In defense of the Pre-read
Any current Princetonian has probably seen the open letter addressed to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, appealing for (political, though it never says so directly) diversity in the selection of books assigned as Pre-reads to incoming first-years. The author bemoans the “tediousness” and “aridity” of recent selections, and posits what she describes as unfamiliar views, to be beneficial not only to “the free debate of diverse perspectives,” but also to stimulating discussion during and beyond the orientation discussion of these texts. While I am often reluctant to wade into public political discussions as I am not American, nor am I usually inclined to action, I found the author’s argument interesting and impulsively began to pen a response. I found her claim that the Pre-read is a good opportunity to introduce diverse texts to be misplaced, and laced with the unfounded accusation that this tradition serves as a channel through which readers are fed biased information. And while I agree with many of the author’s premises, I disagree with her about replacing the “dry” Pre-reads with more exciting texts simply to stimulate conversation.