The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a letter to the editor to the Opinion Section, click here.
To the Editor:
I was a proud member of The Daily Princetonian from 2002 to 2006, and I'm happy to see the ‘Prince’ continue its great reporting. I do have one concern, which maybe I share with other alumni. Specifically, while Princetonians are taught to be critical and should have opinions about many topics, the Opinion pieces of the ‘Prince’ can be quite negative in tone and can seem to have just one focus: complaints about the University. I understand the University, which we are all very lucky to have attended, can be better and strives to be better, but the tone of many pieces, at least judging by the headlines, can be so negative.
Beyond the tone, I just wonder if students could write about issues beyond complaints against the University, such as pressing public policy issues (climate change, women's rights, etc.), international affairs, the arts, and other topics that truly reflect students’ interests and intellect. I, myself, arrived on campus as the gay, Guatemalan-American son of an immigrant single mom who didn’t go to college and who worked multiple manual labor jobs to make ends meet, so I am sensitive to the variety of social and other issues that even elite universities must continue to address. But I also recognize that Princeton breeds in its students curious minds — minds that are curious about issues beyond grievances against the University.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jorge Aguilar ’06
Read More
Princeton’s young alumni are no longer donating, and for a good reason
Wynne Conger“Instead of levying accusations towards these young people and charging them with claims of entitlement or ignorance, the University should take their concerns seriously and work to earn their donations in the future.”
“Instead of levying accusations towards these young people and charging them with claims of entitlement or ignorance, the University should take their concerns seriously and work to earn their donations in the future.”
Princeton must have no truck with Hegseth ’03
Jon OrtPete Hegseth ’03 “is manifestly unfit to lead the U.S. military, often called the world’s most powerful. Hegseth’s threadbare résumé, his decorated service notwithstanding, is least among the mountain of reasons that should disqualify him.”
Pete Hegseth ’03 “is manifestly unfit to lead the U.S. military, often called the world’s most powerful. Hegseth’s threadbare résumé, his decorated service notwithstanding, is least among the mountain of reasons that should disqualify him.”
Princeton’s liberal hypocrisy will only exacerbate the post-election political divide
Siyeon Lee and Genevieve Shutt“The current narrative of liberal superiority perpetuated by some progressives risks deepening the post-election divide and undermining the democratic and egalitarian values they aim to champion.”
“The current narrative of liberal superiority perpetuated by some progressives risks deepening the post-election divide and undermining the democratic and egalitarian values they aim to champion.”
