New York is not as dangerous as before
Regarding 'Are you boarding the finance train?' (Thursday, March 1, 2007):
In the recent article regarding finance, Preston Comey '07 noted his rationale behind pursuing employment in Charlotte, N.C. rather than New York City. While there are many reasons to live outside of New York City, "constantly worrying about my safety" isn't one. A cursory look at crime statistics will show why New York is constantly rated the safest big city in the nation. A recent study by Money Magazine pegged personal crime risk in Charlotte at 214 (compared to a 100 national average and 179 for New York City), property crime risk at 209 (compared to a 100 national average and 89 for NYC), personal crime incidents at 1,077 per 100,000 in Charlotte (compared to 687 per 100,000 in NYC) and property crime incidents at 6,667 per 100,000 (compared to 2,113 per 100,000 in NYC). Good luck in Charlotte. Adam Kopald '05
Initiatives for helping the community are still being worked on
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Thursday, March 8, 2007):
Leslie-Bernard Joseph '06 failed to recognize the facts in his overly aggressive letter. The PINS initiative incurred a net loss; the $1,000 raised for charity was subsidized by over $6,000 in University funds to pay for the walk-a-thon alone. Having enough T-shirts and bracelets for five more years of PINS could not possibly have helped underprivileged students.As for my lacking attendance, I belatedly apologize to Joseph for not participating — I was attending a family funeral the day of the walk-a-thon, though I had intended to participate through my residential college. Perhaps the fact that two years later he remembers my absence speaks volumes to the event's success and its ability to reach out to the student body (a little under 3 percent of the Princeton student body participated.)
Surely there is a better way for the USG and the University to help the Princeton community. One of PINS initial failings was to not capitalize on preexisting structures, and I hope that working with the Pace Center, SVC, Community House and other student groups will create a winning situation for all involved. Last week's USG town hall meeting on civic engagement was just the first step towards creating a University more connected to its surroundings.
I have great faith that we will make more progress and that the shortcomings of PINS will be addressed in all future planning for civically engaged Princetonians. Sarah Breslow '08 USG Academics Chair and 'Prince' Photo Editor
Anscombe responds to Wynn and Lee
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, March 6, 2007):
Lisa Wynn and Lee Silver continue, unreasonably, to insist on the "secretive and exclusionary nature" of the Anscombe Society's "Making Love Last" conference. The room locations were actually published in The Times of Trenton and reporters from multiple publications attended. There was nothing "secretive" about it.
Wynn and Silver's accusation the conference was "exclusionary" is also absurd. Registrations were received a month and a half in advance. The requests sent by Silver, Trussell and others came only two days before the conference — when food was already ordered and capacity reached. They received the form letter we had prepared for all late registrants, offering to place them on the waiting list.The location was not indicated in this email because it was unnecessary.
When Wynn continued to push for the location, her email indeed went unanswered, not least of all because we had already explained the above circumstances to her. Additionally, Wynn's harassing tone, and the unprofessional and insulting content of her and Silver's emails (and they know of which emails we speak) made an answer from us unnecessary. It is misleading and dishonest for them to continue, now publicly, to make accusations against our good character and intentions, especially when their own intentions and behavior are so questionable.
The Anscombe Society's record of presenting public lectures and organizing dialogues with students and adults (some with whom we disagree on central issues) speaks for itself about our openness to honest intellectual debate and academic inquiry. Cassy DeBenedetto '07 and Mary Cheffers '08
The University has not challenged affordable community housing
Regarding 'Princeton University, Inc.' (Wednesday, March 14, 2007):
I would like to make one comment and ask one question about Tom Bohnett '07's column about affordable housing. The comment is simply to reaffirm that the University has never challenged the requirement that it provide affordable housing for the community, nor has it challenged the concept proposed by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) that the amount of housing should be determined by the number of new jobs associated with buildings we construct.
What we have challenged is a formula, which has also been challenged by the courts, that assumes the number of new jobs in an academic or research building is the same as the number in a conventional office building. To cite just one example: When the University constructed the Friend Center, which consists largely of computer labs, classrooms, library space and some auditorium spaces, the COAH formula predicted that the number of new staff positions would be 72, while the number we actually added was four. COAH has already created a separate category for K-12 education, and what we asked them to do was create a similar category for higher education that recognized the true nature of academic and research space.
My question has to do with funding. I am curious about which funds Bohnett thinks we should use to build housing beyond a fair-share level. Fundamentally, the University receives funds from three sources: grants from the government and private organizations to support specific research projects; tuition from students to pay for a portion of what it costs to provide them with a Princeton education; and gifts, largely from alumni, that either go into the endowment or the operating budget. The University has a fiduciary responsibility to use these funds for the purposes for which they were given — it does not have the right to redirect them to other purposes, no matter how worthy.
We have long believed, and I hope most donors and students would agree, that it is appropriate to use some portion of the funds we receive to be good citizens of the communities in which we reside. That's why we have a long history of supporting affordable housing in the Princeton community. It is also why we keep all of our non-dormitory housing on the tax rolls, make an unrestricted annual contribution of a million dollars to the Borough and make other contributions to our surrounding communities. But as fiduciaries we are limited in the expenditures we can justify for purposes other than teaching and research. We are fully prepared to fulfill an obligation for affordable housing, but we also have a responsibility to be sure that the obligation reflects a fair understanding of the kinds of buildings we construct and how they are used. Robert Durkee Vice President and Secretary
YAT rules should still be reconsidered
Regarding "YAT Race Stirs Quiet Controversy" (Monday, March 12, 2007):
With another spring comes another Young Alumni Trustee election — and another wasted opportunity for the Princeton community. Difficult as it is to believe in light of the ruckus surrounding last year's election, it appears the Alumni Association has found a novel way to corrupt the process.
Still in place is the sham 'discussion' in which the Alumni Association dictates predetermined rules to the candidates. Perhaps the Alumni Association thought giving candidates permission to "reach out informally to their friends" would prevent the campus community from rekindling the dialogue we sparked last year. Of course, the ill-conceived and ill-defined guideline did nothing of the sort, instead further slanting an already uneven playing field while doing nothing to promote an informed electorate.
In fairness, the candidates themselves must share some of the blame. In future years, we hope seniors will more proactively defend their rights to free speech and fair elections, rather than anonymously pointing fingers once they find themselves on the losing end of a middle school-style popularity contest.
Ultimately, though, it is the Board of Trustees that must intervene. Out of respect for and understanding of the Board's weighty responsibilities to the University we love, we again respectfully ask it to seriously reconsider whether Princeton is best served by the current process. It's time for the Trustees to recognize that the YAT position deserves an open election befitting its stature — and take the steps necessary to ensure that next year's election is a process of which we can all be proud. David Baumgarten '06 Former 'Prince' Managing Editor Ira Leeds '06
Memo about calendar reform misses important points
I recently read on the proposed changes in our academic calendar. Never have I read such a self-contradictory, inane, presumptuous, ignorant, useless, vulgar piece of doggerel — and this from Princeton's powers that be. Central to this memo is the proposal extending the semester by a week, likely resulting in the loss of Fall Break.
The memo cites the number of teaching weeks that Princeton and its peer institutions have in order to show clearly and unsurprisingly that Princeton has the fewest teaching weeks per academic year. It neglects to point out, however, that the asterisked universities, those on a quarter system, have fewer teaching weeks per class than Princeton, a discrepancy that goes unexplained. This change in the schedule, which the memo states has been demanded of the faculty, as well as the proposal's hypothetical benefits are preposterous. One week more, it says, will provide freshmen with an adjustment period, create a "relaxed pace" that will stand in service of Independent work. It suggests the extra week be given to guest speakers or graduate student lectures. The report then absurdly admits some of these suggestions may not alleviate pressure, one of the driving reasons behind extending the semester. Nonsense of this kind is baffling. I am deeply concerned with the question: Who — if not the cold cogs of bureaucracy itself — is steering our ship? Ian Segal '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.