New Princeton prof's remarks spark controversy

Peter Singer, who thinks parents should be able to euthanize disabled babies, has been met by protest. Peter Singer's views aren't exactly mainstream. His opinions -- including that parents should have the option to euthanize severely disabled newborns -- go against the moral norm. And by hiring him as a tenured professor specializing in bioethics, Princeton University has come under fire. Organizations such as Right to Life, Princeton Students Against Infanticide and Not Dead Yet are protesting Singer's appointment, claiming that in hiring him Princeton is supporting what many consider his extremist views. Singer -- who was appointed last November to the school's Center for Human Values and began teaching his first class last week -- has written numerous books advocating the right of parents to euthanize their newborns within 28 days if they are born handicapped. Princeton President Harold Shapiro defended Singer's appointment in an open letter published in The Daily Princetonian last November. "In every [hiring], we insist on someone who already is or has clear potential to be one of the leading scholars in his or her field," Shapiro wrote. "But every once in a while we make an appointment that is greeted with a mixture of accolades and controversy, and even some protest. "Appointments like these give us an opportunity to discuss fundamental issues about a university's central purpose and core values." Because of his views on euthanasia, Singer's hiring prompted a wave of national publicity and several protests by various organizations. "We believe that [Singer's] views are very detrimental to our society," said Marie Tasy, a spokesperson for the New Jersey Right to Life. "[They] target the most vulnerable human beings in our society." Right to Life -- which Tasy said was the first organization to take up the fight against Singer -- was joined in its campaign by several other organizations, most prominently Not Dead Yet, a group of disabled activists, and by Princeton Students Against Infanticide, an umbrella group of students against Singer's hiring. PSAI is protesting Singer's hiring on the grounds that with the appointment the university "breaks its own commitment to the community policy" which states that people "cannot be demeaned for who they are," said Christopher Benik, president of PSAI. According to Benik, Singer's views demean disabled people, which is contrary to Princeton's non-discrimination policy. Benik added that he does not agree with Princeton's justification of hiring Singer based on academic advancement. He challenged the university's argument by saying Singer's advocation of killing handicapped infants does not promote academic growth. "There is no such thing as academic freedom in light of discrimination," Benik said. Tasy agreed, saying that Princeton is not sending the right message in giving Singer a platform for his ideas. But Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that censoring ideas in the academic arena can result in a dangerous "chilling effect" and hold back intellectual development. In a statement, Singer clarified and defended his views, saying that he is not advocating euthanasia for disabled people. Rather, parents, as the people most affected, should have the final decision about keeping the child alive. "[Parents] should, on the basis of information from their doctors, have the principle say in the decision whether or not all the resources of modern medicine should be used to keep their child alive," Singer said. Further, he wrote, there is no "moral distinction" between withholding medical treatment and actively causing the newborn's death. In fact, hastening death rather than letting it come naturally can be more humane, he said.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.