Something has been brewing inside my head for the past few months, and recently it’s come to a boil. Perhaps during my first few years on campus I was too oblivious to pick up on the pervasive disapproval of our school paper. Perhaps it is truly a new issue on campus. Indisputably, however, it has come to the forefront in recent months after coverage of recent issues regarding student arrests, sexual assault allegations and defensive editorials. I personally have nothing to do with the news section, or much at all to do with the ‘Prince’ itself for that matter. I simply write my modest opinions and hope somebody cares enough to comment or email. Still, having endured many similar attacks myself as well as witnessing the tireless work of my peers to make this paper, I found myself often siding with the Daily Princetonian on major disputes.
A few months ago I wrote a column about the role emotions play in contentious issues and, more importantly, how they ultimately devalue the argument that a person is trying to make. I often find this to be the case whenever my peers discuss the paper, especially in the flame wars that have blown up in the comment threads on the ‘Prince’ website. This of course made it easier for me to dismiss the incessant criticism as senseless, ad hominem attacks, which I admit was unfairly self-righteous of me.
Yet as much as I tried to remain emotionally neutral, I slowly became increasingly agitated with the anti-‘Prince’ movement, culminating with an astoundingly popular Facebook post in recent weeks by somebody I consider to be my friend. Invoking phrases such as “disgusted,” “embarrassed” and “gossip rag,” he relentlessly drilled the paper. While he did not mention specifics, I knew what he was referring to. Such vitriol was nothing new, but the most astounding thing to me was the sheer amount of support he received, garnering over 700 Facebook likes.
It’s easy to fight back in the ‘Prince’ comment boards because just about everyone but myself comments anonymously. It’s very different when the criticism comes directly from friends. It hurts. It hurts an awful lot. So I lashed out in the best way I knew how. I ran to comment boards and Facebook and found the most hurtful comments. With my patience dry and my anger at critical mass, I wrote back. I replied with a sarcastic and dismissive tone, I insulted the commenters and I wrote in all capitals as if yelling gave any credence to my opinions. It showed I was mad, and that was all.
But I’m glad this happened. In that moment, I glimpsed within myself the very same sort of emotional biases that I so publicly detest. Psychological bias is really a fascinating topic. Scientifically speaking, it exists in all of us. Yet, its very nature precludes our awareness of its influences on our own thoughts and actions. I never want to become the sort of close-minded, backward-thinking individual that presumes personal infallibility. With that said, I have to concede that if 700 of my friends and peers can openly support such overt censuring of our school paper, there has to be some level of legitimacy to the mistrust of this paper on this campus, which often manifests itself in heated and hurtful attacks. Always skeptical of my own opinions, I had a lengthy and informative discussion with some very close friends that certainly made me question decisions that the paper has made in the past. Without going into to extraneous detail, we covered everything from publishing names and Tiger Inn gossiping to mission statements and the objective value of reporting truth. The result was this: my opinions about many issues changed, but my respect for the paper, its staff, and its values did not.
I’ve come to terms with the fact that the ‘Prince’ is not perfect. While I don’t agree, I know many think it is downright awful. In light of my reflections, I don’t agree with many decisions the paper has made. But the ‘Prince’ is still our paper, run by our peers and in many cases, our closest friends. While its practices should always be under heavy scrutiny, the motives of its staff who work tirelessly to make it a reality should not. When I hear friends claim that the ‘Prince’ is a corrupt, psychopathic gossip rag aimed at bullying its fellow students and shaming the Princeton community, it honestly breaks my heart. These sort of misguided, emotional reactions do not lead to meaningful improvement of our paper.
I encourage you all to read the letter from our new Editor-in-Chief Anna Mazarakis. She wonderfully lays out the motives of the ‘Prince.’ I promise you, from personal experience, she values your feedback and participation, as does the entire staff. They all want nothing more than to make the best paper they can make. So take the time to comment, email and participate, but know this. I’m willing to admit that my emotions have clouded my judgment at times. Now it’s your turn. Such hurtful, malicious or disrespectful criticisms will only turn away the very people who want to improve our paper and nothing will ever change.
ChristianWawrzonek is a computer science major from Pittsburgh, Pa. He can be reached atcjw5@princeton.edu.
Read More
Bring back the course packet
Abigail Rabieh“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
Community is built on empathy; stop politicizing it
Ava Johnson“The idea of creating “safe spaces” has been politicized and weaponized as part of a culture war when in reality it is merely a precursor to being in community with others.”
“The idea of creating “safe spaces” has been politicized and weaponized as part of a culture war when in reality it is merely a precursor to being in community with others.”
Princeton must center more Black stories through expanding Black theater
Jewel Justice“Why don’t shows like this happen more often? There is so much communal and cultural importance in centering Black voices through Black theater — and Princeton’s theater department must do more to create spaces to center Black voices, beyond stereotypical archetypes and traditional modes of theater-making it has adhered to.”
“Why don’t shows like this happen more often? There is so much communal and cultural importance in centering Black voices through Black theater — and Princeton’s theater department must do more to create spaces to center Black voices, beyond stereotypical archetypes and traditional modes of theater-making it has adhered to.”
