Toilet seats and intellectualism
I told my hall mates a few weeks ago that I was so happy to be at Princeton that I actually didn't mind sitting in whatever my fellow Princetonians decided to leave on the toilet seat in our various campus bathrooms. While this may be a slight exaggeration, I was a little bothered by the recent editorial entitled "The glaring need for toilet seat covers in Princeton's dormitory bathrooms." While I do not suppose that there is really evidence that sitting in Princeton urine can make one smarter, I think we do need to find a better way to employ the editorial section of our daily newspaper. There is a place for trivial complaints (brief letters to the 'Prince,' emails to the USG), and a place for Princeton students' opinions on issues of real importance. I believe this recent article confused the two.
I am not trying to be insensitive. There is nothing wrong with an aversion towards a dirty toilet seat, although I should point out that urine is completely sterile. (I won't mention # 2; most of us had to pass the getting-the-stool-into-the-water test before being accepted to the number one school in the nation) Mr. Hsu has a valid complaint, and perhaps with our $8 billion endowment, this luxury might be warranted, though wiping with a wad of toilet paper is only below a snob. My main problem with the article is simply that I don't feel it belongs on a respectable editorial page.
Perhaps my qualm is not with Mr. Hsu for writing the article, but rather with The Daily Princetonian for publishing it. If they are that hard up for articles, I suggest that they do a better job of recruiting guest editorials. Staring at the wall just now, I honestly couldn't think of a decent idea for an editorial (besides the one I'm writing), but maybe that's the point. Indeed, the editorial page needs opinions for it to exist, but I become a little disconcerted with bitching for the sake of bitching. Doesn't complaining for its own sake only contribute to a more cynical environment?
Perhaps this is even a debate which has grounds in the larger discussion regarding intellectualism on campus. I try to read some of the publications that are delivered to my room. I believe that my classmates have valid things to say, and I am of the opinion that a balance between class work and learning from one's classmates should be a goal to which we all aspire. With that in mind, what can one do when one of our most preeminent publications presents this petty whining, not as a letter, but as a full-fledged editorial?
While I was reluctant to give the article validity by writing a rebuttal to it, I wonder if there isn't a larger lesson to be learned from its publication. If there are no editorials worth publishing on a given day, I have a revolutionary idea; don't publish trivial ones. The Daily Princetonian can do better, and the student body deserves better. We don't need to get our asses dirty in the name of intellectualism, but let's not get our minds dirty in the publishing of complaints about the sanctity of our asses. David Marcovitz '06
Read More
Calls for VP Calhoun's resignation mislead on free expression
Bill Hewitt“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
