The Editorial Board is the independent body responsible for determining the position of the ‘Prince’ on matters that impact or affect Princeton and its campus community. We convene three times a week to brainstorm and discuss campus issues, take editorial positions and review draft editorials. While the board works with other departments of the newspaper to gather information about editorial topics, we deliberate behind closed doors and determine our own positions to preserve our objectivity. The board answers only to its chair, Will Pickering, the executive editor for opinion, Mendy Fisch, and the editor-in-chief, Jack Ackerman.
To enrich its discussions and editorials, the Editorial Board has always sought to incorporate a variety of diverse perspectives. Current board members come to Princeton from across the country and reflect a broad spectrum of class years, majors, political philosophies, and academic and extracurricular interests. What distinguishes and unifies all board members is an engagement in campus life and a commitment to investigating and discussing issues that pertain to the University community. We are committed to bringing compelling arguments and perspectives to this page, criticizing and praising in equal measure. In the past six months, the board has written about topics ranging from the Honor Code to multi-club Bicker to University recognition of fraternities and sororities. We try to recommend specific policies or actions for the University that in our opinion are best for the community as a whole.
Debates among board members are often passionate and heated. While the board strives for unanimity, editorial positions are determined by majority vote and are written in turns by each of the members of the board. Under certain circumstances, a unified minority publishes a signed dissenting opinion. All majority opinions are the collective product of the board, acting as a group, and lend an independent voice apart from other sections of the ‘Prince.’
The core mission of the board is to inspire discussion and action. But this is impossible without a continual influx of students with unique perspectives, students who are independent thinkers, and students who are eager to debate and willing to engage with issues important to Princeton. In our applicants and members, we value creativity and strength of thought much more than journalistic experience. There are no prerequisites to membership on the board. If you would like to help bring critical insights both to this page and to campus discourse, we encourage you to fill out our application at dailyprincetonian.com/join/opinion and join us.
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.
