Not 'Anti-Intellectualism'
From the great diversity and volume of responses to our letter on undergraduate intellectual life, it is clear that we have struck a nerve with the student body and the University at large. At this point, we would like to thank all who have considered the contents of our letter. The public and private dialogue thus far has been encouraging. Today, we would like to clarify the intent of our letter to support the continuing conversation.
First of all, we would like to address those students who were frustrated or concerned by our letter in an attempt to overcome a potential misunderstanding. Many responses indicate a belief that our letter is somehow an indictment of students. Many have interpreted us to be calling students "anti-intellectual." We would simply like to say that our letter was motivated by no such belief. As we say in our letter, we believe that "there are a considerable number of groups and individuals engaged in wonderfully rich intellectual pursuits."
Most importantly, in defense of the student body, we suggest that a lackluster intellectual life among undergraduates may be caused by simple time constraints. Thus we propose that "the curiosity is there, just not the time." Perhaps, we should have written to students sooner to clarify that our letter was not meant to be an indictment of the student body.
Further, we never use the language of "anti-intellectualism" because we do not believe that it accurately describes our peers and friends. "Anti-intellectualism" is the quality of being "opposed or hostile to intellectuals or intellectual views." We certainly do not believe that students are hostile to all things intellectual, and those using this terminology have probably misunderstood what we're trying to say.
That is, simply, "that undergraduate intellectual life is not as vibrant as it could or should be, given the vast talents and curiosities of Princeton students." This is a problem that lends itself to no easy explanations and thus warrants careful analysis.
The use of terminology like "anti-intellectualism" is an example of the sort of rhetoric we would like to avoid, for such language presumes certain causes before we have understood the nature and scope of the problem. To use the phrase "anti-intellectualism" is to immediately attribute blame to students before we have adequately reviewed the problem. As Professor Fleming has noted in two recent columns, the problems plaguing undergraduate intellectual life are extraordinarily complex and cannot be understood without historical and institutional context. When one uses the language of "anti-intellectualism" one prematurely narrows his/her view of the problem.
In tackling this issue, it is imperative that we first take stock of the problem with as little bias as possible. Thus, we urge you to survey the facts of life at Princeton without prejudicing the outcome. Only a responsible and evenhanded inquiry into intellectual life will lead us toward fruitful discussion.
Our letter to the President and CPUC was meant to be a broad exposition of the problem. We invite others, along with Professor Fleming, to make additions and fill in the details. It is the students' responsibility to ensure that the University community is provided with an accurate portrait of our lives. Within this context, we can begin to look for causes.
So, as we move forward, we would like to encourage all students and faculty to continue to write us publicly or privately to convey your sense of the problem. We will formally resume the discussion in a public forum to be held one evening in the coming weeks. Details forthcoming.
Finally, it is appropriate to suggest where we see this going. It is our hope that by fostering widespread interest in this issue and by conveying a sufficiently comprehensive portrait of the intellectual culture, we will move the President to create an ad hoc task force (with strong student representation) to evaluate undergraduate intellectual life — with careful attention to institutional causes — and develop actionable policy recommendations. The U-Council Josh Anderson '04, Allison Arensman '04, Jeff Vinikoor '03, Taylor Henricks '03, Christopher Wendell '03, Weili Shaw '04, Elizabeth Biney-Amissah '04, Aaron Bianco '05, John Brunger '05, and Amy Saltzman '05
Nominations requested for the annual Univeristy Pyne Prize
I write to solicit nominations for the Pyne Prize, the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate, which will be awarded on Alumni Day, Saturday, Feb. 22, 2003.
In thinking about nomination, I would ask that you consider the following description:
M. Taylor Pyne Honor Prize. A prize awarded annually to the senior who has manifested in outstanding fashion the following qualifications: excellence in scholarship, character and effective support of the best interests of Princeton University. Founded in 1921 in remembrance of the life and character of M. Taylor Pyne, Class of 1877, Trustee of Princeton 1885-1921, by his cousin, Mrs. May Taylor Moulton Hanrahan, the prize is the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate. The prize consists of the income from this fund up to the prevailing comprehensive fee for one academic year.
The prize winner will be selected by the President of the University, the Deans of the College and of Undergraduate Students and the Secretary of the University community. We are eager to receive nominations from members of the University community. Please direct such names and, preferably, letters of nominations to my attention at 313 West College, by Friday, Jan. 3, 2003. Kathleen Deignan Dean of Undergraduate Students
Questioning the need for anonymity in journalism
Brad Simmons' column ("Keeping Labels Relevant: Stand up to the Identity Obsession") Oct. 24 performs an amazing feat of rhetorical sophistry: It manages to pervert a legitimate request for journalistic transparency into a spurious demand born of vindictiveness and moral relativism, while simultaneously skewing the wholly valid reasons for public acknowledgement of the authors of controversial articles.
Mr. Simmons suggests that the only possible reasons members of the public might have for wishing to know the identity of author of an article (specifically the unsigned sections of The Princeton Tory's "Rant" feature) are a predilection for vindictiveness and a desire to qualify unpleasant statements as the product of an individual's personal background or agenda. That Mr. Simmons would suggest that persons wishing to identify an article's author would only wish to do so in order to ostracize said author socially is almost as great an insult to the intellectual maturity of every student at Princeton as Mr. Simmons' condescending wish to "encourage those who feel this way to stop." Additionally, Mr. Simmons' loose, naive and hardly compelling portrayal of moral relativism, applied without even a semblance of philosophical rigor to the matter of journalistic identity in this case, may be construed as less of an affront and more of a reflection of Mr. Simmons' own sadly skewed and evidently unfortunate experiences with his fellow students.
Contrary to what Mr. Simmons would have us believe, there are powerful and compelling reasons for making public the identity of a journalist. While I can respect in certain situations the need for journalistic anonymity, such anonymity seems inappropriate in the case of the Princeton Tory, which does not, as the disclaimer at the beginning of the magazine states, accept responsibility as an institution for the opinions expressed within its pages. If the Tory does not wish to affiliate itself explicitly and unconditionally with the content of its pages — if the opinions expressed do not represent the opinions of the editors, staff, or magazine as a whole — then it becomes the responsibility of the magazine to provide the identity of its writers upon public request, or — even better — make such information immediately transparent upon publication.
In the "Rant" feature of The Tory, informal and casual criticisms (some bordering on outright attack or polemic) of individuals and groups ranging from Cornel West to the LGBT population to the Princeton Peace Network appeared in rapid fire. As far as I am concerned, opinion journalists can write — indeed should be absolutely free to write whatever they want, on whatever topic, however uninformed, narrow-minded, poorly defended, and factually inaccurate that writing might be. But if that journalist is unwilling to self-identify, she or he should make sure that the publication airing their obnoxiousness is perfectly willing to accept full responsibility, individually and collectively among its staff, for what is expressed.
So if Mr. Simmons, Mr. Hegseth, Mr. Beck, Mr. Baehr and every other member of The Tory staff is prepared to say, "Yes, as a matter of fact, homosexuality is abnormal and immoral," for example, then I am more than happy to grant the specific writer of that passage his/her anonymity.
For every assertion protected under that free speech there must be protected the opportunity for dissent. Utter anonymity can breed the abdication of journalistic responsibility and thus the need for authorial transparency: Without an author or responsible entity to whom to direct a response, there is no dialogue, there is no communication, there is no progress toward common ground. With free speech comes accountability, and that, Mr. Simmons, is the paramount reason for knowing the identity of a writer. Christine Barrett '03
Read More
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
What is a Princeton degree really for?
Joel IbabaoSo what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
So what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
If there’s one survey you fill out this year, make it the Year End Assessment
Jerry ZhuThe University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.
The University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.