1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Recently, I penned an opinion column about the lack of liberal news coverage of the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl at a high school in Rockville, Maryland. My column was, arguably, both conservative and controversial. I expected some would naturally take issue with my opinion, and indeed, my colleague Ryan Chavez wrote a response almost immediately. But Chavez’s response was riddled with problems in itself, both in its logic and, more importantly, in its journalistic integrity. It warrants a response.
There’s a maddening culture of competition on this campus. It’s the least you can expect at such a school, but it definitely creates a sense of overwhelming stress for many students. Tragically, this often leads to mental health problems. Behind of this stress and competition, the Honor Code plays a distinguishable role.
In her March 29 opinion column titled “Outrage,” Jacquelyn Thorbjornson demands that we be in an uproar over the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by two of her classmates because liberal media organizations are protecting the defendants, due to their status as undocumented immigrants. The article is calling for outrage on the Maryland rape case, but more specifically the alleged failings of liberal media, itself perpetuating the unconsented exploitation of private tragedy for public, partisan attacks. A 14-year-old may have just been raped in a high school bathroom. Should the conversation on that focus on attacks on undocumented immigrants and attacks on liberal media outlets? Should we be having a national conversation on that at all?
It’s tempting to speculate that the lingering artifacts of grade deflation are still at play on campus — when the orgo exam is curved down, when your professor boasts about a 50 percent average on the math midterm, when the “Harvard easy A” jokes are forever funny. The policy of grade deflation is the common enemy and the most reliable scapegoat.
In your edition on April 3, you published an open letter to me from the Princeton Private Prison Divest Coalition. The letter raised a number of questions that I know are of interest to many members of the campus community. I have addressed those questions in the following open letter to the PPPDC.
It’s obvious that women athletes receive biased and inferior media coverage compared to their male counterparts: everything from the #LikeAGirl advertisements to the Cover the Athlete movement to article after article in the news highlights this discrepancy. While some differences between male and female athletes’ salaries, endorsements, and media coverage may be attributable to economics, gender prejudices and discriminatory attitudes are pervasive in sports, affecting and perpetuating sexist treatment of athletes in insidious ways.
You’re a Princetonian. You’re about to graduate. Do you take that offer with Goldman, hoping to make millions, or do you go with a nonprofit, making a few thousand but likely doing better for the world? Are you going to sell out?
In her op-ed “Outrage,” columnist Jacquelyn Thorbjornson ’19 took the mainstream media to task for not covering a rape allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants at a high school in Rockville, Md.
Two weeks ago, the University became embroiled in a dispute regarding the confidentiality of using affirmative action in the admissions process, a practice that a conservative interest group, Students for Fair Admissions, is portraying as a civil rights violation against Asian applicants. The University filed a lawsuit in order to block the release of documents relating to a civil rights complaint that SFA filed a year ago with the Department of Justice, alleging anti-Asian bias in the University’s college admissions process. SFA argued that the University was depressing Asian admission rates. In its view, even though the number of Asian applicants had increased, the percentage of Asian undergraduates at Princeton remained constant.
“It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug.”
“If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got no reason to hide.” That adage needs some serious rethinking in a world where the word “wrong” can mean something different to every person.
Why can’t some kind of jointly-operated music school be developed with Princeton University? Why not a newly-contoured school where students are chosen for admission based on their musical abilities, where the degrees they receive come from either Rider or Princeton, depending on where they matriculate? Westminster Choir College is too wonderful a place to let slip down the drain. It is the crown jewel of choral music schools and of our community.
We all follow implicit rules that dictate when and how to touch other people. It’s something we rarely talk about, and even the phrase “touch people” is something of a perversion or a corny spiritual platitude.
“It’s late,” I say. “I try to be in bed by midnight.”
Last week, while the nation was focused on the healthcare debate, a 14-year-old girl was brutally raped in a bathroom stall at her high school in Rockville, Maryland. The two alleged rapists, ages 18 and 17, freshmen at Rockville High School, are undocumented immigrants. Their immigration status has thrust the case into the midst of a heated national debate about immigration policy and reform.
Last summer, Canadian writer
Malcolm Gladwell argued that donating to Princeton was a
“moral crime.” When people decide to donate their money to a cause, he noted,
they must also consider where that money is not going. He assumes that people donate
to improve the lives of others, and, therefore, that they are wrong to donate to the school
with the largest per capita endowment in the world, where the impact of
their donation is minimal.
We live in an age where “alternative facts” is a euphemism for lies. More than ever, we need people committed to truth. We need journalists.
On March 9, the University’s Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination hosted a lunch seminar with former Prime Minister of Portugal and former President of the EU Commission José Manuel Barroso. Prime Minister Barroso’s speech highlighted the need, in the face of increased nationalism around the world, for a renewed confidence and investment in the European Union. The EU and any such supranational organization only flourishes, Barasso said, when its member-states take pride in such international cooperation and embrace the nature of the institution.