The current brouhaha over the annexation of Spelman Halls 7 and 8 is the perfect example of how this dynamic can often lead to undesirable outcomes for those whose conception of the ideal differs from our leaders'. Opposition to this move was best summed up by roughly 50 independents and prospective independents who argued in a Feb. 19 guest column in The Daily Princetonian that it would unfairly end up forcing some independents into the general undergraduate population.
The University has made several points in favor of its decision, the first of which is that interest in becoming an independent has been declining over time. This is immaterial to the discussion because the main concern here is independents' access to Spelman, and many independents are not going to end up getting rooms there. The Feb. 19 op-ed stated that Undergraduate Housing Manager Angela Hodgeman "repeatedly emphasized...that Housing was not confident that all interested independent students would get rooms in Spelman." Hodgeman did not dispute this in a Feb. 27 Prince op-ed of her own.
While other rooms designated for independents exist near kitchens around campus, this hardly justifies seizing whole dorms designed for independents. If access to a kitchen were enough, prospective hybrid residential college-independents in Whitman College should be fine drawing a room next to a kitchen in Whitman. Whitman students also have the least pressing need for a kitchen because they have a meal plan, and the kitchens in Whitman are the University's most modern. It therefore makes sense to give Whitman residents - not full independents - rooms next to a communal kitchen.
Implicit in this argument is the suggestion that the kitchens in other dorms are adequate for the use of independents. I can't see how this is the case if the kitchen in my dorm is in any way representative of those around campus. The first thing that strikes me every time I enter the third-floor Brown Hall kitchen is how tiny it is. Over the summer I once tried cooking in there at the same time as others - I'll never make that mistake again. Following closely on the heels of that recognition is an overwhelming sense of corrosion and grime reinforced by the microwave oven whose interior is caked over with the detritus of numerous interestingly colored and odiferous meals past. I pity anyone cooking there.
I can certainly understand why students would like to both be in a residential college and have a private kitchen in a spacious suite. But part of becoming an independent at this school is choosing to forego the other official dining options on campus - hence the term independent. If you're a member of an eating club you can't be an independent, and in fairness, the same rule should apply to members of a four-year college. Otherwise, the University is very clearly not treating all of its students equally and is quite obviously giving college members extremely preferential treatment.
That brings us back to the question of what is revealed by the University's exercise of its power. There have already been massive efforts undertaken to build the four-year college system from scratch. The University has identified three potential spots for new residential colleges in its 10 year plan. But it claims it isn't marginalizing the other social options over the long term because it doesn't have enough space within the colleges to house all upperclassmen, space that, incidentally, just increased by 20 percent with the annexation of Spelman 7 and 8. Now, when given the option of creating a minor inconvenience for members of a four-year college or an enrormous headache for independents, the University chose the latter. Considering that this is but the latest in a series of moves, how would you view the decision to annex a quarter of Spelman?
Barry Caro is a history major from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.
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.