Open letter not about ideological diversity
Regarding 'Petition criticizes University's speaker choice' (Monday, Oct. 17):
As one of the authors of the misrepresented open letter to President Tilghman and Dean Slaughter, I was struck by the unfair portrayal of the initiative in Monday's article.
The letter had no mention — contrary to your article's claims — of a "pro-Bush" bias. The letter was concerned with the fact that the University is inviting speakers for prestigious occasions who, almost exclusively, represent positions of current or former governments. Even more importantly, the letter addresses the troubling fact that the University does so in total disregard of whether or not those speakers have long records of deceiving the United Nations and the world public, advocating illegal wars and sanctions or (in some cases) perpetrating mass murder of civilians. This University policy is disturbing enough; yet institutional endorsment of certain speakers (Rice, Zinni and Powell were mentioned, but the list is far longer) is not only a disgrace, but a shame for all Princetonians. The letter was an expression of discontent with being identified, as a member of the Princeton community, with this shameful trend.
To reduce this concern to a partisan issue (which it is not) and to portray it as a plea for "balance" (which it is not) is irresponsible.
Danilo Mandic '07
Allowing cohabitation would cause problems
Regarding 'A call for legalized cohabitation' (Friday, Oct. 14):
Let's think this one through for a minute.
Boyfriend and girlfriend decide to share a room in April of their freshman/sophomore/junior year of college. "Hooray," says Housing. "Sign right here." They sign there. In doing so, they guarantee they are going to stay together through the end of the next year. Now, what's going to happen when there's an ugly breakup (as there sometimes can be)? There will be frantic calls to housing, restraining orders, bludgeonings with blunt instruments, appearances on daytime TV and the like. When you and your coed friends live together over the summer in your sinful debauchery, you can always leave when you want to. There is no extra housing at Princeton, and room transfers are as rare as a newly appointed male administrator.
Is it paternalistic for housing to prevent male and female students living together because of this? Possibly, but the housing contract is a blunt instrument, and it is far better for the University to prevent the aforementioned situation by making you and your classmates do the walk of shame a few times each semester. Besides, it's not so bad, really. Gets you out in the fresh air.
Zachary Goldstein '05
No need for journalism certificate at Princeton
Regarding 'University should create journalism program' (Friday, Oct. 14):
I would like to urge the editorial board of the 'Prince' to consider the implications of their garish, self-indulgent call for a formal journalism program.
Unlike the University's fine ad hoc offerings in journalism and writing, such a program would necessarily mean that the 'Prince' would serve that program, or, even worse, that the program would serve the 'Prince.'
The 'Prince' — which, unlike most college papers, is formally independent of the University and run entirely by students — has always served as Princeton's de facto journalism program. Rather than succumb to the strictures, competition, paternalism and inherent conflicts of interest that would accompany an academic program, journalism at Princeton has offered generations of young journalists a rare, rich opportunity to learn by the best possible method — by doing. This is not medicine; no one will bleed if you don't get it perfect the first time.
I can think of no greater insult to the 'Prince' staff, their predecessors and their readers than the implication that somehow we and they have been pretending all these years. Make no mistake: The 'Prince' is real journalism. Even without an embossed certificate or a happy row of A's on the editors' transcripts, it offers a real education and, until last Friday, it claimed a legitimate role in Princeton's public discourse.
Josh Stephens '97 'Prince' Editorial Page Editor, 1996
Librarian's comments an insult to employees
Regarding 'Yale map heist stirs University concern' (Wednesday, Oct. 12):
Regarding this story and the comments made by the associate university librarian Ben Primer, we the Executive Board of Local 956 find his insinuations toward the trustworthiness of his Rare Book staff appalling. Primer's comments about "unscrupulous staff" and "Everyone knows that your principal concern is not people coming in, but internal sorts of problems," are scurrilous and outright unfounded. The Rare Books Department biweekly employees take much pride in their work and are dedicated to the University mission of providing for the greatest possible use of library material, while ensuring the collection's security and adherence to equitable policies in serving all library patrons.
Lest he forget, he is referring to the same Rare Book staff that creates those finding aids and makes available via print, microfilm and digital surrogates the rare and valuable materials owned by his department, and it is the same conscientious staff that works hard to diminish the risk of theft.
Biweekly staff is well aware of the importance of keeping the valuable library documents safe and secure. Yes, unfortunately there will always be a bad apple, but I think that the University staff record stands for itself. PULA would very much like an apology from Mr. Primer, if only for the sake of rekindling the trust toward his well-deserved staff.
Dan Gallagher President, PULA Local 956
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.