April 02, 2024
1 min read
National Review
Abigail Anthony
Excerpt: This week, a Princeton University student-run newspaper published an op-ed by senior undergraduate Matthew Wilson, who detailed the controversy that emerged when he brought conservative professor Robert P. George to dine at an eating club. (For those unfamiliar, an “eating club” functions similarly to Greek life for juniors and seniors, where they eat their meals and, on weekends, enjoy less virtuous activity.)
In the article, Wilson relays that a group of students filed complaints after George’s visit, and therefore the club adopted a policy requiring that the leadership approve guests for meal-time hours who are not friends or family.
Read More April 01, 2024
5 min read
Princetonians for Free Speech
Khoa Sands ‘26
Over the past months, the response to the Israel-Hamas war in academia has triggered a necessary rethinking of what the university is for, and its proper role in society. Many scholars have advocated for the longstanding model of liberal education as the pursuit of truth as the model for the telos of the university. In this view, which I share, the goal of academia is the pursuit of truth and the preservation of the life of learning, not civic engagement or social change. Certainly, positive social change and civic engagement can come from genuine liberal education, but to center those goals within academia is to distract and compromise from the central goal of the liberal university as an institution.
Read More April 01, 2024
1 min read
Matthew Wilson
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: The eating clubs, like the University as a whole, must avoid becoming ideological echo chambers or so-called safe spaces where people go to avoid the risk of having their convictions or worldview challenged. Unfortunately, Charter’s new visitors policy — enacted to protect students from those whose ideas and mere existence they erroneously and ridiculously believe threaten their safety — does just the opposite. The new policy is intellectually indefensible and must be immediately revoked.
Read More March 22, 2024
1 min read
Howard Sereda ‘78
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Excerpt: President Eisgruber calls on Princetonians to “Speak Up for Princeton and for Higher Education” and to be “an ambassador for Princeton and for higher education” (“President’s Page,” March issue). I would reply “Yes (mostly)” to the first, but absolutely “No” to the other.
I’m grateful to Princeton for the opportunities it afforded me. But what the president misses is how deeply he and his colleagues have entered the American partisan fray and joined the combat he laments. It’s not surprising; viewed from “across the pond,” virtually every American and every American institution seems to have become engulfed in the civil war convulsing American culture and society, whilst protesting their neutrality.
Read More March 21, 2024
1 min read 1 Comment
Luqmaan Bamba
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Despite ample opportunities on campus to connect across class and culture, Princeton students often cluster in groups of similar kinds of people. As a result, we often inadvertently form bubbles closed to those who do not share our identities. Less formally and in everyday campus life, a clique-centered social life can be the norm. As students, we must work harder to reach out to those who are different from us and to form a more interconnected campus community.
Read More March 20, 2024
1 min read
Abigail Rabieh
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: When the Indian government banned TikTok almost 4 years ago, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo praised the measure as something that would “boost India’s sovereignty.” Now, the U.S. government is contemplating a bill that could do the same. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that would, if it became a bill, force TikTok Inc., a U.S. company, to find a new parent company that “satisfies the U.S. government” or risk a ban in the United States.
Much of the current outrage on this bill might appeal to college students — of which 82 percent use the app — because it could block their ability to access content they find enjoyable. But they should be far more concerned by the readiness of our government to curb our First Amendment rights and impede the expression of our core democratic values.
Read More