Regarding “Coming before the Committee” (Monday, April 27, 2009):
Having observed Princeton’s disciplinary process at work on numerous occasions as an adviser helping students accused of plagiarism to address their charges, I was dismayed by the egregiously misleading portrayal of this process by the ‘Prince,’ especially it’s patently false assertion that students brought before the Committee on Discipline (COD) are “assumed guilty until proven innocent.” While I have sometimes felt that the committee’s penalties are more draconian than I would like, I have always found the committee scrupulously fair, careful and thorough in reaching its decision.
Incredibly, the ‘Prince’ takes the words of a student found guilty of plagiarism that “[with] the COD, you are guilty until proven innocent,” and presents them in its own voice as a factual assertion about the University’s disciplinary procedures. Had the Prince relied on more authoritative sources for its claims, it would know that “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” states that the committee must “conclude that the evidence presented constitutes a clear and persuasive case in support of the charges brought against the student.” I have found that the committee strictly adheres to this standard. As I tell all the students I have advised, its members go to great pains to ask detailed questions about every aspect of the case that might help them reach a fair decision, and the committee’s lengthy deliberations are legendary amongst administrators. The committee knows that it must balance its responsibility for enforcing the University’s commitment to academic integrity with a recognition of the great consequence of their decisions on the accused students, and they approach their decisions with enormous intelligence, care and even compassion for the students before them.
There is room for healthy debate over the penalties meted out by the COD. Unfortunately, the ‘Prince’ does little to further a healthy debate on Princeton’s disciplinary procedures and penalties when it presents them so misleadingly.
Matthew Lazen
Director of Studies
Butler College
Column unfairly misrepresents intent of “stop ignorance” poster campaign
Regarding “When politics trumps purpose” (Monday, April 24, 2009):
In his column “When Politics Trumps Purpose,” Brandon McGinley wrote that he did not think it appropriate for University funds to be used to sponsor a campaign in support of same-sex marriage, for it would suggest the University took a position on such a controversial issue. I am not writing to debate on one side or the other of this question, but rather to clarify the intentions of the “Stop Ignorance” campaign.
The posters in that campaign were designed to expose and refute common stereotypes regarding LGBTQ individuals; none of them were designed to raise the issue of same-sex marriage. Indeed, the first poster McGinley referenced in his editorial— one of two men embracing with “In Love 18 Months” written below their photograph, and which McGinley stated led him to believe the posters were made to support same-sex marriage — was in fact designed to counter the stereotype that gay men do not have committed relationships. The “Stop Ignorance” refrain on the bottom of each of the posters was also placed there to underscore the campaign’s goal of increasing the campus’ awareness of the LGBTQ community; it was not specifically addressed to holders of certain political viewpoints. While I can also make an indirect leap from this particular poster to the issue of same-sex marriage, I do not understand how McGinley thought that “no other conclusion [could] be reached” given that the majority of the posters featured individuals.
Moreover, the campaign was not intended for presentation during Preview weekend, although this was a fortunate coincidence. Rather it was planned for and displayed during the LGBT Center’s annual Pride Week celebration. To imply that the campaign was intended to bias admitted students with regard to Princeton’s LGBT community detracts from the posters’ true intent, the affirmation and representation of campus diversity.
Aundeah Kearney ’10
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.
