Zero suicides is not just a dream. We can make it reality.
Content Warning: The following article includes mention of suicide.
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Princetonian's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Content Warning: The following article includes mention of suicide.
The following is a Letter to the Editor and reflects the authors’ views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
When Israel “tried to tell 1.4 million people to flee on foot in 24 hours, we knew this was genocide. And now we see their final solution,” Ellen Li ’24 shouted at the emergency die-in for Rafah held outside Firestone Library last Wednesday. Referencing a “final solution,” words that invokes the Nazi plan to systematically murder every single Jew in Europe, in the context of a war fought through means of a totally different nature and guided by principles that stem from a totally different intent is a horrific representation of the anti-Jewish hatred that Li — and the members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) whom she represents — spreads. Furthermore, such an unjustifiable comparison represents the extent to which their activism operates in a self-created reality, entirely different from the one experienced by Gazans and Israelis in the conflict zone.
As Princeton students, we are lucky that our education affords us endless opportunities. According to a recent study by Harvard economist Raj Chetty, the chance of reaching the top 1 percent of the income distribution is boosted by 60 percent for graduates of Ivy League schools and peer private institutions when compared to selective public colleges. The same study also finds that the chances of attending a prestigious graduate school or working at a prestigious firm are doubled and tripled, respectively, for graduates of these schools.
The following is a guest submission and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
For students working toward an A.B. degree at Princeton, the foreign language requirement is a core part of their undergraduate education. For those starting at the 101 level, the requirement constitutes an introduction to rigorous language study that will span at least three semesters of college. Though many students test out of intro courses and into intermediate or advanced-level courses, the language requirement ensures meaningful student engagement with a critical field of study.
1,193 sophomores, 80 percent of the Class of 2026, participated in this year’s Street Week, with 66 percent double-bickering. As in years past, Bicker and its merits were a source of contention among the student body. We asked our columnists to reflect on Street Week 2024 and Bicker, more generally.
In a world overflowing with challenges, from the existential threat of the climate crisis to growing economic inequality, innovation is a beacon of hope. But not all kinds of innovation contribute equally to human flourishing. As Princeton heads into the 21st century, it is crucial for us to discern between the transformative and the trivial: are we innovating for a better world, or just bigger profits?
The Daily Princetonian released its 2023 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) report last week, which publicly shares internal statistics on staffers’ identities, feelings of inclusion within the ‘Prince’ community, and satisfaction with the extent of ‘Prince’ coverage. This report, which includes a multitude of analyses on the problems the ‘Prince’ faces and goals for improvement, could be read as suggesting that the utmost priority of internal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts is to increase the diversity of staffers. This would be a poor takeaway from an interesting and insightful report, and leave the paper open to common criticisms that shallow DEI programs face — that they prioritize appearances over values-driven change. Instead of becoming a directive on personnel proportions, the DEIB survey should be used to identify and resolve gaps in coverage of particular communities and areas in which internal programs exclude certain groups of individuals.
The following is a Letter to the Editor and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
The share of Princetonians who graduate as members of sign-in clubs has halved since the 1990s, reflecting a long-term decline in sign-in participation. In light of this trend and Cloister’s dire financial situation, the question of what allows an eating club to succeed is an important one.
Student-led sociopolitical dissent is an enduring asset of the American university. Since the horrific events of Oct. 7, 2023, on-campus demonstrations have recognizably spiked. The ensuing months of complicated and heartbreaking conflict in the Middle East have prompted many contemplative and necessary exchanges regarding power, national autonomy, and the ceaseless tragedy of the loss of innocent life. This intensification of student speech, in tandem with the recent controversy surrounding congressional testimony by Ivy League university presidents and their alleged hesitation to condemn rising antisemitism, has renewed attention towards the role of universities as both conduits and participants in the national political discourse. Some even argue that Princeton University is responsible for answering inquiries on its positions regarding national and global events to continuously support marginalized voices. While this goal is undeniably noble, a reexamination of the Kalven Report and recent restrictive legislation levied towards Florida universities serves as a necessary reminder that we at Princeton shouldn’t overlook the power of institutional neutrality to preserve campus discussions of diversity and equity.
The following is a letter to the editor and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a letter to the Opinion Section, click here.
Planetary breakdown worsens each day — and our language to describe it hasn’t caught up. Most of us call it “climate change,” or “global warming” if we’re old-school. While useful in certain contexts, these terms fail to convey the urgency of the dire situation facing our planet and our people — sometimes, they even conceal that situation. As a result, they limit our ability to feel and act from that urgency. Let’s change this language.
National attention on higher education feels like it’s constantly increasing, with the spotlight shining especially brightly upon elite institutions. It should come as no surprise that after years of casting themselves as the makers of future world leaders, Ivy League schools succeeded in convincing America that they are, indeed, important. When the education of the next generation of presidents, billionaires, and business leaders is on the line, it’s reasonable to expect that the current ruling class would want a say. While this interference can manifest through democratic processes — from campaign threats about taxing endowments to federal investigations over student life — it’s private influence that seems to be sparking the most concern inside universities themselves. Donations to universities take place out of the public eye, with the decisions of a few affecting the lives of a large community. But should this form of behind-the-doors influence be a cause for concern?
“We even have a Gutenberg Bible in the library!”
The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
The Creative Writing (CWR) program has long been a favorite of the University’s students across class years, degree options, and concentrations. This semester, hundreds of students enrolled in CWR courses, hoping to snatch one of the few spots available. Who filled these coveted spots came down to rather insignificant elements: the reaction time of a mouse click, internet speed, or a cleared cache.
Since affirmative action was overturned in June 2023, conversations about how to promote campus diversity and fairness in admissions have turned towards criticism of legacy admissions. Affirmative action and legacy admissions are often positioned as opposing forces — they are perceived as respective representations of diversity and tradition. Recently, columnist Sarah Park argued for the acceptability of legacy admissions on account of their ability to foster “intergenerational community” and noted a general negativity about legacy and legacy students themselves. This negativity exists for good reason: legacy admissions perpetuate privilege and have, historically largely benefitted wealthy, white students. But as time goes on, diversity is increasing within the legacy pool, despite the fact that it is still less diverse than our campus as a whole. No longer are all legacies stereotypical, privileged, white kids. As Princeton continues to diversify, legacy will too. If we end legacy now, we are prematurely eliminating the advantages that come from a more diverse intergenerational community.
During my tenure as the head Opinion editor at The Daily Princetonian, I received countless emails from alumni thoughtfully interacting with our content, supported writers as their arguments were warped in the national media, and was told my work was “boringly moderate.” The readership of the ‘Prince’ often has a lot to say. For a responsible journalist, this is thrilling — having your work read and contemplated is often a testament to a job well done. Yet the alternative can be just as true: the reporter is not always right, and audiences’ responses are crucial to identifying these failures. Truth-telling is a tricky business, and simply holding membership in the ‘Prince’ does not prove any inherent ability to conduct it. In recognition of this problem, the ‘Prince’ is changing to become more accountable and more accessible to the public it serves, in order to serve it better. This begins with establishing a public editor, a role in which I will be serving this upcoming year.