Search for on  
Thursday, December 04, 2008
     
 Home
 About CWA
 Join CWA
 Give/Donate
- Donate Now
- More Ways to Give
 Get Involved
- Federal
- State/Local
 Media Center
 Legislation
 Beverly LaHaye
 Institute
 Culture and Family Issues
 Legal Studies
 Family Voice
- Subscribe Online!
 Multimedia
 Shop CWA
 About CWA
 CWALAC
 Project 535
 Employment
 Internships
 Brochures
 Fact Sheets
 Recently on CWA
 Links

 

Judge Alito and Concerned Alumni of Princeton     1/11/2006

  • The reason Sam Alito was involved with CAP was because Princeton kicked the ROTC off campus in 1970. In Alito's view, Princeton was blameworthy for thinking that it was "too good for the military."
    • Alito was a member of Army ROTC while at Princeton. He thus knew from firsthand experience how ROTC can open doors for students who otherwise wouldn't be able to attend an elite Ivy League institution like Princeton.
    • The very first issue of CAP's biweekly newspaper, the Prospect, contained an article about Princeton's efforts to run ROTC off campus.
    • A 1985 article from the Princeton Packet, an area newspaper, confirms that one of the principal reasons CAP was formed was because of "a campaign to eliminate the Army ROTC program." See Charles Stile, "A Conservative Voice Targets the University," Princeton Packet, February 12, 1985.

  • Princeton was awash in anti-military sentiment in the 1970s. During Alito's senior year, vandals firebombed Princeton ROTC headquarters. Andrew Napolitano, an Alito classmate and fellow member of ROTC, has indicated that: "we had to leave Princeton and go to a state school because radicals at Princeton had firebombed the ROTC offices. And rather than building little new offices, the university just let the military leave and stay off campus." Fox News, January 10, 2006.
  • Princeton discriminated against ROTC in other ways, too. In the spring of 1969, the university faculty voted to end all academic credit for ROTC classes.
  • Alito's involvement with CAP was exceedingly minimal. Andrew Napolitano, who was on CAP's board for seven or eight years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, has indicated that: "I have no recollection of Sam being a member of the organization or involved in any way." Fox News, Jan. 10, 2006.
  • CAP was not opposed to the admission of women and minorities. Some in the group's leadership expressly endorsed coeducation. And while CAP was opposed to racial quotas, it didn't believe that it was appropriate to discriminate on the basis of race.
    • One of CAP's co-founders, John Thatcher ('53) wrote to the college newspaper to correct "the very unfortunate impression" that the group was against coeductation: "I support coeducation at Princeton, and have done so since its inception."

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles
Supreme Court Year in Review 2007-2008
Supreme Court Back in Session
Protect Children, Not Charlatans
Constitutional Blunder
Enormous Implications in Medellín Supreme Court Case
Alarming: The Dissent's Opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart
CWA President Wendy Wright Reacts to the Court’s PBA Decision
O'Connor Connects Court Critics to Cookie Caper
A Brief Look at the Arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart
A Brief Look at the Arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart

 

 
 

 

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806

Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives



 
    ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....