Last April, during the brouhaha over Kyle Smith '09's approval ratings referendum, I wrote that there "was the sense ... that [the USG] would rather carry water for the administration than stand up for students." On COMBO, the USG lived up to this reputation.
COMBO was flawed and didn't contain any really earth-shattering revelations. (Rich kids are happier. There are more wealthy students in the bicker clubs than in the four-year colleges. People are more comfortable around other members of their own socioeconomic class. Students are generally well-off financially. Money plays more of a role in your social decisions if you're on a tighter budget. Shocking and wholly unexpected conclusions, I know.) But with those caveats aside, I'm willing to accept imperfect empirical results if they match what i believe to be true. If those results confirm uncomfortable truths and/or stereotypes that is also definitely news. When significant portions of the student body report that they aren't comfortable in the institutions that dominate the campus social scene, it is the responsibility of the USG to at least acknowledge that fact publicly.
The USG and administration have been telling The Daily Princetonian since last April that they have taken these realities into account by putting more books on reserve at Firestone and renewing the push for a campus pub. While both of those are laudable goals, I'm a little mystified as to how they directly address the most important issues raised by COMBO, which is, after all, evidence of widespread social segregation. As one comment on the ‘Prince's' website sarcastically put it, "Of course - my natural reaction after seeing this survey was, ‘Gee, we should have a campus pub!' "
By pretending that those small-bore issues are the main complaints raised by the survey, the USG is willfully ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Such deception was only possible if people could not compare the USG's conclusions to the underlying data. Had COMBO been published soon after it was completed, as it was supposed to have been, students could have judged for themselves how well the USG was protecting our interests. Instead, as Class of 2011 senator George Tsivin said in the Prince on October 1, the USG swept the inconvenient truths under the carpet to protect Princeton's image.
I understand that confirming some negative stereotypes about Princeton is not good for the University. But the USG is not supposed to serve as another arm of the Office of COmmunication and only present the school in the best light possible. The USG is supposed to be a student voice that speaks up when there are problems and searches for solutions. Knowing about a serious issue and publicly pretending that it doesn't exist in the hope that it might magically disappear is not a solution. It is, in fact, the opposite of a solution.
Instead of obsessing over a campus pub that the Borough can and will block, maybe the USG could actually look at the data and come up with something new that has a hope of becoming a reality. If the only thing our elected representatives took away from COMBO is that we need more books in the library and a campus pub then they should resign immediately. If they didn't bother to read it and see the damning conclusions in plain English on page one, then that is hardly a defense.
No, the real problem here is systemic dishonesty. The real problem here is that students can't trust what they are told. The real problem here is that our representatives felt it was more important to maintain a facade than to fix the underlying fundamental failures. The real problem here is that the USG is either too incompetent or too embedded in the system to effectively challenge and confront the inequalities of Princeton.
And the real, real, problem here is definitely that Princeton seems to be divided along class lines to some extent. With that now in the open, the question is: What do we do about it? If the student response is to push for a campus pub that will never come to be, absent a lowered drinking age, then it will be the administration's response - the four-year colleges that to my mind actually facilitate the very stratification that we just confirmed exists - that carries the day.
Barry Caro is a history major from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
