578 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/28/16 6:38pm)
Princeton University, by all accounts, has an unusual academic calendar among its peers. We start school in mid-September and end in late May. We take finals in January — a tradition begun in the 1939-40 academic year which has persisted into the 21st century.Over a year ago, students were frustrated and surprised to find that the 2015-16 academic year would feature a two-week winter break, instead of the more typical three-week break. USG ran a short survey and a referendum on the issue. But unfortunately for USG and the 98 percent of students who voted for a three-week break, a shortened winter break on some years is written into the University’s rules and procedures for the calendar. So are several other anomalies in our academic calendar — the relatively late start compared to our peer institutions and finals after, instead of before, winter recess.Many students have written columns for this paper arguing that finals after winter break are harmful to student learning, mental health and co-curricular opportunities. But initiatives to change the calendar have notoriously failed, with the most recent attempt occurring in 2007-08. The 2007-08 effort was stymied, in part, by the multiplicity of options. Four calendars were suggested and, predictably, none of them gained the necessary support from student and faculty members.The current survey, to be released on March 1 by the Office of Institutional Research, attempts to avoid previous mistakes. The survey was co-authored by the USG Academics Committee and the Office of the Dean of the College. It is the product of a months-long collaboration on designing and vetting questions. Undergraduates, graduate students and faculty will be surveyed on their satisfaction with the current calendar and on their calendar preferences. Questions include whether finals should be before or after winter recess and the desired length of the teaching period. Most importantly, the survey invites respondents to consider the trade-offs that accompany any calendar change.This survey is our best hope to find out if students and faculty alike would prefer an alternative calendar — and if so, how such a calendar could be structured to best serve all members of the Princeton community. Princeton’s calendar is set and voted on by the faculty, so any change must strongly benefit professors as well as graduate students and undergraduates.We encourage all students — whether you love the current calendar or hate it, whether you prefer your finals in December or in January — to take the survey. Consider the trade-offs, and think about how your learning, your mental health and your opportunities can be optimized. Discuss the options with your peers. It’s been 75 years. It’s time to consider a change.Shannon Osaka, USG Academics ChairRamie Fathy, USG Academics Chair-Emeritus
(02/24/16 7:30pm)
Imagine waking up one morning to chants of “You will be broken into 16 parts,” aimed directly at you, followed by more chants in support of the person who had tried to stab you, branding him as a martyr and seeking vengeance for the legal punishment he/she received. Now imagine these chants are coming from your living room and the people who live in your very house are carrying them out.This is what the sovereign state of India experienced on Feb. 9, 2016. Home to about a sixth of the world’s population, the world’s largest democracy was insulted, threatened and mocked by students on the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, a university named after the nation’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and subsidized almost entirely by the Indian government. Understanding what occurred will prove instrumental in establishing how indiscriminately hate speech was meted out against India on its own soil, while a terrorist was praised as a martyr.According to the The Huffington Post, based on eyewitness testimony, “ex-members of a student organization DSU, short for 'Democratic Students Union' had called for a cultural meeting of a protest against what they called 'the judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat' and in solidarity with 'the struggle of Kashmiri people for their democratic right to self-determination.’”Afzal Guru was sentenced to death by the High Court of Delhi for an armed terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on Dec. 13, 2001 at the very epicenter of Indian democracy, that resulted in the death of nine Indians and shocked the entire nation. The Indian constitution has consistently complied with international standards for civil and political rights, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has continued to guarantee all universal, fundamental rights to its citizens.However, what actually happened at this separatist rally crossed the bounds of the simple right to freedom of expression. Slogans turned from “Hum kya chahte? Azadi!” (What do we want? Freedom!) to “Bharat ki barbaadi tak, jung rahegi, jung rahegi!” (The war will be fought till the destruction of India) and “Har ghar se Afzal niklega!” (An Afzal will emerge from every house). Eventually the students expressed the very direct and unambiguous message of their protest: “Bharat tere tukde honge” (India you will be broken up into pieces).The Indian constitution clearly articulates the right to organize peaceful protests with the caveat that any incitation of violence against the state will be deemed punishable by law. The intentions behind using slogans were not peaceful. One talks about the destruction of and war on India, another on the emergence of men like Afzal Guru from every house and yet another on the disintegration of India. Guru is a man who has been deemed a terrorist and murder – deemed by the Supreme Court of India as someone who violently attacked the Indian Parliament. In fact, he is one of the counted few to actually be regarded as violent and dangerous enough to avail the death penalty. His being hailed as a martyr and someone who should emerge from every house serves as a verbal incitement of violence. Consequently, many protesters believe that he was framed. However, there lies a distinction between protesting the possibility of an unfair sentence and calling for people like him to rise up.Furthermore, as prescribed by Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code, this sloganeering was an act of sedition. The exception to this law is comments that express dissatisfaction with the government and its methods, made with the intent to make the government or administration consider different methods. Essentially, the law opposes inciting contempt or hatred against the government of India, not dissent or protest, and the JNU students taken into custody did indeed do just that, as videos all over the Internet and students’ accounts verify. Fulfilling their responsibility to the constitution and acting against hate speech does not qualify the Indian government as unethical. There is no misuse of power in this instance. The government did not act as they did because these students were speaking out against the ruling party, but because they were spewing hateful and insulting rhetoric towards India. As hard as it is for proponents of the hate speech to accept this fact, the students were in direct contradiction of the Indian Penal Code, and the government strictly adhered to the Indian Penal Code by taking justifiable, legal and ethical action.What the government did was neither repressive nor illegal. It was simply an act of preserving law and order in accordance with the Indian Penal Code, which is one of the prime constitutional responsibilities of the Indian Executive.Now I will turn to the specific case of Kanhaiya Kumar, one of the focal points of this incident as his arrest has been deemed repressive, unfair and in violation of his fundamental rights. It is, in fact, true that no instance of direct incitement has been seen on video from Kumar’s end. However, branding this a deliberately repressive move by the police or the government is both premature and biased. Even if this were a misled arrest simply on the grounds that he served as the president of Jawaharlal Nehru University Student Union, a group involved in the demonstration, it doesn’t have to qualify as a deliberate act of repression. In such a case, those who made this error are liable to be held accountable and investigated, but until this arrest is established as unlawful by the judicial system, a lack of evidence behind his arrest does not point to wrongdoing on the part of the government and police, but rather simply a dearth of public evidence.Even if we are to assume the singular case of Kumar’s arrest as unjustified, there is enough evidence of anti-India slogans, charged with hatred and contempt, being propagated on the JNU campus to justify their arrest. Up until this point in time, the government has neither repressed nor violated the basic rights of the people arrested. It needs to be clear that the law on sedition is a part of our penal code and the executive has sworn by the constitution to implement it. While any decision the judiciary takes is final, accusations of infringement upon freedom of speech and expression carry little weight when the accused parties, except possibly Kumar, directly violated the Indian Penal Code and were arrested on grounds of hate speech against the nation.There also seems to be an issue with the use of the term “anti-national.” Many parties defending the accused argue that the term is problematic and should not be used by a democratic system. “Anti-nationalism” in this context isn’t simply the expression of discontentment or disagreement with the government or nation itself, as asserted by proponents; it is the act of actively insulting, abusing and inspiring hate against the country. In accordance with Indian law this could even pose violent physical consequences. Punishing against those who act in ways that are deliberately detrimental to their nation is not undemocratic; otherwise, this would render means of maintaining national security, such as armies and borders, useless.Arnav Joshi is an ORFE major from Dehradun, India. He can be reached at arnavj@princeton.edu
(02/24/16 7:05pm)
1986 –Around the time of the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in November, the “Washington Post” and the “New York Times” ran articles on Mikhail Gorbachev's view of America. They reported that Gorbachev saw the U.S. as a nation dominated by business interests, ruled by a small clique with little concern for the interests of most Americans.
(02/23/16 7:20pm)
Over the last 16 years, our dance troupe has aimed to learn about and share the art and history of belly dance with the Princeton community by bringing together students with a diverse range of experiences and exposures, from those who had never danced before to those who grew up with it as part of their culture. It is difficult to demonstrate through a two-hour show the extent of thought and preparation we dedicate to what we do. We take weekly classes taught by a professional belly dancer; we continuously practice the traditional movements; we take great care to learn not only the techniques but also the foundational context behind the art of belly dance.We respect the points that Zeena has brought forth in her article, as the issue of how to appreciate the art of different cultures is one with which many artists have to contend. Unfortunately, belly dance suffers from a history of being over-sexualized and exoticized in the Western world. Our troupe, too, was created under a misnomer from which current members are in the process of formally distancing themselves. However, through the efforts of the women who have loved and practiced it over the years, public perception has moved away from this inaccurate attitude. We also endeavor to displace this patriarchal Western lens imposed on belly dance and instead more accurately represent the artistry of the dance form.Along with sharing the movements and styles of belly dance, we aim to bring its spirit to our show. Recognizing Princeton’s vocal and boisterous attitude toward dance shows, we introduce the audience to cheers that are commonly used in but certainly not exclusive to the belly dance community. This includes "Aiwa" (an emphatic "Yes" in Arabic), for which we present the mnemonic device "Iowa" to help people who are unfamiliar with the language remember the term. We also present the "zaghareet," not as encouragement of "needless sexualization" but as a means of vocal applause since its primary purpose is to express joy.It is unfair to make the hasty conclusion that we do not understand the meaning of the music we use based on a lighthearted statement in the program notes, which only sought to acknowledge the occasional difficulties of literal translation. We do not claim to be fluent in the languages that belly dance encompasses nor do we assert ourselves as experts in the many styles of the art. Rather, we explore their translations, incorporate them as inspiration and do our research in order to learn and best represent the styles we practice and feature in our shows.While we regret if any individuals felt troubled by specifics of our show, we strongly believe that what is problematic is not the presence of our group, but rather the misconstrued perspective from which belly dance is all too often viewed. As a troupe, we look to shift the narrative of belly dance, starting from within our orange bubble by emphasizing its capacity to empower dancers and foster self-expression. We welcome dialogue with students or student groups about how best to improve our practices and hope to use such constructive feedback to become a better troupe and better representatives of belly dance.Signed,Angela Wang, PresidentMichelle Park, Artistic DirectorAva Torjani, Publicity ChairOn behalf of Raks O
(02/15/16 8:20pm)
Last week, I was walking up campus from class when a large white wall caught my eye on the Frist Campus Center north lawn. Curious, I walked closer to give it a look. I quickly realized why it was there and I spent a while scanning it over on both sides and reading the text on it. I walked away from the structure intrigued and thought about it throughout the remainder of the day, but as the hours passed and the toils of everyday life took hold again, I pushed it to the back of my mind.The wall’s presence was pushed to the forefront again, however, on Feb. 10 when I read first Eli Schechner’s column about why he and Tigers for Israel oppose the wall’s construction and then the Princeton Committee on Palestine’s rebuttal the following day. And after soaking both of them up I began to realize, “I think they both have it wrong.”To be clear, I’m referring to the wall erected by the PCP and the Princeton DREAM Team to oppose the real-life barrier separating Israel from the West Bank, which to the Committee, "is the most recognizable symbol of the [Israeli] occupation and of the crippling lack of self-determination given to the Palestinian people."Last school year, when I was still Chief Elections Manager for USG, I managed the Israeli divestment referendum pushed for by the PCP and opposed by Tigers for Israel and its sister initiative, Tigers Together. And to be honest, never before had I seen such strife and hostility displayed by students toward one another since arriving at Princeton two and a half years ago. I was quickly disillusioned by the tactics both sides displayed in their efforts to win the day.Every single day during the campaigning period leading up to the vote, I received calls, texts and emails from both sides complaining about how the other was violating the rules, urging me to disqualify or penalize the offending party. In addition, I received complaints from neutral students detailing how they were being stalked, harassed, intimidated or pressured by both parties to vote their way. By the end of the process, I was outraged by the behavior displayed by all involved.Now, I bring this story up because I want to highlight what I believe are callow and counterproductive performances by both sides when they engage one another on this important and sensitive topic. While I completely understand that passions run high on this matter, I do not believe that pointing fingers at each other and writing opinion articles on the action taken by the other side is going to solve any of the issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Instead, I would love to see both groups come together and hammer out a compromise on how they can work together to help solve and influence the pressing issues surrounding the conflict, which ideally would lead to lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. To my knowledge at the writing of this piece, that action has not happened thus far.If we as Princeton students cannot come together to work out compromises, how can we expect our leaders and those making decisions to do so? On the international stage, certainly both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, along with Hamas, are to blame for the current impasse on this issue. For one thing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not help when he exploited fears about Arab and Palestinian encroachment in the finals hours before an election last year to secure a fourth term as prime minister. In addition, his actions in regard to Israeli settlements in the West Bank have not indicated to anyone that he is serious about pursuing peace with the Palestinians. If he was truly serious, he would immediately call for a permanent freeze on Israeli settlement building as a starting position to sit down with the Palestinian leadership to work out a peace agreement.On the other hand, from an Israeli perspective, I can see why it would sometimes be hard to take the Palestinian viewpoint seriously after Palestinians elected Hamas, a terroristorganization, to lead their government in Gaza in 2006 — and when the Palestinian Authority does not do nearly enough to help Israel rein in Hamas or to assist in capturing key Hamas leaders and other terrorists hell-bent on destroying Israel.It takes bold leaders who have the stomach and political will to pursue peace to actually achieve peace. Right now, neither side has that. Instead of blaming the other side, the University students so thoroughly engaged in this process should be encouraging the leadership on both sides to engage one another and forge a peace settlement.Beginning in 1993 with the Oslo I Accord,Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat took bold steps to move toward an agreement, despite public opinion being opposed to a solution. Two years later, Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated in Tel Aviv by a Jewish extremist who believed Rabin was selling out his fellow Jews. If we want peace, we need to encourage our leaders to have courageous visions and to take bold action in the face of public opinion. That is what TFI and PCP should be directing all of their efforts toward instead of the steps they have taken thus far this school year. As President Abraham Lincoln said, "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."I call on both sides to take the action necessary to achieve freedom for all and to desist from the activities they have publicly displayed so far.Grant Golub is a history major from Sarasota, Fla. He can be reached at ggolub@princeton.edu.
(02/11/16 6:36pm)
Between October and December 2015, 142 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli Defense Forces. Of those 142, 27 were children. In the same time period, 15,620 were injured by the IDF. Among those, over 1,500 were injured by live ammunition and over 3,000 were injured by rubber-coated bullets. This was in the span of just two months. And this is nothing new. Palestinians have been subject to the terror and reign of an illegal military occupation since 1967. That’s 41 years — 41 years at the mercy of an occupying force. 41 years of being told that they can’t decide their own fate. 41 years of risking violence merely by remaining in their homes.
(02/10/16 6:24pm)
On Jan. 1, I was two blocks away the day Nasha’at Melhem left a convenience store with a submachine gun and opened fire on a Tel Aviv bar. You may have heard about this terrorist attack on TV, as many outlets covered the shooting and the subsequent eight-day manhunt. But many more and frighteningly frequent terror threats that Israelis face — jeopardizing our friends, family and even Princeton community members — remain conspicuously absent from public attention. Since Intersession ended, there have been four separate terrorist attacks against Israelis, and 183 attacks since September.These attacks are part of a larger wave of terror that has rocked Israel since fall of last year. This wave, horrifying as it is, pales in comparison to the Second Intifada, a prolonged, coordinated campaign of suicide bombings, shootings and lynchings targeting innocent civilians, which has left over 1,100 Israelis dead — overwhelmingly civilians — between 2000 and 2005.Why did the violence stop in 2005? As with most questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the answer requires nuance and context. One undeniable reason for the tapering death toll as the Intifada continued was the construction of a security fence, the first part of which was completed in 2003.Between 2000 and 2003, terrorists carried out 73 suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. In the three years after the fence was built in response, the number of bombings fell to 12. This barrier, built roughly along the 1949 truce line between Israel and Jordan (with consideration for existing communities), is 96-percent chain-link fence with concrete only where sniper fire targets Israeli civilians. Regrettably, the barrier imposes unfortunate constraints on movement for Palestinians, and the Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly ordered the barrier moved where it separated villages and families. Although the Intifada ended in 2005, the recent wave of attacks demonstrates that the context and rationale which predicated the barrier’s construction are unfortunately still relevant.Princeton students don’t protest TSA checkpoints at Newark Airport when flying home for winter break, even though the last hijacking in the United States was 9/11. We understand, begrudgingly, that these delays and frustrations keep us safe. Why, then, for Israelis who live with much more frequent risk of terrorist attacks, do University students choose to protest a similar security initiative? And why, furthermore, do they strip the structure they are protesting from the context of daily terror attacks Israelis faced in the Second Intifada and beyond?We agree: the wall must fall. Because we know the wall will fall once Israelis and Palestinians can trust each other enough to live side-by-side without the haunting specter of a third Intifada. And while we should all work toward a world without terror, discrimination, conflict and barriers, we clearly don’t live in one today.How do we get there?We need a generation of leadership based on trust, understanding and coexistence. No government — Israeli, American or otherwise — would dismantle a security fence without the confidence that doing so would not leave its citizens vulnerable to attack. I look forward to a day when I can greet Palestinian friends in Israel, without the hassle of a security barrier, and safely visit them in the West Bank.Despite the difficult reality, I choose not to respond by presenting an opposing but similarly slanted and deceiving polemic. I believe the Israeli government can do more on its part — on settlement policy, farming and water access and economic development in the West Bank — to nurture conditions for peace. And the Second Intifada, whose violence the security barrier was built to stop, also claimed the lives of around 4,000 Palestinians, further stressing the need for a peaceful solution. Ultimately, there will be no solution to the conflict so long as those invested in it continue to perpetuate one-sided, misleading narratives. There will be no solution so long as Israel and its millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims living anywhere between “the end of the land and the end of the sea” (as written on the art piece on prominent display on the Frist north lawn) are disregarded. There will be no solution so long as the legacy of the South African struggle against apartheid is hatefully and fraudulently appropriated to target Israel. There will be no solution so long as speakers that the Princeton Committee on Palestine brings to campus tell victims of anti-Israel terrorism to “stop whining.”We, Tigers For Israel, remain committed to building a better discourse around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Misleading demonstrations like the PCP’s libelous walls and incendiary rhetoric do not bring us closer to the a day when Palestinians and Israelis can freely and safely coexist in their respective states. They push Israelis and Palestinians (and those on campus advocating for a peaceful solution) further apart. TFI continues — and is redoubling — our efforts to develop trust between Israelis and Palestinians on a personal level to bring them closer together. This semester, we are expanding our partnerships with organizations that promote coexistence and collaboration on development for Israelis and Palestinians. While PCP builds walls on the Frist lawn that physically and emotionally divide campus, TFI is building bridges between Israelis, Palestinians and all people seeking a lasting, peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.All of this raises the question: will PCP do their part to support a two-state solution that establishes a free, democratic Palestine living in mutual recognition, security, and prosperity with the Jewish and democratic State of Israel?Eli Schechner '18 can be reached at elis@princeton.edu.
(02/09/16 11:33am)
To the Editor:
(02/08/16 4:40pm)
Princeton University is currently at a crucial juncture with respect to the way we respond to calls to improve the racial climate on campus. Actions undertaken last semester by student activists under the leadership of the Black Justice League have served to bring to light injustices endured by undergraduate students on campus. The Princeton Diversity Initiative now seeks to add to the conversation additional voices that until now have been missing — those of underrepresented minority graduate students.
(02/01/16 7:26pm)
To the Editor:
(12/17/15 6:45pm)
To the Editor:
(12/16/15 6:49pm)
We, members of the Princeton Affiliated Chaplains, are concerned and appalled by any attempt to limit individuals’ entry into the United States because of their religious identity. We know that the religious freedom of every person in this country is tied to — and guaranteed by — the religious freedom of all. We cannot be persuaded for any reason to exclude or penalize any community. The United States is, and will remain, a place of liberty and equal rights because people of faith, conscience and good will stand in solidarity with any who are marginalized. We stand in strongest solidarity with the campus and broader Muslim community against bigotry in any form, and in support of inclusion, respect and safety.
(12/15/15 4:21pm)
Our employers ask us, “Before we hire you, we want to know — what are your views on women’s rights, given you’re in the Muslim Students Association?”
(12/14/15 7:00pm)
Firestone Library has seen hundreds of Princeton seniors make themselves at home among its labyrinthine stacks as they race to finish their theses. It is undoubtedly the library that sees the most traffic at the University, and it has recently undergone extensive renovations to make the space a more welcoming one for students who spend much of their time holed up inside its walls. In the several months that I was writing my own thesis at Firestone, however, it was those very walls that made me feel most unwelcome.
(12/13/15 11:25am)
By the Alliance of Jewish Progressives
(12/06/15 12:23pm)
Last Thursday, senior columnist Imani Thornton wrote an op-ed titled “Can you be ‘Woke’ and B.S.E.?” She concludes that because B.S.E. students are not required to take social analysis classes, they were not “woke” enough to participate in the protests. As an African-American B.S.E. student, I say that this is completely false and baseless.
(12/03/15 5:45pm)
By Cameron Zeluck
(12/03/15 3:26pm)
To the editor and President Eisgruber,
(11/30/15 7:00pm)
I grew up in Colorado. When I tell people this, they usually make some reference to its natural beauty, its ski resorts, or the possibility of legally purchasing marijuana there for recreational purposes. The associations that most people have with Colorado are, thus, not historical in nature. Even as I think about it now, I have trouble thinking of a major historical figure or event associated with Colorado. It is not a place with much of a history.
(11/23/15 7:51pm)
Here’s the thing: Ours is a campus with a long history and an infinite future that’s wrestling with the currents of the roiling present. We’re part of the Ivy League, but Princeton is hardly an ivory tower. And although we like our “orange bubble,” it’s not really the protective skin we sometimes believe. Nor should it be. Everything we do at Princeton has some relationship to the world outside our doors. That relationship should be robust, as well as continually revised, reconsidered and renovated.