Today, instead of taking a stance on an issue, we would like to explain the editorial process and invite interested freshmen, sophomores and juniors to apply to join the Board.
Today we shall write about a problem that truly plagues our fair campus: Princetonians do not walk quickly enough.
When he first ran for office in 2010, our chief concerns about his candidacy centered on his ability to delegate as a leader and provide a long-term vision to unify many of his goals. However, Yaroshefsky amply met that challenge with his outstanding accomplishments as president. Most notable are the changes he made in technology and the impact he had on student life at Princeton.
The Editorial Board commends the University for this change because, if implemented correctly, this system holds immense promise in terms of preventing lockouts and making overall dormitory security more cost-effective. These keypads could drastically reduce the number of lockouts, both eliminating an enormous hassle from the lives of students and freeing Public Safety officers and financial resources for other allocations — like community policing. This system will also reduce the cost and labor associated with physically changing locks every time students permanently lose their keys; Building Services would only need to change the code through a simple electronic maneuver should a security issue arise.
Sports teams are not the only valuable extracurricular on this campus, nor are they more important than the other extracurriculars that the University sponsors. Therefore, they should not be the only ones with this opportunity — members of organizations like the University Band, the Debate Team and Mock Trial — groups that sometimes have events scheduled during finals week — should also have this option.
As of 2010, six of the eight Ivy League universities offer undergraduate single concentrations in linguistics. Princeton, however, is not among them, even though we do offer a certificate program in linguistics, and undergraduates commonly create independent concentrations in the subject. The Editorial Board feels that this gap in our academic offerings must be filled in order to provide the most enriching intellectual environment for our students and to continue to attract the highest caliber of prospective students.
We oppose Cannon’s decision to bicker students at a different time from the other eating clubs. The Bicker process works best when all clubs hold the process at the same time. Under this model, students are forced to choose one club to bicker. When all the clubs start bickering students at the same time, no club is able to gain an unfair advantage over the others.
We applaud a shift away from the apathy that currently reigns on campus, and — regardless of our views on Occupy Princeton’s political goals — we are hopeful that its presence may help contribute to that shift.
The University prohibits tutoring during finals week because “tutors need to study, too.” We believe that this limitation is misguided and that tutoring services should be offered even during finals week.
When faculty members write articles, they are usually published in scholarly journals to which most people have limited access. In fact, subscriptions to some journals may cost thousands of dollars a year. If the faculty member does not reserve the right to republish the article elsewhere then only those with access to the journal can read it. This, of course, seems contradictory to the University’s goal of generating and disseminating knowledge. If our faculty’s insights are available only to the small group of people who can afford journal subscription, the value of those insights is surely limited. Knowledge in a vacuum is not valuable. Only when there is widespread access can an insight be said to have any significance to the community. For these reasons, we are glad that the University is taking steps to expand access to articles that were previously only available in journals.