When Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed, my only reaction was somber relief. I strongly believe that this was the most significant event of Obama’s presidency — but it was not, I think, an occasion for exuberant celebration. A guilty man was executed.
Somewhere during the month-long preparation for the three-day blowout, we forget that we have invited back on campus the Princeton many of us are not too fond of, and indeed the Princeton many of us could not attend.
I urge you, President Tilghman, do not attempt to fill our pails. Allow us to light our own fires, and work with us to ensure that we do not inadvertently set something else ablaze.
No one will ever have their perfect Princeton, so instead of arguing for the implementation of a specific policy, I will simply endorse some form of self-scheduled exams at a high level.
As most students surely recognize, the social opportunities offered by residential colleges and most activity-oriented student groups tend to pale in comparison to the social networks provided by the kinds of organizations the working group finds so problematic.
Regardless of the particular proposals, Princeton’s dangerous culture of “work hard, party hard” must end. The University should at very least continue its program of providing alternatives to that culture.
My illumination wasn’t quite as powerful as the bolt of lightning that struck Tom Wolfe at a 1965 panel discussion in Princeton, when he listened to Gunter Grass and Allen Ginsberg decrying America’s descent into fascism and declared that on the contrary, we were undergoing a happiness explosion. But it was strong enough. Suddenly I began to realize that in America even a humble humanist has a great deal to be thankful for.
I’m not talking about intolerance toward the usual suspects — gays, minorities or women. I’m talking about an equally invidious but far more socially acceptable type of discrimination — against conservatives.
While the Editorial Board supports many of the concerns raised in the report, we do not wholly agree with the final recommendation: We believe that banning rush events for only the first semester of freshman year would achieve most of the benefits of postponing rush while avoiding certain problems.
For much of my time here, I felt like I wasn’t doing a very good job of making new friends, but in hindsight, I see that all along I’ve picked up people to laugh with, pray with and talk to. It’s cliche to say, but the end of this year really is bittersweet.
It means little to the men and women who risk their lives in service to their country to be supported only as individuals. Their missions in the armed forces are a crucial part of their roles and identities.
The “something extra” that my referendum proposes is not just “intent to cheat,” as the Editorial Board implied. That change would obligate the Honor Committee to acquit students for even the most irresponsible failures to learn the policy for an exam — failures that usually create an unfair advantage. My referendum would require that the accused either intends to cheat or that he or she is negligent in learning and interpreting his or her exam policy.
Talking with freshmen and explaining to them their new home really reminds me of why I decided to come to Princeton in the first place. Everything from the details of course selection to the earth-shattering wonder of late meal is brought back in the retelling.
We believe that, while perhaps professors should penalize students who unintentionally cheat by lowering their exam grades, students should not suffer broad punitive measures as mandated by the current system.
According to the head of the Democratic Party, we’re not at a crossroads between social democracy and limited government. No, our choice is between Democrats and segregationists.
