Friday, April 3, 2009

Ann Coulter: Fire Shirley Tilghman

In her April 1 column, controversial conservative columnist Ann Coulter included a rather puzzling tidbit on President Tilghman:

And what is Obama’s justification for keeping Shirley Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?

Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child — or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.


Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.



David Wade, PhD (*82) said...

You left out an important part of Coulter's article: "...Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants...". I thought Princeton was a private university, but I guess it is on the public dole in spite of its untaxed multibillion dollar endowment. You should name your next prestigious building, "US Taxpayer Hall".

Anonymous said...

Princeton IS morally bankrupt. I am passing on to Coulter the new Princeton 2013 student Stephany Yu and her recent elitist rant! As well as the many blogs of decadent sex, alcohol and cheating that runs rampant throughout this hell hole of a university that produced and continue to produce the people that have and will continue to destroy America. Umm maybe one of there new freshman seminars for next year will be Terrorism 101 or the New 50 flavors of Lube!

SIS said...

Naw, this actually makes sense, IF you realize that she's doing a reductio ad absurdem on Obama's draconian regulation (for example, no hiring of foreigners on visas: of companies taking bailout money. "They take our money, we make their rules," sez Obama. By the same token, then, since Princeton gets significant government funding, the government should regulate our business.

Anonymous said...

On second thought, don't. Why do people listen to Coulter at all? Why does anyone listen to Limbaugh? They are generators of hatred and at the heart of the dumbing down of America. Bitter, small-minded, divisive and contentious, what positive benefit do they contribute to society, aside from enlarging their own fat bank accounts? They are no different than unregulated Wall Street schemers and con-artists, today's Madoffs. Their popularity is a dismal litmus test of how pathetic things really are. You cannot muzzle or silence them, that would be Dick Cheney's solution, but why does anyone still listen to this daily stream of trash?

Anonymous said...

The country is waking up and mark my word will not listen nor abide by your rhetoric and propaganda. Fear will not rule.Teleprompter Obama's house of cards will fall.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous ("Princeton IS...")
Stephany is class of 2012
and her post was obviously a joke.
Don't people have a sense of humor anymore?

As for Princeton receiving government money, I would think every accredited college does, so I don't think it's a Princeton issue per se. Should colleges receive taxpayer funds is the real question. In any case, Princeton doesn't need taxpayer funds, and if the government wanted to start exerting substantial control, I'm sure we would opt out of taxpayer funds. Nevertheless, the government gives us money, like it does to other institutions, because we benefit the nation.

Meg Byrne said...

Are people serious? Ann Coulter is a total nut job. Good grief.

Anonymous said...

Peter Singer is the nutjob. F'n intfanticidist. Say, does Princeton have a Eugenics Department? Oh, it doesn't? (scratching head)