Naturally, the University administration is not thrilled with this state of affairs. They know that we don’t like some of their policies, but at the same time they have other priorities. Surely Dean Malkiel is not happy that her grade deflation policy is unpopular, but at the end of the day, she views some discontent as an acceptable cost. Our frustration is not desired, but it does not keep the University up at night.
We might well ask, “why not?” I think the main reason is that student unhappiness tends not to manifest itself in material ways. We’re not a campus inclined toward violent demonstration. No one is threatening to drop out in an act of protest. And what else do we have? Some ugly survey numbers? Some nasty snipes in the comments section of the Prince? None of these is likely to force the University’s hand.
A friend of mine recently had an idea that I think might be more successful. If we really want to effect change, he said, we should circulate a petition wherein people pledged not to donate any money to Annual Giving (AG) until some policy — grade deflation, alcohol, whatever — is suitably amended. I’m not sure that we should do this, but, as ideas go, I think it’s brilliant. I’d like to spend the rest of this article discussing some pros and cons, and then, absent a conclusion, let you decide what to think.
This method of protest goes after something we know the University cares about. President Tilghman is on record saying that donations from young alumni are very important. “What [this] does,” she recently told the Prince, “is set in motion an expectation among our youngest alumni that one of the things you do every year is to give something to Annual Giving. [...] Getting in the habit of giving to Princeton will pay huge dividends in the years to come.” Of course, she’s also on record saying that student involvement matters greatly to her — and I honestly believe that it does. Still, at the end of the day, money talks.
Furthermore, for this sort of protest to work, all we have to do is not give away our money. Personally, I am always inclined not to give away my money, and I suspect that you are as well. Combine this inclination with a stamp of self-righteousness and you have a compelling recipe for action, or rather, inaction.
Students may hesitate to put their names in ink over any policy issue, as such things can come back to bite. But I do not doubt that several students would sign anyway, and that many more would be willing to withhold donations. Even this could catch the University’s eye: last year, 90.7% of the Class of 2009 pledged to support AG for a four year span. If that number drops precipitously for the Class of 2010, and that drop is accompanied by a petition of the sort mentioned above, then I suspect that the administration will take note. Those who don’t sign the petition but also don’t pledge money will have plausible deniability, and the numbers will speak for themselves.
While the tactic of moving a non-economic dispute onto an economic battlefield has a successful history, it should be noted that a similar attempt at Harvard in the 80s — a group called Not One Penny Ever, or NOPE — met with little success. But it is also worth noting that NOPE did not have any specific goals: the protesters disliked their time at Harvard and simply wanted to say so. On the other hand, a protest like the one I am discussing would be better named NOPUPPI: Note One Penny Until Princeton Policy Improves. Not as catchy, maybe, but more likely to get results.
While I believe that, if executed well, this would have more impact than a million surveys, I do not think that it is without complications. First, lots of AG money goes toward financial aid, so the protesters might appear to be quibbling over petty issues at the cost of important ones. They would need a way out of this PR bind.
Second, this method is rather aggressive — far from any two-way dialogue that has, until now, been the USG’s MO. Such a protest is analogous to a political lobby that only contributes to those campaigns that promise to support the lobby’s favorite laws, and such a lobby is considered unsavory.
Third, an autonomous University administration is not without its benefits. Perhaps students would be unable to resist supporting selfish policies, or perhaps we would soon find our University in the strangle-hold of a few rich alumni.
There is much, much more to be said on this issue, but I have neither the space nor the ability to do so here. At this point, I am just curious to hear what others think. Specifically — and I never thought I’d say this — I look forward to reading the comments section.
Greg Burnham is a math major from Memphis, Tenn. He can be reached at gburnham@princeton.edu.
Want to be a ‘Prince’ columnist? E-mail opinion@dailyprincetonian.com by Oct. 2 for details or an application.
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.
