perhaps some of the others in her group are coming from
So you would have no problems if college funds are say…invested in companies which are KNOWN to import blood diamonds, provide banking or other services to domestic/international terrorist groups, benefit from countries which employ discriminatory policies against a marginalized group within its society, or known to provide campaign funding to politicians who fan xenophobic tensions and attitudes among his/her base?
Sounds like you have something in common with the fiscal conservatives and libertarian-right:
Moral/ethical dubiousness of how the companies/individuals are making their money or benefiting from morally/ethically/legally dubious policies…doesn’t matter so long as those investments are making great returns.
Doubt a critical mass of such alums would agree with that sentiment without protest/voice outrage…especially if they fully understand its possible negative moral/ethical implications.
In the same vain as Cobrat would you be okay in investing with University funds in payday loan companies that charge over 300 per cent interest , or gun stores that supply guns for inter city murders or marijuana farms in states where it is legal?
Cobrat, I find your method of arguing quite unpersuasive since you have no first hand knowledge of Princeton and continually make your arguments through references to “older URM HS classmates” as if there were hundreds of them (which is unlikely since you also noted that you feel that Princeton had an animus against magnet and public school URMs since they didn’t take many from your school).
And in terms of apartheid, I can’t necessarily say you’re wrong, but the university reinvested in SA in 1994, and I doubt that there were many people at that point discussing what a bad idea it had been to divest in the first place. Moreover, the concept that these racist whites were running around campus telling URM classmates how they disliked Mandela is not particularly persuasive.
Do you have any facts to support your views or will you just continue to argue through anecdotes and statements such as these (wow, you really don’t like Princeton, I get it)
The thing is from encountering Whites in other places with similar attitudes against Mandela/majority Black rule in SA, they didn’t view themselves as racists.
Instead, they usually tried couching it in the same ways conservative opponents of MLK Jr. back in the '50s and early '60s tried discrediting him…accuse/criticize him for being a Communist even when neither meet the working definition used by political scientists or historians.
Not exactly.
I didn’t like what Princeton undergrad WAS before the late '90s when admission policies were changed to admit more public school/public magnet graduates and to reduce the emphasis on admitting athletes, legacies/developmental admits, and boarding/day school graduates.
Have much better impressions of them after that change. In a recent campus visit this year, I’ve also noticed it’s much more accepting of progressive students/thought than what I recalled hearing from HS friends/older classmates who attended Princeton in the '90s.
Incidentally, I’ve always respected their graduate division though I did have a STEM Prof who mentioned while he was considering grad school he took Princeton off his undergrad adviser’s suggested list because all the worst Profs he had happened to have gotten their PhDs there. In contrast, some of my best Profs got their PhDs there.
@circuitrider I certainly can’t dictate anything, nor am I, but I definitely have the right to share my opinion of what I think of their tactics, which is what I am doing.
Gee let’s think of everything that is reprehensible or illegal and automatically ascribe that to people who don’t agree with us politically.
Are you REALLY that clueless?
I am a portfolio manager. I know firsthand the restrictions that various groups, such as university endowment funds, religious groups, or union employee retirement funds, place on their investments.
There is very little correlation between the political leanings of the organization and the investment restrictions that are put in place. A far left organization and a far right organization are equally likely to restrict investments in companies doing business in Sudan. On the other hand, many union groups have no restriction against investing in Wal-Mart for example, and outside of the Waltons, unions are some of the largest owners.
@tiger1307, the thing is, you can’t necessarily assume that someone who is conservative in one area is conservative across the board.
I’m very liberal with regard to some issues and more conservative with regard to others. It would be a mistake to assume anything of people you don’t know.
Funny you mention guns. The largest gun shop in the US is Wal-Mart, and as I explained above, few investors prohibit buying Wal-Mart. Forget the mom & pop gun shops as they are too small for universities to invest in.
Also interesting to compare guns to alcohol. Very few investors have restrictions on alcohol companies, even though it contributes to more deaths per year than guns.
It is clear you don’t understand how to interpret the major holders listing. Pension fund assets are not held in the union’s name. It is given to companies like Blackrock & Wellington and many others (including mine) to invest as the investment company sees fit, subject to the investor’s restrictions. We are talking many thousands of union pension funds, each making individual decisions with the help of consultants.
As far as the anecdotes you list, they are exactly that.
