“And this is why freshmen should be forever banned from writing opinion pieces.”
This type of comment frequents the comments section on the The Daily Princetonian website below articles written by freshmen. A single opinion piece that presents an argument that is completely incongruous with your own opinion seems to warrant such a comment. And the easiest leverage over the author turns out to be an attack on an extraneous factor —being a freshman.
Surprisingly enough, freshmen do write, and we do have opinions. And we have as much a right —and should have as much an opportunity —to share these opinions. Undoubtedly, our perspective may differ drastically from that of someone who has attended the University for four years, but that difference does not and should not discount our perspective. In fact, our different perspective is important to be heard in that we present new, fresh views on issues accepted as norms.
Such disparities in opinion are expected and welcomed and should serve as the basis of discussion and debate. After all, the purpose of writing —not limited to just opinion writing —should be to encourage discourse, and the comments section on online pieces provides the perfect platform where constructive criticism and opposing viewpoints can be shared.
But in the status quo, constructive criticism is a rarity. If you scroll below any 'Prince' article online (particularly in the opinion section) and read through the comments at the bottom of it, chances are you’ll run into a couple of really condescending, contemptuous even malicious comments, at the very least —comments that choose not to criticize the argument(s) being made in the piece, but to denigrate the person making the argument.
That being said, such comments are not singular to the 'Prince.' They pervade news sources and forums all over the Internet. Nonetheless, we have the capacity to address —and decrease —the frequency with which such comments appear within the University community.
I have one question for people who make such personal attacks: Why? What purpose does your derogatory comment serve? What point do you hope to get across? Is such a comment even necessary?
Ad hominem attacks on the author are completely unwarranted and can be excessively disparaging. Writers can be (and have been) censured for being misguided and/or simply unintelligent with pejorative comments that unfairly cast aspersions on their characters, and if it’s a freshman writer, then on their age. Often, this can border on cyberbullying. If the argument and person making the argument are to be considered one entity as the subject of criticism, then criticism is invited only if it has a fair warrant.
Differences in belief and perspective are important, arising from differences in our diverse backgrounds, experiences and upbringings, which is why they should be shared. And, well, the Internet is free, and you have the freedom to say what you want. However, writers are held to a certain standard; likewise, commenters should be held to such a standard. The language of criticism is important to consider. An article coupled with the comments below it provides for a pseudo-forum, and a certain degree of civility and decorum is expected. Everyone —writers and commenters alike —should exercise respect and judiciousness in what they say.
Comments are an asset to journalism and discussion as unfiltered opinion, helping to facilitate discourse and invite variance. But the ability to offer dissent anonymously should be viewed as a privilege —a privilege people exploit far too often by using abrasive language and/or vilifying the author. Personal attacks not only detract from the articles (and from the comment itself), but they can polarize and negatively influence audiences. This ultimately engenders a negative comment culture and harms the University community when we strive for an open campus that supports and fosters multilateral conversation, whether it be in speech or in writing.Sarah Sakha is a freshman from Scottsdale, Ariz. She can be reached at ssakha@princeton.edu.
Read More
Sitting in at Princeton: proud past, shameful present
Keith Wailoo“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
The ‘fun’ model just isn’t sustainable: a plea against hookup culture
Julianna Lee“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
Faculty letter to U. admin calling for VP Calhoun’s resignation
Guest Contributors“We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community.”
"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
