Letters - November 18, 1998


Peter Singer

I read with interest your article on the appointment of Professor Peter Singer to the faculty (Notebook, October 7). I am not familiar with Singer's work, but I am surprised at the lack of objectivity in paw's coverage of his apparently controversial views.

The article quoted a number of Singer's supporters at the university who characterize his (unnamed) detractors as "irresponsible," "hyperbolic," and "intellectually lazy," and their criticisms as "slander." Why didn't paw speak with his detractors? The only laziness was in paw's coverage.

Also, paw claimed to demonstrate Singer's qualifications merely by asserting them. Thus, we know Singer is qualified, because he was chosen "from a large group of qualified candidates." The article states that Singer "is arguably the most qualified person in his field" because he is the author or coauthor of more than two dozen books and received "often enthusiastic" letters of recommendation from others in the notoriously clubby world of academia.

Professor Kateb, a member of the search committee that recommended Singer's hiring, tells us that Singer's views are written in plain English. But it would appear from Kateb's remarks that plain Princetonians have no right to judge or even comment on Singer's views unless they are thoroughly familiar with all of Singer's writing.

It is bad enough to watch academics circle the wagons against criticism from the uninitiated. Does paw have to join the train too?

Ronald D. Coleman '85
Clifton, N.J.

Princeton is to be congratulated for appointing Peter Singer to its faculty. His book Animal Liberation has accomplished immense good and prevented immense suffering. It helped change thinking about animals, so that virtually all cruelty and killing is now questioned or opposed by groups in our society.

His assertion that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed will become increasingly acceptable in the face of medical society's ability to keep alive humans who have no hope for relief from pain or for a semblance of a meaningful life.

Henry L. Heymann '43
Washington, D.C.

How disgusting and frightening that Princeton has hired Peter Singer to be Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the Center for Human Values. Singer, after all, is a man who has written, "That a being is a human being ... a member of the species homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it." Furthermore, "Killing a defective infant ... sometimes ... is not wrong at all." So much for our "Center for Human Values." Let us not forget, too, that Singer does support animal rights, even to the point of raising these rights above the rights of humans who, to use his term, are "defective."

Equally appalling, a recent newspaper article about Singer contains a scary quote from university spokesman Justin Harmon '78: "We are talking about a man whose interest is in the theoretical and in scholarly debate, not an activist." As if the activist can be so neatly separated from the scholar! In Germany in 1895, a "theorist" named Adolf Jost promoted the state's right to kill people. Several decades later, two distinguished German academics, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoch, published an article entitled "The Permission to Destroy (Human) Life Unworthy of Life." Their list of humans in this category included the incurably ill, much of the mentally ill ("incurable idiots"), individuals with low intelligence, and children with deformities. Anticipating Singer's idea that "characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness ... make the difference," they invoked a concept of "mental death" for the brain-damaged, the retarded, and the psychiatrically disturbed (groups they called "human ballast"). According to Hoche, killing such people "is not to be equated with other types of killing ... but is an allowable useful act."

All of the above comes from Robert Jay Lifton's The Nazi Doctors (Basic Books, 1986). Lifton convincingly demonstrates that such ideas led to Auschwitz and Treblinka, where physicians made "medical" decisions over the life and death of human beings as they arrived each day by train. It's interesting to note, too, that the idea of "animal rights" got a big boost from these same National Socialists.

Singer's arguments put us back on the same slippery slope. Shame on Princeton for rewarding him with an endowed chair.

Michael Alan Schwartz '65, M.D.
Gates Mills, Ohio

Mile of the Century

As a track enthusiast who had just been admitted to Princeton, I was privileged to witness the Mile of the Century at the June 1939 Princeton Invitation track meet (Looking Back, October 7).

On that day I was especially impressed to see freshman Ed Burroughs '42 outrun the best in the world in the 440. After a dramatic come-from-behind stretch run, Burroughs defeated Campbell Kane of Indiana at the tape as the stadium crowd went wild. One of Princeton's all-time great track athletes, Burroughs held the university record in both the 440 and 880 for many years.

Edwin W. Bragdon '43
Weston, Mass.

Princetonians on Hollywood

Over sixty of Princeton's hottest movers and shakers in the television and film industry will be participating in a five-part series of panel discussions, "Princetonians on Hollywood." Writers, directors, producers, and executives will give their perspectives on some of the most vital topics in the entertainment industry today. The series will run from November through May, and all Princetonians are invited to attend what promises to be five fascinating and controversial evenings.

On November 19, the first panel will meet at the Gower Screening room at Paramount Studios in Los Angeles. It will feature writers discussing "Creativity vs. Censorship," and will include Jacqueline Edmonds '82 (Moesha), Howard Gordon '84 (Strange World), Rob Greenberg '84 (Frasier), Winnie Holzman '76 (My So-Called Life), John Sacret Young '69 (China Beach), and David Zabel '88 (JAG). More information is available by calling 310-712-5410 or visiting the Princeton Club of Southern California's Website, at http://alumni. princeton.edu/~paa053.

Alison Graham '84
Los Angeles, Calif.

Remembering Robbie

Reading Lynn Staley *73's wonderful reminiscence of D.W. Robertson in your October 21 issue, I found myself recalling one of the most memorable moments of my four years on campus. As a prospective English major, I had heard all the stories about Robertson and his purportedly heretical teachings; for example, that he was excluded from certain Chaucerian studies conferences and even that his students would not be admitted to certain graduate programs. One morning in McCosh 10, after a lecture on our text, he delighted the room by pulling out a particularly virulent, ad hominem critique of him and reading it in one of his impersonating voices -- it was a falsetto, and not knowing the author of the screed, I don't know how closely or remotely it resembled the author's actual voice. What I do remember is the sheer density of the language used to attack Robertson and how silly it sounded as it piped out of his mouth ... and that he ended the reading, looked up, paused, and then filled the room with that booming belly laugh. After an uncertain moment while we tried to take this all in, we picked up on the humor and returned his laughter. He offered no other defence. And though we may not have entirely understood the joke, we clearly understood whom it was on.

John Griffith Johnson, Jr. '72
Washington, D.C.

Egg donors

Walter Weber '81 criticizes women who donate oocytes to infertile women (Letters, July 8). But women who donate oocytes must endure significant discomfort and health risk to do so. The compensation paid to most women is small and does not fully compensate the risks. Most women who donate must do so at least in part out of a desire to assist infertile couples in having a baby.

Mr. Weber does not criticize women who bear children and offer them for adoption in exchange for the payment of medical expenses. I suggest that oocyte donors are no more mercenary in their motives than the women who place their children for adoption and, in so doing, secure payment of their medical bills and offer their babies the chance of a comfortable life.

Nor does he criticize the practice, now accepted in the medical community, of organ donation. If Mr. Weber would accept a donated organ for himself or a desperately ill loved one, then his ethics are no different than those of an infertile couple seeking to enjoy a family. I am thankful there are women who, if asked, would assist me and my husband in having a baby.

Linda Pirolli '77
Bridgeton, N.J.


paw@princeton.edu