Last Friday was bad enough, but I could deal. I was forced to watch hundreds of proud alumni, decked out in jackets of various tiger stripes and plaids, come back to Old Nassau for the dedication of the new Frist Campus Center. I even sat on the steps of Whig Hall and listened to the marching band play in celebration.
But when I read in a staff editorial in the Oct. 23 edition of the 'Prince' that Frist has decidedly "won over" University students, it was the last straw.
I do not like the campus center.
If I could, I'd never enter.
I do not like the way it feels.
I do not like the price of meals.
I could go on, Dr. Seuss-style, ad nauseum, if my gripes about the Frist Center really had to do with prices, the impenetrable mailbox locks or the fact that it has the ambience of a sweatshop — but there is a more serious problem here. I think the Frist Center and Friday's whole extravaganza are symptomatic of a disturbing trend here at Princeton.
The Frist Campus Center is a product of the University's successful fund-raising campaign. President Shapiro has done a good job with that task, but raising money is not enough. It is merely the means to an end. What matters most is how the money is used.
Sure, the Campus Center is convenient. But is that all that really matters to us? Convenience? Are we really as spoiled by consumer culture as the media would have us believe? Is a single-swipe card really the solution to all our problems? Do you really care that you can now buy stamps more conveniently? Think about it: Is it really anything about Frist in and of itself that you like, or is it just the convenience?
I don't deny that Frist is hyper-functional. I eat several meals there weekly. I go to the cafe for a drink on the way to class almost every morning. But mere convenience is not adequate justification for such an exorbitant expenditure. I could fill this editorial space by simply listing, one by one, things that we could have better spent this money on than the construction of a sterile, ultra-modern, glorified food court. Here are just a few of them:
First, while the University has just used millions of dollars for the Frist Center and has billions in its endowment, it is still woefully inadequate in the courses it offers, professors it hires and opportunities it makes available for the study of non-traditional — especially non-Western — ideas and culture. Some, if not all, of the money could have been used to remedy these deficiencies.
Second, if the money needed to be used for non-academic pursuits, why couldn't we have built a new theater or offered further support for the creative arts? A recent column in the 'Prince' by Eric Bland '02 noted the creative use of the Prospect House lawn for the production of the "Merry Wives of Windsor." Creative and admirable, yes, but necessary? I think not.
Third, though this brings up an altogether different issue, repeated columns in the 'Prince' have described the University's abominable practices in relation to compensating and providing health benefits to its non-faculty employees and graduate students. Couldn't some money have been used to expand those programs?
And finally, let's not forget Frist's lasting impact. The new campus center has created a literal shift away from the traditional geographic center of the University and a metaphorical shift away from the arts and humanities. By moving the center of campus, literally, from the Chancellor Green-East Pyne-Firestone-McCosh area down to Frist, students are corraled toward the natural sciences and — not coincidentally — the more modern parts of campus. Do we really want to be so hasty in our embrace of modern technology and the lure of the almighty dollar that we forget where we are — at a tradition-rich, historic liberal arts institution?
Look, if you don't agree with me that's fine. Enjoy Frist. (I will too.) Call me an idealist. Call me a sore loser who is angry that his favorite old hangouts on campus (the Wa, Chancellor Green) have been overrun by this paean to capitalist greed.
But at least do me one favor. The next time you saunter into Frist at your leisure to have a cup of fancy tea, or to eat food from the exotic Mongolian grill or to watch the World Series on the luxurious, big screen TV, take at least a moment to consider why you're here at Princeton. And then consider whether or not the University can really justify spending money on late-night convenience stores when so many more pressing academic concerns exist.
President Clinton was here just a few weeks ago to talk about the progressive tradition in America. Maybe it's time we take a look at ourselves and considered what we're doing to promote that tradition. Is erecting a self-serving, self-gratifying monument — while other educational concerns go by the wayside — really what Clinton or President Woodrow Wilson 1879 would have had in mind for this University, or for this country? I highly doubt it. Dan Wachtell is a philosophy major from Rye, N.Y. He can be reached at wachtell@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton is more than prestige and aesthetics. The pre-frosh experience must reflect that.
Sasha Malena JohnsonFrom the acceptance letter to Princeton Preview, perhaps Princeton is too removed in the way it treats its pre-frosh and too reliant on visuals and prestige during the period after Ivy Day. Princeton should prioritize efforts to connect with prospective students in written communication and work on making Princeton Preview more socially and intellectually engaging.
From the acceptance letter to Preview Days, perhaps Princeton is too removed in the way it treats its pre-frosh and too reliant on visuals and prestige during the period after Ivy Day. Princeton should prioritize efforts to connect with prospective students in written communication and work on making Preview Days more socially and intellectually engaging.
By erasing Hamas and the Oct. 7 attacks, PIAD’s proposal is unproductive and deeply unsettling
Judah Guggenheim“But the PIAD proposal gives no indication as to how boycotting or divesting from Israel will lead to a better future for Palestinians, because it never addresses what that future will actually look like.”
“But the PIAD proposal gives no indication as to how boycotting or divesting from Israel will lead to a better future for Palestinians, because it never addresses what that future will actually look like.”
Princeton, turn construction efforts to our education
Abigail Rabieh“It’s too easy to leave Princeton without the transcendent liberal arts education that the University extols when the only intellectual guidance comes in the form of general platitudes and an inconstant and inadequate advising system.”
"It’s too easy to leave Princeton without the transcendent liberal arts education that the University extols when the only intellectual guidance comes in the form of general platitudes and an inconstant and inadequate advising system."
