Embroiled in the recent controversy over the Nassau Weekly's publication of the "Top 10 Holocaust movies I've never seen but would like to" list are several issues of extreme importance to the Princeton community — in particular, the role of the University in funding campus publications and monitoring their content.
We can certainly understand why people would be offended by the content of the article in question. These individuals have every right to express their dismay to the editors and staff of the Nassau Weekly — and if they so choose — to refrain from reading the publication in the future.
A few students have suggested that the University take direct punitive action against the Nassau Weekly by revoking its funding. University officials have indicated, however, that they do not plan to take such an action. We applaud the administration for this decision.
However controversial an article might be, the University should not interfere by punishing the editors, authors or the publication itself as long as its content is not patently untruthful or libelous.
Editors cannot live in fear that publishing a potentially controversial piece will jeopardize the future of their publications. Such a policy would unnecessarily inhibit risk-taking in campus journals. It would prevent the full, free exchange of ideas that should characterize the intellectual learning environment of the University.
This free exchange should also involve a healthy debate on the actual content of articles published in student-run journals such as the Nassau Weekly. The individuals who were offended by the recent Holocaust article have every right to make their voices heard, as do those who wish to register their views on the content of any publication on campus.
The administration's stance on this issue allows concerned students and faculty to undertake such actions of protest without needlessly inhibiting the journalistic freedom of campus publications.
Read More
The CPUC must not gut its Judicial Committee
Bill HewittEnding the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Ending the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
What is a Princeton degree really for?
Joel IbabaoSo what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
So what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.