Code of silence

When I write columns, even ones I think are especially provocative, I receive few written responses. My all-time record is somewhere around 12 emails. Based on past conversations with other columnists, they too are sometimes disappointed by the little feedback they get from students. Considering that Princeton students are far more thoughtful and articulate than the average college populace, how did such an atmosphere take so strong a hold over part of our student body?

The answer to this question is as multi-layered as any other issue covered in this publication and others. Some people are interested and are just too busy to participate in the dialogue. Some people are engineers and do very little writing, let alone writing that is fit to print. Some just don't give a hoot. These various factors all add up to a shrunken field of voices on any number of issues that confront our campus. You end up having regulars who write letters to the editor. There is a shared responsibility to combat such an imbalance of perspective. It is reasonable, however, to assert that leading institutions, specifically the administration, could do a better job of setting the right tone for a campus-wide resurgence in dialogue within our print media.

As an avid reader of The Daily Princetonian and other campus publications, I have noticed a pattern in the University's behavior toward criticism. When an article by Kyle Smith '09 critiqued the University's silence on the prevalence of various sexually transmitted infections on campus, I was certain that such a grave charge would be met with a powerful retort by University Health Services (UHS). I thought that no more than a full column clarifying UHS' policy would be sufficient in answering Smith's charge. "Sometime this week," I thought to myself, "UHS is going to have to say something about this." But as the days went by, what I found in this section of the paper was nothing even mentioning what I would think is a serious controversy. Not even a letter to the editor.

That same week, a column of mine discussing the University's eating club financial aid program was published. Considering the feedback I got from members of the student body, especially upperclassmen and eating club officers, I thought that the issues discussed merited a response. But again, as days passed, I found nothing on behalf of the University concerning the problems I and many others had mentioned concerning the new program. There was a news article published a few days later on the topic, but it contained only token quotes from University Executive Vice President Mark Burstein and Robin Moscato, director of undergraduate financial aid.

These quotes in no way reflected any attempt to answer student criticisms, but instead were aimed at clarifying previous University statements. How do University officials come to adopt this behavior in certain circumstances and not in others? Could it be that when a reporter or columnist truly exposes flaws within the University, silence is the established method for downplaying it? Do officials have responses that are checked by higher-ups? With random professors and officials chiming in with letters to the editor from time to time, I would think not, but the lack of clarification leaves the crazy ones like me to speculate.

Officials within the administrative apparatus are active in communicating with individual students on campus. There are numerous undergraduate committees that cover almost every aspect of campus life. Why, I was told that my column on eating club financial aid was discussed in one of these committees. An ego boost to be sure, but closed-door discussions — unless tangible results emanate from these types of meetings — might as well not even exist for the mainstream body of students who do not participate in this aspect of campus life.

It's true that guest columns are written by University officials from time to time and they do occasionally chime in with a letter to the editor. The issue of PUID fraud and Tiger Foods, for example, was met with a swift University response. Even students outside of the regular contributors have to be given credit for responding in force to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad controversy at Columbia. Then again, it's also fair to say that even if we restrict our gaze to the past six weeks, we find that far too many stories in various publications have escaped without student or official University comment. Too many sections of campus, whether it's individual black students or the Latino community as a whole, lack a presence in the pages. It is past time for the administration and the student body as a whole to do a better job of speaking up on the most public of stages. David Smart is a history major from Los Angeles, Calif. He can be reached at dsmart@princeton.edu.