T-shirts give students chance to talk
Regarding ''gay? fine by me'' (Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006):
I was a member of the Gay Alliance of Princeton when I was a student many years ago. I'm a high school teacher living in the Netherlands now and like to wear Gay Pride T-shirts to school occasionally. I don't think we had any GAP T-shirts when I was an undergraduate, and I would love to buy one now to add to my collection. It's important to model openness for high school students. It gives them a chance to talk about it and explore their own feelings on the subject.
Jeff Black '96
Pay attention to children's suffrage
Regarding 'Voting rights for all' (Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006):
Jason Sheltzer '08 is absolutely correct in his analysis of children's suffrage. In the current system, the spending of public dollars is skewed away from crucial children's programs while the elderly are able to use their votes and influence to procure enormous sums. This is unfortunate considering that the benefits to society from a dollar spent on a child are often greater than those from a dollar spent on the elderly, since they can accrue over a lifetime (for instance, childhood vaccines or education versus expensive end of life palliative care). In 2005, the combined cost of the Social Security and Medicare programs represented nearly 7 percent of United States GDP, and in just 25 years Medicare alone will take up 40 percent of all federal income tax revenues, according to the 2006 Trustees' reports. Sheltzer's proposal would do much to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources between society's two most dependent groups.
Sajid Zaidi '08
Grade deflation can at least be done correctly
Regarding 'USG right to pressure Nassau Hall' (Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006):
Regardless of whether you think the grade deflation policy is a good idea, its implementation can at least be improved to make its effects as beneficial as possible for students. I can think of three changes that may be helpful. First, the administration must live up to its promise, made during initial debates over the policy, that it will put pressure on other Ivy institutions to consider changes to their grading policies. For officials to argue that other institutions would be likely to change their policies if we did so and then to suggest that Princeton has no right to press peer faculties to change their policies, is disingenuous. Second, Princeton should send a letter to scholarship programs and employers that have a minimum GPA requirement not only informing them about Princeton's policy, but also encouraging them to abandon their hard-and-fast minima. Third, the University should convene a small group task force to examine the effects of the policy on academic and student life and publicly reaffirm its dedication to the importance of collaborative academic work. These steps may not be as drastic as repeal, but until students get a vote in grading policy decisions, they're a worthwhile start.
Tom Brown '07
University should not limit free speech
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2006):
Princeton is a private institution and has a greater ability than state institutions to set its own codes of conduct for its students. That being said, as one who wants Princeton to remain a strong institution, I don't understand what the University's interest is in limiting free speech. Particularly booing at a play. The only exception I might make to this are efforts to make sure that invited speakers or scheduled performances can actually be heard and aren't drowned out by protesters, but I don't get the sense that this is what is going on here.
This "unwanted verbal conduct" standard that a number of universities have adopted is absurd and is only harming students by releasing them into the real world believing that the government will protect them from encountering any criticism. In this sense, Princeton and other universities are creating students in the modern Islamic mold, teaching them they should somehow be immune to criticism and that they should react with insensible outrage at the first person who says anything negative about them. The only difference is that these students are being taught to respond with lawyers rather than explosive backpacks, but the outcome in terms of stifled free speech is the same.
Warren Meyer '82
Issue is not about free speech but prejudice
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2006):
I can hardly accept that Noah Savage '08 actually believes what he wrote in his letter to The Daily Princetonian. If a black couple was kissing on stage and was booed, you can bet the whole campus would be up in arms about it. Why should it be any more acceptable to boo a gay couple, unless it's more offensive to be gay than to be black?
Yes, Noah, you have every right to jeer at the gay couple. And Andy Brown has every right to expose your prejudice for what it is. The issue is not whether you have the right to boo, but whether it is right of you to boo.
Andrew Schran '09
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.