I don’t see why an author’s skin color should play any role in evaluating an argument. People, arguments, viewpoints, and listserv posts should be judged by their content, not by their color.
Science alone cannot combat this pandemic without substantial help from the humanities and a well-blended combination of both in an individual’s education equips them with lifelong tools to respond in the time of a crisis.
Antiracism is not about replacing or rewriting history. It is about the intellectual sincerity of learning different aspects of history. Princeton is not being asked to erase its curriculum, it is being beseeched to complete it.
Our “apolitical” campus seems to be bordering on apathetic. Although voting has never been more important, Princetonians are still lagging behind the rest of the country and even other universities in voter turnout. The 2020 elections are coming fast, and we should not — we cannot — stand behind the walls of the “bubble” while others decide our future for us.
At best, talk of academic freedom absent a thorough and honest account of ethical research conduct is grandstanding. At worst, it’s a tried and true way to sustain white privilege, uphold the culture of white supremacy, and remain comfortable while others take up the hard work of anti-racism.
We, the undersigned students and alumni of the Princeton Department of Classics and the Department of Linguistics, unequivocally denounce “A Declaration of Independence by a Princeton Professor,” written by Professor of Classics Joshua T. Katz. We condemn its demonization of student organizers, its belittling of faculty members in their support of anti-racism, and its flippant dismissal of efforts to combat systemic racism at Princeton while minimizing the very presence of that racism itself.
We must all work hard to respectfully converse with and listen to each other. This can be tedious, tiring, and painfully frustrating. Further, we should attempt to bracket theoretical differences to create practical, humanitarian change and not ideologically backed revolution. If we fail, then what comes next will be a society that may be better but will be fundamentally unjust. A society founded on injustices will be doomed to repeat them.
The recent Supreme Court decision indicates that the steps that are being taken to restrict women’s freedom are occurring within marginalized communities, and are working subtly to build up the burdens placed on women trying to access a (still) tiny, legal pill.
Sally Frank was not a club officer, and yet she persisted until all the clubs were coeducated.
We must recognize that a “conundrum of change” only exists if you’re ignorant of the past, unwilling to admit that you’re wrong, and indifferent to the suffering of others.
Princeton’s international students have always been a key part of the vibrant academic and social community the University is greatly known for. Dismissing them during these times would be of great disservice to Princeton as a whole.
As part of this University, we should be tied together more by seriousness regarding racial justice than by the disciplinary matters that many of us promote and pride.
Both this country and the University have a long history of benefiting from foreign talent; international students and scholars have been part of the lifeblood of American academia since the dawn of this nation. To allow this injustice and manipulation to persist would be to watch idly as the United States is led further into isolationism and darkness.
Even though ICE’s modifications say the government does not want you in the United States, I know that myself and the University want you here to complete your Princeton education. The Princeton community is not the same without you.
As members of the Princeton Filipino Community, we would like to take this moment to provide further context about Filipino current events, reflect on our country’s experiences with dictatorship and struggle for representation, and express our continued hope for the future of the Philippines and for democracy.
What Rajasekar and POCC misunderstand is that their voices are not unheard; they are rather — for perhaps the first time in a long time — unheeded. That is a sign of positive change for Princeton.
It is a sad reality that the mission of the Prize has become only more urgent in the 17 years since its founding. While racial animus, ever present in our American experience, has seeped even more into the national discourse, we are nonetheless inspired and rejuvenated in hope by each years’ Prize winners. We are also invigorated by the ongoing opportunities for Princeton alumni to gather together to further explore our own racial identities and to push each other to expand our anti-racist actions.
Put more simply, we care a great deal about how discourse is conducted at a university and could not care less about what.
The [POCC] piece’s core arguments are the product of an ignorance that is neither honest nor neutral. This ignorance is deliberate, unapologetic, and weaponized.
The Andlinger Center is being used.
