Princeton University has a branding problem. Our undergraduate education is reputed to be the best in the country, but the world does not know it. Harvard University, for example, has a world reputation three times as great as our own, according to a 2015 survey of scholars by Times Higher Education.
That’s okay, partly. Harvard and Princeton are playing different games. The former has sprawling graduate and professional schools, while we direct most of our attention and resources to undergraduates. It’s better for us this way. True, it leaves us fewer opportunities to shine in the world’s spotlight, but we get a uniquely strong education out of the deal, and many would call that a victory.
Still, reputation is important because it affects our job prospects and ability to shape the world. We should, therefore, do what we can to strengthen our brand and reputation, provided we do not compromise our commitment to undergraduate education. When considering our brand, the University’s motto should immediately present itself for consideration. A motto, after all, is an opportunity for us to brand ourselves, and we are using this opportunity poorly.
What is our motto, anyway? I can tell you that the Harvard motto is “Veritas.” It means truth. I can tell you that the Yale motto is “Lux et Veritas” — light and truth. But I cannot tell you the motto of my own university without looking to Wikipedia. Our motto, it turns out, is “Dei Sub Numine Viget” — under the protection of God she flourishes.
We have let this motto fade from our collective consciousness, and for good reason. Unlike the mottos of our peers, our own motto says nothing about our values. It is boring and generic, and our unofficial motto — recently changed to “Princeton in the nation’s service and the service of humanity” — is far better, reflecting what we value as an institution and community. In fact, we have an unofficial motto only because our official motto is wanting. It indicates the shortcoming of our official motto.
Let us finally correct the failure and adopt a new brand. I propose “Officium,” Latin for service. It has the same beauty of simplicity as Harvard’s “Veritas,” and it presents our core value clearly.
We could, alternatively, translate the unofficial motto into Latin. But the result — something like “cum patriae tum generis humani adiutor” — is clunky and unmemorable.Further, crafting a motto few can understand is an indulgence in elitism, and elitism is antithetical to the value of service. “Officium,” I think, avoids this problem because its cognate, “office,” makes its meaning transparent and accessible.
A third alternative is to make our unofficial motto official, keeping it in English. But that would put us out of line with the peers in the Ivy league, all but one of whom have their mottos in Latin. And that language, at least, has the advantage of not exalting English above the other tongues in the world.
To be sure, changing our motto would not have a large effect on our reputation. It is only a small part of an effort that should include extensive advertising and outreach. But defining what we stand for clearly and officially is important for us, if not also for our brand. It reminds people what we stand for.
There are, of course, other reasons to change the motto. Now that the University is a religiously diverse institution, the reference to God in the formal motto does not represent our Hindu students, who believe in many gods, our Buddhist students, who may believe in no god or our students who have no religion at all. This argument does not persuade me personally, as I do not believe a 270-year-old reference to God can harm any reasonable person.But there are others who believe in broad inclusivity, and a motto change would be pleasing to this crowd.
Taken together, these needs — the need for memorable branding, the need for clear values in our consciousness and the need, perhaps, for inclusivity — provide compelling reason to change our official motto. It is time we adopt “Officium” officially.
Newby Parton is a Wilson School major from McMinnville, TN. He can be reached at newby@princeton.edu.
Read More
Reform first-year orientation: Less structure, stronger connections
Cathleen Balid“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
We must dispel the myth of Princeton’s economic diversity
Raf Basas“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
Pathologizing men is unproductive. We should invest in better men-focused spaces
Nicholas Manetas“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
