On Monday, Provost Deborah Prentice announced that the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) has dispensed with its long-standing practice of allowing the public to ask questions during its quarterly meetings. Trivial though the decision may seem, its undemocratic precedent should not be ignored.
In lieu of the open-question policy, which had been in place for longer than “anybody’s living memory,” community members must now submit their questions at least three days in advance. According to Prentice, the Council’s official rules never authorized an open question-and-answer period, but the University had permitted the practice nevertheless.
Apparently, CPUC suffers open discourse no more.
While the prior practice fostered dialogue between administrators and members of the community, the new policy precludes any open conversation. CPUC meetings serve as a gauge for public sentiment, and by eliminating the question-and-answer session, U. administrators have removed any element of dialogue and community input from the Council’s meetings.
The new requirement will further allow members of CPUC — foremost among them, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 — to manicure, polish, and calibrate platitudes in advance. Council meetings will degenerate into PR. Worse still, there is no way to ensure that the Council will even address, much less disclose, the questions it receives and chooses not to answer.
It is difficult not to view this decision in light of the frequent sparring between administrators and students at last year’s CPUC meetings. Members of the student-activist group Students for Prison Education and Reform (SPEAR) peppered Eisgruber with questions about the University’s refusal to remove the criminal-history box from its application. During the last meeting of the academic year, members of SPEAR staged a disruptive protest, which violated University policy. Nonetheless, the University’s subsequent response, to remove all opportunity for conversation, is both unwarranted and unproductive.
We encourage members of CPUC to reconsider their ill-disguised attempt to evade difficult questions. They should not fear the students they serve.
Board Chairs
Chris Murphy ’20
Cy Watsky ’21
Board Members
Samuel Aftel ’20
Arman Badrei ’22
Ariel Chen ’20
Rachel Kennedy ’21
Ethan Li ’22
Madeleine Marr ’21
Jonathan Ort ’21
Read More
Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA singles run ends in Sweet 16
Hayk Yengibaryan and Tate HutchinsAfter reaching the Round of 16 in both the NCAA singles and doubles bracket, sophomore Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA run came to an end in Waco, Texas following defeats in both brackets on Thursday.
After reaching the Round of 16 in both the NCAA singles and doubles bracket, sophomore Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA run came to an end in Waco, Texas following defeats in both brackets on Thursday.
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.”
Opposition to weapons divestment referendum takes shape
Annie Rupertus and Miriam WaldvogelAs the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
As the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
