Pragmatic prevention of sexual assault
(05/12/17 1:43am)
This is the second article in a series about alcohol and the college experience.
Support the ‘Prince’
Please disable ad blockers for our domain. Thank you!
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of ' 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.
This is the second article in a series about alcohol and the college experience.
I recently attended a leadership conference series at a consulting firm in New York that was designed to help women explore their identities in professional settings and to learn more about consulting at this particular firm. One of the last parts of the series was a question and answer session with one of the female partners, in which a fellow attendee asked a very thought-provoking question.
On a mischievous afternoon in my childhood, my cousin Michael and I were looking for something to do. “We are going to make some prank calls!” he announced proudly, beaming at the prospect of teaching trickery to his naive younger cousin.
On May 3 and 4, J Street U held an exhibition of photos by an Israeli non-governmental organization called Breaking the Silence, whose goal is to “expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.” I applaud its desire to better Israeli society, but I do not feel the same about the accusations that have come out about the organization.
During football season, I received no shortage of pictures of packed stadiums from my friends at other universities. But at the Princeton-Harvard game this year, Powers Field was two-thirds empty. Had it not been for the free Hoagie Haven at a tailgate before the game, I have no doubt that the stadium would have been even more barren.
This is the first article in a series about alcohol and the college experience.
The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of The Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its Co-Chairs, the Opinion Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. It can be reached at editorialboard@dailyprincetonian.com.
While I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, my grandfather Alan Fitz Randolph (B.S., Chemistry, Princeton, 1913), a descendant of Nathaniel Fitz Randolph, who had contributed the original land for Princeton University in 1753, spoke often of his pride in the University. It wasn’t until I was nineteen years old that I discovered, by accident, that he had received a degree in Chemical Engineering from Columbia University in 1916. When I asked my parents why my grandfather never talked about his time at Columbia, they told me that he never discussed it because he did not feel it was a gentlemen’s school, due to having monitors in the exam rooms, instead of an honor code like Princeton.
Princeton’s exclusivity is old news, and it seems as if it’s embedded in the University culture. For at least two decades, Princeton has not accepted undergraduate transfer students. Today, Princeton is the only Ivy League school that does not. It keeps us exclusive, once again.
The following article clarifies and elaborates on certain points I made in an article I recently wrote and responds to some of the criticism it has received.
Any current Princetonian has probably seen the open letter addressed to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, appealing for (political, though it never says so directly) diversity in the selection of books assigned as Pre-reads to incoming first-years. The author bemoans the “tediousness” and “aridity” of recent selections, and posits what she describes as unfamiliar views, to be beneficial not only to “the free debate of diverse perspectives,” but also to stimulating discussion during and beyond the orientation discussion of these texts. While I am often reluctant to wade into public political discussions as I am not American, nor am I usually inclined to action, I found the author’s argument interesting and impulsively began to pen a response. I found her claim that the Pre-read is a good opportunity to introduce diverse texts to be misplaced, and laced with the unfounded accusation that this tradition serves as a channel through which readers are fed biased information. And while I agree with many of the author’s premises, I disagree with her about replacing the “dry” Pre-reads with more exciting texts simply to stimulate conversation.
The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of The Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its Co-Chairs, the Opinion Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. It can be reached at editorialboard@dailyprincetonian.com.
We, the Executive Board of Princeton’s chapter of the Network of enlightened Women, write in response to this week’s opinion piece “The conservative persecution complex.” We do not consider ourselves persecuted or oppressed, either as conservatives or as women. Yet the piece’s author, Bhaamati Borkhetaria, charges that “social and even fiscal conservatism in the government often directly contributes to creating an imbalance of power against ethnic minority groups and women.” She goes on to describe conservative viewpoints as “racist, misogynistic, and often ignorant.” These claims present a biased and incorrect assumption that conservatives are not people of good will, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of what conservative policy ideas seek to accomplish.
Earlier this week, along with other veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces, I signed a letter in support of J Street U Princeton’s decision to invite the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence, composed of former IDF soldiers who seek to share their military experiences in the West Bank with Israeli society. J Street U had requested to host the photo exhibition in the Center for Jewish Life, and was turned down, sparking some controversy. Our letter did not address the role the CJL at Princeton played in this episode; I would like to do so here.
The article “The conservative persecution complex” by columnist Bhaamati Borkhetaria ’19 questions whether conservatives are being oppressed. In the first few paragraphs, she does an excellent job in setting up the conflict in question: Many conservatives feel hesitant to share their opinions when there is convincing evidence that right-leaning policies are harmful to minorities and foster power structures favorable to rich white males.
Mass incarceration is one of the great moral challenges of our time. With merely 4.4 percent of the world's population, the United States holds almost one quarter of the world’s prisoners, far more than any other country. Nearly nine times as high as Germany’s, our incarceration rate is the highest on the planet (save for that of tiny Seychelles). While the destructive impact of mass incarceration is being felt across all poor communities, the racial dimension stands out: one in three black men can expect to go to prison at some point in his life, a fact of devastating consequence for the African-American family.