Before I left for Princeton’s Freshman Scholars Institute (FSI) program, a friend recommended that I read R. F. Kuang’s book, “Babel.” It’s a fascinating novel: it follows the journey of a student, Robin, who is granted an idyllic life studying at Oxford in the 1830s. However, as an orphaned immigrant, he feels deeply conflicted upon discovering the university’s role in colonialism. He opposes Oxford’s actions on a moral basis, but he is inherently tempted by what the university offers: a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity at an elite education and the promise of a comfortable future. The plot revolves around the central question of whether he should follow his moral compass or jeopardize his future by revolting against the institution that has granted him so much. Although Princeton is worlds apart from Babel’s para-fictional version of Oxford, I found myself relating to the novel — the punitive threat of aid revocation forces first-generation, low-income (FLI) students to face a similar moral dilemma.
On the surface, Princeton appears to have a benevolent relationship with its growing low-income population. There’s the FSI program, designed to acclimate FLI students to life at Princeton. The percentage of Pell-eligible students has risen from 7 percent for the Class of 2008 to around 20 percent over the past few years. Students from households with an income under $100,000 typically receive full aid. These students as a whole receive a great financial boon from attending Princeton: 66 percent of Princeton students — born from 1980 to 1982 — from the bottom quintile of household incomes rise to the top quintile of individual incomes by the age of 35.
However, even as Princeton has undertaken proactive efforts to improve equity among FLI students, its punitive aid-related policies contradict and complicate this history. As stated in Princeton’s financial aid terms, students who “repeat a semester for disciplinary reasons” are not “eligible for a Princeton University grant for the repeated portion of the term.” Princeton has already indicated its willingness to arrest students for exercising their right to free speech. By withholding the financial aid of suspended students, Princeton disproportionately suppresses the free speech of low-income students.
Princeton’s disciplinary system inherently limits speech. Students who express their beliefs, either through protests or other methods, face a legitimate risk of University punishment. During the pro-Palestine protests earlier this year, VP Calhoun published a letter about free expression in which she identifies that students “involved in an encampment, occupation, or other unlawful disruptive conduct” could face “suspension, delay of a diploma, or expulsion.” She explicitly acknowledges the severity of the academic risks associated with free expression, including how “exclusion from campus would jeopardize [the ability of students] to complete the semester.” This is further codified within Princeton’s Rights, Rules, Responsibilities, which establishes that anyone who obstructs “the orderly conduct of a University function” faces the possibility of “being barred from campus and/or arrested.” When considered alongside Princeton’s terms of financial aid, the economic implications of these punishments become clear: students who engage in protests risk losing the University’s financial support.
Last month, the University announced a new “suspension (not served)” policy, which appears to present a potential solution to this problem. However, if a student on “suspension (not served)” is “found responsible for a subsequent significant policy violation,” they are required to serve two suspensions. As a result, “suspension (not served)” is a silencing punishment, forcing students to limit their expressions of speech.
Without aid, it costs $86,700 for an undergraduate to attend Princeton each year. For many low-income students, this expense is not feasible without the University’s support. For me, the idea of placing such a financial burden upon my parents would be a nightmare. A semester-long suspension might just be that for high-income students who can afford Princeton’s hefty price tag. But for others, the loss of financial aid could effectively impose a life suspension. After all, who would want to return to school only to accrue tens of thousands in debt, all the while facing a number of other financial burdens? The knowledge that expression can come with serious financial consequences might preemptively act to suppress low-income students, serving to limit expression among the student body.
This isn’t an isolated phenomenon: rather, it’s a symptom of Princeton’s overly punitive disciplinary system, which has historically acted to exacerbate inequities towards low-income students. Take the disciplinary punishments of Princeton’s Honor Code, which have been previously criticized as putting “low-income students at a unique disadvantage” due to the University’s ability to revoke financial aid. The Honor Committee investigation process is already excessively stressful, but Princeton’s lack of protected financial aid exacerbates this process for low-income students who accordingly face more severe consequences from the loss of aid.
In an ideal world, I believe that Princeton should facilitate free speech at protests and accordingly ensure that students can speak out without fear of administrative punishment. After all, the freedom of speech and assembly are fundamental human rights enshrined in the First Amendment. But this is a moot point. The position President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 took in an article defending “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech makes the administration’s punitive stance on speech clear. With the current potential for suspension, I believe that it’s impossible to eliminate all barriers to speech for students who receive financial aid.
Equitable speech is consistent with Princeton’s values. The University claims to support diversity of voices for the purposes of fostering “a diverse environment [that] is more intellectually and socially stimulating.” President Eisgruber himself claims that diverse perspectives “enrich the University in myriad ways.” Yet the benefits of economic diversity are limited when low-income students are threatened with greater punishments for sharing their perspectives. The University’s actions must be consistent with its purported values, and thus, Princeton must institute protections for students on financial aid amid disciplinary punishments.
Raf Basas is a first-year student from Elk Grove, Calif. intending to major in English. As a participant in FSI (a summer program for first-gen/low-income students), he’s been on campus for 101 days. He can be reached at rb4078@princeton.edu or @raf.basas on Instagram.
Read More
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.”
As Progressive Jews, we call on Princetonians to boycott Thursday’s ‘Son of Hamas’ lecture
Guest Contributors“Princeton cannot claim to be in ‘the Service of Humanity’ when overtly Islamophobic speakers are being invited to a campus where Muslim students live and learn daily. By allowing speakers like Yousef on campus, Princeton is serving nothing but the perpetuation of hateful rhetoric.”
“Princeton cannot claim to be in ‘the Service of Humanity’ when overtly Islamophobic speakers are being invited to a campus where Muslim students live and learn daily. By allowing speakers like Yousef on campus, Princeton is serving nothing but the perpetuation of hateful rhetoric.”
