On dry Bicker and minority students' social life
The decision by some eating clubs this week to conduct "Dry Bicker" was made solely by members of the undergraduate and graduate boards of those clubs. At no time did the University, Borough Police or any other outside authority attempt to suggest, influence, pressure or intimidate those clubs into making that decision. Out of respect for the integrity and sensibility of those who made the decision, we ask the University community please to dismiss any notion to the contrary. Doyl Burkett '98 President, Cap & Gown Club Temp Keller '98 President, Ivy Club
'You killed Bicker'
We can clone humans. We have that in our capabilities. We don't. Why?
Well, the scientific community has gotten together and decided that human cloning would be irresponsible. The fact that it can be done does not mean that it should. Judgment and integrity steered people to that conclusion.
This type of judgment did not appear in your coverage of the recent events surrounding Bicker. Even I, a freshman, know that Bicker is very much on the "DL." There doesn't need to be an article explaining what goes on, because it ruins it. There are all sorts of things that go on at Princeton which could be very damaging to people if they were reported; but these things in themselves do not hurt anybody. The same applies to Bicker. The only people who need to know what goes on are the members of the clubs and the bickerees – who have entered, willingly, into a contract to subject themselves to anything thrown at them. None of them are complaining, and even if they were, it's their own fault and not that of the clubs. Your irresponsible reporting has shed light on something that has survived, and thrived, in the dark for generations – something that people seem to enjoy.
I guess all that I'm saying is, don't report things – even true things –that can only do more harm than good to the community. For now, just be happy with your dirt-digging exclusive. Congratulations, you killed Bicker. Patrick Malone '01
Minorities respond
This week's series on the social life of minorities had the potential to be an informative and interesting discussion. Instead, we were disappointed to see such a misconstrued and puerile analysis of an important topic.
We were first approached by a Princetonian reporter who was attempting to ascertain the dimensions of the social life and its effects on minorities at the University. As African-American females, our experiences over the past several years have lent us a certain perspective that we believed could have positively contributed to the article. Unfortunately, this contribution could have occurred only if our words had not been taken out of context and misrepresented.
The article had the possibility of being a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of majority and minority social interactions. However, the end result was a cursory exploration of a nonrepresentational sample of minorities within a limited number of clubs. We were saddened that even the reproduced opinions were presented in a damaging way. In the future, we would suggest that The Daily Princetonian require its journalists to invest in a tape recorder, and to exercise a sense of responsibility in accurately portraying the opinions of their classmates.
Instead of offering viable solutions for maximizing the Princeton experience for all members of the community, this series of articles on minorities has simply heightened the feelings of discontent and divisiveness within the University. We will not attempt to justify the horrible misquotes in the articles; those who know us understand that we do not profess to the beliefs and opinions represented. We hope, however, that those who do not know us will not embrace the inaccurate statements made in the series on the social life for minorities. We also hope that in the future we can all attempt to resolve the issues of minority social options on campus in a more meaningful way. Ayana Mangum '98 Erica McCormick '99 Nubia Alexander '99 Therenah Sesay '98 Editor's Note: Nubia Alexander and Therenah Sesay were not quoted in the series.
Read More
Why postdocs are demanding open bargaining
Guest Contributors"Princeton’s resistance to the presence of observers is a break from many academic union negotiations. At Harvard, Weill Cornell, Mt Sinai, Columbia University, and the University of Washington, there are no limits on observers."
"Princeton’s resistance to the presence of observers is a break from many academic union negotiations. At Harvard, Weill Cornell, Mt Sinai, Columbia University, and the University of Washington, there are no limits on observers."
Mineral extraction is destroying the Congo. Princeton must source sustainably.
Luqmaan Bamba“As an important and influential institution in the global green energy transition, Princeton’s role is to commit, and commit actively, to that vision of ethical sourcing for its climate infrastructure.”
“As an important and influential institution in the global green energy transition, Princeton’s role is to commit, and commit actively, to that vision of ethical sourcing for its climate infrastructure.”
Vote ‘No’ on Referendum No. 5. Here’s why.
Judah Guggenheim“Referendum No. 5 calls on the University to divest from American defense companies including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX (formerly Raytheon), and General Dynamics. The referendum ignores the necessary role that these companies play in defending democracy in American allies across the world.’’
“Referendum No. 5 calls on the University to divest from American defense companies including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX (formerly Raytheon), and General Dynamics. The referendum ignores the necessary role that these companies play in defending democracy in American allies across the world.’’
