The 'Street' isn't elite — only people are
"Bulldozing the 'Street'" is possibly the worst thing I've ever read. Elitism does not exist because the 'Street' exists. Elitism exists because elites exist. Sure, take away the buildings and make everyone eat at four-year residential colleges. Then, as in the two year colleges, people will merely self-segregate into different groups, and eat at separate tables, draw rooms together, join St. A's or some frat. If anything, the 'Street' does us all a favor by giving us an opportunity not to have to observe groups we find repulsive.
Eating clubs are unique to the Princeton experience. Most offer better food than PUDS. They have comfortable lounges, small libraries, entertainment centers and tap rooms. Ninety percent of Princeton students, most of whom must take out extra student loans, join clubs because $2000 more is worth the experience. The social situations in the clubs are good: each individual chooses to be there with the people they're with, and they feel comfortable with the personality of their club. Yes, some are bastions of social elitism. But others are bastions of jocks, religious zealots, politics majors, pot smokers and club rejects. I don't care if some club is elitist or athletic. I am not threatened by it because people are different and I'm not terribly judgemental. Nor do I have a secret desire to "transcend" who I really am and face possible rejection.
Welcome to a perhaps unfortunate reality: people will always gravitate towards those with similar backgrounds and interests. Like attracts like. Four-year colleges can't change that. All they can offer are underattended social events and mozzarella stick study breaks. Peter Kidd '02
Students use 'Street' to escape from reality
Justin Hasting's "Bulldozing 'The Street'" is the best editorial I have read in the 'Prince' to date. The message of the eating clubs, especially the Bicker clubs, is, "Don't want to be around people who may be different from you? No worries! All you have to do is buy your way into an exclusive environment where you can relax without all that bothersome diversity while underpaid immigrant workers serve you overpriced food!"
The eating club environment is the antithesis of what a college experience should be — i.e. eye-opening and challenging. No wonder so many students drank themselves into oblivion this past weekend. I hope at least it numbed their pain upon realizing what they'd gotten themselves involved in — an anachronistic cop-out for people too cowardly to be independent thinkers and to face the diversity of the real world. No offense. John Kimble '02
Read More
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
We need to keep breaking the glass ceiling of the ivory tower
Maria Luisa Vieira Parada“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
Reactions: Guests respond to Eisgruber and Calhoun’s statements on protesting
Zeke DouglasRosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt BrowneGuests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
Guests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
