The University’s primary reasons for not allowing students to paint their own rooms have to do with health concerns. At times, for instance, students who paint their rooms may accidentally paint fire safety devices, leaving them damaged or inoperable. While this is a legitimate concern for University housing, it does not necessitate prohibiting the painting of rooms. Students who choose to paint should be made to register on a website, so that housing and fire safety officials can approve their paint job after they are finished and determine whether all safety mechanisms are working correctly. If students have not painted correctly, they should be charged accordingly for the cost of repairs.
Similarly, if students do not repaint their rooms at the close of the year or if housing officials, during their routine inspection at the end of the year, do not deem their paint job adequate, students should be charged the cost of repainting their rooms. Charging students to repaint their rooms, however, is quite different from charging students a fine much greater than the cost of repainting. While a large sum of money is a disincentive for students to paint their rooms, this is an unnecessary imposition.
Another possible concern with allowing students to paint their rooms is that after a number of years, multiple coats of paint on the wall could cause the University to incur long-term costs. Over the years, many students will choose to paint the same room, and the University will eventually have to pay to scrape away the layers of paint that have accumulated to return the wall to its original coat. Instead of imposing an unnecessarily large fine, the University could charge a nominal fee to offset the long-term maintenance costs of the walls that they plan on painting.
Given that Princeton students make their dorm rooms their home while they are on campus, students should be able to more easily customize their living space. Despite possible concerns regarding the health of students and the long-term upkeep of University facilities, simple changes could be made to address these issues while allowing students the possibility of repainting their rooms.
Apply to write for Opinion! Applications are due Oct. 1. Visit dailyprincetonian.com/join/opinion.
Read More
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.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
