Public Safety should monitor the quality of life on campus
I write in response to Mr. Salvatore's column of Thursday, Feb. 21. I cannot accept Mr. Salvatore's defense of public urination as "harmless" and unworthy of the concern of Public Safety Officers. His argument reveals a troubling relativism and lack of concern for the quality of life on campus. While I agree with Mr. Salvatore's admonition that in a place of "crazy hours" and "stress" we should all "just let some things go," I cannot conceive of public urination as one of them. Aside from considering that peeing on the steps of Pyne might be unsanitary and deeply distasteful to his fellow students, Mr. Salvatore would do well to remember Sigmund Freud's argument that "civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct."
Urinating in public is surely as instinctual as it gets, although one would hope that Princeton embodies civilization and civilized behavior in its highest form.
Both my and Mr. Salvatore's ancestors probably urinated publicly in their respective caves; but any argument that the practice should be "let go" at Princeton falls far short of the bowl. Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky '04
Students are held responsible for all of their actions
I am writing in response to Mr. Eric Wang '02's recent opinion piece published in The Daily Princetonian of Feb. 20, 2002. Contrary to Mr. Wang's assertion, the University holds all students "responsible for their behavior, whether or not they are under the influence of alcohol. The consumption of alcohol does not constitute a mitigating circumstance when it contributes to the violation of University regulations." (RRR,p. 50)
All alleged violations of University regulations are given prompt attention; if a student is found to have indeed violated a regulation, he/she will receive an appropriate penalty. Marianne Waterbury Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students
Gender ratios of officers on the 'Street' are misleading
I am writing to express my disappointment with yesterday's article about the male-female balance among eating club officers. The astounding number of factual mistakes, the lack of context and the inappropriate tone of the article all detract from, rather than contribute to, a serious discussion about the Princeton social climate.
First and foremost, the article virtually ignores the importance of the fact that four of the 11 outgoing club presidents are female — including the President of the Inter-Club Council. These women have had a tremendous influence on their clubs, as well as on the Street in general. It is obvious that no social climate changes overnight; the fact that only one club elected a female president this particular year must be presented in a larger historical context. Women have had a powerful presence on Prospect Avenue for many years — both as members and officers — and they will continue to do so.
Moreover, the outgoing male presidents have made strong efforts to ensure a welcoming and safe environment for both sexes. (Many of these efforts have even been detailed in recent Prince articles.) Each club's membership chooses officers based on their merits — just as the University President, Provost and USG President named in the the article were chosen. These women were the best candidates for their positions, just as the new slates of officers represent the best of their respective clubs. The choices made this year do not indicate that female students are somehow of secondary importance to the clubs.
Second, the factual mistakes in the article are appalling. I do not know specifics about conversations The Daily Princetonian may have had with other club presidents, but my interview was largely misrepresented. Ignoring the fact that the 'Prince' did not even take the time to verify my name, all of my statements were presented out of context.
Finally, the Prince did not make a thorough effort to speak with Terrace Club President Alexis Frasz — even though, as a female club president and someone very active in women's issues, her comments would seem to be the most important of all.
The tone of the article borders on the offensive. The suggestion, for example, that Cottage Club's female officers are merely "token" placements is insulting to those women, and to the Cottage membership as a whole. And the article's general implication that the current male-female ratio among officers creates a problematic environment for Princeton women is simply unsupported by any intelligent argument.
An article that offers misinformation peppered with distorted historical background is a poor way to inform the community. It reflects a surprising editorial carelessness, as well as a profound lack of thoughtfulness about important issues. The editors of The Daily Princetonian should take more seriously the very powerful role they have in shaping discussion about important issues on the Princeton campus.
For example, Wednesday night's panel discussion in Frist about sexuality concerns in the Princeton social scene generated an informative and productive discourse, and I was glad to have participated. That sort of event gives me hope that there is a space at Princeton for serious dialogue that will lead to the formation of a healthier community. I wish the Prince could help, rather than hinder, such dialogue. Dan Hantman '03 President, Princeton Campus Club President, Inter-Club Council
Read More
An open letter to President Eisgruber and VP Calhoun concerning minoritized student safety
Patrick Jaojoco, Brandi Bushman, and Humza Gondal"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
On the occupation of Clio Hall and the treatment of Graduate School staff
Cole M. Crittenden“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
