My Breakup Letter to The New York Times
Dear New York Times,
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
578 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Dear New York Times,
To our fellow Princetonians,
February at Princeton is a month of coldness. The winter chill here is accompanied by a different kind of cold, more pernicious and more troubling. For in February at Princeton, it is not only the air that turns icy but the hearts, too.
As an international student living in America, I viewed the election results on Nov. 9 as a defendant in front of a jury, a defendant lacking the opportunity to express myself. That day, I felt like I was deemed guilty, having shown the jury nothing but the color of my skin and the country on my passport. In the days since, I have felt more unwelcome in America than I ever have in the past three years, despite my friends standing by me, validating me and my presence in this country.
I am a friend of Wonshik Shin ’19. During the week of Dec. 19 last year, I was privileged to have the opportunity to meet and accompany his parents during their visit to Princeton. I am also writing this letter on their behalf to clear their son’s name of the wrongful accusation that an Honor Code violation may have been related to his death. The rumor began from a comment on the Daily Princetonian’s website, which said “I just heard through the grape-vine that it was the act of the honor committee that caused this.” This prompted an exchange about the severity of disciplinary actions for Honor Code violations. Wonshik’s friends, shocked by the groundless accusation, contacted the Daily Princetonian. Although the initial comment is no longer online, the rumor spread quickly. It soon reached Wonshik’s parents in Korea, who were already grieving a loss that no parents should ever have to bear.
The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional. This article is part of The Daily Princetonian’s annual joke issue. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet!
I knew Wonshik from the year I spent with him in VTone. I remember first joining VTone and hearing these whispers of a handsome freshman boy, previously a star in Korean reality TV. And then I met him, and it was all true. He was beautiful, with the most beautiful voice to match.
My condolences to the family and friends of Wonshik Shin '19, whom I met through Community Action during his freshman year. I will remember his curiosity and smile with fondness.
Mannaseo bangawoyo.
“Princeton scrubs ‘men’ from campus”. “’Gender Inclusive’ Princeton Becomes No Man’s Land”. “Princeton HR department: Don’t use word ‘man’”. What happened to warrant such an explosion of the press?
The proper response to Donald J. Trump’s election to the office of the President of the United States of America is grief. After eight years of Obama, many, including myself, believed that America would soon pave itself a path towards a better future, in line with the cosmopolitan and liberal ideas of my youth: that diversity is a strength, openness a virtue, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That we were moving towards a world of justice, based not on any loose interpretation of the word, but “fairness;” a world where, truly, the position you were born into, the color of your skin, the bank account of your father, your gender, your sexuality; none of these could detract from your value as a human being.
Last Monday, President Eisgruber circulated a letter to the Princeton community in which he affirmed his and the University’s support of the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program and those members of our community currently protected under it. This support was hedged by the qualification “to the maximum extent that the law allows.” The letter cites scrupulous adherence to the rule of law as justification for why Princeton will not embrace the call to make the University a “sanctuary campus.”
Seven of every ten Princetonians will pay thousands of dollars to eat at a mansion on Prospect Avenue. The eating clubs are like Hogwarts houses, each with a unique culture and personality. Here's the house for people who swim and row, we say; that's the house for people who love to drink and dance, and there's the house for those who want to run the country. That's to be distinguished from the one for those who will own the country. And there are seven more.
I write to solicit nominations for the Pyne Prize, the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate, which will be awarded on Alumni Day, Saturday, February 25, 2017.
Over the weeks that Harvard's dining workers were on strike, some Princeton graduate students decided they wanted the opportunity to threaten to do so, too. A small group is seeking unionization, and it is the threat of strikes – the deployment of “economic weapons,” as labor law puts it – that gives them their negotiating power. But if Princeton graduate students were to strike, it could only be for a small portion of their time, and could only cover a small fraction of the financial support they receive from the University.
I told you so. Those four words have been trapped in my mind ever since the news sources, one by one, declared Donald Trump the President-elect. I let out an exasperated sigh, disappointed in my fellow liberal brothers and sisters. I was disappointed when you wouldn’t listen to me before, and I’m disappointed that so many of you refuse to listen even now.
It is truly a community effort to make this University a safe, healthy, engaging, and enriching place for all students.
After the Nov. 8 election, Princeton’s campus has been solemn. The harsh rhetoric from Donald Trump and the fierce condemnation from the left drove a wedge in a widening gap between conservatives and liberals in the United States, and many students feel like the worst-case election scenario has come to pass.
Dear Secretary Clinton:
Wisconsin. Michigan. Pennsylvania. The three states that will forever be associated with stopping the first female nominee of a major party from breaking the glass ceiling. The three states that let Republicans gain control of the White House, giving them control over the entire legislative process. Go check Facebook right now and you’re sure to find friends saying something like, “I’m utterly shocked. This just goes to show that bigotry is alive and well in this country.” There’s nothing incorrect in saying that bigotry is still present in the United States, as it is simply true. But bigotry did not stop Clinton from winning the White House.