To refresh your memory, the committee was chartered by President Shirley Tilghman last fall, after a whirlwind of campus debate about whether it was a problem that men seemed to receive academic honors in disproportionate numbers as well as fill many of the most conspicuous leadership roles on campus. Since then, the students, faculty and staff who were appointed to the committee have been exploring the question of whether leadership is a gendered issue, and if so, what responsibility the University has to make sure that men and women are realizing their leadership potential in an equitable way.
The questions that we raised were surprisingly tricky and broad. Starting from the simple query — “What makes a good leader?” — we started questioning our preconceived notions of what leadership means. Is it fair, we asked, to say that it’s better to be a class president than the founder of Greening Princeton, or to receive a Marshall Scholarship instead of the Dale Fellowship? We examined the effect that personal relationships have on the way that students perceive leadership, both in themselves and in their peers, and struggled with the extent to which male and female leaders are perceived in different ways. Most importantly, we wondered, if this was a problem, was it unique to Princeton? And how could we ensure that all students were able, if they chose, to exert the leadership potential that we all showed in our college applications?
Over the course of the spring and summer, we held focus groups, examined survey data, visited peer institutions and solicited informal feedback from friends and colleagues. This much was clear: The only way for us to begin to answer these questions was to talk about it. And it was hard. We talked in circles for the first few meetings, dancing around vague concepts that didn’t seem to lend themselves to tangible action. It was only when we started to listen to individual students’ stories that themes began to emerge. We realized that academic and social life were intimately connected and that personal relationships with peers, staff and faculty had a tremendous influence on whether the risks inherent in pursuing leadership seemed worth it.
The stories we’ve heard speak for themselves. At the beginning of the semester, we launched a website where members of the University community were encouraged to give voice to their thoughts and experiences. Their responses present compelling and powerful answers to our questions and complicated our notions of leadership at Princeton even further.
Take the female undergraduate who told us, “I’ve heard from many of my fellow female undergrads that they find it more difficult than their male peers to, for example, walk into office hours and just chat with a professor. I think being intimidated by authority is more common among women students than it is among men, and I’ve certainly experienced that feeling myself.”
Her answer is particularly poignant when read alongside a faculty member who wrote, “I would say my best students (and the majority of the ones I have given strong recommendation letters for) have been women.”
We were struck by the alumna from the Class of 1975 who said, “It is incredible to me that we are still having the same conversations around lack of women leaders that we did 30 years ago!”
And we strongly agreed with a recently graduated alumnus who said in no uncertain terms that “men need to step up and become active participants in this discussion.”
We’ll release our final report in February, but until then, we have a lot of ground to cover. Regardless of what we ask the University to do, we want to make sure that leadership at Princeton is something that students are talking and reflecting about, questioning or even challenging.
And, most importantly, we’re listening to what you have to say.
Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux is a religion major from Charlottesville, Va. Jane Yang is a chemical and biological engineering major from Ypsilanti, Mich. They can be reached at ajthomso@princeton.edu and jjyang@princeton.edu, respectively.
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.
