Rather than think of Berman’s article as a critique of hypocrisy in campus protests, we can reasonably understand it as an appeal to conservative ideals while hiding behind social justice language and employing Islamophobic and racist rhetoric.
I cannot fathom how Princeton might struggle to replace sexual harassers. Surely the University can find faculty with not just high academic standards, but also acceptable moral ones.
The irony of Sarsour's being invited to speak at the University’s Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding is not lost on me. Every American should be offended by Sarsour. Yet the answer isn’t to ban her. More than ever, free speech is critical on campus. Although Sarsour’s arguments are indefensible, the bigotry and prejudice that she espouses will only be eradicated with dedicated and rigorous discourse.
Technology is a tool to improve society but shouldn’t be idolized. It is a means and not an end. Unless we think critically about what purpose we are building towards, we may find ourselves inventing things that would be better off not existing. History is rife with examples of technology going wrong or even being used to advance death and destruction, from the A-bomb to Zyklon B. Furthermore, there are some things that technology may never be able to do. I am skeptical that an app will ever cure depression or heal racial divides. We should not approach technology unquestioningly, but rather with a balance of both hope and realism about its limitations.
In my six-week Global Seminar experience in Cuba, I felt challenged in ways I never had during my first two years on campus. I was constantly placed in situations beyond my comfort zone: navigating the language barrier, understanding religious ceremonies, being perceived as a clear outsider for the first time in my life. But the fact that the course was a Princeton program provided a comfortable community to share all of these experiences. I learned while being mentored and was challenged alongside my peers. Having grown so significantly, both personally and academically, in only a half-semester, I cannot imagine my Princeton experience without this international component.
When an advisor sexually harasses a student, that student has no good options. If a student pushes back, they must worry about the potential far-reaching impact on their career, and they may have to change research fields entirely. We must adopt a zero-tolerance policy, where violation equals termination.
For the foreseeable future, Princeton, bound by its voluntary agreement with the Office of Civil Rights, will continue to operate under the preponderance of the evidence standard, will complete each investigation within 60 calendar days of receiving a complaint, and will not allow for mediation or informal resolution between a complainant and a respondent. DeVos’s changes, however, reflect the Department of Education’s changing views on Title IX, and may foreshadow future guidelines that would affect Princeton’s policies.
I do not think it is necessarily fair to say that President Eisgruber “sides by default with the political agenda of those who place corporate special interests over the public good.”
Princeton graduate students could see their tax bills skyrocket to $11,000 or more if the Republican tax bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives becomes law.
Princeton experiences are shaped by exploring passions and interests as much as the University allows, while careers come into play naturally almost as if they’re afterthoughts.
At a recent Goldman Sachs information session, I asked the recruiter, "In the event that I join the firm shortly before a recession, what are the chances that I will keep my job?"
Weinstein’s long history of harassment and assault was an “open secret” in Hollywood. People knew something was deeply wrong, and they did nothing. It’s a case study in the long, slow failure of bystander intervention. That’s the third tough truth: in a situation where women feared speaking out, men in particular found it easy to keep quiet and look away while Weinstein kept on. Quentin Tarantino has admitted he knew about Weinstein from firsthand accounts: he’s ashamed he did nothing, and has called on other men of power and influence to “do better by our sisters.”
More and more, the political environment of the United States has become concerned with symbols. In this environment, great questions of morality, justice, progress, and even philosophy are infused into national dialogue through symbology. Symbols appear on both sides of the political spectrum, emanating not only from the leaders in our democracy, but also the voices of the people. The symbols are not pictures or logos, nor insignias or crests; these symbols are the actions, the decisions, the conduct, and the ultimate successes and failures of our political system entirely.
In an age of expansive building renovations, from the new Lewis Arts Center to the restoration of the University Chapel’s roof, one building stands out for its sheer obstinate age, lack of comfort, and indelible presence in the academic careers of most undergraduates. I am referring, of course, to McCosh Hall. My simple question is: why does McCosh suck?
I remember when I was accepted to Princeton. It was a Friday, the infamous Ivy Day, to be exact, when all Ivy League schools send out their decisions, leaving thousands of high school seniors feeling extremely ecstatic or extremely inadequate. After other college rejections, I opened each Ivy League letter with low expectations.
“I choose now to live as a gay man,” Kevin Spacey solemnly acknowledged in a tweet. By "now," he means the crucial first moment after he was accused of sexual assault by a man who was, at the time, a minor. By "now," he means when it is most opportune. After reports surfaced of Spacey allegedly molesting Anthony Rapp in 1986, when Rapp was 14, the world awaited Spacey’s statement with bated breath, wondering how the notoriously private actor would respond to the explosive allegations. The answer, perhaps, is best summed up by comedian Billy Eichner on Twitter, “Kevin Spacey has just invented something that has never existed before: a bad time to come out.”
So why do critiques of business practices constitute political statements, but enthusiastic endorsements are considered apolitical? It would be one thing if Eisgruber conceded that business practices with large-scale social consequences (such as corporate welfare or gentrification) may be inherently political, or if he clearly defined the difference between a political statement and an evaluation of a company’s ethical strengths and weaknesses. It’s the inconsistency that is most troubling.