1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
The release of the Paradise Papers in early November has raised many concerns about tax evasion. The findings, which The New York Times described as emerging from a “cache of secret corporate records” from multinational law firm Appleby, expose dozens of companies and wealthy elites that use tax havens. Apple Inc., according to the same article, “has accumulated more than $128 billion in profits offshore, and probably much more, that is untaxed by the United States and hardly touched by any other country.” Princeton is among the named entities that use tax havens.
Reading the outcome of the Honor Code referenda in The Daily Princetonian, I felt as if Princeton had arrived at a momentous occasion — 64 percent of the student population (around 3,330 people) had turned out to vote overwhelmingly in support of the referenda — but I was unsure whether I was to celebrate or mourn. I felt like a small child standing in front of the remnants of a ruined supermarket display tower: As a hundred toppled-over cans rolled around me, I realized that we had just done something, but I wasn’t sure what we’d done.
“If you educate a man, you educate one person. If you educate a woman, you educate a nation.” However, whoever is guiding that education is as important as the education itself. Female teachers have a significant positive impacts on their female students, so much so that it can change the course of their academic futures. The dearth of female faculty at Princeton is preventing this guidance from occurring, reinforcing the pattern of male academic dominance.
A freshman from Missouri couldn’t cope with the academic pressures of Columbia, moved back home, and hung himself in his basement. A decathlete at the University of Pennsylvania couldn’t cope with the pressure of being a small fish in a big pond and slit her wrists. An international sophomore here at Princeton, outwardly content in every way, was found dead in his room one year ago.
“On Wednesdays, we wear pink” is perhaps the most recognizable statement of clique culture. The “mean girls” always sit together, they date the cutest guys in school, they wear the prettiest clothing. But we tend to laugh at satires like “Mean Girls.” “Come on,” we think to ourselves. “Who really does that?” And in truth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a friend group distinguish itself by the colors of its members’ outfits — so, at face value, bemusement is definitely appropriate.
In 1926, Harvey S. Firestone Sr., the millionaire founder of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, set his sights on an ambitious goal: to break the British and Dutch monopoly on the global rubber market. To do so, he needed his own rubber plantation, a necessarily vast operation to supply his U.S. tire factories.
To the Editor,
To the Editor,
It’s the week before classes end, each of your five classes has a deadline you must meet, and you effectively budget your time at the beginning of the week to allow for the completion of all five assignments. Of course, five courses with deadlines the same week clearly puts you at a disadvantage, as less time can be allocated for the completion of each assignment when compared to a student with fewer deadlines. Twelve hours before the deadline of your most time-consuming assignment, the professor announces a 24-hour extension, since many of his students complained that they needed extra time. You’ve already completed the assignment for this class (after all, you knew it would take the most time), but the deadlines for your remaining assignments remain unchanged — leaving you, the proactive student, disadvantaged yet again. How is this fair?
Princeton is a place of hustle and bustle. The University teems with a palpable, unstoppable energy that knows no bedtime. Dangerously, the cultural pace of Princeton allows one to easily look past the everyday, micro-level emotional experiences of the University’s student body. But if one did look past Princeton’s superficial “never-stop-grinding,” always-moving-forward intensity, one would find a campus that holistically struggles with loneliness.
As I take a stroll through the hallways of any residential college, I am faced with a buffet of condoms hanging from each RCA’s door. The options seem endless — glow-in-the-dark, chocolate strawberry flavored, fluorescent orange. Perhaps this is our adult version of a chocolate emporium, except the treat at the end is safe sex.
To the Editor,
To the Editor,
I write to share clarification and historical context in response to the letter by former Honor Committee chairs that was published on Monday, Dec. 11. The authors declare that for violations of the honor system, “in 1893, Princeton students settled on a consequence — one-year suspension...” In fact, for the majority of the Honor System's existence, the standard penalty for Honor Code violations was expulsion. A one-year suspension was not a listed penalty in the Constitution of the Honor System until 1974.
Dec. 12 began the voting period for the four referenda on the Honor Code Constitution. The first referendum calls for a degradation of standard penalty for violations of the Honor Code on in-class examinations from a one-year suspension to disciplinary probation until graduation. We would like to provide some additional information and raise a number of questions that students should consider as they think about how they will vote on this referendum.
I recently decided to disaffiliate with Princeton Graduate Students United. The decision came after being told by representatives of the union that I was creating an “unsafe” organizing space. I was shocked by the accusation since, well, I don’t go to the union’s meetings, take part in their committees, or do much to regularly support their cause. In a short meeting, I was informed that an unnamed member of the union had accused me of an unnamed offense and that a determination was made by an unnamed committee to ban me from the union meetings — meetings I don’t actually attend. There was no opportunity to confront my accuser, state my side of the story, or resolve the matter. The situation signaled quite clearly that between the University administration and PGSU, the University administration remains the more preferable option for graduate students.
As Peer Representatives, our role during Honor Committee hearings is to advocate for students accused of violating the Honor Code.
Last Thursday evening, the prominent Francophone novelist Patrice Nganang was arrested as he was about to board a flight leaving Cameroon. Initially charged with “insulting” the president, Nganang has been a vocal and visible critic of the oppressive and brutal tactics that Paul Biya’s regime is using against Cameroonian citizens in the English-speaking western part of the country. Nganang had just finished an extended visit to the area and had written a piece highly critical of Biya for a French newspaper. Since being arrested, he has been held in a detention center in the capital, Yaoundé, awaiting a hearing.
The USG pitchforks are out, and this time there is a new target: Princeton’s 124-year-old honor system. Princeton students are being asked by a USG sub-committee to vote yes on four referenda, including a reduction in the severity of punishment for cheating on a Princeton exam to disciplinary probation, a change that would fundamentally alter Princeton’s honor system. This proposal is both bad policy and a result of a biased and highly imprudent process. As the longest-tenured member of the USG Academics Committee, I have seen how USG can positively influence University policy from calendar reform to departmental requirements. This referendum, however, represents the exact opposite: a hasty attempt by certain members of USG to change an important policy without consulting faculty and administrators or considering the consequences. This is the wrong way to pursue reform. I think most students can agree that changes are needed to our Honor System. But disciplinary probation is simply too lenient of a penalty for cheating during an in-class exam, and we need faculty and administrator support so that more options for reform, like a one-semester suspension as standard penalty, can be on the table. I urge students to vote no on the first referendum and instead support a more responsible process for reform already taking place this spring.