172 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
The economist Albert O. Hirschman once wrote that there are three sorts of arguments used to “debunk and overturn ‘progressive’ policies and movements of ideas.” This response will argue that the progressive action will produce the exact opposite of that objective; that the effort to change something won’t make a difference at all; or that the effort will put in danger good things that already are in place. In short, negative reactions to progressive change boil down to the perversity thesis, the futility thesis, and the jeopardy thesis.
The defining feature of the University’s Honor Code and Honor Committee is its legacy of student ownership. The Committee is entirely student-run, differentiating it from other disciplinary bodies at Princeton and other universities. The Committee’s responsibilities are twofold: we act as both investigators and adjudicators for alleged Honor Code violations. Every step of the process, from report to investigation to hearing, is entirely student-directed.
We appreciated the feedback from the recent opinion piece on the Frist Campus Center Ticket Office. This input is very helpful and Jared Shulkin ’20 made some great points. With changing technology and customer needs, it is important for our services to evolve. The good news is that we continue to develop our support and explore ways that we can improve service. However, we need to do a better job of communicating the capabilities of the current services while we enhance systems and processes.
Daniel Krane, in his April 10 op-ed, draws attention to the alleged plagiarism in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s 2006 book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” We do not intend to offer an opinion about whether the issue of plagiarism ought to have been a factor in determining Justice Gorsuch’s suitability for the Supreme Court of the United States, but in case the public discussion of his writing has caused any confusion, we write to clarify for Princeton students the University’s expectations about the proper citation of sources in work submitted to fulfill academic requirements.
In her March 29 opinion column titled “Outrage,” Jacquelyn Thorbjornson demands that we be in an uproar over the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by two of her classmates because liberal media organizations are protecting the defendants, due to their status as undocumented immigrants. The article is calling for outrage on the Maryland rape case, but more specifically the alleged failings of liberal media, itself perpetuating the unconsented exploitation of private tragedy for public, partisan attacks. A 14-year-old may have just been raped in a high school bathroom. Should the conversation on that focus on attacks on undocumented immigrants and attacks on liberal media outlets? Should we be having a national conversation on that at all?
In your edition on April 3, you published an open letter to me from the Princeton Private Prison Divest Coalition. The letter raised a number of questions that I know are of interest to many members of the campus community. I have addressed those questions in the following open letter to the PPPDC.
Last Monday, the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community attempted to justify its decision to reject Princeton Private Prison Divest’s proposal for divestment and dissociation from the private prison and detention industry. But before committee chair Professor Michael Littman took the stage, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 made an unexpected address to the audience and stated that Princeton does “not hold investments in the companies that are the current subject of this petition,” and that it does not intend to obtain such holdings.
Two weeks ago, the University became embroiled in a dispute regarding the confidentiality of using affirmative action in the admissions process, a practice that a conservative interest group, Students for Fair Admissions, is portraying as a civil rights violation against Asian applicants. The University filed a lawsuit in order to block the release of documents relating to a civil rights complaint that SFA filed a year ago with the Department of Justice, alleging anti-Asian bias in the University’s college admissions process. SFA argued that the University was depressing Asian admission rates. In its view, even though the number of Asian applicants had increased, the percentage of Asian undergraduates at Princeton remained constant.
Why can’t some kind of jointly-operated music school be developed with Princeton University? Why not a newly-contoured school where students are chosen for admission based on their musical abilities, where the degrees they receive come from either Rider or Princeton, depending on where they matriculate? Westminster Choir College is too wonderful a place to let slip down the drain. It is the crown jewel of choral music schools and of our community.
Today, the University announces its decision to continue funding for-profit prisons and immigrant detention centers. The University thus defends its complicity in institutional violence against the nation’s most marginalized communities.
The past two Executive Committees of the Graduate Student Government have published statements highlighting the central issue of integrating Princeton’s graduate students into the University campus. Graduate students are critical to Princeton’s teaching and research mission, but our effectiveness depends on our integration into the campus landscape. We, the outgoing GSG Executive Committee, would like to highlight the progress we have made on integration and provide our recommendations for the University.
Dear President Eisgruber,
Lately, people who have never been too politically involved have been re-examining their detachment. Over three million people showed up for the Women’s March; 28 scientific organizations are joining in a demonstration to raise concerns about the politicization of science and facts. Over 31,000 U.S. faculty members signed an “Academics Against Immigration Executive Order” petition, pointing out the harm that the order has on the academic community and the future of U.S. leadership in research and technology.
Princeton University wouldn’t have its carpenters do their work without a hammer, so why does the Princeton University Police Department not have the tools it needs to do its job effectively?
We are signing this statement of protest against the President’s executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” of January 27, 2017. It “suspends entry into the United States,” for various periods of time, of refugees, Syrian refugees, and “aliens” without green cards from seven nations. We offer three reasons for opposing this order:
Over the past few weeks, over 800 members of the Princeton University community, including 68 faculty members, 641 students and postdocs, and 105 researchers, lecturers and staff members, have signed a letter supporting a call for a campus-wide day of conversation and action on March 6.
This past weekend, I and dozens, if not hundreds, of members of the Princeton community emailed President Eisgruber and other key administrators calling upon them to denounce the Trump administration's recent actions to ban entry into the country for people from a number of Muslim-majority countries. What we got was not a denunciation. It was not a condemnation. It was a sweet-seeming façade, nothing more. In his Jan. 29 letter to the Princeton community, Eisgruber invoked a number of anecdotes — including his parents' flight from European wars and Princeton's Scottish president — which betrayed a disturbing lack of attention toward the issue of racialized Islamophobia, which is by and large the sentiment behind the order. In refusing to take a firm public stand against this, President Eisgruber and the rest of the administration are tacitly enabling the proliferation of fascism.
To our fellow Princetonians,
I am a friend of Wonshik Shin ’19. During the week of Dec. 19 last year, I was privileged to have the opportunity to meet and accompany his parents during their visit to Princeton. I am also writing this letter on their behalf to clear their son’s name of the wrongful accusation that an Honor Code violation may have been related to his death. The rumor began from a comment on the Daily Princetonian’s website, which said “I just heard through the grape-vine that it was the act of the honor committee that caused this.” This prompted an exchange about the severity of disciplinary actions for Honor Code violations. Wonshik’s friends, shocked by the groundless accusation, contacted the Daily Princetonian. Although the initial comment is no longer online, the rumor spread quickly. It soon reached Wonshik’s parents in Korea, who were already grieving a loss that no parents should ever have to bear.
Nationwide, the risk of an undergraduate woman experiencing sexual assault decreases from her freshman to senior year, with freshmen being about 50 percent more likely than seniors to experience such conduct. But the We Speak survey results released last month showed that at Princeton, sophomores are almost twice as likely to experience nonconsensual sexual contact as seniors, and this was the only significant difference among class years.