454 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Hey, Princeton! My name’s Matt Miller, 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. You can read my whole platform on my website matt4usg.com, but here are some highlights:
The Undergraduate Students Government Academics Committee Subcommittee on the Honor Constitution has sponsored four referenda on which students will vote from Dec. 12 to Dec. 14. We write, as students with a connection to the Honor Committee, to express our opposition to these four referenda. We are not opposed in principle to Honor Code reform; indeed, we believe strongly that the Honor Constitution is a living and evolving document with which students should continually engage to ensure that it is reflective of our community values and norms. Our opposition to these referenda pertains to the process by which they have come about, which has not allowed for the kind of comprehensive discussion with faculty, students, administrators, and legal counsel that reforms of this magnitude require. This is the first in a series of articles in which we will outline our concerns about the language and substance of the proposed reforms and advocate for a more thorough Honor Code reform process which effectively engages all relevant constituencies over the coming semester.
I generally keep a low profile on campus. I’m not really involved with much outside of my team, eating club, close friends, classes, etc. I apologize for the very personal nature of this piece as it is not something I am naturally inclined to do nor something I take any pleasure in. However, I feel the need to speak up due to the questions of the character of Ryan Ozminkowski ’19 in the current Undergraduate Student Government presidential election. To be completely transparent, I will be voting for Ryan, but I think Matt Miller ’19 and Rachel Yee ’19 seem like great people and candidates, and I encourage my fellow students to vote for whomever they think will make the best president. This piece is not an attempt to persuade your vote, rather a defense of the character of my friend.
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. Rachel was going around talking to everyone. She was campaigning, I suppose, but I didn’t know that until later, and by then, I didn’t care. I didn’t care because Rachel did something that is unfortunately rare now. She asked me, a total stranger, how I was doing, and I unloaded onto her entirely too much personal information about how pointless my life was and how stupid I felt on a campus that was so smart and talented.
Ten years ago, in 2007, Whitman College was built. Designed by the Greek architect Demetri Porphyrios, this 250,000-square foot complex now houses 500 students each year, as well as a dining area and the Writing Center. Despite this prominent role in campus life, there is surprisingly little discussion within the Princeton community about Whitman’s architecture. Busy students and faculty walk, eat, and sleep in it without thinking deeply about the space itself.
In this petition, Princeton University graduate students call upon the University to oppose currently proposed federal tax legislation, and to keep our take-home pay from decreasing in the event that such legislation passes.
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.
Dear President Eisgruber, Dean Kulkarni, Dean Crittenden, Dean Carter, and Chairwoman Gmachl:
Today, Thursday, Nov. 15, at 7 p.m., the Women*s Center and Department of African American Studies are hosting the three co-chairs of the Women’s March on Washington at the Carl A. Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding. While all three women have a history of inflammatory remarks, the most controversial of the activists is Linda Sarsour, a virulent anti-Semite and terrorist sympathizer.
In September, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that the Department of Education would formally rescind Obama-era guidance on how schools should handle sexual assault accusations under Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools and programs that receive federal funding. Interim guidelines written by the Department of Education reflect DeVos’s concern that previous guidance denied proper due process to those accused. After soliciting feedback from universities and other stakeholders, the Department of Education plans to release a new set of guidelines.
There is no greater power discrepancy in all of academia than between a Ph.D. advisor and their advisee. Sure, professors can determine course grades, but a course grade is one among many, so the influence of any one professor is diluted. An advisor-advisee relationship, on the other hand, is one that spans many years, and an advisor’s voice can make or break your career. Students must be able to trust that their advisors will treat and evaluate them fairly. It is impossible to have a functional system built on these relationships if violations of this trust are not met with the severest of punishments: termination.
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.
We’ve learned a lot over the past few weeks.
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.
You know it’s bad when the scientists are marching. In the months following the Nov. 2016 election, STEM-field graduate students rallied together for a multitude of causes, from prison reform to climate change. This phenomenon reflected a widespread sense of alarm regarding the Trump administration’s disdain for crafting policies based on evidence and its active dismantling of vital government institutions, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Our own student organization, the Princeton Citizen Scientists, was forged from an initial fervor of activism: for us, evidence-based policy is not just desirable, but fundamental — even imperative — to the structure of a healthy society. Achieving this requires fostering a sense of personal and collective responsibility within our community to create and maintain conversations related to critical social issues and advocacy goals.
I am a Princeton student and an Israeli. I am proud of both these titles, despite the fact that neither Princeton, nor Israel, are perfect. Monday’s talk at Princeton by Tzipi Hotovely, an Israeli member of parliament, coincided with the launch of the Princeton & Slavery project. There isn’t much in common between the two occasions, other than the simple truth that both Israel and Princeton must reckon with legacies fraught with inequality and intolerance.
Under pressure from a coalition of left-leaning students and groups such as the Alliance of Jewish Progressives, the Center for Jewish Life cancelled an address by Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely on Nov. 5, a day before her scheduled appearance at the University. The coalition seized on process as an instrument of protest and argued that the CJL violates its own Israel Policy in the instance of Hotolevy. Hotovely, they contend, never entered the review process that CJL’s Israel Advisory Committee oversees in order to prevent sponsorship of speakers who might “foster an atmosphere of incivility, intend to harm Israel, or promote racism or hatred of any kind.” Rabbi Julie Roth, the executive director of the center explains in the cancellation letter to the Israeli consulate that the CJL was not “consistent in the application of our process for program sponsorship,” but adds, “We look forward to continued robust and healthy debate around Israel in our community.”
On the evening of Nov. 5, in an email to students and members of the community who planned to attend an address by Tzipi Hotovely, a member of Israel’s Knesset, Rabbi Julie Roth, the executive director of the Center for Jewish Life, and the CJL Israel Fellow, Lior Sharir, announced they would be postponing Hotovely’s visit to the CJL pending further review by the Israel Advisory Committee.