163 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Academic integrity is one of the core values of the University community. For many of us, it influenced our decision in choosing Princeton over other schools. Maintaining the highest standard of academic integrity is indeed a cardinal responsibility of all Princeton students.
This week, the student body will be asked to vote on four referendum questions that would make significant changes to Princeton’s student-run Honor System. As members of Undergraduate Student Government (USG) and a former member of the Honor Committee (HC), we the undersigned believe that these referenda are the result of a highly problematic deliberative process by certain members of USG.
I was on the Honor Committee from my freshman spring to sophomore fall; I joined with the intention of reforming things and injecting compassion into a system I heard was rather punitive and even vicious. As I came to find, it’s both these things, with the issues stemming from two places.
I took my midterm exam at 7:30 p.m. After finishing my exam, I signed the Honor Code, and wrote “see back” on the margins to orient the grader to the work on the back of one of my exam pages. In the following days, I received a terrifying call that I think this campus is all too familiar with. Of course, I was not informed of my status, but was forced to walk all the way to Nassau St. to the Honor Committee. This is the first reason I support the proposed reforms.
Hey, Princeton! My name’s Matt Miller ’19 and I’m running for Undergraduate Student Group president because I see a whole host of problems with easy fixes. I’m the only candidate that has been on USG this past year (I worked in communications), and while I was on USG, I saw some problems that I wanted to fix but couldn’t.
I first met Rachel Yee ’19 exactly one year and five days ago. I was getting late meal with a friend after a particularly unhappy meeting with a counselor at Counseling and Psychological Services. I have bipolar disorder and despite CPS’s best, if limited, efforts, I was depressed as all hell.
Thank God for Ryan. He was a fellow track guy and Wilsonite, and he immediately went out of his way to connect with me, inviting me to a slew of movie nights, hangouts, meals, etc. It was largely through him that I met many of my closest friends in my new class. He was my roommate both this and last year, and has never been anything but kind, attentive, and enthusiastic, always willing to talk with and support me.
We, the undersigned graduate students of Princeton University, demand that President Eisgruber, Dean Cole Crittenden, and the University administration commit to actively and vocally opposing any legislation that imposes a tax on graduate student tuition waivers. In particular, we demand that the administration commit to opposing any bill that would tax tuition waivers even if such a bill would not impose a tax on university endowments.
Our country is in the midst of an examination of diversity and equality that, while not new, has taken on a new tenor and urgency over the last few years. The conversation has been particularly pronounced on campuses, including here in Princeton.
I am writing to acknowledge and express thanks for the petition regarding sexual misconduct published in The Daily Princetonian and forwarded to President Eisgruber and other University administrators on Nov. 20, 2017. I am responding on behalf of all the recipients. Like the signatories to the petition, the University recognizes the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between faculty and students, and is committed to providing an environment free from discrimination of any type, including sexual harassment or other violations of our sexual misconduct policy.
We, the undersigned members of the faculty of Electrical Engineering, are writing to express our anger, concern, and frustration in response to the recent incident of sexual harassment in our department. We have no tolerance for such behavior and condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
As proud students and alumni of Princeton University, we the undersigned write to express our deep concerns regarding the University’s handling of the recent sexual harassment case against electrical engineering professor Sergio Verdu. We ask that the University elevate its disciplinary actions against Professor Verdu and firmly establish that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in our community.
The irony of Sarsour's being invited to speak at the University’s Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding is not lost on me. Every American should be offended by Sarsour. Yet the answer isn’t to ban her. More than ever, free speech is critical on campus. Although Sarsour’s arguments are indefensible, the bigotry and prejudice that she espouses will only be eradicated with dedicated and rigorous discourse.
When an advisor sexually harasses a student, that student has no good options. If a student pushes back, they must worry about the potential far-reaching impact on their career, and they may have to change research fields entirely. We must adopt a zero-tolerance policy, where violation equals termination.
For the foreseeable future, Princeton, bound by its voluntary agreement with the Office of Civil Rights, will continue to operate under the preponderance of the evidence standard, will complete each investigation within 60 calendar days of receiving a complaint, and will not allow for mediation or informal resolution between a complainant and a respondent. DeVos’s changes, however, reflect the Department of Education’s changing views on Title IX, and may foreshadow future guidelines that would affect Princeton’s policies.
Princeton graduate students could see their tax bills skyrocket to $11,000 or more if the Republican tax bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives becomes law.
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 24, 2018.
One year on, halfway to the 2018 midterm elections, advocacy and activist groups are now beginning the real hard work: sustaining the advocacy effort. With much of the initial passion drained, grit and determination become critical to maintaining the efforts that will lead to lasting change.
In the interest of fair and open conversation, I challenge members of the AJP to an open debate on the importance of hard conversation on campus and invite the CJL to sponsor a dialog about this.
Then the realization hit: there is an unstated, but unquestioned, notion across humanities and social science that the Academy refers only to Western Academy (used broadly to refer to European and North American academia), and if something hasn’t been said in the Western Academy, it is as though it has never been said.