Your Cart is Empty
Bill Hewitt ‘74
Tiger Roars, Substack
Excerpt: Why did Eisgruber’s administration thrust “Known and Heard” into the Memory Hole? Eisgruber’s slippery defense of the “Known and Heard” presentation remains posted on the Office of the President's website. Recently, a University spokesperson explained, “The Office of Campus Engagement decided to remove the site, given that it had not been used in programming or for educational purposes in several years.” The presentation’s unceremonious extinguishment signals a tacit admission by Eisgruber and company that the “Known and Heard” presentation had deep flaws and is no longer worth defending.
Still standing, but without a word of defense by its sponsor or President Eisgruber, is the profoundly flawed and damaging “John Witherspoon” essay by the Princeton & Slavery Project. This essay subverts Princeton’s mission for “the pursuit of truth . . . and the transmission of knowledge and learning to society at large.”
Comments will be approved before showing up.
In April 1995, University maintenance crews spent two days cleaning “walkways, benches, plazas and walls on campus,” working to remove not dirt or debris, but simple sidewalk chalk. The chalk drawings, according to a report from The Daily Princetonian, consisted of “pro-gay messages” written by hand during Pride Week. After the removal, advocates were rightly in uproar. Following the incident, the University, claiming that the discrepancy had transpired because of “cross-office confusion,” clarified its chalking policy — it was henceforth banned, in all cases.
Three decades on, chalk at Princeton has found itself relegated to dusty trays in classrooms and lecture halls. Hardly anyone — students, activists, artists, campus organizations, candidates, schoolchildren — chalks University grounds anymore. Simply put, the University’s ban has worked. But the question remains: Why is Princeton so afraid of chalk?
There is exactly one kind of institution in the world whose product is “thinking” — the university. This is an existential challenge for every university, Princeton most definitely included, now that nearly all artificial intelligence is purpose-built to offload the hard work of thinking.
Universities need to return to the foundations of learning with trust — and verification — at the heart of their relationship with students. They also need to be far more prescriptive about what learning looks like so that students who arrive with limited capacity for deep reading have the time and space to develop their critical thinking skills.
The University has implemented a new limit on the number of Undergraduate Student Government (USG), Graduate Student Government, and Council of the Princeton University Committee (CPUC) student representatives allowed to attend faculty meetings.
In an email to student leaders obtained by The Daily Princetonian, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Ian Deas wrote that the new changes will go into effect at the Sept. 14 faculty meeting and each constituency will be able to send a maximum of two observers to a meeting. The Rules and Procedures of the Faculty do not specify the number of observers permitted from the student governments or CPUC.
