157 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
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.
By inviting MK Hotovely to speak, the Center for Jewish Life violates its own official policy on Israel-related events, which states that “The CJL will not, however, sponsor groups or speakers that, as a matter of policy or practice, foster an atmosphere of incivility, intend to harm Israel, or promote racism or hatred of any kind.” In clear violation of this policy, Hotovely has repeatedly made racist statements.
The author of a recent Prince column would presumably take issue with Merriam-Webster. According to Thomas Clark, birth control should not be considered healthcare because it “suppresses the natural function of the reproductive system” or “counteract(s) normal bodily operation” — to be contrasted with other therapies “that treat illnesses or disorders and seek to return the body to health.”
If you want to help create a bulwark of states against the Trump Administration and prevent a further power imbalance in state and national politics, follow President Barack Obama’s advice: “Don’t Boo. Vote!”
I want to affirm that some, hopefully many, Princeton University librarians are keenly aware of and concerned about privacy issues, especially in an online environment.
Ultimately, my critics and I agree: Let’s make use of the fabulous space we now have, dynamically and with heart. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also question it.
This past week, Kyle Berlin ’18 sent a letter to the editor in which he criticized the new Lewis Center for the Arts complex. From decrying the center’s allegedly garish architectural style, to its supposed complicity in the Neoliberal Cooptation of the Arts, Berlin spared no aspect of the University’s newest project in his piece. As it turns out, not only are his accusations vague and unimportant, but they are wrong, threatening to obscure the great good that the existence of this new center will do for the University.