To the Editor:
Although the recent article from The Daily Princetonian titled “Incidents in political speech at Princeton, throughout the 20th century” is an interesting dive into the archives of campus debates, it must be critiqued for its glaring omissions of racial justice activism and for failing to discuss the tradition of radical activism on campus. How we remember campus activism matters, and the current piece’s narrow focus on free speech is reflective of a campus collective memory that needs to reconnect with more concrete histories of protest and contestation.
Focusing solely on free speech prevents us from truly reflecting on Princeton’s political and activist history. How can we talk about the history of politics on campus without discussing radical acts like the occupation of Nassau Hall to advocate for divestment from South Africa, a boycott of classes by the Association of Black Collegians to hold a memorial for Malcolm X, and the takeover of Nassau Hall by Asian-American and Latinx students that led to the creation of ethnic studies departments? Any history of campus activism is utterly incomplete without addressing questions of race, colonialism, and how students have grappled with these issues through visions for the future that exceed the status quo of the University (and the world).
Ignoring these vital histories, and discussing the legacy of campus politics through the myopic lens of the present obsession with abstract debates over free speech exposes just how limited political imagination has become since past activism: why does the collective memory of campus now seem to take the gains earned by these protests for granted and forget that they had to be won through advocacy? These questions of how we remember Princeton’s past are not mere questions of historical or journalistic method; they are themselves political questions that impact how we understand our relationship to the University and the University’s relationship to the world. We must think critically about what and how we choose to remember.
Remembering these activist histories is essential to our present, as they remind us of a more radical history of student activism that stands in stark contrast to Princeton’s current reputation as “non-political,” captured in phrases like “the Orange Bubble.” They remind us that Princeton has always been implicated in the world, and debates on campus relate to very tangible consequences and situations. If we allow them, perhaps remembering these pasts can inspire us to imagine better futures.
David Chmielewski is a senior at Princeton University concentrating in English. He can be reached at dc70@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.”
