Modern political debate rarely takes place with proper regard for the fundamental principles which inform both sides of the argument.
The purpose of this article is not to pick sides, but to fight this impulse and produce an argument despite the mudslinging and politicking that all too often accompany the somewhat amorphous concept of “socially responsible investing.”
When I cast my ballot this November, I will vote to put the candidate who is most committed to protecting the right to life in office.
On Sunday, March 25th, the University’s Committee on Freshman Rush Policy announced that beginning with the incoming Class of 2016, freshmen are prohibited from participating in any sorority or fraternity activity.
The cynical view represented by the headline is that the liberal justices would vote to uphold Obamacare based on their policy preferences whereas the conservative justices would vote up or down depending on what they believed the Constitution requires.
“When I heard the gunshots, I tried to run…Their faces were covered…They tied my legs and hands…I was thrown down and lost a tooth…He used me without marrying me, against my will… [his wife] would beat me with a stick.”
I intend to analyze the structure of the group and the activism it has sponsored to obtain an understanding of why Occupy Princeton has succeeded in stirring up activism on a campus that is typically very uninterested in activism.
Any issue relating to religious liberty and reproductive health is a likely sparring ground for the left and the right, and the recent conflict over the contraception mandate has proven no exception.