In particular, the story stated that the number of student workers dissatisfied with working conditions was "significant" and "not a minority." The ‘Prince' cannot attest to the actual number of students who are unhappy with their work environment in the dining hall, and we did not have grounds to imply that more than half of Dining Services employees felt negatively about their jobs. In fact, the reporter indicated to an editor that the majority of students he had spoken to were satisfied with their employment in the dining halls.
The article also failed to investigate whether the specific conditions that students cited as reasons for their departure still held true. Additionally, we failed to solicit comments from Dining Services officials or student managers on the issues raised in the story or on dining hall employment conditions in general.
Furthermore, though the story presented the views of students who truly enjoyed their employment in dining halls, the story's overall tone remained unbalanced. The story had been intended to explore students' feelings about a form of work-study employment that is more physically involving than other on-campus jobs, but in the end, it did not present an objective analysis.
The story has stirred up a considerable reaction, both in the form of comments on our website and the op-ed written by Jordan Bubin '09 that appeared in Friday's paper. Student Dining Services workers and others have been quick to point out the many flaws in the story, and we welcome their open criticism.
The editors working on the story were committed to a particular line of inquiry and thus did not fully incorporate information that contradicted their pre-conceived thrust of the article. In addition, they did not adequately guide reporting to capture a wider range of student opinion and failed to address the unbalanced tone of the story before it went to print.
For these errors, the ‘Prince' takes full responsibility and issues an apology, especially to those Dining Services employees and managers who felt personally slighted or misrepresented. We have taken several steps to address the procedural mistakes that led to the story's publication, including ensuring that every story is subjected to significant scrutiny from high-level editors and requiring writers to review the final versions of their stories to make sure the final results are accurate and balanced. It is our sincere hope that these measures will prevent such a lapse in journalistic standards in the future.
Read More
A ‘climate apocalypse’ is all but inevitable. Why aren’t we planning for it?
Alexander MargulisNot only must every Princeton student think about what sort of life they can — or should — build in the context of an ever-warming world, but also that the climate activists on campus who intend to spur this sort of thinking often end up discouraging it.
Not only must every Princeton student think about what sort of life they can — or should — build in the context of an ever-warming world, but also that the climate activists on campus who intend to spur this sort of thinking often end up discouraging it.
Princeton, don’t budge on Title IX
Charlie YaleTrump’s changes to Title IX signal more dire attacks on education are to come in the future. Princeton has a responsibility to do everything it can to prevent them.
Trump’s changes to Title IX signal more dire attacks on education are to come in the future. Princeton has a responsibility to do everything it can to prevent them.
In case you haven’t noticed, the target is already on our back
Isaac BarsoumIf I could say anything to the University about this, here is what it would be: when there is a target on your back, you do not stand still and wait for the arrow to strike. You put on a bulletproof vest, hunker down into a foxhole, and fire back.
If I could say anything to the University about this, here is what it would be: when there is a target on your back, you do not stand still and wait for the arrow to strike. You put on a bulletproof vest, hunker down into a foxhole, and fire back.
