January 8, 2018

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday January 8, 2018 vol. CXLI no. 121

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } U . A F FA I R S

U. remands 3 of 4 referenda to committee contributor

University administrators have remanded three of the four Honor Constitution referenda passed last month to a faculty committee. All referenda passed by a wide margin in the winter Undergraduate Student Government elections. The fourth referendum — which requires the Honor Committee to inform students of their roles in hearings at time of contact — can be implemented without faculty review, at the Honor Committee’s own discretion.

The University’s reason for rejecting all but one of the referenda, according to faculty, is the lack of faculty involvement in developing the large-scale changes the referenda would have made to the Honor Code, a 125-yearold agreement between students and faculty. Administrators say faculty support is necessary for alterations as fundamental and consequential as those proposed by the first three referenda.

In an email sent to undergraduate students on Thursday, Jan. 4, Dean of the College Jill Dolan, Dean of the Faculty Sanjeev Kulkarni, and Vice President for Campus Life W. Rochelle Calhoun informed the student body that the University administration completed a review of the proposed amendments and determined that three of the four were too significant to be implemented without faculty approval.

At the request of President Eisgruber, these changes will be remanded to the Committee on Examinations and Standing, which will evaluate whether these changes are “warranted” and “consistent with the faculty’s delegation of responsibility.”

They will not be implemented unless they can garner the requisite faculty support.

However, as stated in Article VI, Section A of Rights, Rules, Responsibilities, the Honor Code Constitution can be amended in one of two ways, with the second beSee REFERENDA page 2

STUDENT LIFE

COURTESY OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

The outside of Tiger Inn, where the president and security czar recently stepped down.

Tiger Inn president, security chair step down over break

By Benjamin Ball contributor

In an email sent Dec. 19, the Tiger Inn Board of Governors informed TI members that Trey Aslanian ’18 and Divya Mehta ’18 have been asked to step down as TI’s president and safety czar, respectively. Current vice president Allison Lee ’18 will become TI’s interim president until spring officer elections.

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

contributor

ISABEL HSU:: CHIEF COPY EDITOR

The outer facade of Tower Club, where several officers stepped down earlier this academic year due to disputes with officers.

Eating club officers resign at historically high rates news editor emerita

After eating club signin ceremonies at Cloister Inn and Charter Club on Feb. 6, 1988, 39 students ended up at McCosh Health Center with alcohol poisoning. Seven more were sent directly to Princeton Medical Center,

In Opinion

“the actions and/or inactions” of TI officers on Dec. 8, the night of the club’s sophomore semiformals party. Several TI members explained to the ‘Prince’ that the issue in question was a lack of appropriate levels of security, as required by club standards, at the semiformals. This issue was mentioned in an earlier email from the Graduate Board that was See TIGER INN page 5

IN MEMORIAM

Eric Schmidt ’76 steps In memory down as Google chairman of all that was Jacob Kaplan ’19

By Ivy Truong

By Shriya Sekhsaria

The Daily Princetonian reached out the TI’s officers for comment, but did not receive a response by time of publication.

Hap Cooper ’82, chair of TI’s Board of Governors, has yet to respond to request for comment, as well.

The reason for these changes to TI’s leadership structure is, according to the Dec. 19 email obtained by the ‘Prince,’

now known as the University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro, with one sophomore in an alcohol-induced coma.

Criminal charges were brought up against five officers of the clubs, and two were even initially sentenced to serve time.

In the almost 30 years See RESIGNATIONS page 3

Editor-in-Chief Sarah Sakha responds to a column proposing reforming Title IX to mirror the Honor Code, and Head Opinion Editor Nicholas Wu pitches a proposal to improve the structure of the Undergraduate Student Government. Page 6

Eric Schmidt ’76 is stepping down from his role as executive chairman of Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, according to a Dec. 21 statement from Alphabet.

Schmidt served as Google’s chief executive officer from 2001 to 2011.

He will be transitioning into a technical advisor role at Alphabet and will continue to serve on the company’s Board of Directors.

Schmidt graduated from the University with a degree in electrical engineering, and has served as a University trustee from 2004 to 2008. He continued his education at UC Berkeley, where he received his master’s degree and doctorate in 1979 and 1982, respectively.

“Larry, Sergey, Sundar and I all believe that the time is right in Alphabet’s evolution for this transition. The Alphabet structure is working well, and Google and the Other Bets are thriving,” Schmidt said in the statement. “In recent years, I’ve been spending a lot of my time on science and technology issues, and philanthropy, and I plan to expand that work.”

During his time as the CEO of Google, he oversaw

the development of Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Chrome, and in 2004 took the company public. Under his leadership, the company also acquired YouTube.

In 2016, he was honored by the University with the 2017 Woodrow Wilson Award, given to alumni whose accomplishments embody the phrase “Princeton in the nation’s service.”

In 2009, he and his wife, Wendy Schmidt, established the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Transformative Technology Fund at Princeton. It is a $25 million endowment fund dedicated to “for the invention, development and utilization of cutting-edge technology that has the capacity to transform research in the natural sciences and engineering.”

In a 2002 interview with The Daily Princetonian, Schmidt credited the University with helping him achieve his goals.

Schmidt chose to go to the University because of its liberal arts offering, saying it “just had the right karma.”

“I wouldn’t be here today if professors hadn’t noticed me as having some potential,” he told the ‘Prince.’

“Princeton focused on politics and governance and all of those things helped round me out and helped me professionally.”

Today on Campus 9 a.m.: The annual Art of Science exhibition explores the interplay between science and art and consists of images produced during the course of scientific inquiry that have aesthetic merit. Friend Center

By Ivy Truong and Isabel Ting contributors

During his sophomore year, Jacob Kaplan ’19 would often tease one of his roommates, Lawrence Cajuste ’18, asking him why on Earth he would subject himself to living with “all that is Jacob Kaplan” for a second year.

After all, Kaplan was the type of person to throw inf latable toys and a plush grenade at his roommates. ‘Butterscotch,’ Kaplan’s stuffed lamb, was a favorite.

Sometimes, Kaplan would hide the phone of another roommate, Benjamin Shi ’18, in Shi’s pillow case. Other times, he would pretend to ‘accidentally’ block Cajuste’s way wherever he was heading.

But Kaplan was also the type of person to handwrite and design birthday cards, walk across campus to unlock a door for a roommate, and ensure that his younger sister, Shelby Kaplan, never went to bed drunk.

“When he would come home with me to my See KAPLAN page 4

WEATHER

By Hannah Wang

STUDENT LIFE

HIGH

31˚

LOW

27˚

PM Snow Showers chance of snow:

50 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Monday January 8, 2018

U . A F FA I R S

ISABEL HSU:: CHIEF COPY EDITOR

The future of Honor Code reform remains dubious, after the vote and subsequent U. announcement.

Proponents of Honor Code reform vow more to come

By Ivy Truong contributor

The four referenda passed in a landslide during the winter 2017 Undergraduate Student Government elections usher in sweeping changes to a 124-yearold Honor System, but, for members of the subcommittee that spearheaded the referenda, the work is far from over.

“My initial thought, the whole time we were doing this, was that we knew that the students wanted reform,” said USG academics chair Patrick Flanigan ’18, who chaired the subcommittee that put forth the referenda. “But, when I saw the turnout, I was blown

away by just how much the students support the reforms.”

Sixty-four percent of the undergraduate student body voted in the election, according to the elections results released to the student body on Dec. 16 through an email from USG president Myesha Jemison ’18. In the winter 2016 election, only 46 percent of students turned out to vote on the sponsored referendum calling for eating clubs to release demographic statistics.

In the case of the four Honor Code referenda, at least 87 percent of voters voted for each referendum.

“Every referendum, each referendum, got so many

votes that each referendum had a majority of all Princetonians — not a majority of those who voted. But a majority of all Princetonians voted in favor of each one,” Flanigan emphasized.

The referenda passed will reduce the standard penalty for violations of the Honor Code from a oneyear suspension to a disciplinary probation, require that two pieces of evidence be presented to bring a case to a hearing, allow a professor’s testimony that a student’s actions did not violate course policy to dismiss a case, and necessitate that Honor Committee investigators disclose a student’s status as a witness or the accused upon initial

contact.

Flanigan had formed a subcommittee earlier in the fall on the Honor System with the goal of putting referenda on the December ballot.

Honor Committee chair Carolyn Liziewski ’18 and Honor Committee clerk Liz Haile ’19, part of the official opposition to the referenda, declined to comment.

Louis Tambellini ’18, a vocal opponent of the referenda, declined to comment as well. U-Councilor Ethan Marcus ’18 and former Honor Committee member Stuart Pomeroy ’18, who both signed a Letter to the Editor opposing the referenda, did not respond to requests for comment.

Class Senator Soraya Morales Nuñez ’18, who helped campaign for the referenda, noted that she had seen enthusiasm for the referenda while tabling in Frist Campus Center.

“A lot of students told us, ‘Thank you so much for having this on the ballot. This is a conversation that we’ve been having with each other for a really long time now,’” Morales Nuñez said.

Morales Nuñez, who did not serve on the subcommittee, explained that it is important to note that discussions on the Honor System predated the subcommittee. “[The referenda] wasn’t something that came about over the past two months. It was a conversation that the student body was having for years, probably before I even got here,” Morales Nuñez said.

These changes to the Honor System, however, may not be the only ones in the next few years. The University has charged a task force of faculty, administrators, and students to review the Honor System

in the upcoming semester.

Both Liziewski and Flanigan received the official charge for the task force before the release of the referenda to the student body on Nov. 28.

Flanigan, Morales Nuñez, and Liziewski will serve as three of the members on the committee, which Flanigan said will be an opportunity to reevaluate procedural elements of the Honor System. The referenda, he explained, aimed to fix issues that the subcommittee felt could be best improved through constitutional changes.

“There are many procedural things in the Honor Code’s procedural guide that could be looked at,” said Flanigan. “Some, I’m sure, are doing excellent.

And some, I’m sure, could use a reevaluation.”

U-Councilor Diego Negrón-Reichard ’18, who was also a vocal proponent of the referenda, noted that the recently passed reforms are just the first “among many.”

“Moving forward, [the subcommittee] is going to be providing support to the upcoming committee,” continued Negrón-Reichard, “to ensure that they have us a resource when they’re crafting any kind of policy or collecting student feedback.”

To Negrón-Reichard, reforms such as statistics on the types of Honor Code violations, greater transparency, and diversity on the committee itself are essential.

The last referendum regarding the Honor Code was passed in 2013. It required the Committee to release anonymous statistics on case, hearings, and outcomes every year for the previous five years and gave a penalty of academic probation for overtime cases.

Administration cites faculty authority over all academic matters in email to students REFERENDA Continued from page 1

.............

ing: “Upon the initiative by petition of 200 members of the undergraduate body, followed by a threefourths vote in a student referendum as conducted by the Elections Committee of the Undergraduate Student Government. Article VI can be amended only by such a student referendum.” These four referenda in question were passed in accordance with this stipulation — proposed, voted on, and passed without faculty input. The Committee operates largely without faculty oversight on a dayto-day basis.

The four referenda delineate a reduction of the standard penalty for an Honor Code violation from a one-year suspension to disciplinary probation, a requirement for at least two pieces of evidence to bring a case to an Honor Committee hearing, a policy of dismissing cases on which professors testify against a student’s violation of course policy, and a requirement for the Honor Committee to inform students of their roles in hearings at initial contact. They passed by a three-fourths majority in December.

Previous changes to the Honor System in 1921 and 1975, which allowed for leniency in extreme cases and the possibility of a one-year suspension instead of expulsion, set a precedent for faculty sup-

port and approval of major Constitutional amendments.

According to the email, the University’s faculty “retain[s] its ultimate authority over all academic matters, including those aspects of discipline it entrust[s] to the Honor Committee.” The first three referenda were deemed “a significant departure from prior practice” that “exceed[ed] the scope of the responsibility delegated to the student body by the faculty concerning the Honor System.”

Last November, a faculty-student Honor System Review Committee was appointed by Dolan, Kulkarni, and Calhoun to review the Honor System.

According to Calhoun’s email, the committee will also be asked to include the three referenda in its review and to report its findings and recommendations to the Committee on Examinations and Standing. This committee includes both the chair and clerk of the Honor Committee, who have expressed opposition to the referenda throughout. It also includes the Academics Committee chair.

The fourth referendum does not require faculty review and is expected to be implemented by the Honor Committee in all new procedures. Otherwise, for the time being, the Honor System will continue to operate as it did prior to the elections.

This is a developing story, and will be updated with more information.

Monday January 8, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

Within the last year, 5 officers stepped down from their positions RESIGNATIONS Continued from page 1

.............

following this incident, eating club officers have resigned for many reasons, included everything from criminal charges, to security breaches, to philosophical differences with the rest of the corps. Over the years, these resignations and security breaches have resulted in modifications to the structure of the ICC and eating club officer corps.

This calendar year alone, at least five officers have already handed in their resignations. Earlier this month, Trey Aslanian ’18 and Divya Mehta ’18 were asked to step down by Tiger Inn’s graduate board as TI president and safety czar, respectively. Around the same time, Kevin Liu ’18 and Alex Vogelsang ’18 voluntarily stepped down as Tower Club technology chairs, where they maintained the club’s computer cluster, entertainment systems, website, and listserv. David Crane ’18 stepped down voluntarily as Ivy Club intramural chair around April this year.

Matthew Lucas ‘18, current president of the Interclub Council, said that there are “many disparate reasons” for why an eating club officer might step down. Lucas is also Colonial Club president emeritus.

Lucas said that an officer might be asked to step down by the club’s graduate board of alumni, who oversee the management of the club, if it feels that an officer has “failed to fully exercise their duties with proper judgment and care.” Officers are also required to step down if they are “severely disciplined” by the University or by legal action. Finally, an officer may choose to step down voluntarily for personal reasons.

All 11 current eating club presidents either did not respond to requests for comment as of publication, declined them, or deferred comments to the ICC. Lucas said that being an officer at any eating club carries with it “a similar weighty responsibility.”

The officers have to take care of the current membership of each of their clubs, the clubhouses, and the club’s institutions, which include thousands of alumni and more than a century of history and traditions.

Former ICC president and Colonial president emeritus Christopher Yu ’17 added that the work of an officer can be incredibly time-consuming, given the cleanups following events like nights out, meetings with the rest of the corps and other stakeholders, mandatory event attendance, and everything else required.

According to the Statement of Principles on the ICC website, other responsibilities of the officers include ensuring that there is no gender-based discrimination, sexual misconduct, severe intoxication, or hazing in the club.

Additionally, officers are required to attend several sessions of Universitymandated training, such as for alcohol risk reduction, upon election.

Some officers’ failures to meet their responsibilities over the years has resulted in sentences to jail time and charges on several counts such as maintaining a nuisance on nights out. Some of those incidents, and the resulting changes to the

ICC and club officer corps structure, are as detailed below.

The sign-in ceremonies of Feb. 6, 1988, resulted in 39 students landing in McCosh Health Center with alcohol poisoning and seven more being sent directly to PMC. One of the seven students was in a coma, and the other six underwent treatment for alcohol poisoning.

Former Charter president Kenneth Simpler ’88 and social chairwoman Lisa Napolitano ’88 were sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine for serving alcohol to student minors during the sign in ceremonies. Simpler and Napolitano had been in office for five days when they were charged — they had only taken office on Feb. 1.

The charge of serving alcohol against Kristin Seymour ’88, former social chairman at Cloister, was dismissed after fellow club members testified to her non-involvement in sign-in activities beyond booking the band that night. James Martin ’87, another former social chairman at Cloister, pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace to avoid a possible jail sentence. Former Cloister president Jay Weiss ’88 was also served with the charges.

Seymour and Weiss were charged even though they were former officers because Martin and the rest of his officer corp had only taken charge at midnight during the ceremonies.

After the month-long investigation and trial that ensued, charges against all the Cloister officers were dropped or plea-bargained, whereas the Charter officers were given nine months of probation instead of sixmonth jail sentences.

2000s: 13 eating club officers charged by Borough Police Five of the 13 officers charged with serving alcohol to minors and maintaining a nuisance belonged to Colonial.

Former Colonial president Chris Langhammer ’03, and former Colonial officers Anna-Rachel Dray-Siegel ’04 and Justin Mirabal ’03 were each issued a summons for serving alcohol to minors as a result of the undercover investigation on Feb. 4, 2003, when the Borough Police sent undercover officers posing as students into clubs to watch for underage drinking. Later that year, former Colonial president Ben Handzo ’04 was charged with the same two counts when an intoxicated underage female was transported from the club to PMC. Finally, members of Colonial Club spent 2007 completing 500 hours of community service as a result of a plea bargain by Colonial president emeritus Tommy Curry ’08 in May. The charges of maintaining a nuisance and serving alcohol to a minor were first brought up against Curry and then transferred to the club as a collective entity.

The remaining eight officers charged belonged to eight distinct eating clubs.

The only officer to hand in a resignation immediately upon being charged with making alcohol available to a minor was former Tower president Cullen Newton ’04, who resigned in December 2003.

Tower vice president Matt Nickoloff ’04 was then appointed president. However, on Jan. 26, 2004, the Borough Police

dropped charges against Newton due to lack of evidence.

“I was extremely saddened to have to step down as president of a club I love so much. The knowledge that there was no evidence behind the charges was, needless to say, very frustrating,” Newton said in an earlier Daily Princetonian article.

Terrace Club and TI presidents, who were also charged on counts of serving alcohol to minors and maintaining a nuisance, had their charges transferred to their respective clubs’ graduate boards.

Terrace president emerita Patti Chao ’07, who was charged when student fell during initiations, was cleared when the club’s graduate board pled guilty and paid a fine of $664. TI president emeritus Chris Merrick ’08 was cleared when his charge of serving alcohol to a minor was transferred to the TI Graduate Board and later dropped.

Charter, Cloister, and Cottage Club presidents at the time were cleared of their charges for events that occurred in 2007.

Charges against former Charter and ICC president Will Scharf ’08 for a minor altercation that ensued between two junior female students after one poured beer down the other’s back were dropped after an investigation found lack of direct involvement.

Cloister president emerita Savannah Sachs ’08 and Cottage president emeritus Vince Ley ’08 were also cleared of their charges due to their non-involvement with the nights out in question.

Charges brought up against former Cap & Gown Club president Matthew Groh ’03 and former Quadrangle Club president Rolando Amaya ’03 that resulted from the Borough Police’s undercover investigation on Feb. 4, 2003, were later dropped as well.

The 2010s: Nine officers removed among other voluntary step downs Earlier this month, Aslanian and Mehta were asked to step down by TI’s graduate board of governors as a result of “the actions and/or inactions” of TI officers on Dec. 8, the night of the club’s sophomore semiformals party, according to a ‘Prince’ article.

The lack of extra levels of security at semiformals led to an unsafe environment at the club with excessive levels of alcohol, vomiting, and physicality, according to an email sent

by TI’s graduate board to its members on Dec. 11.

Aslanian and Mehta did not respond to requests for comment. Current vice president Allison Lee ’18 will be TI’s interim president until officer elections in the spring.

Aslanian’s and Mehta’s resignations add to the two waves of TI officer resignations in 2014, which were also requested by the club’s graduate board.

Former TI president Ryan Cash ’15, house manager Dror Liebenthal ’15, treasurer Will Siroky ’15, and safety czar Victoria Majchrzak ’15 offered their resignations in March 2014 to the graduate board after a 21 Club party took place at TI, according to ‘Prince’ reporting.

The 21 Club is a semisecret heavy drinking club whose membership consists of 21 juniors and 21 seniors, mostly coming from Ivy, Cap, Cottage, and TI, according to further ‘Prince’ reporting.

Robert “Hap” Cooper ’82, TI’s graduate board

president, who received the officers’ letters of resignation, was president of the 21 Club during his time at the University.

Later in fall 2014, former TI vice president Adam Krop ’15 and treasurer Andrew Hoffenberg ’15 were fired from their positions following emails they sent to the club membership. Krop was fired for circulating a photo of a female student performing oral sex on a male student, while Hoffenberg was fired for an email proposing that TI membership “boo” Sally Frank ’80, whose activism was instrumental in getting the clubs to start accepting women.

‘Prince’ reporting shows this wave of officer removals in 2014 led to a letter signed by more than 100 TI alumni members condemning the recent behavior of the membership.

However, TI is not the only club with officer resignations in the past decade. In the past two calendar years alone, Tower has seen three of its technology chairs step down voluntarily. Aside from the position of treasurer, Tower’s two technology chairs are the only appointed positions on the club’s 12-person officer corps.

Liu and Vogelsang stepped down voluntarily from their appointed roles as tech chairs on Oct. 31 and Nov. 2, respectively, according to resignation emails sent to the club membership on those dates.

Vogelsang deferred comment to her resignation email sent to the club on Nov. 2. Liu declined to comment.

According to Vogelsang’s email, she resigned as tech chair due to “a sometimes disrespectful environment and unreconcilable philosophical differences” between her and other officers.

Vogelsang did not respond to request for further clarification as of press time. Tower president Christopher Jagoe ’18 declined to comment.

Liu’s and Vogelsang’s resignations followed that of former Tower tech chair Maddie Clayton ’17.

Clayton resigned from her position last year because she dropped out of Tower to join another eating club, according to Graham Turk ’17, who took on the role of Tech Chair after Clayton dropped.

Indeed, several voluntary officer resignations have stemmed from purely logistical reasons.

According to Crane - who stepped down as Ivy’s IM chair around April - Ivy Club has seen voluntary step-downs and turnover in some of its officership, since positions like IM chair are typically “handed down.”

“My predecessor, whom I was close to and who knew I would be active in the role because of my previous attendance at numerous IM sporting events, handed it down to me even though I already had a ‘fake officer’ role [community service chair],” Crane explained.

According to Crane, “fake officers” are Ivy officers who do not live in the club, including IM chair, food chair, community service chairs, and tech chair.

“It would have been irregular for me to hold both [IM and community service] positions, even though I probably could have handled the time commitment and didn’t mind, so I, in turn, passed the IM chair position down to a current junior

who I knew would fill the role well,” Crane said.

Crane remains Ivy’s community service chair, as of publication.

Ivy president Folasade Runcie ’18 did not respond to a request for comment.

On the sign-in club side, Samuel Smiddy ’17 stepped down from his positions as Cloister and ICC president after he was found to be in unlawful possession of a handgun during his stay at Cloister Inn, according to a ‘Prince’ article published last year.

Smiddy did not respond to a request for comment.

Yu said that when the position of ICC president became vacant, he was elected by a vote of the other eating club presidents in November 2016.

Yu was the only candidate who ran for the position, since the presidency was viewed as one that detracts from the attention each president could give their own clubs.

A look around the Street today Officer resignations and charges brought up against the officers have helped catalyze changes both to the structure of the ICC and to distinct clubs’ officer corps.

According to Yu, the ICC has grown “closer and more cooperative than in the past,” especially in light of increased interest among club presidents in contributing to combat Street-wide issues. One of the main changes to the ICC’s structure has been the introduction of the post of vice president, as opposed to just one ICC president as in the past decades. This new post would allow smoother functioning if an ICC president were to step down from eating club officership again.

Lucas added that the eating club presidents also recently collaborated on adopting a shared statement of principles to address Street-wide issues such as recruitment, diversity and inclusion, safety, alcohol use, meal exchange, and the clubs’ relationship with the University.

In terms of individual club officer corps, there are currently 107 eating club officers distributed among the University’s 11 eating clubs, according to the counts on their websites. This does not include some appointed positions and other chairs such as community service, alumni relations, and sustainability.

Quad has the biggest officer corps, with 19 members, followed by Cap with 14. Colonial has 13 officers.

Tower and Charter each have 12 officers. Cannon Club has 10. TI and Terrace each have six officers.

Cloister, Cottage, and Ivy each have five officers in addition to their other Chairs.

Several of these clubs have designated officers for safety and security — for example, Tower’s security chair and TI’s safety czar.

While the size and composition of officer corps fluctuates both between and within clubs each year, all officers work together to uphold the clubs’ collective statement of principles.

According to Lucas, eating club officers are also currently engaged with various members of the University administration and community in a year-long task force to address collaborative initiatives toward community-building and diversity and inclusion in the clubs and on campus as a whole.

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE KAPLAN FAMILY VIA PRINCETON.EDU

Jacob Kaplan ’19 is remembered by family and friends for his sense of humor and kind heart.

Kaplan remembered by Quad, Club Baseball, CJL, and many close friends KAPLAN Continued from page 1

.............

hometown, and it was someone’s birthday,” explained Becca Miller, Kaplan’s longtime girlfriend and a 2017 graduate of The College of New Jersey, “he would write a handwritten card to give to them.”

Kaplan’s sense of humor and big heart, Cajuste said, were two reasons he would never have wanted a room without Kaplan.

And, when Kaplan was diagnosed with Stage IV angiosarcoma — a rare and severe form of cancer — three days after his 21st birthday on Apr. 4, 2017, according to Cajuste, none of “all that is Jacob Kaplan” changed.

After an eight-month battle, Kaplan, a talented computer programmer, passed away on Dec. 24, 2017. He was 21 years old.

In mid-March, shortly before his diagnosis, Kaplan was sent to the emergency room for stomach pains, according to his GoFundMe page. But, after several weeks and numerous tests, what was originally thought to be a problem with his appendix turned out to be large growth on his liver and other small lesions throughout his chest and abdomen.

According to the Sarcoma Foundation of America, angiosarcoma affects the blood vessels and comprises one to two percent of all sarcomas, a class of rare cancers that grow in connective tissue. When Kaplan was diagnosed last April, the cancer had already entered a metastatic stage — Stage IV — traveling to sites beyond where the cancer first started.

Originally part of the Class of 2018, Kaplan had taken a leave of absence from the University for the spring 2017 semester, but had returned this fall to finish his degree in computer science. Ac-

cording to updates on his GoFundMe page, the cancer appeared to have gone into remission before the fall semester began, but in early December, he was admitted to the emergency room due to severe abdominal pain. He was originally at the University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro before transferring to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, where he spent his remaining days.

Since April, the University community has rallied behind Kaplan, who, together with his family, began a GoFundMe campaign that raised roughly $139,000 by the time of publication to cover treatment costs, with any excess funds going to angiosarcoma research.

A member of Whitman College, Kaplan was also a part of several University organizations, many of which sought to help. Kaplan’s club baseball team, for which he formerly served as co-president, held a fundraiser for Kaplan. In April, Kaplan’s eating club, Quadrangle Club, held a charity auction for his treatment.

Kaplan was also involved with Chabad and the University’s Center for Jewish Life, which started the #GoodDeedsforJacob initiative in mid-December.

The University’s tennis team also held a fundraiser after reading Kaplan’s GoFundMe page.

Among those who knew him, Kaplan had an impeccable sense of humor. He could always make anyone laugh with his unsuspecting jokes, innate wit, and dark humor.

Shelby Kaplan drew attention to this at Kaplan’s funeral. “On my worst days or when I was incredibly mad,” she said, “he was the only one that could make me laugh so hard [that] I forgot [what I was upset about].”

She also remembers Kaplan’s “giant orange joke book” that he would read

from almost nightly. Kaplan took pride that his initials were “JK” and that his birthday fell on April Fool’s Day. Even when his parents were upset at him, he still strove to find a way to lighten the situation.

“We’d get mad at him,” his mother Robyn Kaplan said. “And he’d give us a look, just to make us laugh.”

On the club baseball team, too, which he joined freshman year, Kaplan would joke around to relieve the tension after a bad inning or a bad game, explained the club’s co-president Taek Yoon Lee ’18.

Shi affectionately referred to his jokes as “Jacob jokes.” It wasn’t necessarily the content, but the enthusiastic way in which they were told that made them funny, explained Shi. While Kaplan joked a lot, he also cared deeply for those around him, especially for his family.

“My entire life,” said Shelby in her speech, “he filled the big brother role as my protector.”

The relationship he had with his sister was remarkably close, observed Kaplan’s parents. They noted that the siblings would tell each other everything.

“Even stuff they didn’t share with us, they would tell each other and counsel each other,” his father Michael Kaplan said.

As a first-year student at Franklin & Marshall College, Shelby Kaplan even chose to spend her 2017 fall break with her brother, and he brought her to Quad, showed her the various dining halls, and just spent time with her.

“When we hung out, it wasn’t that we had to do anything, it wasn’t that we needed to be kept busy,” she explained. “We would just be together.”

Though he went to school thousands of miles away from his home in Chatsworth, Calif., Ka-

Monday January 8, 2018

plan tried his best to stay close to his parents, calling them just about every day on his way to class or to Quad even if it was only to say hello.

“Sometimes, he’d be walking and we wouldn’t be necessarily be talking, but it was like I was walking with him,” Michael Kaplan said.

Kaplan’s mother added that the relationship he had with his parents was akin to friendship.

“He was our friend aside from being our son,” she explained.

On campus, he was known to have a positive attitude and went out of his way to make people smile. At Quad, he would randomly approach other students and strike up a conversation, according to Shi. “Jacob was nice to everybody, no matter who you were,” said Miller, who often visited Quad with Kaplan. “He would try to make you feel included.”

Shi recalls walking back with Kaplan after a party and confessing to Kaplan that Shi had felt like he didn’t fit in with the scene.

“I expected him to make a joke, but he took it really seriously,” said Shi. “He offered me advice and said how sometimes he felt that way, too.”

Kaplan’s immense empathy also enabled him to grasp each player’s talent and personality to help better integrate them into the team — making him an ideal club baseball co-captain, explained Lee. Although captaincy meant having the power to decide who was on the field or on the bench, Kaplan often sacrificed his own playtime to give others more time on the field.

Kaplan also loved academics. He majored in computer science, but also found a passion for linguistics — his intended certificate. According to Miller, he would joke that he was actually a linguist.

“The way things came so naturally to him was amazing,” said another former roommate of Kaplan’s, Newby Parton ’18.

Parton is a former head opinion editor for The Daily Princetonian.

In the same dorm where Kaplan would bombard his roommates with stuffed toys, Parton remembers that the whiteboard on Kaplan’s wall would regularly be filled with visual mappings of programming operations.

Before he learned of his diagnosis, Kaplan landed a competitive internship with Qualtrics, an experience management and online survey company in Utah, for the summer of 2017. He had to give up this internship due to his illness.

Miller noted that Kaplan would sometimes stay after class to talk to his professors and that he enjoyed having intellectual conversations with friends. She also praised Kaplan’s writing, describing him as the better writer and speaker of the two of them.

More than just being academically driven and gifted, Kaplan “balanced work and personal life really well,” Parton said.

Kaplan didn’t let his diagnosis keep him from that balance either. Even in the hospital, he would bring a book in hopes of doing work. Shelby noted that he contacted Golden Hour, a company he had interned at the summer after sophomore year, and found a way to work for them remotely when-

ever he felt up to it. He would continue to make jokes and, according to Shi, laugh at his own expense.

“He was definitely scared, but he always made jokes regardless of the dire situation,” said Miller. “He wasn’t fixated on his condition. He focused on living every day to the fullest.”

Kaplan stayed positive around his friends and family, with his sister noting that her brother was “never not” himself.

“Even at the time of his disease, he would still worry about others,” Michael Kaplan continued.

“The whole time, he believed that he could overcome it.”

He remained a supportive boyfriend and tried his best to uplift Miller’s spirits, continuing to design and write her special cards — a tradition he had started during their relationship. Every month or so, he would design her a card, sometimes to commemorate a special occasion and sometimes just to write one.

Even after his passing, Kaplan maintains a strong presence in the lives of his loved ones.

“Throughout my life, Jacob has always been my comedic relief, my inspiration, my pride, and loudest cheerleader,” said his sister, “but most of all he was and always will be my best friend.”

Cajuste remembers how whenever he and Kaplan needed a study break, they’d unwind on what Kaplan called the ‘magical couch’ in their room and play Kill Shot Bravo on their phones. Kaplan and Cajuste’s usernames, “bballjake” and “L-Nasty,” respectively, even became their alternative persona names after composing “Let’s Get It Done and Make It Happen,” a rap song.

Parton recalls how often Kaplan watched the American comedy series, Impractical Jokers, with Shi, explaining that he has become inspired to watch it himself.

Shi remembers how Kaplan, after he watched Shi drop his prox and claim that he ‘lost’ it, kept teasing Shi about losing his prox.

His parents remember the television shows that they watched together, the video games they played together, the countless games of Uno that they shared. His sister recalls his bizarre Cold Stone Creamery concoctions and the late nights that they spent talking.

Miller still texts him, updating him about her day, and continues to send him funny videos on Facebook. She thinks about him often, recalling things small and large. She remembers that his favorite food was a bacon cheeseburger and she especially remembers the time he asked her to be his girlfriend in Prospect Garden.

“Jacob made the most of every day and was positive and engaged in the classroom, excited about life,” said Miller. “I want to have that same contagious love of life as him.”

His mother echoed Miller’s sentiments.

“Jacob lived,” she explained. “He didn’t just go through the motions.

He enjoyed life and lived.”

Kaplan is survived by his parents Robyn and Mike Kaplan and his sister, Shelby. The University offered condolences to the Kaplan family and noted that memorial donations may be made to the nonprofit organization Angiosarcoma Awareness Inc.

The Daily Princetonian

Monday January 8, 2018

page 5

Grad Board cites security staffing concerns as grounds for dismissal TIGER INN Continued from page 1

.............

shared with club members on Dec. 11.

In the initial Dec. 11 email, the Board of Governors cited a failure to have a safety patrol present Dec. 8 as an oversight that created an unsafe environment for club members and guests at the semiformal. The board suggests that a lack of extra levels of security at semiformals led to an unsafe environment at the club: excessive levels of alcohol, vomiting, and physicality.

It is TI policy that club members go on duty to patrol the club for “safety” any night the club is open to the greater University community.

On such nights, the club hires nine bouncers and has five to seven student members patrolling inside the club. These “safety” members are meant to watch out for subtle things that might go wrong when alcohol is involved, a member explained. TI is the one of the only clubs on the street with this patrol system, though ICC policy suggests the eating clubs have sober officers on duty as best practice.

On formal nights at the club, the process for security at TI is different.

Officers hire additional bouncers for formals to replace the five to seven student members that usually patrol inside the club. Traditionally, no members have been on duty on formal occasions at the club.

On the night of Dec. 8, at the sophomore semiformals, there were neither added security guards nor designat-

ed patrolling TI members on “safety” at the club until three officers stepped in to perform “safety” duty.

According to a Dec. 14 email obtained by the ‘Prince,’ in which TI officers addressed the board’s concerns with the club’s broader membership, this oversight in procuring appropriate security was due to miscommunication between officers and the club’s team of bouncers. The Dec. 14 email notes that officers reached out to TI’s house manager the morning of semis to confirm the preparation of appropriate security for the night. According to the email, at the beginning of the night, it was the officers’ impression that appropriate security would be in place, since the last communication between officers and the club’s team of bouncers indicated that the team would be at the club at 6:30 p.m. that night.

However, the required level of security never materialized. The club was left short of its security standards, with only the usual nine bouncers on duty instead of the baseline nine plus the five to seven additional bouncers needed for a formal. Earlier this year, TI experienced a shift in its bouncer team with a new head bouncer being appointed.

According to the officers’ Dec. 14 email, three officers went on “safety” the night of semiformals to assist bouncers and improve the security level at the club, which the Graduate Board deemed unsafe.

“We never intentionally attempted to have the formal without safety patrol,” the officers’ Dec.

T HE DA ILY

The best place to Write Edit Opine Design Produce Illustrate Photograph Create

on campus. join@dailyprincetonian.com

14 email read. “However, we take full responsibility for the miscommunication and understand that we should have been more proactive in securing additional security for the event.”

According to TI members, since the required five to seven additional bouncers could not be procured for TI’s formal the next night as well, five officers stepped in for “safety” duty at the club on Saturday, Dec. 9, so that TI would not be left short of its security standards.

Regarding the level of security expected at the club on Dec. 8, the Board of Governors corroborated in its Dec. 11 email that added security had been expected at the club for the semi-formal.

TI officers have resigned for similar security reasons in the past, and Cooper has previously expressed concern about safety at the club.

TI members interviewed by the ‘Prince’ have expressed disagreement with the notion that TI has a safety or security problem as a club.

TI is often held to an unfair standard compared to its peers on the street, members said. They expressed their opinion that one miscommunication is not indicative of a larger issue with TI’s club culture, and that framing Dec. 8 as such may give an inaccurate portrayal of TI as a club to the greater community. These members suggest that any lack of security at the club that night was a lack of extra security. They feel it is unfair to punish the club for failing to meet this standard, as they feel TI’s unique safety policy often makes TI safer than

its peers on the Street.

“I’ve never felt unsafe at TI,” a female TI member from the Class of 2019 said.

According to TI members, since the required five to seven additional bouncers could not be procured for the next night’s formals party, five officers stepped in for “safety” duty at the club the night of Saturday, Dec. 9, so that TI would not fall short of its security standards for a second night.

The remaining of the “several difficult” decisions TI’s Board of Governors discussed in its Dec. 19 email include significant shifts in TI’s social calendar. These changes are referenced in conjunction with the board’s desire to foster safety and unity within the club.

According to the Dec. 19 email, the club will not be on tap for the rest of the semester. When the club goes back on tap for the second semester, it will only do so two nights a week, like many other clubs on the Street. According to TI members, TI’s social calendar this semester has typically included three nights on tap — one members’ night and two nights open to the greater University community.

The graduate board’s Dec. 19 email expressed a general concern over disjointed membership in the club. The email cited a large club membership of 191 as a cause of great division among people with varying affiliations. The board expressed a hope that the changes in Thursday nights at the club — members going bowling, playing laser tag, or go-

ing on bus trips instead of being on tap in the clubhouse — might increase club cohesion.

“In lieu of a regular night on Thursdays, we’ve encouraged officers to come up with more events to bring the club closer together,” the Board of Governors wrote in its Dec. 19 email.

Moreover, with bicker drawing near, Tiger Inn is planning an off-tap Dean’s Date night out in an effort to break with past precedent. According to the board’s Dec. 19 email, the board hopes this night will be “fun, memorable, and attractive” to a broad range of sophomore bickerees.

TI members interviewed by the ‘Prince’ expressed a desire for more transparency in the decision-making process of the Board of Governors. They also expressed disagreement with the board’s notion that there exists fundamental disunity in the club.

In its Dec. 19 email, TI’s Board of Governors noted that it reached its decisions after a week and a half of dialogue with many members.

The board concluded its email by stating that Tiger Inn is looking to the future, emphasized the importance of making safety, inclusivity, and unity integral parts of their club culture.

According to TI members, officers are focusing on making this year’s TI’s bicker process attractive to as diverse a group of bickerees as possible.

In a previous version of this article, the ‘Prince’ misstated how many clubs use a patrol process similar to the one TI uses. The ‘Prince’ regrets the error.

Monday January 8, 2018

Opinion

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

We voted too fast on the Honor Code referenda Allison Huang

contributing columnist

R

eading the outcome of the Honor Code referenda in The Daily Princetonian, I felt as if Princeton had arrived at a momentous occasion — 64 percent of the student population (around 3,330 people) had turned out to vote overwhelmingly in support of the referenda — but I was unsure whether I was to celebrate or mourn. I felt like a small child standing in front of the remnants of a ruined supermarket display tower: As a hundred toppled-over cans rolled around me, I realized that we had just done something, but I wasn’t sure what we’d done.

The Honor System needed reform. I’m just not convinced a rushed referendum was the right way of doing it.

When I first saw the referenda posed in the Undergraduate Student Government all-school email, I felt intuitively inclined to vote “yes” on each one. My ears flooded with emotionally arousing stories that pitted us against the shadowy organization called the Honor Committee and its unjust rule.

None of these stories, however, gave me empirical evidence or logical reasoning for why I should vote “yes” or “no” on each of the four referenda. When we actually moved to the ballot, what were we voting for?

I cannot tell if all four referenda passed because we were voting on specific policy changes or because we were demonstrating overwhelming support for general reform.

Before voting, I would have liked to have known the alternatives to referenda: I read that reform was already being undertaken by a University task force composed of students, faculty, and administrators. No one informed me as to why this task force was being overridden by referendum. Was it because the task force was ineffective, or was it because people were getting impatient about change?

The referenda were rushed to the ballot three weeks before we voted (whereas on page 19, the USG elections rulebook states referenda must be posed five weeks in advance) which gave the opposition party little time to organize and present a compel-

ling reason to vote “no.”

The opposition party ended up being members of the Honor Committee — a conflict of interest given that the Honor Committee must inherently be disinterested when dealing with matters surrounding the Honor System.

In the absence of equally matched opposition and pro-referendum parties, “vote, vote, vote” became synonymous with “vote YES, vote YES, vote YES.” As for the rushed nature of the election cycle, I was not even able to parse the wording of the first referendum until the very day elections opened. On Dec. 12, peer representatives explained that by passing this referendum, “writing overtime on exams, infractions that violate course policy due to lack of proper attention (like accidentally bringing in a calculator), and more intentional infractions (like looking up answers) [would] all merit the same punishment: disciplinary probation.”

This would give radically different violations the same baseline punishment. It would also create a disparity between cases dealt with by the Committee on Discipline

and the Honor Committee: A student who plagiarized on an in-class assessment would receive disciplinary probation while a student who plagiarized on a homework assignment would be suspended for a year.

Pro-referendum advocates had us convinced that the pinnacle of change rested on this ballot, on this election.

But voting “no” on the referenda meant delaying a reckless change in order to examine the finer facts, not opposing reform. The simple fact is, these referenda may not have been our best or only recourse for reform.

Let us be discerning and cautious when approaching sweeping changes like this one, insistent on gleaning all the facts before making our decision. We all see the beauty in our student-run Honor System.

Let us not desecrate it in our blind pursuit of hurried change. I ask only for patience, and informed decision-making as we move forward and approach future issues as impactful as this one.

Allison Huang is a firstyear from Princeton, N.J. She can be reached at ah25@princeton.edu.

Letter to the Editor: The Honor Code Reform remanding was outright provoked Louis Tambellini

guest contributor

M

any students are u nderst a nd ably concluding that the administration remanding Honor Code Reform is unjustified and unexpected. Here, I will argue the reforms were an irresponsible abuse of a longstanding agreement between students and faculty. This entire calamity was provoked by the USG and the USG subcommittee that created these reforms, seeing as they were warned about the potential consequences of their irresponsible actions.

Given the scale and expediency of the reforms, it is fair for the administration to say “These proposals represent a significant departure from prior practice and exceed the scope of the responsibility delegated to the student body concerning the Honor System.” The administration has correctly recognized that referenda 1-3 constitute matters that the student body itself should not fully control independent of faculty and administration cooperation. The campaign did not fairly present the potential ramifications of the proposal, such as disparate penalties, the automatic mobilization of the faculty to act as judges in trials, and the unclear standards of evidence necessary to move a case to trial. Instead of a cooperative process where these concerns could have been identified, the referenda were written independently by a USG subcommittee without input from faculty or administration.

Princeton is a collaboration between faculty, administration, and students: these groups have been the building blocks of sound universities for

centuries. The Honor Code is a unique instance of this collaboration: faculty waive their presence in the in-class exam academic integrity system in exchange for the expectation that students will maintain a system of high academic integrity that coincides with the interests of the faculty. Fundamental changes to this agreement should be as collaborative as the agreement itself. Amendments to the Honor System that dramatically change the standard penalty for academic integrity violations are undoubtedly fundamental to the nature of this agreement. Amendments that drastically changes the role faculty serve in the in-class exam academic integrity system are absolutely fundamental to the nature of this agreement.

The agreement never completely detached the faculty from the academic integrity system. As the email correctly points out, the faculty has always “retained its ultimate authority over all academic matters, including those aspects of discipline it entrusted to the Honor Committee.” As such, writers of reform have a responsibility to utilize faculty and administration cooperation when drafting reform fundamental to the nature of this agreement.

Eight students, handpicked by Patrick Flanigan, comprised the subcommittee: they were not elected. These students abused their stature to irresponsibly draft this reform. They improperly met behind closed doors in unannounced meetings.

They had minimal to no dialogue with the faculty, administration, Honor Committee leadership, or legal counsel. These students acted irresponsibly

as to create reforms the faculty and administration would have no choice but to remand.

To boot, USG was repeatedly warned of the irresponsible nature of the reform, the underlying potential consequences, and the lack of faculty consent regarding the reforms. The USG was repeatedly urged by myself and many others to appeal the decision to put these reforms on the ballot. On Dec. 10, 2017, I submitted comments to the USG recommending an appeal of the decision to put the referenda on the ballot. The comments, as well as a 15-minute recording where I explained the concerns, were placed on the official docket for the meeting. One comment is as follows.

“I have personally spoken with VP [for Campus Life W. Rochelle] Calhoun and [Deputy Dean of Undergraduate Students Thomas] Dunne, and they both agree that these referenda will not necessarily be immediately implemented. Due to the risks they pose, and the lack of consent from the faculty, they could be delayed or outright refused by the faculty. This, at a minimum, could result in great tension because students will get upset if the faculty delays or modifies the implementation.”

The USG voted against appealing the decision to put these proposed amendments on the ballot. We are now seeing the aforementioned delay and the tension. This tension and strife was avoidable.

Had the USG subcommittee drafted reform responsibly, or had the USG appealed the decision to put these reforms on the ballot, we would not be seeing this fallout. Instead of responsible reform, a few students have uncannily

formed this unsettling scenario in which the faculty and administration had no choice but to act in a way that appears malevolent.

Sponsors of the reform were warned of these issues while their ballotworthiness was being questioned. One response blurted out at a USG meeting was: “We should let the administration respond if they want to respond, but we should let the students speak if they want to speak.” Well, the students spoke, and the administration has now responded, right on schedule.

A few more student contentions I would like to address are as follows.

Some students think if the faculty is displeased with the reform, they should now entirely throw out the agreement. No. Throwing out a an agreement finetuned since its inception due to less than three months worth of irresponsibility from one USG subcommittee with eight members is preposterous.

Major changes to a system as central and influential to the entire student body and the University should be crafted under the full collaboration of students who are affected by them, faculty who are interested in maintaining academic integrity, and administrators interested in the continuity of the greatness of Princeton University (not to say these relevancies aren’t shared, of course).

Lastly, I’ve heard some say the administration should have done something before the election.

I believe it was difficult to understand the entire situation as it was developing, and remanding the election before or after it took place is, in both cases, not a strategy likely to be viewed favorably by students. It appears they

vol. cxli

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 Kathleen Crown William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Lisa Belkin ‘82 Francesca Barber trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73

141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 associate news editors Kristin Qian ’18 head opinion editor Nicholas Wu ’18 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Emily Erdos ’19 head sports editor David Xin ’19 associate sports editors Christopher Murphy ’20 Claire Coughlin ’19 head street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 associate street editors Lyric Perot ’20 Danielle Hoffman ’20 web editor Sarah Bowen ’20 head copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 associate copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 head design editors Samantha Goerger ’20 Quinn Donohue ’20 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19

NIGHT STAFF design Dante Sudilovsky’21

chose the conservative option, instead of opting for hastily interfering in an election as it was taking place with only limited information, understanding, and conclusions. Either option could have been avoided had the USG or the USG subcommittee that created these reforms acted responsibly.

The administrators who wrote the email did not do anything untoward. The erroneous, careless, and irresponsible actions of the USG and the USG subcommittee unnecessarily constructed this debacle.

Louis Tambellini is a senior in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Franklin, Tenn. He can be reached at louist@princeton.edu.

Monday January 8, 2018

Opinion

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Letter from the Editor: In Response to an Honor Code fairer than Title IX proceedings Sarah Sakha

editor-in-chief

P

rofessor Sergio Verdú is teaching a course next semester: Information Theory, ELE 528, despite his being found guilty of sexually harassing his advisee by a University Title IX investigation. He sexually harassed someone.

He is still here.

And his still being here manifests just why the accused – and the guilty – in cases of sexual assault and harassment adjudicated at the University do not need to be afforded more rights and in fact, privileges, as Allison Berger posits in her first argument of a recent Letter to the Editor. A respondent party has the right of appeal. Rather, the accusers – the victims – need to be afforded more protections, as I have seen firsthand with vulnerable friends and peers on this campus.

Berger advocates for a higher standard of evidence in Title IX cases in her third argument, contending the inadequacy of the current standard: “a preponderance

of the evidence.” This is one area that Secretary of Education DeVos announced changes in, rescinding Obama-era guidelines for how universities should handle sexual assault accusations. The current standard, as used in all civil cases in the U.S., “gives equal weight to both the complainant and the respondent,” as SHARE wrote in a statement on Title IX in November.

Furthermore, SHARE argues, “The clear and convincing standard of evidence requires that the complainant show that something is substantially more likely than not to have occurred. It thus raises the bar for findings of responsibility.”

Raising the burden of proof, as Berger suggests, would only make it more difficult for sexual assault cases to be fairly adjudicated, and more difficult for victims to come forward and have their stories be met with credence. It is already difficult enough to do so in a social and political context that makes individuals hesitant to report incidents

of sexual misconduct.

Berger’s fourth argument brings forth the higher number of committee/panel members required to find the student responsible in an Honor Code violation case as opposed to a sexual assault case.

However, she fails to highlight an important, and concerning, disparity: The Honor Committee comprises entirely of students, as laid out in Article 2.3.2 in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities.

In stark contrast, the Title IX investigative panel consists of administrators and/or outside investigators, appointed by the Title IX coordinator, as explained in Article 1.3.12 of RRR. Thus, the number of people adjudicating pales in comparison to the background of those adjudicating.

The fate of a student should not be entirely placed in the hands of other students, which leads me to my next point. Berger asserts the impartiality and unbiased nature of Honor Committee members in her fifth argument.

However, I maintain

my reservations in that regard, and have little faith in the current system, as reinforced by the University administration’s recent announcement to roll back overdue reform.

Ultimately, I agree with Berger’s overarching argument. Yes, the Honor Code Constitution presents stipulations far stricter than those presented by Title IX regulations, both enumerated in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities.

I, as a proponent of Honor Code reform, share the values she writes about: fairness and justice, as do all other proponents of reform.

I am not arguing that the panel – or adjudication process – in a Title IX case is completely fair or just. I am arguing that neither system is fair or just.

But that is exactly why we need to reform Title IX procedures – and how we approach sexual misconduct allegations overall – to make it more just towards the victims, the survivors.

And that is exactly why we need to reform the Honor Code to make it

fairer, because “we take using a calculator in an exam more seriously than we take violating Title IX.” These are both causes that proponents of Honor Code reform are, have been, and will continue advocating and fighting for.

I will end with a note of caution: Let us not so liberally create parallels between Title IX cases and Honor Code cases, between the offense committed by a student on a final paper or exam with the crime committed by an individual against another. I see the merits for such comparisons, and neither act is victimless. However, the latter causes permanent harm, and for that reason, I see it as highly unfair – and atrocious – to even begin to compare going overtime on an exam or using a prohibited calculator with sexually violating another human being.

Sarah Sakha is Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Princetonian. This letter represents the views of the Editor-in-Chief only; she can be reached at eic@dailyprincetonian.com.

Title IX proceedings: far less fair than the Honor Code Allison Berger

F

guest contributor

airness. It was the word at the heart of the arguments made in favor of Honor Code reform during December’s campaign. In announcing the referenda, the campaign sponsors wrote, “Most importantly, we need a fair system … we’re proposing four, common-sense reforms that will lead to greater fairness and academic integrity.” The importance of fairness was repeated throughout a photo campaign featuring calls from student leaders to vote for Honor Code reform in order to, for example, “strengthen our commitment to academic integrity, due process, and fairness for all students,” “ensure fairness for future classes,” and “make sure the system is fair for everyone.”

Given the campaign’s emphasis on fairness and the student body’s overwhelming support for Honor Code reform, it may come as a troubling surprise to many that the existing Honor system is in fact far fairer and offers far stronger due process protections than another campus disciplinary process: investigation and adjudication of sexual misconduct cases through the Title IX Coordinator.

Indeed, Princeton’s Title IX proceedings offer less procedural fairness and fewer due process protections than the Honor system does in five key areas: The Honor Constitution, in Article III, Section A, explicitly enumerates many important

rights (10, to be exact) of a student accused of violating the Honor Code, such as the rights to call witnesses and to maintain his or her innocence. By contrast, Section 1.3.12 of Rights, Rules, Responsibilities (RRR), which describes the process for investigating, adjudicating, and appealing sexual misconduct cases, includes no clear and affirmative declaration of the rights of the accused.

The Honor Committee allows the accused student to bring an active and participatory adviser to his or her hearing. Under Article III, Section A of the Honor Constitution, an accused student’s Peer Representative may participate in the hearing by supplementing the student’s answers to questions, questioning witnesses, and making closing remarks. By contrast, per Section 1.3.12.1 of RRR, the accusing and accused students in a Title IX case “may select an adviser of their choice who may accompany them to any meeting or related proceeding, but the adviser may not actively participate in the interview process.”

The Honor Committee utilizes a higher burden of proof to determine if a violation has occurred than does the Title IX panel. As Article II, Section D of the Honor Constitution enumerates, “a student will be found responsible if the Committee finds overwhelmingly convincing evidence that the student ought reasonably to have understood that their actions were in violation of the Honor

Code.” By contrast, according to Section 1.3.12.1 of RRR, “the [Title IX] investigative panel will conduct an inquiry and determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether this policy was violated.” Under the preponderance of evidence standard, panelists will find a student responsible if they believe that it is ‘more likely than not’ that an allegation is true. It is the lowest burden of proof possible in legal proceedings — far too low a standard under which to find a student responsible for a serious infraction that could result in his or her suspension or expulsion from the University.

The Honor Committee also requires that a higher percentage of its members vote to find a student responsible for the student to be convicted than does Title IX. Per Article III, Section D of the Honor Constitution, six out of seven, or 85.7 percent, of Honor Committee members adjudicating a case must vote that they are overwhelmingly convinced a violation occurred for the student to be found responsible. By contrast, two out of three, or only 66.7 percent, of the Title IX panelists must vote, based on the lower preponderance of evidence standard, that a violation occurred for the student to be penalized.

Finally, Honor Committee hearings to determine responsibility are more unbiased and independent than those of Title IX. As enumerated in Section 2.3.3 of RRR, the two Honor Committee members who investi-

gate a case do not participate in the deliberations about responsibility for that case. By contrast, the same three panelists for Title IX cases both investigate a complaint and vote on findings of responsibility for that complaint. Furthermore, Princeton’s current Title IX proceedings were only recently established in fall 2014, as part of a resolution agreement to conclude an investigation by the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights into Princeton’s handling of sexual misconduct cases. This agreement was accompanied by extreme political pressure on universities around the country to respond more forcefully to sexual misconduct, including by diminishing due process protections in sexual misconduct cases and finding more accused students responsible. While RRR states that “panelists will be impartial and unbiased,” in the context of the outside pressure Princeton has faced, a student accused under Title IX could reasonably be concerned about the impartiality of individuals selected for the panel.

Moreover, the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) recently issued a report on due process that gave Princeton a ‘D’ rating for the lack of due process and fairness in its handling of sexual misconduct cases. FIRE examined “10 fundamental elements of due process,” finding that Princeton’s Title IX proceedings lacked five

T HE DA ILY

Revealing the truth, one news story at a time. join@dailyprincetonian.com

of these key elements and that the other five were only partially present.

While some may argue that the seriousness of sexual misconduct justifies diminishing due process protections, that seriousness ought to be reflected in the punishment a student found responsible receives, not by using unfair procedures when an accused student retains the presumption of innocence.

Indeed the seriousness of sexual misconduct is why Princeton students found responsible face a range of possible penalties, including multi-year suspension or expulsion.

For all of the same arguments about fairness, justice, and the possibility of disparate impacts on different University populations that students made in favor of Honor Code reform, the fundamental unfairness of Princeton’s Title IX proceedings is deeply troubling.

As campus conversations continue around Princeton’s disciplinary bodies, I hope our student leaders who so forcefully campaigned to improve the fairness of the Honor Code will be similarly strong advocates for improving the fairness of the far less fair Title IX proceedings. Because as one elected U-Councilor stated for Honor Code reform’s photo campaign, “due process doesn’t disappear when you get to Princeton.”

Allison Berger is a senior in the Economics department from Madison, N.J. She can be reached at alberger@ princeton.edu.

Opinion

Monday January 8, 2018

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Princeton’s offshore accounts are legal Miguel Carani

contributing columnist

T

he release of the Paradise Papers in early November has raised many concerns about tax evasion. The findings, which The New York Times described as emerging from a “cache of secret corporate records” from multinational law firm Appleby, expose dozens of companies and wealthy elites that use tax havens. Apple Inc., according to the same article, “has accumulated more than $128 billion in profits offshore, and probably much more, that is untaxed by the United States and hardly touched by any other country.”

Princeton is among the named entities that use tax havens.

According to The Guardian, The New York Times, and other media, the University is cheating the government by investing in offshore corporations that do not pay an income tax. In other words, Princeton hides where it places its money.

While these critiques may be true, I find that this impassioned language mars the facts. Looking at the actions themselves, is it necessarily wrong that Princeton makes investments hidden from the IRS? Should the University be more transparent at the expense of prudent discretion?

Daily Princetonian col-

umnist Hayley Siegel described the investments as ways to “hide” their “loot,” but to put aside that language, these investments revealed by the Paradise Papers do not break the law. Whenever a tax-exempt organization engages in for-profit enterprises — namely private equity and hedge funds — that are unrelated to its exempt core mission, its income from those enterprises is what the IRS calls unrelated business taxable income.

Outside of the U.S. tax jurisdiction, this law, of course, no longer applies, and the investments the University and others have made in offshore tax havens stays within the bounds of the law.

“They’re not cheating.

They’re not hiding money or disguising money,” said Loyola University Chicago law professor Samuel Brunson in The New York Times. While critics like Siegel call the use of offshore accounts “morally dubious and objectively ‘wrong,’” they cannot correctly call it illicit. Clearly the first issue is not the legality, but the fact that money is masked from governmental scrutiny. That, as Brunson continues, “they’re adding money to a system that allows people, if they want to hide their money, to do it.”

Others critique the University’s perceived lack of transparency. As Sie-

gel comments, “fact that the offshore accounts were kept hidden … suggests that there exists no adequate reason for its needing to increase its endowment specifically through the extra offshore income.” The idea of leaked data makes investments in blocker corporations — a passthrough layer that allows investors to receive UBTI from private funds without tax — seem especially suspicious and nearly immoral. But this is a rash conclusion. It does not necessarily follow that because something is hidden, it is wrong.

For its part, Princeton University Investment Company, which manages endowment investments, demonstrates substantial transparency. It publishes a Report on Investments, provides an overview of investment strategy, and shows the general allocation of its assets. Of Princeton’s assets, 95 percent is in equities, of which most are private. Princo practices good business discretion by not providing the details of every investment it makes, onshore or off. Discretion is justified by prudence and the simple freedom to be discreet.

Using the language of rights, there is no right to investment information; it is absent from Rights, Rules, Responsibilities, and there are no clear grounds for students as

recipients of education to demand detailed knowledge of how the University raises funds. More substantively, however, is the consideration of what is best — that is, what action is a greater good, regardless of rights. Surely there will always be the mere possibility that investments are used for nefarious purposes. But students should consider first the implications of empowering the public with information on every investment venture.

As a private institution for higher education, the University is structured to operate without the crutch of regulation of its investments through public and government scrutiny. Making investment information fully transparent would endanger the effectiveness and competitiveness of Princeton’s investments. These restrictions would only limit the types of investments that are made, inhibiting economic activity. In this case, the ability to regulate lies with the Caribbean islands, whose governments can draw revenue from foreign companies by imposing a tax. These areas become tax havens — they choose to have little or no corporate tax — because they want to maintain economic independence.

They benefit from having foreign corporations and investments.

My final point pertains

to tax avoidance. To examine this, we cannot conflate morality and legality, though they are closely related. One should follow the law in respect and deference to the authority. If a law can be circumvented, not broken, it is not always the case that an action is immoral. The purpose of tax avoidance is to turn a greater profit while remaining within the law.

There is nothing strictly unethical here because consider this. Is it wrong that the government receives less money? Is it wrong for a corporation to want to keep all of its return on investment?

Using corporations located in tax havens as a loophole is not morally wrong because those corporations do nothing unethical. The source of the money is both clean and legal. On the other hand, money laundering, which also uses legal loopholes, can be called morally and legally wrong because money is drawn unethically, from drug trade, fraud, etc.

The purpose of tax laws here is not to uphold some moral position – they can exist or not exist without changing ethics – therefore finding a legal loophole remains within the bounds of good action.

Miguel Caranti is a first-year from Houston, Tex., and can be reached at mcaranti@princeton.edu.

Letter to the Editor: Concerning amendments to the constitution of the Honor Code Gordon Moore

guest contributor

I

n the December Undergraduate Student Government election, four referenda on the Constitution of the Honor System passed by a three-fourths majority. On Jan. 4, the undergraduate student body received an email from Deans Dolan and Kulkarni and Vice President Calhoun informing us that the four referenda will not be taking effect at this time. However, as per Article VI of the Constitution of the Honor System, “The Constitution may be amended … upon the initiative by petition of 200 members of the undergraduate body, followed by a three-fourths vote in a student referendum as conducted by the Elections Committee of the Undergraduate Student Government.”

As I understand it, the undergraduate student body correctly followed

this procedure as prescribed by the Constitution, and therefore successfully amended the Constitution. The deans and vice president outlined their thinking to the contrary, stating, “these proposals represent a significant departure from prior practice and exceed the scope of the responsibility delegated to the student body by the faculty concerning the Honor System. The proposals would also place the penalties for violating the Honor Code for in-class examinations out of alignment with academic integrity violations adjudicated by the faculty-student Committee on Discipline in cases of plagiarism and other out-of-class academic infractions.”

Regarding their first point, prior practice has no bearing on amendments to the Constitution. Further, the changes cannot exceed the scope of the responsibility del-

egated to the student body by the faculty concerning the Honor System, as the Honor System is entirely the domain of the student body. Regarding their second point that the proposals are out of alignment with the Committee on Discipline, the two committees are distinct and have no bearing on each other. Though it could be argued it would be preferable if the two committees were in alignment, there is no requirement that they be. To quote the Honor Committee website, “jurisdiction over violations of academic rules and regulations rests with two distinct committees at Princeton. All written examinations, tests, and quizzes that take place in class are conducted under the honor system. All violations of the honor system are the concern of the Undergraduate Honor Committee. Violations of rules and regulations pertaining to all other

academic work, including essays, term papers, and laboratory reports, fall under the jurisdiction of the Faculty/Student Committee on Discipline.

Should there be any uncertainty regarding which body is responsible for the adjudication of a particular case, clarification should be requested from the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students and the chair of the Honor Committee.”

From what the administration has presented the undergraduates, this seems to be a clear case of overreach and the administration does not actually have the power to block these changes. Regardless of one’s position on the changes to the Constitution of the Honor System, it is imperative that the University follow its own rules. If President Eisgruber and the Board of Trustees view the amendments as inappropriate or deficient, they must

now amend the Constitution themselves by either (1) seeking ten of twelve members of the Honor Committee to put forth a vote at a meeting of the Undergraduate Student Government and achieve a three-fourths vote of the Undergraduate Student Government members present at the meeting, or (2) gain the signatures on a petition from 200 undergraduate students and achieve a three-fourths vote in a student referendum as conducted by the Elections Committee of the Undergraduate Student Government.

The Princeton Honor System is successful and effective because students respect it and its Constitution. The Princeton administration must respect it as well.

Gordon Moore is a senior in Computer Science from New York, New York. He can be reached at ggmore@ princeton.edu.

Like what you see? Join the ‘Prince’!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

Opinion

Monday January 8, 2018

page 9

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

USG needs to burst the bubble

Nicholas Wu

I

head opinion editor

ncoming Undergraduate Student Government President Rachel Yee has promised to improve USG’s communication with the student community at large. Sadly, far too many students live under the mistaken impression that USG “doesn’t do anything.”

My fellow columnist Jan Domingo Alsina went so far as to argue that our Undergraduate Student Government members were nothing but “glorified social event organizers” — and that there was nothing inherently political about the position.

In reality, USG does far more than most students might realize, and belittling the work that they do does not do our campus community any favors. USG president Myesha Jemison’s administration helped to accomplish important projects on providing free menstrual products, establishing a committee on eating club relations, and piloting gender neutral bathrooms, among many others.

These are tangible reforms that make a real difference in the lives of our fellow students, and we should be grateful for all of the good work that USG does, often under the radar, here at the University. But, note

that all of these accomplishments are limited to life inside ‘the Orange Bubble.’ This needs to change.

Our undergraduate government can, and should, do more to represent the interests of our students to the world outside of Princeton. During this year’s fall 2017 USG elections, U-Councilor Samuel Vilchez Santiago raised a particularly salient point about the candidates’ stances on contemporary political issues (or lack thereof).

On Facebook, he wrote that they were missing stances on sexual misconduct, diversity and inclusion, immigration and protections for DACA and other undocumented students, to name a few. “This is disappointing to say the least,” Santiago wrote.

“These are real issues that not only affect Princeton students, but also the rest of our society. As student leaders, it is our responsibility to bring them up and talk about them!”

Now more than ever, the role of student governments is more political than any of us could have imagined. In the face of a highly destructive U.S. presidential administration, the personal becomes political.

A conservative political action group, Turning Points USA, has even f looded student gov-

ernment elections with money in an effort to elect conservative student government candidates. As much as many of us here in suburban New Jersey would like to pretend otherwise, what happens in the outside world affects us just as much as anyone else. So, we need an entirely different approach to the way we think about what our student government does — it’s time to think about the world outside the Bubble.

There’s also a place for the student government to get involved nationally. There aren’t any estimates about the total size of the undocumented population on campus, but the Trump Administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement threatens the lives of many of our friends, classmates, and families. The University has already filed suit against the Trump administration for its rescinding of DACA. Even more locally, the debates over welcoming/sanctuary county resolutions at the county government could have outsized impacts on undocumented students and other members of the University community. USG should step up and take an active role in advocating for undocumented students, regardless of their status as DACA recipients or otherwise.

Even the recently

passed tax bill threatened to harm many current undergraduate and graduate students. The previous versions of the bill that had included provisions to tax the tuition waivers of graduate students and to eliminate the tax deduction for student loan interest.

The final version only removed those provisions because of a huge outcry from students across the country. USG should have exercised its voice in this debate. The Graduate Student Government, for its part, was very active in rallying graduate students to fight against the proposed tuition waiver tax.

Student advocacy matters more than many of us realize, and creating a more outward-facing presence for USG would be a way to support and institutionalize it.

Our undergraduate student government needs to step up to fulfill its full potential as a liaison between the student community, the campus administration, and the broader University community. There might be concerns about the partisanship of such activism, but such concerns are unfounded. We elect our student officers to represent the interests of the student body, and those interests don’t stop at FitzRandolph Gate. Issues directly affecting the lives of our fellow students should

not be partisan issues.

There’s a proven model at other universities that USG could follow. The University of California, Los Angeles student government has a very successful office that fills this role, which they call the Office of the External Vice President. They advocate on behalf of the UCLA student body with local and state government officials and completed a number of successful campaigns this past year on neighborhood housing, student food security, tax reform, and immigration.

Their External Vice President is directly elected by the student body, so we would have to hold a special election to do so, but given that we already use the electronic Helios ballot system, it should not be too difficult to reactivate the system.

Creating a position similar to the External Vice President and addressing student concerns outside the Orange Bubble is an easy way to raise the visibility of USG’s advocacy and take a clear stand for the rights of students at Princeton and beyond.

Let’s get to work.

Nicholas Wu is the Head Opinion Editor of The Daily Princetonian. This letter represents the views of the Head Opinion Editor only; he can be reached at nmwu@princeton.edu.

Change the Honor Committee membership Liam O’Connor

L

columnist

ast month, a USG subcommittee introduced four referenda to make the most sweeping changes to the Honor Constitution in a generation. After a riveting election, they passed in a landslide victory.

Last week, administrators rebuked three of the four referenda. But a complete review of the Honor System by a University task force will occur this spring.

At December’s WhigClio senate debate on the referenda, I was shocked to learn that all current and former class presidents of the sophomore and junior classes serve on the Honor Committee. This responsibility is out of place. The class presidents’ jobs primarily consist of distributing free gear, organizing parties, and maintaining alumni connections.

As the University’s task force considers additional reforms to the Honor System, I urge them to change the membership of elected Honor Committee members from the sophomore and junior class presidents to the sophomore and junior class senators.

The role of class government isn’t to create or execute school policies, so its officers shouldn’t be on the Honor Committee. The Class Government Constitution

states from the beginning that the purpose of class government is to, “create substantive and class-specific programs” and, “establish distinct class identity.”

But Sec. 8. (a) sticks out like a fly on a wedding cake from the rest of the constitution. Amid jovial clauses about, “foster[ing] class unity,” Sec. 8. (a) obliges sophomore and junior class presidents to serve on the Honor Committee, the solemnest responsibility that any Princeton student could have.

This is absurd. The power to suspend and expel students is vested in the school’s chief social organizers. Nobody talks about serving on the Honor Committee when running for class president, and I’d wager that most class president candidates don’t even know about this responsibility until after they’re elected.

Honor Committee Chair Carolyn Liziewski ’18 said in an e-mail that the class presidents had been on the Honor Committee since its founding in 1893. While she said that she did not know the original intent of picking the class presidents for this job, she emphasized that, “We assume they believed it’s important to have elected voices on the Honor Committee. We believe the same to be true today.”

Class senators are more attuned to serve in this role. The Senate Constitution says that the purpose of the Senate is to, “exercise leadership in any activity affecting undergraduate life” and, “provide services for the University.”

Article III, Section 309 of the Senate Constitution specifies that the USG Senate is the sole authority on issues of undergraduate life and interests, and Sec. 3. (a) of the Class Government Constitution prohibits class governments from engaging in campus policy unless it pertains only to one class.

In other words, if students have complaints about the Honor System, the USG Senate officially represents students on the matter — not class presidents, even though the presidents are the members of the Honor Committee. The only time that class presidents have an impact in USG Senate affairs is on the rare occasions that they serve as substitutes for voting members during Senate meetings.

Clearly, given the structure of the Senate and Honor System, class senators should become the ex officio Honor Committee members — not the class presidents.

Beyond structure, there are two benefits to making this change.

First, having senators on the Honor Commit-

tee duly ensures that it treats everyone fairly and is not prejudiced toward students of a particular class. Class presidents are elected by their class to serve their class and no one else.

Although class senators are also elected by their own class, the Senate Constitution states that Senate members must represent all undergraduates. As Class of 2018 Senator Soraya Morales Nuñez ’18 recently wrote in an op-ed, “I have a commitment to the student body, and this commitment is not limited to the Class of 2018.”

Second, it reinforces the class governments’ independence from the Senate. A 2014 referendum severed class governments from the Senate by creating a separate constitution for them.

Its goal was to eliminate the Senate’s power to, “affect the events held by one class government for a particular class” by Senate members of another class.

But — as a loophole in the referendum — the Senate still has residual power to do this.

The Senate appoints new members to the Honor Committee. If the Senate has a disagreement with the sophomore or junior class governments, it could appoint people to the Honor Committee who will undermine the class presidents’ decisions or vote to dismiss

T HE DA ILY

Not fake news join@dailyprincetonian.com

them.

While such a scenario seems implausible due to the recent placidity in USG politics, it’s not impossible. The USG Senate has had members who played “takeno-prisoners” politics in the past, including Eliot Spitzer ‘81 and Ted Cruz ‘92. They exploited every opportunity to advance their own agendas and strengthen their powers while in USG. Further, current USG Senate members have expressed their intentions to appoint more diverse students to the Honor Committee. If they have a desire to choose Committee members based on identity, then there’s little stopping them from clandestinely selecting members by petty political biases against class presidents.

The inclusion of sophomore and junior class presidents on the Honor Committee doesn’t make sense. Class senators should replace them due to their work on school policy and representation of students’ opinions. Class presidents should be focused on bringing fun and unity to their classes. Suspending a student for cheating is the exact opposite of that.

Liam O’Connor is a sophomore from Wyoming, Del. He can be reached at lpo@ princeton.edu.

Sports

Monday January 8, 2018

page 10

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

Women’s hoops closes 2017 with dominating performance vs. UMBC

By Chris Murphy associate sports editor

The women’s basketball team closed out 2017 in style with a dominating performance over the University of Maryland, Baltimore County Retrievers at Jadwin Gymnasium on Saturday.

The Tigers (10-3) earned the impressive 77-40 victory to close out the year with a four-game win streak and wins in seven of their last eight games.

Princeton wasted no time exploiting the struggling Retrievers (1-12), jumping out to an 11-0 lead in the first five minutes of the game. Freshman sensation Carlie Littlefield took control of the game early with eight points in the first stanza, including two 3-pointers. After trading a few baskets with the visiting team, the Tigers put their foot on the gas once again to close out the first quarter when senior guard Kenya Holland sank two threes to ignite an 8-0 run, extending the first quarter lead to 16 points.

In the second, Janee’a Summers earned the distinction of being the only Retriever to find the basket in the quarter.

Her jumper with 5:15 to go gave UMBC their only two points of the quarter, a season low for their offense as well as the Tiger defense. Making matters worse for the visiting team, the Tigers seemed to make every shot they attempted. Littlefield continued to put on a show, finishing the half with

15 points and a perfect shooting percentage (6/6, 3/3 from 3-point range). Sophomore Bella Alarie was sure to add her name to the scoring sheet, dominating in the paint and finishing the first half with 11 points. Seven Tigers made baskets in the first half – with a few more adding their names to the list with rebounds or assists – as the Tigers went into halftime holding a commanding 47-11 lead.

Early in the third quarter, a 3-pointer by senior guard Tia Weledji extended the lead to 41, the largest lead the Tigers would have for the rest of the game. Princeton would lose its touch from beyond the arc in the second half, as Weledji’s field goal would be the only one they made out of 14 attempts in the second half. But that didn’t stop Princeton from scoring big in the second half; the Tigers began to take it down low even more than in the first half, finishing the night with 32 points in the paint. UMBC – despite holding Princeton to only a 36 percent shooting clip in the second half – was unable to mount a comeback into the game. It was outscored 30-29 in the second half, as Princeton won easily in their final game of 2017.

Every Tiger who suited up saw action on the court against UMBC, something Head Coach Courtney Banghart had to be happy with. The win officially closes the 2017 non-conference slate for the Tigers on a positive note, as they now transition

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Bella Alarie takes a shot during the match against UMBC.

to Ivy League play. Up next for the Tigers is a showdown with Penn on Jan. 6; the Tigers last played the Quakers in the 2017 Ivy League Tournament final.

The Quakers earned the Ivy

League’s automatic bid to the NCAA tournament with their 57-49 victory over the Tigers.

Princeton has lost five straight against Penn, with their last win at the Palestra coming in

2015 to cap off a perfect regular season. Princeton will be hoping to put an early damper on the projected Ivy League favorite when they visit Philadelphia this Saturday.

Tigers drop Ivy League opener against UPenn 76-70

MEN’S BASKETBALL

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The men’s basketball team huddles for a cheer during the game against Penn

By Chris Murphy associate sports editor

Princeton made a resounding statement to the rest of the Ivy League this afternoon, putting everyone on notice that maybe Princeton — not Penn — is the team to beat this season.

The Tigers (11–3) defeated the Quakers by a score of 70– 55. With the win, the Tigers

earned their sixth victory in a row and won against UPenn for the first time in their last six attempts. In this rematch between the teams that finished first and second, UPenn and Princeton respectively, the Tigers rewrote the narrative that everyone was expecting; defeating the Quakers at the Palestra will be considered a big upset by many

Tweet of the Day Devin Cannady hits a 3, and he becomes the 33rd Tigers to score 1,000 career points! Contrats #DC3 Princeton Basketball (@Princeton_Hoops)

people in the coming days, who predicted UPenn as the runaway Ivy League favorite.

But Princeton’s victory this afternoon was by no means a questionable win.

The Tigers led for more than 34 minutes of the 40-minute game; by contrast, the Quakers led for just 3:23.

Against a Quaker defense that has allowed opponents

to shoot only 39 percent this season, the Tigers shot an impressive 47 percent.

The Tiger defense held Michelle Nwokedi — the Penn forward who was recently named the 2017 Ivy League player of the year —to nine points on only 4–15 shooting for the afternoon. Princeton sent back eight of Penn’s shots this afternoon, compared to only one blocked shot by the Quakers. In almost all phases of the game, the Tigers — not the Quakers — looked like the Ivy League frontrunner for 2018.

Sophomore Bella Alarie, who had decent performances in last year’s matchups against Penn, once again gave an all-star performance that we’ve come to take for granted this season.

She tallied a game high of 18 points and 12 rebounds, shooting seven for 11 this afternoon and adding another double-double to give her seven for the season. For most of the game, she looked like the best player on the court.

Whenever Penn seemed poised to mount a comeback, Alarie shut them down and re-established Princeton’s firm control on the game.

Playing her final regular season game at the Palestra, senior Leslie Robinson

Stat of the Day

7 double-doubles Sophomore Bella Alarie tallied 18 points and 12 rebounds for her seventh double-double of the season.

made sure to leave Philly with good memories. Robinson gave the Tigers 15 points on six for 11 shooting and added five assists and four rebounds to the team’s efforts. Two of her assists came in the final quarter as the Tigers were putting the game out of reach. Also a key contributor for the Tigers this afternoon was Gabrielle Rush; the junior guard lit Penn up from beyond the arc, making five of her seven three-pointers and giving the Tigers 17 points.

She was a big reason why the Tigers dominated the Quakers in points off the bench, where Princeton finished with a 24–9 advantage.

Certainty, there is still a long way to go before anything is decided for any team. But the immediate landscape of the Ivy League this season has just been drastically changed. Princeton — now the winner of five straight and holding an 11–3 record, convincingly handled Penn — now 6–5 — on their its court. In doing so, the Tigers just became the team to beat in the Ivy League heading into the heart of conference play. The balance of power has shifted to the Tigers. Now let’s see what they do with it in the coming weeks.

Follow us Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!