RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceUniversity should invite Nonie Darwish to speak after student group withdrew sponsorship
Regarding “Egyptian activist’s invitation withdrawn” (Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009):
Princeton University, with its tradition of “free inquiry” and “free expression” (from University handbook “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” 2008 ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
This paper should name students' names in articles. Just because it is a campus newspaper does not mean it should write any differently to a real newspaper.
Imagine reading in the New York Times last November, "Anonymous elected President!"
The girl was only in that porno mag for the attention. Naming her in the Prince just gives her what she wants.
@Rivka is wrong:
Yes, maybe this student did want attention, but this is about the Prince not exercising discretion in what they publish.
If the Sophomore Stripper really is newsworthy, then it is also newsworthy to know who it is.
"Anonymous Undergraduate gets naked for shady magazine" is interesting only to the desperate and lecherous among us.
I totally agree.
But is the Sophomore Stripper newsworthy in the first place? And should the Prince really be publishing articles on topics like this? Well...
Ms. Slomich: Hear, hear! Administration?
Ms. Cohen: I am unaware of any situation where the obligation of the responsible media extends beyond obtaining the informed permission of the subject and providing an accurate and well-balanced portrayal. A newspaper has no business - and doubtless no time - second-guessing the decision-making process of the article's subject.
I think that this is a very well made point, but I don't think it should have used Margaret Sullivan's case. Instead, you should have used the case of the girl suing princeton for more time on tests.
Regarding the letter to the editor: “Misunderstanding in letter regarding University retirement contributions” (Nov. 23, 2009)
I fully understand the rationale for Princeton’s retirement contribution formula described in Alison Nelson’s letter but maintain that this formula could and should be re-evaluated. Although the contributions outlined in Ms. Nelson’s explanation are indeed superficially level, the nature of the 6.2% contributed each year for salaries below $106,800 and the extra 5.7% above that amount are very different.
Princeton might contribute $80,000 to Social Security on behalf of a typical employee over the course of his career, but that money will never really be “his” until he qualifies to receive a portion of it each month beginning, at earliest, at the age of 62. If he dies leaving no eligible children or spouse before he qualifies, that money, along with the $80,000 he himself has been obliged to contribute, will forever remain part of the system which aims to support all other recipients. By contrast, the extra 5.7% the University contributes for those earning above $106,800 immediately becomes part of their personal retirement funds, ready to be passed on to their beneficiaries: spouses, children, or any other person or institution so designated.
The extra 5.7% contributed on behalf of just two PRINCO officers mentioned in your original article would surpass this hypothetical $80,000 Social Security contribution in just one year.
There is a significant difference between the money that Princeton is obliged to put into Social Security and that which it voluntarily puts into the personal retirement accounts of its more highly paid employees.
Incidentally, Ms. Nelson’s mathematical rationale is very different from the “war for talent” rationale offered to me by Mark Burstein in July of 2009 and again at the last town hall meeting: that Princeton believes it must not change its retirement contribution formula in any way if it hopes to attract the most qualified faculty and staff. Either rationale is understandable (yes, I do understand each one) but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be open to re-evaluation.