Regarding “In trustee vote, women are majority” (March 12th, 2012):
On Monday, March 12, 2012, The Daily Princetonian ran a front-page article about how women account for the majority of candidates in the Young Alumni Trustee election. This article was one of many published in the past year about women’s performance in the classroom and in campus leadership positions.
We think it is commendable that the ‘Prince’ has made a point of covering the gender gap that the Steering Committee on Women’s Leadership exposed last spring. However, we write today because we find the nature of some ‘Prince’ coverage of that gap troubling.
First, we think some ‘Prince’ articles pay too much attention to the fact that accomplished women are women, and not enough attention to the amazing feats those women have achieved. Take the December 8, 2011, article, “Women entrepreneurs share experiences.” After reading it, we could confidently attest that all of the subjects it profiled were female, but we could not repeat more than a sentence or two about any of the businesses they had built.
Second, we believe that the prevalence of articles written from the angle of “trends in female performance” has contributed to a campus culture in which a woman now cannot run for office without someone wondering, “Does she really want the job? Or is she just trying to make a statement about gender?” and, “Is she really qualified? Or did she receive undue extra help?” While we do not think it would be appropriate for us to speak on behalf of our entire gender, we will say that, if we are taking the time to run, it means that we genuinely want the job and that we believe we can compete on an even playing field.
In light of these concerns, we offer two suggestions for how the ‘Prince’ could improve its coverage of gender.
First, ‘Prince’ editors should ensure that articles about a woman’s accomplishments vividly describe those accomplishments and do not pay excessive attention to the woman’s gender.
Second, if the ‘Prince’ thinks it is important to offer coverage about trends in gender performance, it should balance that coverage by asking more questions about men. Why, for instance, do men on campus participate in community service activities at a lower rate than their female peers? Answering this is just as important as determining why few women are interested in eating-club presidencies. In order for women to take on more leadership positions that are currently male-dominated, men need to feel comfortable pursuing the important work women have traditionally shouldered.
Having offered these recommendations, we would like to add that we do not believe the ‘Prince’ is the only party at fault. The ills we enumerated in this letter are present not only in newspaper articles but also in conversations that take place across campus. We ask that all members of the Princeton community reflect on our concerns.
Sincerely,
1. Haley White ’12
2. Briana Wilkins ’12
3. Shirley Gao ’13
4. Astrid Stuth ’12
5. Neha Uberoi ’12
6. Shikha Uberoi ’13
7. Miriam Rosenbaum ’12
8. Amira Polack ’12
9. Megan Partridge ’14
10. Haebin Kim ’13
11. Erin McGowan Kiernan '12
Read More
If there’s one survey you fill out this year, make it the Year End Assessment
Jerry ZhuThe University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.
The University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.
In defense of ChatGPT
Eliana DuComplete avoidance of AI is not a solution to the issue Johnson rightfully points out. Avoidance merely leaves us ignorant, standing still in a moving world. On the contrary, Princeton students should discuss the use of AI tools in education with honesty and open-mindedness and consider it a novel tool as opposed to a morally objectionable scourge.
Complete avoidance of AI is not a solution to the issue Johnson rightfully points out. Avoidance merely leaves us ignorant, standing still in a moving world. On the contrary, Princeton students should discuss the use of AI tools in education with honesty and open-mindedness and consider it a novel tool as opposed to a morally objectionable scourge.
Who’s self-censoring at college now?
Isaac BarsoumConservatives today must choose their cause: free speech or authoritarianism? Throughout history, the only leaders who cheered the downfall of universities and intellectualism were authoritarians interested in suppressing political dissent.
Conservatives today must choose their cause: free speech or authoritarianism? Throughout history, the only leaders who cheered the downfall of universities and intellectualism were authoritarians interested in suppressing political dissent.