Two strong candidates
Regarding 'USG debate takes personal turn' (Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006):
After moderating last night's USG presidential debate, I was struck with a strange feeling that I rarely feel during political races — we have two candidates who are running two extremely positive policy-oriented campaigns that bode well for this next year at Princeton. Yet, yesterday's headline would lead readers to believe that this race had devolved into a sort of cheap smear campaign.
The USG presidential debate was an intelligent discussion of purely policy-and initiative-related issues. At the time of the said question, I was worried that had I excluded it without allowing a response, The Daily Princetonian would take it as some new scandal — which it was not. Grant Gittlin '08 has been open about his disciplinary record all along, which is why I allowed him to respond to the allegations and Rob Biederman '08 to express his honest desire to keep the campaign positive. I regret that the 'Prince' has tried to make this campaign into a negative one when it is not. If your hope in dramatizing reality was to have more students read their paper, they have failed. You just lost one.
Alec Williams '09
Unacceptable question
Regarding 'USG debate takes personal turn' (Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006):
I was disappointed and surprised that Ruben Pope '07 found it acceptable to bring up Grant Gittlin '08's disciplinary record during the open questions of the debate. While I felt Gittlin performed admirably in this unfair situation, this was not a point that had any place in that forum. I would like to officially, publicly, urge everyone to disregard this element of the discussion and please make decisions about our relative merits based on just the quality of our ideas and experiences in the USG and class government — not based on irrelevant personal matters.
Rob Biederman '08
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.