Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor: Publishing the Honor System Review Committee’s charge

We write to provide an update on the process by which we are reviewing the recent referenda regarding the Honor Constitution.  As explained in a letter sent to students on Jan. 4, three of the four proposed amendments were remanded for consideration by the faculty Committee on Examinations and Standing.

Letter to the Editor: What is consensual?

Should there necessarily be violent resistance in order to prove it is unwelcome? Does silence in a career-threatening situation imply that it was welcome? If I had not reported that Sergio Verdú sexually harassed me in fear of losing my research career, would it not have been sexual harassment?

Letter to the Editor: Too much to ask

Have the lives taken by suicide at our school not been enough of a red flag? This is our call to action.

U.'s malfunction with the recent sexual misconduct

Sexual misconduct, and the University's inadequate response to it, has become a much needed topic of discussion, in part because of Yeohee Im’s bravery to discuss it. As was reported this week in the Daily Princetonian, I was one of the people who gave reports to the University surrounding this incident. Notably, the reports began even before Yeohee’s unfortunate incident.

Letter to the Editor: In defense of women affiliated with Sergio Verdú

I would like to respond to a recent article in The Daily Princetonian detailing “new allegations'' against my colleague and mentor, Professor Sergio Verdú. It is troubling how this article constructs its narrative by enveloping Verdú, as well as all the women associated with him, in a fog of rumor, suspicion, and supposition. By publishing an article with such sensationalism and general lack of concrete facts the ‘Prince’ appears to be driven by a tunnel vision desire to vilify Verdú, and not by journalistic integrity, duty to inform the public, or concern for the women involved.

Open Letter to Sophomores

Remember that eating clubs are only one potential aspect of your upperclassmen life. Decisions are scary, but they also lead to exciting changes! 

Emptiness and consciousness: Still unseen limits of American politics

In the end, credulity remains America's worst enemy. Our still willing inclination to believe that personal and societal redemption can somehow lie in politics describes a potentially fatal disorder. 

Letter to the editor: a challenge to Rouse

Students who remained missed the opportunity to join their fellow students outside the classroom, to be curious about the histories and lived experiences that make this one word so intolerable. 

Letter to the Editor: In defense of the students who walked out on Rosen

As an anthropologist teaching in the Princeton Writing Program whose courses regularly involve offensive material, I would like to weigh in on the recent controversy surrounding Lawrence Rosen’s use of the N-word in his class. In short, I write in support of the students who walked out on Rosen.

Letter to the Editor: In defense of Black Princetonians

Letter to the Editor: I am hereby skipping my morning run to write a brief response to Professor Rouse's Feb. 8 letter. 

Letter to the Editor: In defense of the students who walked out of Rosen’s class

In her February 8th letter to the editor, Professor Carolyn Rouse offered a pedagogy for Rosen’s class as contextual background for why certain students should not have walked out. Unfortunately, her letter entirely misses the point as to why the students walked out of class. 

Letter to the Editor: In defense of Rosen

I write to provide important context to the events reported on Feb. 7 in the Daily Princetonian story “Students walk out of anthropology lecture after professor uses the word “n****r.” Like every semester, professor Lawrence Rosen started the class by breaking a number of taboos in order to get the students to recognize their emotional response to cultural symbols. Rosen was fighting battles for women, Native Americans, and African-Americans before these students were born. 

Letter to the Editor: Why we march

Princeton Pro-Life (PPL) is a campus group. The President may be reached at acavasos@princeton.edu.

Letter to the Editor: Setting the table

At Princeton, another year has come and gone, and with it the cycle of all our peculiar rituals. This week, a significant portion of the junior and senior classes gather in big mansions behind locked doors (they’re locked: I’ve checked) to cast judgment on a significant portion of the sophomore class. They will display the sophomore’s names and photos, hear the case for and against the social merits of each, and then, one by one, vote on whether or not to admit the sophomore in question into their mansion. 

Mental Health Peers: A needed support system

I propose the establishment of Mental Health Peers. Mental Health Peers will provide a concrete service in the University community by training students how to be friends in mental crisis. We will train our friends, classmates, and peers how to talk about mental health.

The Republican tax bill is a disaster for millennials

On the Honor Code Referenda: Why aren’t we mobilizing?

Princeton undergraduate students and alumni: You should be absolutely furious right now. We just had our (honor-) constitutionally-endowed rights obliterated by a short email sent by several administrators. These rights were guaranteed to us 125 years ago with the establishment of the Honor Constitution and yet, one well-timed email was enough to dismantle them.

Letter to the Editor: Honor Code Reform remanding was provoked outright

The administrators who wrote the email did not do anything untoward. The erroneous, careless, and irresponsible actions of the USG and the USG subcommittee unnecessarily constructed this ignominious debacle. 

Letter to the Editor: Response to the EIC’s response

I write in response to Sarah Sakha’s response to my opinion piece demonstrating that Title IX proceedings are far less fair than those of the Honor Code. I have nothing to add to my original argument, which was based on an undisputed, factual comparison of the two sets of procedures. As Sakha herself wrote: “Ultimately, I agree with Berger’s overarching argument. Yes, the Honor Code Constitution presents stipulations far stricter than those presented by Title IX regulations.” In response to Sakha’s piece, I have three additional points. 

Letter to the Editor: Concerning amendments to the constitution of the Honor System

As I understand it, the undergraduate student body correctly followed this procedure as prescribed by the Constitution, and therefore successfully amended the Constitution. The deans and vice president outlined their thinking to the contrary, stating, “these proposals represent a significant departure from prior practice and exceed the scope of the responsibility delegated to the student body by the faculty concerning the Honor System. The proposals would also place the penalties for violating the Honor Code for in-class examinations out of alignment with academic integrity violations adjudicated by the faculty-student Committee on Discipline in cases of plagiarism and other out-of-class academic infractions.”