What’s (not) in a name?
“The distinction between memory and memorialization is of cardinal importance. So is the relation between them.”
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
1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
“The distinction between memory and memorialization is of cardinal importance. So is the relation between them.”
Free speech is a bulwark of American political culture, and University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83’s recent op-ed piece states that it is crucial to Princeton’s culture as well. In its ideal form, free speech is an equalizer.
For survivors of sexual misconduct, 2017 was a breakthrough year. The #MeToo movement shone light on years of assault and harassment and gave confidence to survivors. Their bravery inspired the world and brought previously “untouchable” industry magnates to justice.
As concerned Black alumni, we stand with the Princeton faculty, as well as the undergraduates, graduate students, and alumni of the School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), who have called for the University to transform itself into an anti-racist institution. Their demands are the culmination of a continuum of student protest over fifty years — including the recent efforts of the Black Justice League — to compel the University to eliminate racial inequities.
The University recently informed students and families that tuition would be reduced by 10 percent for both semesters, while adding that tuition changes would “not change parental contributions.”
In August 1963, a 23-year-old John Lewis spoke before a crowd of hundreds of thousands, advocating for racial equality. Nearly 60 years later, an 80-year-old Lewis made his final public appearance, visiting the newly-named Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C. He stood on the large yellow letters painted on the street wearing a hat with “1619” and “400 years” stitched on it, a veteran of one massive movement for civil rights now witnessing a resurgent wave of struggle.
It would be an understatement to say that the transition to remote learning in March was chaotic. Professors and students alike struggled considerably to adapt to the virtual platform while trying to maintain the level of academic rigor characteristic of Princeton. Lectures were reduced to hour-long slide presentations that often felt like listening to a flat monologue. Precepts lost a fundamental component of face-to-face interaction that led to a lot of awkward silences as people waited for social cues. Office hours became increasingly difficult to keep track of due to the constant cycle of video calls while sitting in front of the same screen for hours on end. If not for the optional pass/D/fail policy, the stress of learning — or more accurately, attempting to learn — on Zoom would have been too much.
This summer has been tiring. It has been tiring for everyone, but it has been particularly tiring for people of color, and especially tiring for Black people. A mishandling of the pandemic by politicians more focused on elections than public health means we have spent the summer sheltered at home, bombarded every day with news of more coronavirus cases, more coronavirus deaths, and a growing indifference to a pandemic that is disproportionately killing people of color.
Recent weeks have made clear that the United States and China are engaged in a slow-moving yet continually escalating cold war. Whether it be diplomatic and economic decoupling, increased military maneuvering in the South China Sea, or even Secretary of State Michael Pompeo all but calling for a regime change in Beijing, recent rhetoric and actions from both sides have revealed that relations between the two superpowers are at their lowest point since the restoration of ties in 1979.
On Jan. 7, 1919, the editors of The Daily Princetonian announced, with “exceeding” regret, that their daily paper would run only three times a week. “War and influenza have played havoc with the PRINCETONIAN’s press force,” they lamented.
In a recent open letter, many Princeton faculty members call on the University to acknowledge the inadequacy of our efforts toward anti-racism up to now, and to do much more going forward. I agree with the overall message of this historic and important letter. I am grateful to see so many of my colleagues make this demand. But the letter also calls for the formation of a committee of faculty members who would investigate and punish racist research. I cannot support this call.
Editor’s Note: This piece includes graphic descriptions of disordered eating that some readers may find distressing.
When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, higher education was turned upside down as students had to scatter around the country and world to return to their homes. The last couple of months have exposed many of the systemic inequities of higher education in the United States. While the disruption of the pandemic has brought about pain and loss, it could also provide the University the opportunity to be a leader in the reform of higher education in this country and transform campus life from an emphasis on opulence and status to one of mindfulness and service.
Princeton students frequent New York City as an urban escape. Whether through an internship on Wall Street or a musical on Broadway, the Big Apple holds strong ties to the Princeton experience.
One month ago, President Eisgruber ’83 circulated a message to the University community calling on all of us “reflect on our place in the world and challenge ourselves to identify additional steps we can take to fight racism.” Recognizing the massive, ongoing protests for racial justice in the US, the message firmly committed Princeton to our nation’s urgent, overdue reckoning with its racist history and “the ongoing reality of oppression and violence against Black Americans.”
One of the things that stood out to me about Princeton two years ago, besides the name, the endowment, and the generous financial aid, was learning our informal motto: “In the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity.” As one of the typical “I want to save the world” type kids, I was excited to engage in meaningful work with the support of the institution and likeminded peers. Throughout my first two years at Princeton, though, I have been sorely disappointed by lackluster student civic engagement — and resistance from the University itself.
On Monday, July 6, the undergraduate student population received news from President Chris Eisgruber that we would not be allowed back on campus for at least half of the coming year and that instruction will likely be mostly virtual.
Two months ago, an Undergraduate Student Government survey revealed that “Most students advocated strongly for an on-campus semester, even if being on campus would require substantial social distancing restrictions; students indicated that they would be willing to follow social distancing regulations outlined by the University in order to return to campus.”
Editor’s Note: This piece was included in the print issue sent to all members of the Class of 2024.
When historians look back on 2020, they will undoubtedly see it as a year of great strife and important change. America’s national reckoning with racism, carried out amidst a deadly and still unfolding pandemic, has uncovered long simmering tensions and persistent injustices throughout the country.